posterity in him although it may truly be thought that Adam did know this precept to be to him and his posterity for hereby his sin is made the more hainous in undoing himselfe and all his as also by the knowledge of this he would be the more thankfull unto God that should propagate such great mercies to him and his and also be made more vigilant against falling 3. In the next place let us consider how God can be said to covenant God enters into Covenant with man by way of condescension makes promises unto him to confirme him in his hope and confidence in him or enter into a promise with man for it may be thought an imperfection and hereby God may seem to lose his right that he cannot doe what he will But this may be easily answered for if God can give good things to man he may also promise to give them and therefore both to give and to promise to give are acts of liberality and dominion and so not repugning to the majesty of God Nor doth God by promising to give lose his dominion no more then he doth by giving It is true a promise doth induce an obligation and so in man it is with some imperfection but in God it is not because he doth not hereby become obliged to us but to his owne selfe so that we have not a right of justice to the thing because God hath promised it to us but onely God cannot deny himself nor his word and therefore we are confident And so Aquinas well Deus non est debitor quia ad alia non ordinatur sed omnia ad ipsum God by covenanting and promising doth not become a debtor because he is not to be ordered for other things but all things for him Hence is that saying of God Reddit debita nulli debens donat debita nihil pendens And so againe Justus est non quia reddit debitum sed quia facit quod decet summè bonum So that when God entreth into a covenant or promise you must conceive of this sutably to his great majesty you must not apprehend of it as when two men agree that are equall and therefore a debt of justice ariseth between them and one may implead the other but as a mercifull condescension on Gods part to promise such things to us that so we might be the more confirmed in our hope in him Hence Durand and Ariminensis labour to prove that Gods promises doe not induce an obligation but denote the disposition of God to give although their arguments exclude onely a debt of justice from God 4. Consider why God will deale with man in a covenant way rather then in a meere absolute supreme way There may be these Reasons 1. That God might hereby sweeten and indeare himselfe to us For God deales with man by way of covenant not of power whereas he might require all obedience from us and annihilate us at last or at least not vouchsafe heaven and everlasting happinesse to shew how good and loving he is he will reward that most bountifully which is otherwise due to him for God did 1. To indeare himselfe unto him not make man because he needed him but that there might be objects to whom he would communicate his love Thou needest not my goodnesse or that extendeth not to thee saith David It 's Austins expression The earth doth farre otherwise dry up or swallow the water thirsting for it then the Sun beames which also consume the water the one doth it indigentiâ out of want the other potentiâ out of power and strength so that Adam could not but have thankfull and loving thoughts of God that would thus condescend 2. Another Reason might be to incite and incourage Adam the 2. To incite man to more obedience more to obedience For howsoever there was no sin in Adam or remisnesse yet this might serve as a meanes to preserve him in his obedience to God And here you may see that to do a duty because of a reward promised is not a slavish and unlawfull thing for did not God deale thus with Adam If he would obey he should live but if not then he must dye Will you say with the Antinomian That this was an unlawfull thing and this was to make Adam legall and one that was not affected with the goodnesse of God to him It is true if a man obey God out of love to any thing more then God or equally with God this is unlawfull according to that Minus te amat qui tecum Domine aliquid amat 3. That hereby Adams obedience might be the more willing and 3. To make this obedience more willing and free free An absolute law might seem to extort obedience but a covenant and agreement makes it to appeare more free and willing as if Adam would have obeyed though there could have been no obligation upon him to doe it 5. Consider that the nature of this Covenant was of workes and not The Covenant God made with Adam was of works not of faith of faith It was not said to Adam Beleeve and have life eternall but Obey even perfect and entire obedience It is true indeed there was faith of adherence and dependance upon God in his promise and word and this faith doth not imply any imperfection of the state of the subject as sinfull which justifying faith doth for it was in Christ who in his temptations and tryalls did trust in God And what the Old Testament calls trusting the New calls beleeving yea some say that this kind of faith shall be in heaven viz. a dependance upon God for the continuance of that happinesse which they doe enjoy This faith therefore Adam had but in that Covenant it was considered as a gracious act and work of the soule not as it is now an organ or instrument to receive and apply Christ With us indeed there is justifying faith and repentance which keeps up a Christians life as the Naturalists say the calor innatus and humidum radicale doe the naturall life