11ᵒ. Junii, 1646.  
We the Precedent and Fellows of Zion College London, earnestly desire Master Anthony Burgess to publish in print his elaborate and judicious Lectures upon the Law and the Covenants against the Antinomian Errors of these times, which at our entreaty he hath preached (and for which we give him most hearty thanks) that so as well the Kingdom, as this City, may have the benefit of those his learned labours.  
Dated at Zion College the 11th of June, 1646. at a general meeting of the Ministers of London there. Arthur Jackson Precedent, in the name and by the appointment of the rest.   

VINDICIAE LEGIS: OR, A Vindication of the MORAL LAW AND THE COVENANTS, From the Errors of Papists, Arminians, Socinians, and more especially, Antinomians.  
In XXIX. LECTURES, preached at Laurence-Jury, London.  
By Anthony Burgess, Preacher of God's Word.  
LONDON, Printed by James Young, for Thomas Underhill, at the Sign of the Bible in Wood-street. 1646.   

TO THE Truly pious and worthily honoured Lady, the Lady RUTH SCUDAMORE.  
Honoured Madam,  
I Have observed your Ladyship careful in two things: to improve the duty commanded in the Law, and to embrace the promise tendered in the Gospel; the former hath been a spur to holiness, the latter a curb to unbelief. The consideration of this (together with the remembrance of those manifold favours which your Ladyship hath plentifully vouchsafed to me and mine) hath provoked me to dedicate this Treatise unto you, which although it hath much controversal matter in it, yet it is not without many practical directions and consolations. It hath been God's goodness unto you, that although in these times of calamities your portion hath been one of the afflictions in Paul's Catalogue, without settled abode; yet God hath left your mind fixed and  in the truth, being enabled to 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  magnify grace in the highest manner, out of the real sense of your necessity and unworthiness, yet to avoid Antinomianism: and on the other side, to be punctual and exact in the duties of mortification and holiness; yet to take heed of Pharisaical Popery. And indeed, this is the right sense, when we are so diligent in working out our salvation with fear and trembling, as if there were no grace to justify; and yet so resting and believing in the grace of Christ, as if no good thing had been done by us.  
Madam, go on with the assistance of God, and account the things of grace more excellent than the things of parts; and while others rejoice in opinions, and new notions about faith and holiness, do you delight in the things themselves. The Lord keep his best wine for you in the later end of your age, and give you to see the fruit of your prayers, a settled reformation in the Church, that so (when your time shall come) you may departed in peace, feeling much of the power and love of God living, and much more of them, dying.  
Septemb. 21. 1646. Madam, this is the prayer of your Ladyship's humble servant in the Lord, Anthony Burgess.   

TO THE READER.  
READER,  
IF the Father said true, that Books were the fruit of the mind, as children are of the 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Clem. Alex.  body, natural affection must compel me, (as she did for Moses) to provide some Ark for the safety of this Book, lest it perish: And I know no better way, then to give thee some account of the matter and method of it, if thou vouchsafe to peruse it.  
For the matter of it, it is chief improved to maintain the dignity and use of the Moral Law against late errors about it, and thereupon I have been forced to consult more with those books that are filled with such poison, then to peruse those Authors that have maintained the truth; and I found the looking upon their Heterodoxies a special help to propagate and confirm the truth, as that Roman Painter curiously drew the picture of an Horse, by constant looking upon an Ass, avoiding whatsoever he saw ridiculous or deformed in him. I acknowledge this work above my strength, it being a subject not much handled by former writers, and so I could not be guilty of that fault, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: but I say, as Austin, Ego parvas vires habeo, sed Dei Verbum magnas habet; I have small strength, but the Word and Truth of God hath great power. None is more unwilling than myself to come in print; but, because he that writeth good Books, doth retia salutis expandere, spread the nets of salvation to catch some men in; and the good works of such will last as long as their Books live; I have hardened myself, and overcome mine own temper, to publish to the world these conceptions of mine. I have not affected to appear in this Book 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, about words and phrases, because it's controversal matter, and so fit to be represented to the understanding in naked unaffected explications, then curiously adorned to please fancy: Yea, I have grudged at words, as being too long and cumbersome, desiring (if possible) to convey my sense in as brief a manner as may be, lest any that comes to look for fruit, should find the leaves too broad, and so cover it from sight. And this endeavouring of brevity will make the matter seem too obscure and abrupt, till there be a familiar acquaintance with my way.  
My method is after some general discourses about the usefulness of the Law, more particularly to handle it as given to Adam, and afterwards as promulgated by Moses to the people of Israel; and herein I have taken in all the material questions that Papists, Arminians, Socinians, and more especially, Antinomians have started up. In all this I have endeavoured to give the Law its due, and the Gospel its due, remembering that of Luther, Qui scit inter Legem & Evangelium distinguere, gratias agat Deo, & sciat se esse Theologum. It is the allegorical interpretation of one Writer, that the great feasting and music which was used at the reconciliation of the father to his prodigal son, did signify the sweet harmony and agreement between Law and Gospel. If this were so, than some do represent the elder brother, that grudge and murmur at this excellent accord. If any adversary shall assault this Book, I shall not be solicitous to answer it, because I endeavoured so to state the question, that at the same time truth might be maintained, and falsehood demolished; and he that is so blind, that he cannot see by the light of one Sun, would not see any more, if there were a thousand Suns.   

THE CONTENTS.  


1 IN what respects the Law may be said to be good. page 3.  
2 Of what use the Law is to the ungodly. p. 7.  
3 Of what use the Law is to believers. p. 8.  
4 How many ways the Law may be abused. p. 16.  
5 What are the consequences of trusting in the Law. p. 20.  
6 What is required to the essence of a godly man in reference to obedience. p. 38.  
7 Wherein are good works necessary. p. 39  
8 Whether the Law have a directive regulating and informing power over a godly man. p. 53.  
9 How the Law is said to be written in man's heart. p. 58.  
10 Wherein the Law of Nature doth consist. p. 60.  
11 Of what use is the light of Nature. p. 66.  
12 Whether the light of Nature be sufficient to judge in matters of faith, or to prescribe divine worship. p. 71.  
13 Whether a man can by the light of Nature, and by the consideration of the creatures come to know there is a God. p. 74.  
14 Whether the mystery of the Trinity, and of the incarnation of Christ can be found out as a truth by the light of Nature. p. 77.  
15 Whether the light of Nature be sufficient to salvation. p. 77.  
16 Whether that be true of the Papists, which hold, that the sacrifices the Patriarches offered to God were by the mere light of Nature. p. 79.  
17 Whether original sin can be found out by the mere light of Nature, or whether it is only a mere matter of faith, that we are thus polluted. p. 79.  
18 What is the meaning of that grand rule of Nature which our Saviour repeateth, That which you would not have other men do to you, do not you to them. p. 80.  
19 Whether the practice of the Apostles, making all their goods common, was according to the precept of Nature, and so binding all to such a practice. p. 80.  
20 What a man cannot do by the power of Nature. p. 83, 84.  
21 Whether there are any antecedaneous works upon the heart before grace. p. 86.  
22 Whether a man by the power of 〈◊〉 be able to work any good thing. page 84.  
23 Why God would give a positive law to Adam, beside the natural law in his heart. p. 103.  
24 Whether the positive law to Adam would have obliged all his posterity. p. 105.  
25 How the threatening was fulfilled upon him, when he did eat of the forbidden fruit. p. 106.  
26 Whether Adam was mortal before the eating of the forbidden fruit. p. 107.  
27 Whether upon this threatening, Thou shalt die, can be fixed that cursed opinion of the mortality of the whole man in soul as well as body. p. 108.  
28 Whether Image or Likeness do signify the same thing. p. 110.  
29 Wherein doth this Image consist. p. 112.  
30 What are the properties of that righteousness and holiness that was fixed in Adam's heart. p. 115.  
31 Whether this righteousness was natural to Adam, or no. p. 117.  
32 Whether justifying faith was then in Adam, or whether faith and repentance are now parts of that Image. p. 117.  
33 Whether the Image of God shall be restored to us in this life. p. 118  
34 Whether God did enter into covenant with Adam. p. 119.  
35 How God can be said to covenant, or enter into a promise with man. p. 123.  
36 Why God will deal with man in a covenant may, rather th●n in a mere absolute supreme way. p. 124.  
37 Whether there can be any such distinction made of Adam while innocent, so as to be considered either in his naturals or supernaturals. p. 129.  
38 Whether Christ did intervens in his help to Adam, so that he needed Christ in that estate. p. 129.  
39 Whether the tree of Life was a sacrament of Christ to Adam, or no. p. 132.  
40 Whether there was any revelation unto Adam of a Christ. p. 133.  
41 Whether the state of reparation be more excellent than that in innocency. p. 133.  
42 Whether we may be now by Christ said to be more righteous than Adam. p. 134.  
43 Whether that which God requireth of us be greater than that demanded of Adam in the state of innocency. p. 135.  
44 Whether adam's immortality in the estate of innocency be not different from that which shall be in heaven. p. 136.  
45 What Law this delivered in Mount Sinai is, and what kind of laws there are, and why it's called the Moral Law. p. 140.  