Faith is like the calor innatus and Repentance is like the humidum radicale and as the Philosopher saith if the innate heat devoure too much the radicall moisture or the radicall moisture too much the heat there breed presently diseases so it is with us if beleeving make a man repent lesse or repenting make a man beleeve the lesse this turneth to a distemper Yet though it were a Covenant of workes it cannot be said to be of merit Adam though in innocency could not merit that happinesse which God would bestow upon him first because the enjoying of God in which Adams happinesse did consist was such a good as did farre exceed the power and ability of man It 's an infinite good and all that is done by us is finite And then in the next place Because even then Adam was not able to obey any command of God without the help of God
broken hearts stung with sinne The Priest and the Levite they passe by not pitying of him But now the Subject to whom the Gospel is given is a broken hearted sinner one that feeleth himselfe ready to be covered over with all confusion one that lyeth wounded in conscience crying for some oyle to be poured into his wounds Oh! what miserable comforters then must all Popish and Socinian Doctors be who will advise the sinfull tempted man to seek out works for the Law which is as uncomfortable as to bid a sicke diseased man get some of the Philosophers stone or to eate a piece of a Phoenix and then and not till then hee shall be in ease Lastly The Law differeth in the forme of it from the Gospel The 5. The Law conditionall the Gospel absolute Law is conditionall but the Gospel absolute I find this Question a very troublesome one Whether the Gospel be absolute or no Whether Gospel be a doctrine of workes Whether it hath precepts or threatnings Now the meaning of this Question is not Whether the Gospel be so absolute that it requireth not faith as a condition Or Whether it be so absolute as that it excludeth all repentance and holinesse hee is an infant in Scripture that 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 largely for the doctrine of Christ and the Apostles there is no question but they pressed duty of mortification and sanctification threatning those that do not so but if you take the Gospel strictly then it holdeth forth nothing but remission of sinnes 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 strictly taken 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 doe 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 its rise from hence handle the next day this Question Whether the Gospel doth command repentance or no. Or Whether it be onely from the Law LECTURE 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 Gospel preach repentance or no seeing this made the great commotion at first between the Orthodoxe and Antinomians I shall despatch this in few words 1. The word Repentance is taken sometimes largely and sometimes Repentance strictly taken is distinguished from Faith strictly when it is taken largely it comprehends faith in it and is the whole turning unto God Rev. 2. 5. sometimes it is used strictly for sorrow about sinne 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 sinne without faith it is like the body without the soule yea it carrieth a man with Cain and Judas into the very pit of despaire when a man seeth how much is against him and not how much is for him it cannot but crush and weigh him downe to the ground The teares of repentance are like those waters very bitter till Christ sweeten them 2. Consider this that the Law was never meerly and solely administred The Law and the Gospel are inseparably united in the Word and Ministery nor yet the Gospel but they are twinnes that are inseparably united in the Word and Ministery Howsoever strictly taken there is a vaste gulfe 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 onely that so the Law might be wholly excluded thus they did not consider what usefull subserviency they had to one another The Law directeth commandeth and humbleth The Gospel that comforteth refresheth and supporteth And it is a great wisedome in a Christian when hee hath an eye upon both Many are cast down because they onely consider the perfection of the Law and their in ability thereunto On the other side some grow secure and loose by attending to free grace onely I doe acknowledge that free grace will melt the heart into kindnes 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 neare linck between both these Faith and Repentance are wrought both by the Law and the Gospel in their practicall use wee need not with some Learned men make two Commandements of the Gospel onely 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 initiall 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 legall repentance and an evangelicall so we may say there is a legall faith which consists in beleeving of the threatnings and the terrours of the Lord and there is an evangelicall faith which is in applying of Christ in the Promises So that legall faith and repentance may be called so initially and when it is evangelicall 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 separated one from the other in the command of these duties Hence fourthly unbeliefe is a sin against the Law as well as against Unbeliefe a sin against the Law as well as the Gospel the Gospel Indeed the Gospel that doth manifest and declare the object of justifying faith but the Law condemneth him that doth not beleeve in him Therefore Moses and the Law is said to beare witnesse of Christ and to accuse the Jewes for refusing the Messias The Law that requireth beliefe in whatsoever God shall reveale The Gospel that makes known Christ and then the Law this 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 separately from Moses his administration of it but if you take it largely as it was delivered by Moses then
gave to Saul a spirit of government from his owne meere good will without any respect to Saul And how many men of parts have been so far from being blest because of these naturall endowments that they have turned their wedge of gold into an idoll to worship it Vse 1. To extoll the work of grace for the initiall progressive and consummative work of conversion for by all that hath been said you have seen the weaknesse of nature and the power of grace the strength of our disease and the necessity of a physician How uncomfortable will it be when thou diest to commit thy soule to that grace which thou hast disputed against And be not content with giving something to it unlesse thou give all to it Grace that justifieth Grace that sanctifieth Grace that saveth Vse 2. Not to abuse the doctrine of grace to idlenesse or negligence You see how both these promises and precepts grace and duties may be reconciled And as not to negligence so not to curious disputes doe not so trouble your selves about the doctrine of grace that you feele not the power of grace in your hearts and doe not so far dispute about your naturall corruption and how deep you are in it as not to labour to get out of it Austin compareth this to one who being fallen into a great pit his friend asked him how he came in Nay saith he rather seek how to get me out And thus doe ye in these matters of sin wherein you are wholly plunged LECTURE XI GENES 2. 17. But of the tree of knowledge of good and evill thou mayest not eate for in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die WE come now in order to the law God gave Adam and this may be considered two waies First as a Law secondly as a Covenant We will handle it first in the former notion Now because the law God gave Adam was partly naturall and partly positive both which did goe to the making up of that covenant I shall handle both those distinctly and first let us consider Gods positive law in the text which is also called by Divines a symbolicall precept because the obedience unto it was a symbolum or outward testimony of our homage and service to God And the object of this command is not a thing good or bad in its owne nature but indifferent and onely evill because prohibited So that in the words you have the object of this negative precept described two waies first by that which is proper to it the tree of knowledge of good and evill secondly by that which is accidentall to it viz. death infallibly upon the eating of it And that this commandement might be the better received in the Verse before God giveth a large commission to eate of any other tree besides this When God made this world as a great house he puts man into it as his tenant and by this tryall of obedience he must acknowledge his Land-lord That Adam did eate in the state of innocency and was hungry doth appeare by this text onely hunger was not in him as it is in us with paine and trouble The difficulties must be handled in the opening of the doctrine which is That God besides the naturall law ingraven in Adams heart did give a positive law to try his obedience The doubts in explicating of this point are 1. What is meant by the tree of knowledge of good and evill And here certainly we must take heed of being too curious lest as it was Adams sin to eate of it so it may be our curiosity to dive too farre into the knowledge of it Now when I aske what is meant by it I doe not understand what kind of fruit or tree it was whether apple or fig that cannot be determined but why it had that name The Rabbins who have as many foolish dreames about the Old Testament as the Friars about the New conceive Adam and Eve to be created without the use of reason and that this tree was to accelerate it And indeed the Socinians border upon this opinion for they say Adam and Eve were created very * Tanta suit Adami recens conditi stupiditas ut major in infantes cadere non posiit simple and weak in understanding and say they it 's impossible to conceive that if Adams soule were created so adorned with all knowledge and graces as the firmament is bespangled with stars how he should come to eate of the forbidden fruit or to sin against God But both these are false That he had perfect knowledge appeareth in his giving names to the creatures and to Eve so fitting The tree of knowledge why so called and apt and Ephes 3 the image of God is said to have a renewed mind and that though thus knowing he did yet sin and though thus holy he did yet fall it was because he was not perfectly confirmed but mutable Indeed Divines doe much labour to expresse how his sin did begin whether in the Will first or in the Understanding but that is impertinent to this matter That which is the most received both by Austin and others is that it was so called not from any effect but from the event because it did indeed experimentally make to know good and evill and so it 's usuall in Scripture to call that by a name which it had afterward Now though this be generally received and cannot well be rejected yet certainly it may be further said that it was not called so by the meere event but by the divine decree and appointment of God as being given to be a boundary and limit to Adam that he should