46 Whether this Law repeated by Moses, be the same with the law of nature implanted in us. p. 140.  
47 Why God did then, and not sooner give this Law unto his people. p. 141.  
48 Whether this Law was not before in the Church of God. p. 142.  
49 Why God gave the Moral Law. p. 143.  
50 Whether the ten Commandments, as given by Moses, do belong to, and bind us Christians, or no. p. 156.  
51 Whether Christ did add any thing unto the Law. p. 169.  
52 Whether Christ did forbid all swearing. p. 177.  
53 Whether under the Gospel death or any capital punishment may be inflicted for some offences. p. 180.  
54 Whether the Law be an instrument of true sanctification. p. 187.  
55 Whether Christ have abrogated the Moral Law. p. 199.  
56 Whether the Law was a Covenant that God made with his people of Israel. p. 220.  
57 Whether the Law be a Covenant of grace. p. 224.  
58 Wherein the Law and Gospel do oppose or differ from each other; under which is handled the false differences between the Law and Gospel made by Anabaptists, Papists, and Antinomians. p. 229.  
59 Why God appointed such various and different administrations. p. 246.  
60 Whether the Gospel preach repentance, or no. p. 250.  
61 Whether the Law command faith. p. 252.  
62 How Christ is the end of the Law. p. 256.     

Errata.  
PAge 6. line 12. read, and did not lead to Christ. p 14 l. 23. leave out, and then thou shalt live. p. 21. l. 26. r. divisions. p. 36. l. 31. r. overthrew it. p. 40 l. 4. upward, leave out, of this speech. p. 41. l. 3. r. Translator addeth those word. p. 43. l. 7. r. Durand. p. 57 l. 28. r. found Interpreters. p. 81. l 4. upward, r. were not ty●d by arguments. p. 92. l. 8. r. which is in me. p. 121. l. 20. leave out, an hair. p. 1●1. l. 2, upward, next to piece, r. as a total. p. 149. l. 7. r. absolutely. p. 177. l. 7. upward, r. as infants. p 208. l. 18. r. God's love. p. 224. l. 17. r. command.   

VINDICIAE LEGIS: OR, The Vindication of the Law, called MORAL.  

LECTURE I.  1 TIM. 1. 8, 9 Knowing the Law is good, if a man use it lawfully. 
THis Epistle to Timothy may be called, Paul's 
The Text opened.  Directory for the Church of God: and, in the first place, he enjoineth Timothy, to preserve the Truth against all false teachers, as he himself doth in all his Epistles. Though he derived much hatred upon his person thereby, yet this was his comfort and glory, as Hierome wrote to Austin, when he had vindicated the Truth against Pelagians, Quod signum majoris gloriae est, omnes haeretici te detestantur. His injunction to Timothy gins ver. 3. Charge them, not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Erasmus translates it, not to follow another doctrine, as if it did belong to the followers: but the words afterwards [Teachers of the Law] do plainly refute that. Now the word may be extended both to the matter (as some) to teach no other thing; or to the manner (as others) not to teach in another way: Not to teach nova; no, nor yet nouè. The rule is, Qui fingit nova verba, nova gignit dogmata: And it was Melancthons' wish, that men did not only teach the same things, but in iisdem verbis, in iisdem syllabis.  
The second part of injunction is higher than the former: Though they do not teach other things, yet they must not spend their gifts in an useless way; as, to give heed to fables: This they apply to the Jews, who had a world of fictions. It is true, we find the Fathers, Gregory Nazianzen, and others, use sometimes a fable in their Orations, to denote some moral matter; but such the Jews did not use. As they must not give heed to fables, so neither to endless genealogies. We see a good use made of genealogies in the Scriptures, but here is reproved the sinful use of them; as those Grammarians among the Heathens, that spent their time about Hecuba's mother, or Achilles' pedigree, and what it was that the Syren's sung: And these he calls endless, because vain curiosity is more unruly than the waves of the sea; it hath no limiting, Hitherto shalt thou go, and no further. Now mark, the Apostle condemneth all these, because they do not edify. The shellfish among the Jews was accounted unclean, 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 chrysostom, makes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not to be the law, but the ministry, or preaching; and so the Apostle useth the word, ver. 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 unprofitableness, 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 freewill, and not to deny freegrace; or freegrace, and not to deny freewill: so it's hard to give the Law its due, and not to seem to prejudice the Gospel; or the Gospel, and not to prejudice the Law: For, take but these two Verses, Videtur Apostolus pugnantia dicere, 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 untied in its proper place. I shall at this time handle the first proposition, that is conditional; only I might insist upon opening the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Law: For, I conceive, the neglect of the different use of this, doth breed many errors; 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.  

Observe. 1. The Law of God is good, if a man use it lawfully.  
Observe. 2. (which is employed) that the Law of God may be used unlawfully.   
The Law is good, 1. In respect of the matter of it therein contained; 
1. The Law is good in respect of the matter.  for, if you take the spiritual interpretation of it, you will find all the matter exceeding good: to love God, to trust in him, etc. 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. 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 fruitfulness of matter, how much rather is this true of God's Law? I know 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 Adam's heart in innocency, be all one, it will be proper to speak of that. Peter Martyr, handling the division of the ten Commandments, 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 enjoined there. And thus did some of the Fathers, though those words are only enunciative, and not preceptive.  
2. In respect of the authority stamped upon it by God, whereby it becomes 
2. In respect of the authority of it.  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 intrinsically and eternally good, it cannot but be commanded by God, though not to justify, 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 eternal justice and goodness in himself: so that, indeed, it is so fare from being true, that the Law, which hath God's authority stamped 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 goodness: therefore we do justly abhor those blasphemous Questions among the Schoolmen, An Deus possit mandare odium sui, etc. for its impossible. Therefore we see, Matth. 5. that our Saviour is so fare from abrogating it, that he showeth the spiritual extent of the mandatory power of the Law, fare beyond Pharisees expectation; and thus James urgeth the authority of the Lawgiver.  
3. It's good instrumentally, as used by God's Spirit for good. I know 
3. It's instrumentally good.  it's disputed by some, Whether the Law, and the preaching of it, is used as an instrument by the Spirit of God for conversion: But that will be an entire Question in itself; only thus much at this time. The Spirit of God doth use the Law, to quicken up the heart of a believer unto his duty, Psal. 119. Thou hast quickened me by thy precepts. And so Psal. 19 The Law of the Lord enlighteneth the simple, and by them thy servant is forewarned of sin. You will say, The word Law is taken largely there for all precepts and testimonies. It's true, but it's not exclusive of the precepts of the moral Law; for they were the chiefest, and indeed, the whole word of God is an organ and instrument of God's Spirit for instruction, reformation, and to make a man perfect to every good work. It's an unreasonable thing, to separate the Law from the Spirit of God, and then compare it with the Gospel; for, if you do take the Gospel, even that promise, Christ came to save sinners, without the Spirit, it worketh no more, yea, it's a dead letter as well as the Law: Therefore Calvin well called Lex corpus and the Spirit, anima; now, accedat anima ad corpus, and it's a living reasonable man: But now, as when we say, A man discourses, A man understands, this is ratione animae, not corporis; so when we say, A man is quickened by the Law of God to obedience, this is not by reason of the Law, but of the Spirit of God: But of this anon.  
4. It's good in respect of the sanction of it: for it's accompanied 
4. The Law is good, in respect of its sanction.  with promises, and that not only temporal, as Command. 5. but also spiritual, Command. 2. where God is said to pardon to many generations; and therefore the Law doth include Christ secondarily and occasionally, though not primarily, as hereafter shall be showed. It's true, the righteousness of the Law, and that of the Gospel differ toto coelo; we must place one in suprema parte coeli, and the other in ima parte terrae, as Luther speaks to that effect: and it's one of the hardest tasks in all divinity, to give them their bounds, and then to clear how the Apostle doth oppose them, and how not. We know it was the cursed error of the Manichees and Marcionites, that the Law was only carnal, and had only carnal promises; whereas it's evident, that the Fathers had the same faith for substance as we have. It's true, if we take Law and Gospel in this strict difference, as some Divines do, that all the precepts, wheresoever they are, must be under the Law, and all the promises be reduced to the Gospel, whether in Old or New Testament; in which sense Divines then say, Lex jubet, & Gratia juvat; and, Lex imperat, and Fides impetrat: then the Law can have no sanction by promise: But where can this be showed in Scripture?  