not desire to know more or otherwise then God had appointed 2. Why God would give a positive law besides that of the naturall God besides the naturall law ingraven in Adams heart did give a positive law law in his heart There are these reasons commonly given 1. That hereby Gods dominion and power over man might be the more acknowledged for to obey the naturall law might be a necessary condition and not an act of the Will Even as the Heathens doe abstaine from many sins not because forbidden by 1. That the power which God had over him might be the more eminently held forth God but as dissonant to their naturall reason And even among Christians there is a great deale of difference between good actions that are done because God commands and because of a naturall conscience These two principles make the same actions to differ in their whole nature Therefore God would try Adam by some positive law that so the dominion and power which God had over him might be the more eminently held forth and therefore Adam in this was not to consider the greatnesse or goodnesse of the matter but the will of the commander 2. Another reason which floweth from the former is that so 2. To try and manifest Adams obedience Adams obedience might be the more tryed and
against the children of thy people but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy self What can be clearer then this to subdue those waves and tempests that doe rise in our hearts So Prov. 24. 29. Say not I will doe to him as he hath done to me I will render to the man according to his work here also revengefull expressions and resolutions are forbidden yea the reason why we are forbidden to avenge our selves given by Paul Rom. 12. 19. because vengeance belongs unto God is that which was drawn from the Old Testament In stead therefore of disputing let us seriously set upon the practise of the duty and the rather because it 's sweeter then honey it self to our corrupt hearts and at this time this sinne doth much rage every where Lastly Our Saviour doth not here forbid a lawfull publique revenge Private revenge unlawfull and forbidden by our Saviour but a private one This distinction of publique and private revenge being unknowne to the Fathers in the Primitive times made them runne into very hard and incommodious expressions some giving occasion hereby of that distinction of counsels and precepts others as Austin making the revenge allowed in the Old Testament to be peculiar to the dispensation of those times Hence when one Volusianus objected to him that the Doctrine of Christ did not agree to the manners of a Common-wealth he answereth by comparing the Precept of Christ with that of Caesars That he used to forget nothing but injuries Now this doth not indeed speake according to the scope of our Saviour here who is giving rules to private Christians not to publique Magistrates Now that there is such a distinction as this appeareth plain thus Paul Rom. 12. 18. exhorteth Christians not to avenge themselves because vengeance belongs to God yet Chap. 13. speaking of the Magistrate ver 4. he saith He is the avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil so then there is revenge and a revenger which is not God nor yet our selves but the Magistrate yet the revenge that the Magistrate inflicteth may well be called the vengeance of God because it 's Gods appointment he should doe it Thus Numb 31. 3. Arme your selves and avenge the Lord on the Midianites so 2 Chron. 19. You execute the judgements of the Lord and not of men yet for all this you must know that Magistrates may have revengefull affections in them even when they execute justice and so people when they implore the Magistrates aid it may not be out of zeale to justice and love to the publique good but because of private affections and carnall dispositions And oh the blessednesse that would accrew to the Common-wealth if all were carried in their severall places upon this publique ground Having therefore dispatched briefely these controversies I come to another wherein the Antinomian doth directly derogate from the profitable effect and benefit of the Law This therefore is an assertion which an Antinomian Authour maintaineth that the Law is not an instrument of true sanctification and that The preaching of the Law not onely preparatively but being blessed by God instrumentally workes the conversion of men the promise or the Gospel is the seed and doctrine of our â—ew birth and for this he bringeth many arguments and the judgements of diverse learned men Assertion of grace pag 163. And it may not be denyed but that many speeches might fall from some men which might seem to comply with that opinion I shall now labour to maintaine the positive part viz. that the Law of God preached may be blessed by him instrumentally to worke the conversion of men and it is necessary to make this good for were the contrary true it would be a Ministers duty in great part to lay aside the preaching of the Morall Law as not instrumentall or subservient to that maine end of the Ministery which is the conversion of soules Nor can I yeeld to that that the preaching of the Law workes onely preparatorily or some terrours about sinne and can goe no further but I suppose that Jesus Christ hath obtained of God by his death that such efficacy and vertue should goe forth in the Ministery that whether it be by Law or Gospel he preacheth the soules of men may be healed and converted thereupon Onely two things must be premised First that the Law could never work to regeneration were it The Law with out Christ cannot worke to regeneration not for the gospel-Gospel-promise Had not God graciously promised to give a new heart through Christ there had been no way to make any thing effectuall that we preach out of the Law so that for instance while a Minister preaching of any Commandement doth thereby mould and new frame the heart all this benefit comes by Christ who therefore died and ascended into Heaven that so the things wee preach may be advantagious to our soules so that there never was in the Church of God meere pure Law or meere pure Gospel But they have been subservient to each other in the great work of Conversion I know it 's of great consequence to give an exact difference between the Law and the Gospel It is well said of Luther Qui scit inter Legem Evangelium discernere gratias agaâ— Deo sciat se esse Theologum but I shall not medle with that now This is that which I assert That as to the point of a mans conversion God may make the opening of the Morall Law instrumentully to concurre thereunto onely this cometh by Christ. The second thing which I premise is this that howsoever the The Law may be bless'd to conversion yet the matter of it can neither be ground of justification or consolation to us Law preached may be blest to conversion yet the matter of it cannot be the ground of our justification adoption or consolation so that when a man doth repent and turne unto God from his sins he cannot have hope or consolation in any thing he doth but it must be in the promise of the Gospel so that the difference of the Law and Gospel lyeth not in this as some doe assigne that one is the instrument of grace and the other not for God useth both as I shall shew but in this that the holinesse wrought in us by preaching of the Word of God whether it be Law or Gospel doth not justifie us but this favour is in an evangelicall manner by forgiving whatsoever is irregular in us and communicating Christ his righteousnesse to us Therefore let us not confound the Law or Gospel nor yet make them so contrary in their natures and effects that where one is the other cannot be To these two there is also a third thing to be premised and that is how the Word of God in generall is a medium or instrumentall The Scripture in generall is a medium working by Christ to our conversion to our conversion For the clearing of this well must needs discover that
to be as much as the reviving of it as if the soul were ready to swoune away through the troubles thereof but then the Law doth revive them again and comfort them and according to this sense they take Law largely as comprehending the Gospel but it seemeth hard to expound that phrase in such a manner That therefore which the Antinomian doth object against this place is that the Hebrew word doth signifie largely any doctrine and so may comprehend the whole Word of God But this is easily answered First the same Hebrew word is commonly used for the Law when it is strictly taken and therefore this maketh more against them that the word Law in the Hebrew notion doth not signifie such a commanding terrifying and damning thing but rather that which doth instruct and informe But in the next place grant that the Word hath such an extensive and comprehensive sense yet it doth not exclude the Morall Law but doth alwayes include Can any man think when David commends the Law of God that he meaneth all the Word of God but the Morall Law when indeed that was the greatest part of it at that time 3. That opinion which would make Christ not take an instrumentall way for the conversion of men in his first Sermon wherein he was very large that must not be asserted but to hold that the preaching of the Law is not a Medium to conversion must needs be to say that Christ did not take the neerest way to convert his hearers for if you consider that Sermon it 's principally spent in the opening of the Morall Law and pressing the duties thereof and how can we think but that our Saviour judged this profitable and soul-saving matter Nor can I see why it should be said to be only the occasion and not medium if powerfully set home by Gods Spirit 4. If the Law of God have that objectively in it that may work exceedingly upon the heart when set home by Gods Spirit then it may be used instrumentally as well as the Gospel but it hath objectively such a nature in it which doth appeare by Davids approving and delighting in Gods Law by Paul Rom. 7. who delighted in the Law of God When therefore a Minister setteth forth the lovely purity and excellency of the matter of the Law how it resembleth the nature of God why may not the Spirit of God in the exercise hereof raise up the heart and affections to be more and more in love with it If the Heathen said of Vertue that if it could be seen with corporall eyes the beauty thereof would ravish men how much more may this be true of the purity and holinesse of the Law 5. If the Law of God may be blessed after a man is converted to the increase of his grace and holinesse why not then to the first beginning of it That it is for the increase of godlinesse in persons already regenerated is apparent by experience And it is hard to thinke that a Minister having opened any Morall duty of the Law may not pray to God for his Spirit to cloath that word with power and efficacy to change the hearts of hearers 6. If the Ceremoniall Law the Sacraments and Sacrifices were blessed by Gods Spirit while they were commanded to be used for the strengthening and increase of grace notwithstanding the