5. In respect of the acts of it. You may call them either acts 
5. In respect of the acts of it.  or ends, I shall, acts. And thus a law hath divers acts, 1. Declarative, to lay down what is the will of God: 2. To command obedience to this will declared: 3. Either to invite by promises, or compel by threaten: 4. To condemn the transgressors: and this use the Law is acknowledged by all to have against ungodly and wicked men, and some of these cannot be denied even to the godly. I wonder much at an Antinomian author, that saith, 
* Assert. of free grace, pag. 31.  It cannot be a law, unless it also be a cursing law; for, besides that the same author doth acknowledge the moral Law to be a rule to the believer, (and regula hath vim praecepti, as well as doctrinae) what will he say to the law given to Adam, who as yet was righteous and innocent, and therefore could not be cursing or condemning of him? It's true, if we take cursing or condemning potentially, so a law is always condemning: but for the actual cursing, that is not necessary for such a transgressor, that hath a surety in his room.  
6. In respect of the end of it. Rom. 16. 4. Christ is the end of the 
6. In respect of the end.  Law. By reason of the different use of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, there are different conjectures; some make it no more than extremitas, or terminus; because the ceremonial Law ended in Christ: Others make it finis complementi, the fullness of the Law is Christ: Others add, finis intentionis, or scopi to it; so that by these the meaning is, The Law did intent Christ in all its ceremonials and morals, that, as there was not the least ceremony, which did lead to Christ; so not the least iota or apex in the moral Law, but it did also aim at him. Therefore saith Calvin upon this place, Habemus insignem locum, quòd Lex omnibus suis partibu● in Christum respiciat; Imò quicquid Lex docet, quicquid praecipit, quicquid promittit, Christum pro scope habet. What had it been for a Jew to pray to God, if Christ had not been in that prayer? to love God, if Christ had not been in that love? yet here is as great a difference between the Gospel, as is between direction and exhibition, between a schoolmaster and a father: he is an unwise child, that will make a schoolmaster his father. Whether this be a proper intention of the Law, you shall have hereafter.  
7. In respect of the adjuncts of it, which the Scripture attributeth 
7. In respect of the adjuncts.  to it: And it's observable, that even where the Apostle doth most urge against the Law, as if it were so fare from bettering men, that it makes them the worse; yet there he praiseth it, calling it good and spiritual. Now I see it called spiritual in a twofold sense: 1. Effectiuè, because it did, by God's Spirit, quicken to spiritual life; even as the Apostle in the opposition calls himself carnal, because the power of corruption within, did work carnal and sinful motions in him. But I shall expound it spiritual. 2. Formaliter, formally, because the nature and extent of it is spiritual: for it forbids the sins of the spirit, not only external sins; it forbids thy spirit pride, thy spirit envy: Even as God is the father of spirits, so is the Law, the law of spirits. Hence it's compared by James to a glass, which will show the least spot in the face, and will not flatter, but if thou hast wrinkles and deformities there, they will be seen; so that there is no such way to bring Pharisaical and Moral men out of love with themselves, as to set this glass before them.  
8. In respect of the use of it: and that to the ungodly, and to the 
8. In respect of the use of it.  believer.  
1. To the ungodly, it hath this use:  
1. To restrain and limit sin: And, certainly, though it should 
1. Because it restrains and limits sin in the ungodly.  not reach to renovation and changing of men's hearts, yet here is a great deal of good, that it's an outward whip and scourge to men, whereby they are kept in honest discipline: and this made the Apostle say, The Law was added, because of transgressions. The people of Israel, by their being in the wilderness, having forgotten God, and being prone to Idolatry, the Lord he added this Law, as a restraint upon them. Even as you see upon madmen, and those that are possessed with devils, we put heavy chains and fetters, that they may do no hurt; so the Lord laid the Law upon the people of Israel, to keep them in from impiety. The Apostle useth a word, shut up as in a dungeon, but that is to another sense. It was Chrysostom's comparison: As a great man, suspecting his wife, appoints Eunuches to look to her and keep her; so did God, being jealous over the Jews, appoint these laws.  
2. To curse, and condemn: and in this respect, it poureth all 
2. Because it condemns them.  its fury upon the ungodly. The Law to the godly by Christ, is like a Serpent with a sting pulled out; but now to the wicked, the sting of sin is the Law, and therefore the condition of that man, who is thus under it, is unspeakably miserable. The curse of it is the sore displeasure of God, and that for every breach of it; and, if men, that have broken only men's laws, be yet so much afraid, that they hid themselves, and keep close, when yet no man or Judge can damn them, or throw them into hell; what cause is there to fear that Lawgiver, who is able to destroy soul and body? Therefore consider, thou profane man, are not thy oaths, are not thy lusts against God's Law? You had better have all the men in the world your enemy, than the Law of God. It's a spiritual enemy; and therefore the terrors of it are spiritual, as well as the duties. Let not your lives be Antinomians, no more than opinions. Oh that I could confute this Antinomianism also; such a man's life and conversation was against GOD'S Law, but now it's not.  
2. To Believers it hath this use: 1. To excite and quicken them 
1. It quickens the godly against sin and corruption.  against all sin and corruption: for, howsoever the Scripture saith, Against such there is no law, and, The Law is not made to the righteous; yet, because none of the godly are perfectly righteous, and there is none but may complain of his dull love, and his faint delight in holy things, therefore the Law of God, by commanding, doth quicken him. How short is this of that which God commands? not, that a man is to look for justification by this, or to make these in stead of a Christ to him; but for other ends. Hence Psal. 1. and Psal. 19 and 119. who can deny, that they belong to the godly now, as well as heretofore? Have not believers now, crookedness, hypocrisy, lukewarmness? You know, not only the unruly colt, that is yet untamed; but the horse, that is broken, hath a bit and bridle also: and so, not only the ungodly, but even the godly, whose hearts have been much broken and tamed, do yet need a bridle, Nè Spiritum sessorem excutiant. And, if men should be so peremptory, as to say, they do not need this; it's not because they do not need it (for they need it most) but because they do not feel it.  
2. To enlighten and discover unto them daily more and more heart-sinne, 
2. It discovers sin unto them.  and soule-sinne. This use the Apostle speaketh of, Rom. 7. per totum: for, how should a man come to know the depth of original sin, all the sinful motions flowing from it, but by the Law? and therefore that is observed by Divines, the Apostle saith, he had not known sin, but by the Law; intimating thereby, that the Law of nature was so obliterated and darkened, that it could not show a man the least part of his wickedness. Seneca, who had more light than others, yet he saith, Erras, si tecum vitia nasci putas; supervenerunt, ingesta sunt. And so Pelagius his assertion was, that tam sine vitio, quàm sine virtute nascimur. And you see all Popery, to this day, holds those motions of heart, not consented to, to be no sins, but necessary conditions, arising from our constitution, and such as Adam had in innocency: Therefore the people of God see and are humbled for that wickedness, which others take no notice of. This will satisfy man, but not Gods Law.  
3. To drive them out of all their own power and righteousness 
3. It makes them disclaim all their own righteousness.  And this is another good consequence: for, when they see all to come short of the Law; that the earth is not more distant from heaven, than they from that righteousness, this makes them to go out of all their prayers, and all their duties, as you see Paul, Rom. 7. he consented to the Law, and he delighted in it, but he could not reach to the righteousness of it; and therefore crieth out, Oh wretched man that I am! How apt are the holiest to be proud and secure, as David, and Peter? even as the worms and wasps eat the sweetest apples and fruit; but this will keep thee low. How absurd then are they, that say, The preaching of the Law is to make men trust in themselves, and to adhere to their own righteousness? for, there is no such way to see a man's beggary and guilt, as by showing the strictness of the Law: For, what makes a Papist so selfe-confident, that his hope is partly in grace, and partly in merits, but because they hold they are able to keep the Law? God forbidden, saith a Papist, that we should enjoy heaven as of mere alms to us; no, we have it by conquest: Whence is all this, but because they give not the Law its due?  
4. Hereby to quicken them to an higher price and esteem of Christ, 
4. It makes them set an higher value of Christ and his benefits.  and the benefits by him: So Paul, in that great agony of his, striving with his corruption (being like a living man tied to a dead carcase, his living faith to dead unbelief, his humility to loathsome pride) see what a conclusion he makes, I thank God, through Jesus Chris. It's true, many times the people of God, out of the sense of their sin, are driven off from Christ; but this is not the Scriptures direction: That holds out riches in Christ for thy poverty, righteousness in Christ for thy guilt, peace in Christ for thy terror. And in this consideration it is, that many times Luther hath such hyperbolical speeches about the Law, and about sin. 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 formal Christians never hearty and vehemently prize Christ, taking up every crumb that falls from his table: they are Christ's to themselves, and self-saviours. I deny not, but the preaching of Christ, and about grace, may also make us prise grace and Christ; but such is our corruption, that all is little enough. Let me add these cautions:  
1. It's of great consequence in what sense we use the word [Law.] 
1. The Law, according to the use of the word in the Scripture, is not only a strict rule of things to be done by way of command; but denoteth any heavenly doctrine, whether it be promise, or precept.   