deadly nature of them now then the Morall Law may also be blessed by God for spirituall effects seeing it standeth still in force Let the Vse then of this be by way of admonition that in Vse stead of disputing about or against the Law that we would pray Pray for the benefit of the Law in our souls to have the savoury benefit and fruit of it in our souls Urge God with that Promise of writing his Law in our heart Be thou so farre from being an Antinomian that thou hast thy heart and life full of this holy Law of God Not that the matter of the Law can be the ground of thy Justification but yet it is thy Sanctification What is Regeneration but the writing of the Morall Law in thy heart This is that image of God which Adam was created in Oh therefore that we could see more of this holy Law in the hearts and lives of men that the Law of God might be in mens mindes inlightning them in their wils and affections inflaming and kindling of them LECTURE XXI ROM 3. 31. Do we then make void the Law through faith God forbid But we rather establish the Law I Shall in the next place discusse that famous Question about the abrogating of the Morall Law only I must answer to some Objections that are made against the former position That the Law may be used by God in the preaching of it to mans Conversion in the sense explained which if not attended unto may make the assertion seeme harsh and incredible But before I answer the Objections let us consider a great mistake of the Antinomian author Assert of grace pag. 171. where he makes the very ground why they are charged with Antinomianisme to be because they doe not hold the Law to be used by God instrumentally for the conversion of men Certainly this is a great mistake for there are many learned men who hold the work of the Law by the power of Gods Spirit to be no more then preparatory yet for all that doe peremptorily maintaine the use and the obligation of the Law in respect of beleevers Therefore they are not in this respect condemned for that errour Another consideration that I would propound is this * Conversion not wrought totally by the word read or preached but is to be attributed to the Covenant of grace in Christ That the work of conversion is not wrought totally in a man without the Gospel for as I told you now in the preaching of the Word there is not meere Law nor meere Gospel but they are to be composed and to be made helpfull to each other and also whatsoever benefit or effect we get in the hearing preaching or meditating upon the Law of God it is to be attributed unto the Covenant of grace in Christ And therefore all these places which attribute conversion and holinesse to the Gospel do not at all make against my Assertion for the Question is not Whether by the power of the Law we come to obey the Law but Whether grace may not use the Precepts or Law preached for the inflaming of our affections so in love with the things commanded that we are thereby made more holy And thus I interpret those Authors that deny the Law to be instrumentall to holinesse that is not animated by Gods Spirit or separated from it I come therefore to consider of those places which are brought against this truth delivered I shall not take all because one answer may serve for many they being built upon the same ground And first the state and Question is obscurely propounded by him for thus
perpetuall truth ever since Adams fall and it was as efficacious to those before his death as after therefore hee is called a Lamb slaine from the beginning of the world although the Socinians would pervert and wrest that place Lastly I dony that even under the Gospel that all sinnes are forgiven to the justified person at once He is indeed put into a state of justification whereby no condemnation will fall upon him yet his sinnes are not forgiven before they are committed and repented of And for this purpose wee pray for the daily pardon of them which is not to be understood of the meere declaration or assurance of the pardon but for the pardon it self But this shall be on purpose spoken to in the matter of Justification The forenamed Authour hath some other differences but they are confuted already for the substance of them LECTURE XXVI ROM 3. 27. Where is boasting then It is excluded By what law of workes Nay but by the law of faith WEe have confuted the false differences and now come to lay downe the true between the Law and the Gospel taken in a larger sense And first you must know that the difference is not essentiall or The difference between the Law and the Gospel is not essentiall but accidentall onely substantiall but accidentall so that the division of the Testament or Covenant into the Old and New is not a division of the Genus into its opposite Species but of the subject according to its severall accidentall administrations both on Gods part and on mans It is true the Lutheran Divines they doe expresly oppose the Calvinists herein maintaining the Covenant given by Moses to be a Covenant of workes and so directly contrary to the Covenant of grace Indeed they acknowledge that the Fathers were justified by Christ and had the same way of salvation with us onely they make that Covenant of Moses to be a superadded thing to the Promise holding forth a condition of perfect righteousnesse unto the Jewes that they might be convinced of their owne folly in their self-righteousnesse But I think it is already cleared that Moses his Covenant was a Covenant of grace and the right unfolding the word Law and Gospel doth easily take away that difference which seemeth to be among the Learned in this point for certainly the godly Jewes did not rest in the Sacrifices or Sacraments but by faith did really enjoy Christ in them as well as wee in ours Christ was figured by the Mercy-seat Now as both the Cherubims looked to that so both the people of the Jewes and Gentiles did eye and looke to Christ For although Christ had not assumed our flesh then yet the fruit and benefit of his incarnation was then communicated because of the decree and promise of God 1 Pet. 1. 20. 2. This difference is more particularly seen in respect of the degrees Heavenly objects more clearly revealed in the N. Testament then in the Old of perspicuity and clearnesse in the revelation of heavenly objects Hence 2 Pet. 1. 19. the light in the Old Testament is compared to the light in the night-time and that in the New to the light of the sun in the day The summe of all heavenly doctrine is reduced to these three heads credenda speranda facienda Now if you consider the objects of faith or things to be beleeved 1. It is so for the credenda they were more obscurely delivered to them The doctrine of the Trinity the Incarnation of Christ and the Resurrection these things were but in a dark manner delivered yet according to the measure of that light then held forth they were bound to beleeve those things so that as Moses had a veile upon him thus also his doctrine had and as the knowledge we have here is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in respect of that in heaven so that in the Old Testament may be said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in respect of that in the New As it is thus for the credenda things to be beleeved so it is also 2. For the speranda for the speranda things hoped for The opinion of the Socinians and others is very wicked which makes them before Christ onely to hope in temporall good things and the notion of the Papists observing that the Church under the New Testament is called ecclesia but never synagoge and the meeting of the Jewes called alwaies synagoge but never ecclesia doth suppose that the Jewes were gathered together as so many beasts rather then called together as men But this notion is judged false and they instance Heb. 10. and James 2. where the Church of the Christians is called synagoge although Cameron Praelect de eccles pag. 66. doth industriously labour to prove that the Apostles did purposely abstaine from the word synagoge in reference to Christians but his reason is not that the Papists urge for howsoever the good things promised were for the most part temporall and carnall yet these figured spirituall and heavenly It 's Austins obseruation shewing that the Jewes should first be allured by temporall mercies and afterwards the Christians by spirituall As saith he first that which is animall and then that which is spirituall The first man was of the earth earthly the second man was of heaven heavenly Thus wee may say of the Jew and the Christian That which was animall was first and then that which is spirituall Hence Heb. 11. 16. Abraham and others are said to seek an heavenly country so that although it be true which Austine as I remember said though you look over the whole book of the Old Testament yet you shall never find the kingdome of heaven mentioned there yet wee see David making God his portion and professing that hee hath nothing in heaven but him which argueth that they looked farther then meere outward mercies These good things promised to the Jewes were figurative so that as a man consisteth of a soule and body thus also doth the promises there is the kernell and the shell but the Jewes for the most part looked onely to the outward Hence Christ when hee opened those things to his Disciples did like a kind father that breaketh the shell and giveth the kernell to his children In the third place there are facienda things to be done Now 3. For the facienda although it be true as I have proved that Christ hath added no new command to the Law of Moses and whatsoever is a sin now in morall things was also then yet the doctrine of these things was not so full penetrating and cleare as now under the Gospel There is a dangerous book called The Practicall Catechisme that venteth much Socinian poyson and in this particular among other things that Christ added to the Law and perfected it filled up some vacuities in it Certainly the Law of God being perfect and to which nothing must be added cannot be said to have vacuities in it and Christ
reall benefits by Christ As Elisha sent his servant with a staffe to raise up the Shunamites son but hee could doe nothing then cometh the Prophet himselfe and raiseth him up so it 's here Moses was like the Prophets servant hee went with a staffe to raise up those dead in sin but could not doe it without Christ Here may be one Question made upon these things and that is Why God appointed such various and different administrations This providence of God became a rocke to the Marcionites and Manichees insomuch that they denyed the same God to be Author of both the Testaments To answer this certainly God if hee pleased could have as clearly revealed Christ and poured out his Spirit giving eternall life as plentifully under the Law as under the Gospel But to aske why hee did thus would be as presumptuous and arrogant as to aske why hee created the world no sooner If the School-master teach the new beginner in another way then hee doth the proficient in study no man doth blame his wisedome As in the Paschall Lamb they