He that distinguisheth well, teacheth well. Now I observe a great neglect of this in the books written about these points; and, indeed, the reason why some can so hardly endure the word [Law] is, because they attend to the use of the word in English; or the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and Lex, as it is defined by Tully and Aristotle, which understand it a strict rule only of things to be done, and that by way of mere command. But now the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth comprehend more; for that doth not only signify 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 chrysostom 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 mere Hebraisme, as signifying that in general, which doth declare and teach the will of God.  
The Hebrews 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 commandment, i. e. his promise, is life everlasting: So then, if we would attend to the Hebrew words, it would not so trouble us, to hear that it is good. But yet the use of the word [Law] is very general: sometimes it signifieth any part of 
The acceptions of the word Law in Scripture, are divers.  the Old Testament, John 10. It is said in the Law, You are gods. And that is in the Psalms: Sometimes the Law and the Prophets are made all the books of the Old Testament; sometimes the Law and the Psalms are distinguished; sometimes it is used for the ceremonial 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 God's worship unto the Jews; in which sense it is said to be until John, but grace and truth by Christ Jesus: sometimes it is used in the sense of the Jews, 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 only of the ceremonial law. But we answer, that the beginning of the dispute, was about the observation of those legal ceremonies, as necessary to salvation: But the Apostle goeth from the hypothesis to the thesis; and showeth, that not only those ordinances, but no other works may be put in Christ's room: Therefore the Antinomian, before he speaks any thing against, or about the Law, he must show 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 only that book called Denteronomy: and commonly it is taken most strictly for the ten Commandments. Now, the different use of this word breeds all this obscurity, and the Apostle argueth against it in one sense, and pleadeth for it in another.  
2. The Law must not be separated from the Spirit of God. This is 
2. The Law and the Spirit of God must not be separated.  a principle always to be carried along with you: for, the whole Word of God is the instrument and organ of spiritual life, and the Law is part of this Word of God: This I proved before; nay, should the Moral 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 spiritual means of faith, as truly as Baptism, and the Lords Supper are. It is true, there is a difference in the degree of God's grace by them; but not in the truth: and therefore our Divines do well confute the Papists, who hold those sacraments only typical of ours, and not to be really exhibitive of grace, as these are in the New Testament. Therefore, if the Apostles, arguing against the Moral Law, would prove it no instrument of God's 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 Moral Law? I answer, Because the Jews 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 Baptism, he falls off from Christ.  
3. To do a thing out of obedience to the Law, and yet by love 
3. Obedience and love oppose not one another.  and delight, do not oppose one another. About this I see a perpetual mistake. To lead a man by the Law is slavish, it's servile, say they; a Believer is carried by love, he needs no law: and I shall show you, chrysostom hath some such hyperbolical expressions upon the words following, [The Law is not put for the righteous.] But this is very weak, to oppose the efficient cause and the rule together; for, the Spirit of God worketh the heart to love and delight in that which he commandeth: Take an instance in Adam; While he stood, he did obey out of love, and yet because of the command also: We may illustrate it by Moses his mother; You know, she was hired, and commanded by Pharaoh's daughter to nurse Moses, which was her own child: now she did this out of love to Moses, her child; yet did obey Pharaoh's daughters commandment upon her also: so concerning Christ, there was a commandment laid upon Christ, to fulfil the Law for us, yet he did it out of love.  
It is disputed, Whether Christ had a command laid upon him by the Father strictly so called: and howsoever the Arrians, from the grant of this, did infer Christ's absolute inferiority to the Father; yet our orthodox Divines do conclude it, because of the many places of Scripture which prove it, Acts 7. 37. John 14. 31. As my Father hath commanded me, so I you. John 15. 10. (If you keep my commandments, and abide in love, etc.) And, indeed, if it were not a commandment, it could not be called an obedience of Christ; for, that doth relate to a command: Now this I infer hence, that, to do a thing out of obedience to a command, because a command, doth not infer want of love; although I grant, that the commandment was not laid upon Christ, as on us, either to direct him, or quicken him. Besides, all the people of God have divers relations, upon which their obedience lieth; they are Gods servants, and that doth imply obedientiam servi, though not obedientiam servilem.  
Again, a Believer may look to the reward, and yet have a spirit of love; how much rather look to the command of God? A godly man may have amorem mercedis, though not amorem mercenarium. And, lastly, there is no godly man, but he hath in part some unwillingness to good things; and therefore needs the Law not only to direct, but to exhort and goad forward: Even, as I said, the tamed horse needeth a spur, as well as the unbroken colt.  
4. Though Christ hath obeyed the Law fully, yet that doth not exempt 
4. Christ's Obedience exempts not us from ours.  us from our obedience to it, for other ends than he did it. And, I think, that if the Antinomian did fully inform himself in this thing, there were an agreement: for, we all aught to be zealous against those Pharisaical and Popish practices of setting up any thing in us, though wrought by the grace of God, as the matter of our justification. But herein they do not distinguish, or well argue: The works of the Law do not justify, therefore they are needless, or not requisite: for (say they) if Christ hath fully obeyed the righteousness of the Law, and that is made ours; therefore it is not what ours is, but what Christ's is. And I have heard some doubt, whether the maintaining of Christ's active obedience imputed to us, doth not necessarily imply Antinomianism: but of that more hereafter; only let them lay a parallel with Christ's passive obedience. He satisfied the curse and threatening of the Law, and thereby hath freed us from all punishment; yet the Believers have afflictions for other ends: so do we the works of God's Law, for other ends than Christ did them.  
A fifth caution or limitation shall be this, to distinguish between 
5. Believers sins condemned, though not their persons.  a Believer, and his personal acts: For, howsoever the Law doth not curse or condemn him, in regard of his state; yet those particular sins he commits, it condemns them, and they are guilty of God's wrath, though this guilt doth not redound upon the person: Therefore it is a very wide comparison of 
* Dr. Crisp.  one, that a man under grace hath no more to do with the Law, than an Englishman hath with the laws of Spain or Turkey: For, howsoever every Believer be in a state of grace, so that his person is justified; yet, being but in part regenerated, so fare as his sins are committed, they are threatened and condemned in him, as well as in another: for there is a simple guilt of sin, and a guilt redundant upon the person.  
6. That the Law is not therefore to be decried, because we have no 
6. Inability to keep the Law exempts not from obedience to it.  power to keep the Law: For, so we have no power to obey the Gospel. It is an expression an Antinomian 
* Dr. Crisp.  useth, The Law (saith he) speaketh to thee, if troubled for sin, Do this, and live; Now this is, as if a Judge should bid a malefactor, If you will not be hanged, take all England, and carry it upon your shoulders into the West Indies. What comfort were this? Now, doth not the Gospel, when it bids a man believe, speak as impossible a thing to a man's power? It's true, God doth not give such a measure of grace as is able to fulfil the Law, but we have faith enough evangelically to justify us. But that is extraneous to this matter in hand. It follows therefore, that the Law, taken most strictly, and the Gospel, differ in other considerations then in this.  
7. They do not distinguish between that which is primarily and per 
7. The Law. though primarily it requireth perfect holiness, yet it excludes not a Mediator.  se in the Law, and that which is occasionally. It cannot be denied, but the Decalogue requireth primarily a perfect holiness, as all laws require exactness; but yet it doth not exclude a Mediator. The Law saith, Do this and live; and it doth not say, None else shall do this for thee, and then thou shalt live: For, if so, than it had been injustice in God, to have given us a Christ. I therefore much wonder at one, who, in his book, speaks thus, The Law doth not only deprive us of comfort, but it will let no body else speak a word of comfort, because it is a rigid keeper: and he confirmeth it by that place, Galat. 3. 23. But how short this is, appeareth, 1. Because what the Apostle calleth the Law here, he called the Scripture in general before. 2. He speaketh it generally of all under that form of Moses his regiment, so that the Fathers should have no comfort by that means.  
Use 1. Of instruction. How dangerous an error it is, to deny 
The Law, though it cannot justify us, is notwithstanding good, and not to be rejected.  the Law: for, is it good? and, may it be used well? then take we heed of rejecting it. What? because it is not good for justification, is it in no sense else good? Is not gold good, because you cannot eat on it, and feed on it, as you do meat? Take the precept of the Gospel; yea, take the Gospel acts, as, To believe: this, as it is a work, doth not justify: (Therefore that opinion which makes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere, to justify, may as well take in other acts of obedience) But, because faith, as it is a work, doth not justify, do you therefore reject believing? A man may abuse all the ordinances of the Gospel, as well as the Law. The man that thinks the very outward work of baptism, the very outward work of receiving a sacrament will justify him, doth as much dishonour God, as a Jew, that thought circumcision, or the sacrifices did justify him. You may quickly turn all the Gospel into the Law in that sense; you may as well say, What need I pray? what need I repent? it cannot justify me, as to deny the Law, because it cannot.  