were to eate the flesh but to throw away the bones so in all matters of religion those things that are revealed and profitable wee may feed upon and whatsoever is abstruse and difficult we may let goe Praestat per Deum nescire quia ipse non revelaverit quà m per hominem scire quia ipse praesumpserit Tert. de Anima Now to conclude I come to give the difference between the Differences between the Law strictly taken and the Gospel strictly taken Law strictly taken as requiring exact and perfect obedience promising eternall life upon no other termes and the Gospel strictly taken as a solemne promulgation of Christ and his benefits to a broken sinner And the first is this The Law in some measure of it is made 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 knowne by naturall light and so agreeable to a naturall conscience I say in some measure for there is much of the duty of the Law that is unknowne to naturall consciences yet the most externall and outward duties are knowne and accordingly as the truth of them is discerned by naturall light so the will doth joyne with them as good to be done though not in a godly way But it is otherwise with the Gospel for the very truth of it must be wholly revealed by God so that no naturall acumen in the world could ever have excogitated this wonderfull remedy of justification and salvation by Christ And as it is thus above knowledge so the heart is more averse from this way And by this you may see why it is such an hard thing to beleeve why the people of God are so hardly perswaded when loaden with guilt to rowle their soules upon Christ The reason is there is nothing in his naturall conscience to further him in this duty Presse a man against murder theft adultery here is naturall conscience joyning for this duty but urge him to beleeve this is altogether above nature Hence it is also that naturally we seek to be justified by the workes wee doe so that to be justified by faith is another way then corrupted nature in us or right nature in Adam would have inclined unto Therefore let not the people of God be so discouraged in their agonies and combats about their unbeliefe Let them know that a little degree of faith is of great consequence And if he said that Christianity was perpetua naturae violentia a perpetuall violence offered to nature this is most sure in matter of faith Wee are as froward in rejecting of a promise as stubborne in refusing of a command The second difference is in the object matter The Law holdeth 2. The Law requires perfect righteousness the Gospel brings pardon through Christ forth a perfect righteousnesse and will not admit of any other but the Gospel that condescends and brings pardon through Christ. And this is the maine difference and in which they can never be made one Now the Papist Arminian Socinian and others do overthrow this grand and maine difference holding justification by works under some notion or other whereas the Apostle maketh an immediate opposition If of faith then not of works The Apostle doth not distinguish of works of nature and works of grace or works of grace perfect and imperfect but speaketh absolutely and so doth also exclude that subtile opinion of making faith to justifie as a work for the Apostle making an opposition between faith and works must necessarily take faith under such a notion as cannot be a work And this truth is that which is the pillar of the Church of God and that which differenceth us from Jewes Turkes Papists and many heretickes The third difference is from the manner of obtaining the good thing 3. If righteousnesse were by the Law eternall life were a debt but the Gospel holds it forth as Gods meere indulgence promised Hee that shall obtaine eternall life by the Law hath it of debt and by way of justice Rom. 4. 4. Not as if Adam in the state of innocency could have merited at Gods hands or as if God became in strict justice a debtor seeing Adam was beholding to God for all but in some sense it would have been so Hence boasting would not then have been excluded eternall life being the reward of those holy workes which he should have done but now all is of grace through Christ our righteousness is meerly Gods indulgence not the holinesse that is in us but the sinne pardoned makes us acceptable So that the broken contrite heart can never sufficiently admire the grace and goodnesse of God in the Gospel-way And no marvell if so be that Paul is so frequently ravished with the considerations thereof This may well be called good newes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And if our hearts were spiritually affected wee should say How beautifull are the feet of those that bring these glad tydings The fourth difference is in respect of the subject The Law strictly 4. The Law is only for those that have a perfect nature the Gospel for broken hearted sinners taken is onely for those who have a perfect and holy nature therefore it 's a Covenant as you heard of friendship and not of reconciliation so that there is no necessity of any Mediatour Indeed there is good use of urging it to proud Pharisaicall men to bring them out of love with themselves to grosse sinners that their hearts might be broken seeing the curses belong to them yea to the godly also to teach them the faire copy they are to write after but in respect of justification by it and eternall life there is none can have that benefit but such who shall be found perfectly holy It was not Moses but the serpent that did heale so it is not the Law but Christ that can comfort