Use. 2. How vain a thing it is, to advance grace and Christ 
Grace and Christ not to be advanced oppositely to the Law.  oppositely to the Law: nay, they that destroy one, destroy also the other. Who prizeth the city of refuge so much, as the malefactor that is pursued by guilt? Who desireth the brazen Serpent, but he that is stung? If Christ be the end of the Law, how is he contrary to it? And, if Christ and the Law could be under the Old Testament, why not under the new? It is true, to use the Law otherwise then God hath appointed, it's no marvel if it hurt us, if it poison us; as those that kept the Manna otherwise then they should, it turned to worms. But, if you use it so, as Christ is the dearer, and grace the more welcome to thee, than thou dost well. The Law bids thee love God withal thine heart and soul; doth not this bid thee go to Christ? Hast thou any strength to do it? And what thou dost, being enabled by grace, is that perfect? Vae etiam laudabili vitae ei, etc. said Austin, make therefore a right use of the Law, and then thou wilt set up Christ and grace in thine heart, as well as in thy mouth. Now thou hold'st freegrace as an opinion, it may be; but then all within thee will acknowledge it.   

LECTURE II.  1 TIM. 1. 8, 9 Knowing the Law is good, if a man use it lawfully. 
IN these words you have heard, 1. the position, [The Law is good:] 2. the supposition, If a man use it lawfully.  
Now, this know in the general, that this is no more derogative 
The abuse of the Law no derogation to it.  to the Law, that it is such a bonum, quo aliquis malè uti potest, then God, or Christ, or the Gospel, or Freegrace are; for, all may turn this honey into gall: yea, an Antinomian may set up his preaching of grace, as a work more eminent, and so trust to that more than Christ. I do acknowledge that of chrysostom to be very good, speaking of the love of God in Christ, and raised up in admiration of it, Oh (saith he) I am like a man digging in a deep spring: I stand here, and the water riseth up upon me; and I stand there, and still the water riseth upon me: So it is in the love of Christ and the Gospel, the poor broken heart may find unsearchable treasures there; but yet this must not be used to the prejudice of the Law neither. And take this, as a Prologue galeatus to all I shall say, That, because the Law may be used unlawfully, it is no more derogation, then to the Gospel: Woe be to the whole Land, for the abuse of the Gospel; is it not the matter of death to many? I shall show the general ways of abusing the Law:  
1. That in the Text, when men turn it unto unfruitful and unprofitable 
1. The Law is abused, when converted to unprofitable disputes.  disputes: and this the Apostle doth here mainly intent Cui bono? must be the question made of any dispute about the Law: and therefore, if I should, in this exercise I have undertaken, handle any frivolous or unprofitable disputes, this were to use the Law unlawfully; and therefore let Ministers take heed that be not true of them, which one dreamt about the Schoolmen, that he thought them all like a man eating an hard stone, when pure manchet was by. Besides, he preacheth the Law unprofitably, not only that darkeneth it with obscure questions, but that doth not teach Christ by it: and I see not but that Ministers may be humbled, that they have pressed religious duties, but not so as to set up Christ; and hereby people have been content with duties and sacraments, though no Christ in them. But, as all the vessels were to be of pure gold in the Temple, so ought all our duties to be of pure and mere Christ for acceptation.  
2. When men look to carnal and worldly respects, in the handling 
2. When, in the handling of it, respect is had to worldly ends.  of it. This is also to use the Law unlawfully. And thus the Priests and the Jews did, as thereby to make a living, and to have temporal blessings: And it is no wonder that the Law may be used so, seeing the doctrine of Christ is so abused. There are, as Nazianzen saith well, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Christ-merchants, and Christ-hucksters, that hope, as Judas did, for carnal ends by Christ; Therefore so we are to handle Law and Gospel, not as thereby to make parties, or to get applause; but of a godly love and zeal to truth. It was an honest complaint of a Popish writer, We (saith he) handle the Scripture (tantùm ut nos pascat, & vestiat) that we might only live, and be clothed by it. And how do we all fall short of Paul, as, Acts 20. where he was preaching night and day with great affections, and desired no man's gold or silver? how well might chrysostom call him, Angelus torrestris, &, Cor Pauli est cor Christi?  
3. When men would quite overthrow it, or deny it. Thus the Marcionites 
3. When men deny it.  and Manichees of old, and others of late, though upon other grounds. Now the ground of their error, are the many places of Scripture that seem to deny the Law; and, I do acknowledge, it is hard to get the true sense of those places without diligence: and therefore Austin said well (as to that purpose, if I mistake not) They are not so much the simple, as the negligent, that are deceived herein: and, as chrysostom saith, A friend that is acquainted with his friend, will get out the meaning of a letter or phrase, which another could not that is a stranger: so it is here in the Scripture. Now, two things let such consider: 1. That as there are places that seem to overthrow it, so there are also many places that do confirm it; yea, the Apostle makes objections against himself, as if he did disannul it, and then answers with an absit, as if it were an horrid thing to do so. 2. That they must take the Apostle in the particular sense he intends it. It is a good rule, Quaelibet res eâ capienda est parte, quâ capi debet: You do not take a sword by the edge, but the handle; nor a vessel by the body, but the ear: and so this doctrine of the Law, not in every part, but where the Apostle would have you take it.  
4. When they do ill interpret it. And herein all Popish Authors 
4. When they misinterpret it.  are in an high degree to be reproved; for, they limit exceedingly the spiritual meaning thereof, even as the Pharisees understood it only of external acts: and therefore our Saviour, Matthew 5. did not make new commands or counsels there (as Popish Expositors dream) but did throw away all that earth, which the Philistims had tumbled into that spring. And this was so general a mistake, that it was a great while ere Paul did understand the strictness of it. This discovers a world of sin in a man, which he was ignorant of before. The Papists, they also use it unlawfully in that corrupt gloss, as if it might be kept so fare forth as it's obligatory. In a great part of it, they make it commonitory, and not obligatory; and the power of man they make to be the rule of his duty, whereas it is plain by Scripture, that that measure of grace, which God giveth any man upon earth, is not answerable to the duty commanded there. It is true, Hierome said, It was blasphemy to say, God commanded any thing impossible: but in this sense impossible absolutely, so that man could never have fulfilled it.  
5. When they do oppose it to Christ. And this was the Jews 
5. When they oppose it to Christ.  fundamental error, and under this notion doth the Apostle argue against it in his Epistles to the Romans and Galatians. And, howsoever they would have compounded Christ and the Law together, yet this composition was to make opposition. There can be no more two Suns in the firmament, than two things to justify: Therefore the reconciliation of the Law and Christ cannot be, in matter of justification, by way of mixture; but yet one is antecedaneous and subordinate to the other, and is no more to be opposed, than the end to the means. Nor is it any wonder that the Law, through error, may be opposed to Christ, seeing that Christ may be opposed to Christ; as, in Popery, Christ sanctifying is opposed to Christ justifying: for, when we charge them with derogating from Christ, in holding our graces do justify; Nay (say they) we set him up more than you: for, we hold, He doth make us holy, That this holiness doth justify. Thus, you see, Christ in his works is opposed to Christ in his justifying. And here, by the way, you may see, that that only is the best way of advancing Christ or grace, which is in a Scripture way, and not what is possible for us to think, as the Papists do.  
6. When they look for justification by it: and this is a dangerous 
6. When they expect justification by it.  and desperate error; this is that which reigneth in Popery, this is that inbred cankerworm, that eateth in the hearts of all naturally. They know not a gospel-righteousness, and for this end they read the Law, they hear it preached only, that they may be selfe-saviours: And, certainly, for this twofold end, I may think, God suffers this Antinomian error to grow; first, That Ministers may humble themselves, they have not set forth Christ and grace in all the glory of it. If Bernard said, he did not love to read Tully, because he could not read the Name of Christ there; how much rather may we say, that in many Sermons, in many a man's ministry, the drift and end of all his preaching is not, that Christ may be advanced. And in Christians, in Protestants, it is a fare greater sin than in Papists: for, it is well observed by Peter Martyr, that the Apostle doth deal more mildly in the Epistle to the Romans, then in the Epistle to the Galatians; and the reason is, because the Galatians were at first well instructed in the matter of justification, but afterwards did mix other things with Christ, therefore he thunders against them. I desire to know nothing, saith Paul, 1 Corinth. 2. but Jesus Christ, and him crucified. And secondly, another end may be, to have these truths beaten out more: As, The deity of Christ, because of the Arrians; and, Grace in predestination and conversion, by the Pelagians: so, The grace of justification, because not only of Papists, but Antinomians. And, certainly, these things were much pressed by Luther at first, as appears in his Epistle to the Galatians: but, perceiving how this good doctrine was abused, he speaks in his Commentary on Genesis (which was one of his last works) much against Antinomists: But yet, because generally people are fallen into a formality of truths, it's good to set up Christ. And the poison of this opinion will be seen in these things:  
1. It overthroweth the nature of grace. And this holdeth against 
1. Justification by the Law overthrows the nature of grace.  the works of the Gospel, as well as those of the Law. Take notice of this, that justification by works doth not only exclude the works of the Law, but all works of the Gospel, yea and the works of grace also. Hence you see, the opposition is of works, and of grace. Here the Apostle makes an immediate opposition, whereas the Papist would say, Paul hath a non sequitur; for, datur tertium, works of and by grace. But works do therefore oppose grace, because the frequent acception of it in the Scripture is for the favour of God without us, not any thing in us. I will not deny but that the word [grace] is used for the effects of it, inherent holiness wrought in us, as in that place, Grow in grace and knowledge; but yet commonly grace is used for the favour of God. And the ignorance of the use of the word in Scripture, makes them so extol inherent holiness, as if that were the grace which should save us. As (saith the Papist) a bird cannot fly without wings, the fish swim without scales, the Sculler without his oar cannot get to the haven: so, without this grace, we cannot fly into heaven, and that as the meritorius cause. But this is ignorance of the word [grace,] and so the troubles and unbelief of the godly heart, because it is not so holy as it would be, cometh from the mistake of the word [grace.] I shall anticipate myself in another subject, if I should tell you how comprehensive this word is, implying no merit or causality on our part for acceptance, but the clean contrary; and therefore, for God to deal with us in grace, is more than in love: for Adam, if he had continued righteous, he had been partaker of life; this had been the gift of God, but not by the grace of God, as it is strictly taken; for Adam was not in a contrary condition to life. I will not trouble you with Pareus his apprehension, that thinketh Adam's righteousness could not be called grace, therefore reproveth Bellarmine for his title, De gratia primi hominis: neither will he acknowledge those habits of holiness in Christ to be called grace, because there was not a contrary disposition in his nature to it, as it is in ours. And this also Cameron presseth, that, besides the indebitum which grace implieth in every subject, there is also a demeritum of the contrary. Thus then justification is of grace, because thy holiness doth not only not deserve this, but the clean contrary. Now what a cordial may this be to the broken heart, exercised with its sins? How may the sick say, There I find health? the poor say, There I find riches? And as for the Papists, who say they set up grace, and they acknowledge grace; yet first it must be set down in what sense we take grace. It is not every man that talketh of grace, doth therefore set up Scripture-grace. Who knoweth not that the Pelagians set up grace? They determined, that whosoever did not acknowledge grace necessary to every good act all the day long, let him be an anathema: and this fair colour did deceive the Eastern Churches, that they did acquit him: But Austin and others observed, that he did gratiae vocabulo uti ad frangendam invidiam; even as the Papists do at this time: therefore if they say, Thy patience is grace, Thy hope is grace, and therefore by grace thou art saved; say, This is not the Gospel-grace, the Scripture-grace, by which sins are pardoned, and we saved.  
2. It opposeth Christ in his fullness: It makes an halfe-Christ. 
2. Opposeth the fullness of Christ.  Thus the false Apostles made Christ void, and fell off from him. Neither will this serve, to say that the Apostle speaks of the ceremonial law: for (as we told you) though the differences about the Jewish ceremonies, were the occasion of those differences in the primitive times, yet the Apostle goeth from the hypothesis to the thesis, even to all works whatsoever, and therefore excludes Abraham's and David's works from justification. Now Christ would be no Christ if works were our righteousness; because the righteousness by the faith of Christ is opposed to Paul's own righteousness, and this is called the righteousness of God: Yea, this is said to be made righteousness unto us, and he is called the Lord our righteousness; and howsoever Bellarmine would understand these phrases causally, as when God is called the Lord our salvation; yet we shall show you it cannot be so, therefore if thy works justify thee, what needs a Christ? Can thy graces be a Christ?  
3. It destroyeth the true doctrine of Justification. I shall not 
3. Destroys the true doctrine of Justification.  launch into this Ocean at this time, only consider how the Scripture speaks of it, as not infusing what is perfect, but forgiving what is imperfect; as in David, Blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputeth no sin. I shall not at this time dispute whether there be two parts of Justification, one positive, in respect of the term to which, called Imputation of Christ's righteousness; the other negative, in respect of the term from which, Not accounting sin. This later I only press: Therefore, What is it to be justified? Not to have holiness accepted of us, but our sins remitted: Justitia nostra, est indulgentia tua, Domine. Now, what a comfortable plea is this for an humbled soul, O Lord, it is not the question, what good I have, but what evil thou wilt forget: It is not to find righteous works in me, but to pass by the unrighteousness in me? What can satisfy thy soul, if this will not do? Is not this (as I told you) with chrysostom, to stand upon a spring rising higher and higher?  
4. It quite overthroweth justifying faith: for when Christ and 
4. Overthrows justifying faith.  grace is overthrown, this also must fall to the ground. There are these three main concurrent causes to our justification: The grace of God as the efficient, Christ as the meritorious, and faith as the instrumental; and although one of these causes be more excellent than the other (the efficient than the instrumental) yet all are equally necessary to that effect of justification. That faith doth instrumentally justify, I here take it for granted. As for the Antinomian, who holdeth it before faith, and thinketh the argument from Infants will plainly prove it, I shall show the contrary in its due time: only this is enough, that an instrumental particle is attributed to it, By faith in his blood, and, By faith in his Name, and, justified By faith. It is true, it's never said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for faith, as if there were dignity or merit in it; but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Now to set up works is to oppose faith, as the Apostle argueth: therefore faith, as it is a work, is to be opposed to itself, as its an instrument justifying.  
5. It quite discourageth a  sinner, taking away peace 
5. Discourageth the  sinner.  with God, the effect of justification, and glorying in tribulations. If you consider Chapt. 5. of Rom. you will find, that peace only comes this way, yea and to glory in tribulations; for, ver. 1. being justified by faith, we have peace with God. Alas, what patience, what repentance, what pains and religious duties can procure thee peace with God? Can that which would damn, save? Can that which would work woe in thee, comfort thee? Vae etiam laudabili vitae erit, saith Austin, as you heard; Woe to the most worthy life that is, if it should be judged strictly by God. And then mark the object of this peace, Peace with God. Take a Pharisee, take a moral or a formal man, he may have a great deal of peace, because of his duties and good heart; yet, this is not a peace with God: so also for glorying in tribulations, how can this be? If all a man's glory were for himself, would not every affliction rather break him, saying, This is the fruit of my sin?  
6. It brings men into themselves. And this is very dangerous: 
6. Brings men into themselves.  A man may not only exclude Christ from his soul by gross sins, but by selfe-confidences; You are they which justify yourselves. And so the Jews, they would not submit to their own righteousness; see how afraid Paul is to be found in his own righteousness. Beza puts an emphasis upon this word Found, implying, that justice, and the Law, and so the wrath of God is pursuing and seeking after man: Where is that man that offends God, and transgresseth his Law? Where is that man that doth not pray, or hear as he should do? Now (saith Paul) I would not be found in mine own righteousness. And this made Luther say, Take heed, not only of thy sins, but also of thy good duties. Now, if this were all the wine that the Antinomian would drink in Christ's cellar, if this were all the honey that he would have in Christ's hive, none would contradict it: but we shall show you the dangerous inferences they make from hence, turning that which would be a rod, into a serpent.  
7. It overthroweth the doctrine of imputation, and reckoning righteousness 
7. Overthrows the doctrine of imputed righteousness.  to us: which is spoken of Rom. 4. and in other places. I know how this point is vexed divers ways; but this is enough for us: If righteousness were in us, and properly ours, what need a righteousness be reckoned and imputed to us? The Papist maketh imputative, and putative, and imaginary all one. Who can say, A lame man (say they) goeth right, because he hath other men's shoes? Who can say, A deformed Thersites is a fair Absalon, because of borrowed beauty? But these are easily refuted by Scripture, and we shall show you Christ's righteousness is as really ours, as if it were inherent. They differ not in reality, but in the manner of being ours. Now, here the Antinomian and Papist agree in the inferences they make from this doctrine; If Christ's righteousness be ours, than there is no sin in us seen by God, than we are as righteous as Christ, argueth the Antinomian: and this absurdity the Papists would put on us.  
8. It keeps a man in a slavish servile way in all his duties: For, 
8 Keeps a man slavish in all his duties.  how must that man be needs tossed up and down, which hath no other ground of peace, than the works of grace? How is the humble heart soon made proud? how is the heavenly heart soon become earthly? Now, you may see the Scripture speaking much against doubting and fears; and, James 1. it is made the cankerworm, that devoureth all our duties: Therefore the Scripture doth name some words that do oppose this Evangelicall temper of sons; as, Be not afraid, but believe; so, Why doubted ye? the word signifieth to be in bivio, that a man cannot tell which ways to take to, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to be carried up and down, as meteors in the air. Now, how can a man be bold by any thing that is his? By faith we have confidence and boldness: faith is confidence, and faith works confidence; but faith, whose object is Christ, not any thing of ours: it's made the first word also we can speak, when we are made sons, to cry, Abba, Father.  
9 A man may as lawfully join Saints or Angels in his mediation 
9 join a man's own graces to Christ's mediation.  with Christ, as graces. Why is that doctrine of making Angels and Saints mediators and intercessors so odious, but because it joineth Christ and others together in that great work? Dost not thou the like, when thou joinest thy love and grace with Christ's obedience? The Papist saith, Let such and such an holy Saint save me; and thou sayest, Let my holy love, let my holy repentance save me. What advantage then hast thou, if thou criest down Saints, and then makest thyself one in a Popish way? Can therefore thy graces speak, they would say as the Angel to John that would worship him, Worship thou God, worship thou Christ, put thy trust in Christ; he hath only borne our sins, so as to take them away: and therefore, as gross Idolatry makes the works of God a god; so doth more subtle Idolatry make the works of Christ, a Christ.  
10. It overthroweth the grace of hope. When faith is destroyed, 
10. Overthrows hope.  then also hope is. This grace of hope is the great support of a Christian: now, if it be placed in Christ, and the promises, it is as firm as faith; therefore saith the Apostle of hope, Rom. 5. It makes not ashamed: but, if it were an hope in ourselves, how often should we be confounded? That is good of Austin, Noli sperare de te, sed de Deo tuo; nam si speras de te, anima tua conturbatur ad te, quia nondum invenit unde sit secura de te. It's an ignorant distinction among Papists, that they may have a certainty of hope, but not of faith in matters of salvation: whereas they have both the like certainty, and differ only thus: faith doth for the present receive the things promised, and hope keeps up the heart against all difficulties, till it come to enjoy them. Now, to have such an hope as the Papists define, partim è gratia Dei, and partim à meritis nostris proveniens, must needs be destructive.  
11. It taketh away the glory due to God in this great work of Justification. 
11. Robs God of his glory.  If you have not meat or drink but by God, shall you have pardon of sin without him? Abraham believed, and gave God glory: We are apt to account believing no glory to God; but could we mortify our corruptions more and more, could we exhaust and spend ourselves, yet this is no more to give glory to God, then when we believe. Now, it is good to possess Christians with this principle, To believe in Christ, is to give glory to Christ: we naturally would think, to go far on pilgrimages, to macerate our bodies, were likelier ways for our salvation; but this would be man's glory more than God's glory: Therefore how did that wretched Monk, dying blasphemously, say, Red mihi aternam vitam, quam debes.  
12. It maketh sin, and the first Adam more and greater for condemnation, 
12. Makes more in sin to damn, then in Christ to save.  than Christ for salvation. Now the Apostle, Rom. 5. makes the opposition, and showeth, that the gift is far above the transgression: Therefore take thy sins in all the aggravations of them, there is not more in them to damn, then in Christ to save. Why should sin be an heavy sin, a great sin, and Christ not also a wonderful saving Christ? When we say, The guilt of sin is infinite, that is, only infinite objectiuè; but now Christ's merits and obedience are infinite meritoriè: they have from the dignity of the person an infinite worth in them; and therefore, as sin is exceeding sinful, so let Christ be an exceeding Christ, and grace exceeding grace.  
13. It overthroweth the true doctrine of sanctification: which declareth 
13. Overthrows the doctrine of sanctification.  it to be inchoate, and imperfect; that our faith hath much unbelief in it, our best gold much dross, our wine much water. It is true, both the Papists and the Antinomian agree in this error, that because sin is covered, therefore there can be no sin seen in the godly; that the soul in this life is without spot and wrinkle: but they do it upon different grounds; whereas Paul, Rom. 7. doth abundantly destroy that principle. How blasphemous is that direction of the Papists to men dying, who are to pray thus: Conjunge (Domine) obsequium meum cum omnibus qua Christus passus est pro me? And how absurd is that doctrine, Si bona opera sunt magis bona, quàm mala opera mala, fortiùs merentur vitam aternam?  
14. It taketh away the true doctrine of the Law, as if that were 
14. Takes away the doctrine of the Law.  possible to be kept: For, works could not justify us, unless they were answerable to that righteousness which God commands; but Rom. 3. that which was impossible for the Law, Christ hath fulfilled in us.  
15. It overthroweth the consideration of a man, while he is justified: 
15. Overthroweth the consideration of man while he is justified.  For, they look upon him as godly, but the Scripture as ungodly; Rom. 4. who justifieth the ungodly. Some by [ungodly,] mean any profane 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 falsely many men charge it generally upon our godly Ministers, that they are nothing but Justiciaries, and Legal Preachers? For, do not all sound and godly Ministers hold forth this Christ, this righteousness, this way of justification? Do not all our Protestant authors maintain this truth, as that which discerneth us from Heathens, Jews, 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 Antinomianism. Luther, writing upon Genesis, handling that sin of Adam, in eating of the forbidden fruit, speaketh of a Fanatique, as he calls him, that denied 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 Antinomianism 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 find comfort there: Therefore let Christ be made the matter of your righteousness and comfort more than he hath been. You know, the posts that were not sprinkled with blood, 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 sin, is Genes. 6. used of the pitch or plaster, 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 God's wrath cannot enter upon us. And do not think, to believe in Christ, a contemptible and unlikely way; for, it is not, because of the dignity of faith, but by Christ. You see the hyssop (or whatsoever it was) which did sprinkle the blood, was a contemptible herb, yet the instrument of much 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 clear proof of Justification by the grace of God, and not of works, to show how corrupt the Antinomian is in his inferences hence from; and, this being done, I shall show you the necessity of holy and good works notwithstanding.  
But before I come to handle some of their dangerous errors in this point, let me premise something, As,  
1. How cautelous and wary the Ministers of God ought to be in this 
Ministers ought so to set forth grace, and defend good works, as thereby to give the Enemy neither cause of exception, nor insultation.  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 freegrace, out of the mine of the Scripture; see what Canons the Council of Trent made against them, as Antinomian: Can. 19 If any man shall say, Decem praecepta nihil ad Christianos pertinere, anathema sit. Again, Can. 20. Si quis dixerit hominem justificatum non teneri ad observantiam mandatorum, sed tantùm ad credendum, anathema sit. Again, Can. 21. 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 grossly mistake us; and, if this were all the controversy, we should quickly agree. It is no wonder then if it be so hard to preach freegrace, and not provoke the Papist; or, on the otherside, 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 zeal for the grace of God against Papists. These indeed, for aught I can learn, did no ways join with the Antinomians; but in this point there is too much affinity. There were rigid Lutherans called Flactans, who as they did go too far, at least in their expressions, about original corruption (for there are those that do excuse them;) so also they went too high against good works: Therefore instead of that position, maintained by the orthodox, Bona opera sunt necessaria ad salutem; they held, Bona opera sunt perniciosa ad salutem. The occasion of this division was the book called, The Interim, which Charles the Emperor would have brought into the German 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 do) for their ground. Hence also Zanchy, because in his writings he had such passages as these, No man grown up can be saved, unless he give himself to good works, and walk in them. One Hinckellman, a Lutheran, doth endeavour, by a troop of nine Arguments, to tread down this assertion of Zanchy, which he calls Calviniana 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as a most manifest error. Now, if all this were spoken to take men off from that general secret sin of putting confidence in the good works we do, it were more tolerable: in which sense we applaud that of Luther, Cave non tantùm ab operibus malis, sed etiam à bonis; and that of another man, who said, he got more good by his sins, than his graces: But these speeches must be sound understood. We also love that of Austin, Omnia mandata tua facta deputantur, quando quicquid non fit, ignoscitur.  
3. That if the incommodious, yea and erroneous passages in Antinomian Authors, were used for some reasons hereafter to be mentioned, it were the more tolerable: but that seems not to be. There is more poison than can be concocted in them. But if this were their ground of many unsavoury assertions among them, merely their want of clear judgement to express themselves, so that they think more orthodoxly than they writ; then they might be excused, as being in a logomachy: but with this proviso, as Austin said of them that used the word fatum in a good sense, Mentem teneant, sed linguam corrigant. Now, that there may be injudiciousness in them, as a cause in part of some of their erroneous passages, will appear in that they frequently speak contradictions. This is a passage often, but very dangerous, that, Let a man be a wicked man, even as high as enmity itself can make a man, yet while he is thus wicked, and while he is no better, his sins are pardoned, and he justified. Yet now in other passages, Though a man be never so wicked, yet if he come to Christ, if he will take Christ, his sins are pardoned: now what a contradiction is here, To be wicked, and, while he is wicked, and, while he is no better, and yet to take Christ, unless they hold that, to take Christ, or, to come to him, be no good thing at all? But happily more of their contradictions hereafter. Their injudiciousness and weakness doth also appear, that when they have laid down such a truth as every godly Author hath, they have so many words about it, and do so commend it, as if they had found a Philosopher's Stone, or a Phoenix; as if the Reader should presently cry out and say, Behold a greater than Solomon is here: and yet it is but that which every Writer almost hath. Again, their injudiciousness doth appear, in that they mind only the promissory part of the Scripture, and do stand very little upon the mandatory part. There are five or six places, such as, Christ came to save that which was lost, and, He hath laid on him the iniquities of us all, etc. these are over and over again: But you shall seldom or never have these places urged, Make your calling and election sure. Work out your salvation with fear and trembling; whereas all Scripture is given for our use. Therefore, 1. If weakness were all the ground of this controversy, the danger were not so great. Or, 2dly. If the end and aim they had, were only to put men off from glorying in themselves, to deny the concurrence of works to the act of justification. If their desire were that men should not (as Michal) put an image in David's room, so neither that Christians should put their works in Christ's stead, thus far it might be excusable: but then their books, and their aims cannot be reconciled. Or, If, 3dly. their main drift was only to show that good works follow a justified person, and that they do not antecede; here would be no opposition: but they deny the presence of them in time. Or, 4. If the question were about preparatory works to justification and conversion; though (for my part) I think there are such, with those limitations that hereafter may be given to them: this also were not so heinous. Or fifthly, If the dispute were only upon the space of time between a profane man's profaneness, and his justification, or the quantity of his sorrow; these things were of another debate. I do acknowledge, that the Christian Religion was matter of offence to the Heathens, in that they taught, Though a man had never been so wicked, yet, if he did receive Christ, he should be pardoned; and how soon this may be done, it is as God pleaseth: but there is an alteration of the man's nature at that time also; and chrysostom, indeed, hath such a passage upon that Scripture, The righteous shall live by faith, Rom. 1. by faith only a man hath remission of sins; Now (saith he) this is a Paradox to humane reason, that he who was an adulterer, a murderer, should presently be accounted righteous, if he do believe in Christ: but this differs from the Antinomian assertion, as much as heaven from hell. So it's related in Ecclesiastical history of Constantine the Great, that when he had killed many of his kindred, yea and was counselled also to murder his own son, repenting of these heinous crimes, asked S●pater the Philosopher, who succeeded Plotinus in teaching him, Whether there could be any expiation for those sins? The Philosopher said, No: afterwards he asked the Christian Bishops, and they said, I, if he would believe in Christ. This was feigned, to make our Religion odious. Or sixthly, If it were to show, that there cannot be assurance before justification, or that to rely upon Christ for pardon, it is not necessary I should know whether I have truly repent, or no. This were also of another nature.  
Therefore let us see what prejudicial inferences they gather from this doctrine of Justification. I know, the proper place of handling this will come, when we speak of that point; but yet, to give some antidote against their errors, I will name some few: as, 1. Denying them to be a way to heaven. Thus one expressly 
1. Antinomians deny works to be a way to heaven.  (Sect. 4. on Christ being a way, pag. 68) It is a received conceit among many persons, that our obedience is a way to heaven; though it be not causa, yet its via ad regnuns: Now this he labours to confute. As for the speech itself, Divines have it out of Bernard, where, among other encomiums of good works, calling them spei quaedam seminaria, charitatis incentiva, occultae praedestinationis indicia, futurae felicitatis praesagia, he addeth this, via regni, non causa regnandi. Now it's true, that they are not a way in that sense that Christ is called a Way, no more than the spiritual life of a Christian is life in that sense Christ styleth himself Life; for, here he understands it of himself, as the causal and meritorious way: Therefore there are articles added to every one, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉▪ and that which followeth makes it clear, No man can come to the Father, but by me.  
Object. Oh, but say they, our works are our business and employment, not our way.  
Sol. I answer, when we call them a way, it's a metaphor, and such a metaphor, that the Scripture doth often delight in: Thus the ways of God are said to be perfect, Deut. 32. that is, the works of the Lord; and thus, when it's applied to men, it signifieth any religion, doctrine, manners, actions, or course of life, 2 Pet. 2. 2, 15, 21. Thus Mat. 7. 17. Straight is the way that leadeth to life: What is this, but the work of grace and godliness? for, as for that exposition of the same author, to understand it of Christ, as if he were straight, because men do account him so, and therefore would add works to him, this is to compel Scripture to go two miles with us, that would not go one; and then, by the opposition, not wickedness, but the Devil himself would be the broad way: So that good works are both our way, and employment also.  
2. Denying the presence of them in the person justified. And truly, 
2. They deny their presence in the person justified.  this is so dangerous, that I know not how charity can excuse it: It is such a naevus, that ubera charitatis cannot tegere, cover it. For, thus saith the Author expressly, speaking of that of Paul, Therefore we conclude, a man is justified without the deeds of the Law: Here (saith he) the Apostle doth not only exclude works from having any power operative to concur in the laying iniquities upon Christ, but excludes all manner of works men can do, to be present and existent in persons, when God doth justify them. And he instanceth of a general pardon for thiefs and traitors: New (saith he) one may take the pardon as well as another. And so speaking upon that place, [He hath received gifts for men, even for the rebellious,] he concludes, that therefore though a man do rebel actually from time to time, and do practise this rebellion; yet, though this person do thus, the hatefulness thereof is laid upon Christ: Is not this such a doctrine that must needs please an ungodly heart?  
3. In the denying of gaining any thing by them, even any peace of 
3. They deny any gain or loss to come by them.  heart, or losing it by them. Now this goeth contrary to Scripture. Thus page 139. (the Antinomian saith) The business we are to do is this, that though there be sins committed, yet there is no peace broken, because the breach of peace is satisfied in Christ; there is a reparation of the damage before the damage itself be committed. And again, page 241. If God come to reckon with believers for sin, either he must ask something of them, or not; If not, why are they troubled? If so, then God cannot bring a new reckoning. And in other places, If a man look to get any thing by his graces, he will have nothing but knocks. To answer these, it is true, if a man should look by any repentance or grace to have heaven and pardon, as a cause or merit, this were to be ignorant of the imperfection of all our graces, and the glorious greatness of those mercies: What proportion hath our faith, or godly sorrow with the everlasting favour and good pleasure of God? But first, the Scripture useth severe and sharp threaten even unto the godly, where they neglect to repent, or go on in sin, Rom. 8. 13. If ye live after the flesh, you shall die: especially consider that place, Hebr. 12. two last verses; the Apostle alludeth to that place, Deut. 4. and he saith, Our God (as well as the God of the Jews, who appeared in terror) is a consuming fire: Now then, if the Scripture threatens thus to men living in sin, if they do not, they may find comfort. 2dly. Our holy duties, they have a promise of pardon, and eternal life, though not because of their worth, yet to their presence: and therefore may the godly rejoice when they find them in themselves. Lastly, their ground is still upon that false bottom, Because our sins are laid upon Christ. What then? they may be laid upon us in other respects, to heal us, to know how bitter a thing it is to sin against God. God doth here, as Joseph with his brethren; he caused them to be bound, and to be put in goals, as if now they were to smart for their former impiety. 
4. They deny them to be signs of grace.   
4. In denying them to be signs and testimonies of grace, or Christ dwelling in us. And here, indeed, one would wonder to see how laborious an Author is to prove, that no inherent graces can be signs: and he selects three instances, Of universality of obedience, Of sincerity, and love to the brethren; concluding, that there are two evidences only; one revealing, which is the Spirit of God immediately; the other receiving, and that is faith. Now, in answering of this, we may show briefly how many weak props this discourse leaneth upon:  
1. In confounding the instrumental evidencing with the efficient; Not holy works (say they) but the Spirit: Here he doth oppose subordinate's; Subordinata non sunt opponenda, sed componenda. As if a man should say, We see not by the beams, or reflection of the Sun, but the Sun. Certainly, every man is in darkness, and, like Hagar, seethe not a fountain, though near her, till her eyes be opened. Thus it is in grace.  
2. We say, that a Christian, in time of darkness and temptation, is not to go by signs and marks, but obedientially to trust in God, as David calls upon his soul often; and the word is emphatical, signifying such a relying or holding, as a man doth that is falling down into a pit irrecoverably.  
3. His Arguments, against sincerity, and universality of obedience, go upon two false grounds: 1. That a man cannot distinguish himself from hypocrites; which is contrary to the Scriptures exhortation. 2. That there can be no assurance, but upon a full and complete work of godliness. All which are popish arguments.  
4. All those arguments will hold as strongly against faith; for, Are there not many believers for a season? Is there not a faith that endureth but for a while? May not then a man as soon know the sincerity of his heart, as the truth of his faith?  
Now let us consider their grounds for this strange assertion, 1. Because, Roman. 4. it is said, that God justifieth the ungodly. 
How God may be said to justify the ungodly.  Now this hath a twofold answer; 1. That which our Divines do commonly give, that these words are not to be understood in sensu composito, but diviso, and antecedenter: he that was ungodly, is, being justified, made godly also, though that godliness do not justify him. Therefore they compare these passages with those of making the blind to see, and deaf to hear; not that they did see while they were blind, but those that were blind do now see: and this is true and good. But I shall, secondly, answer it, with some learned men, that ungodly there is meant of such, who are so in their nature considered, having not an absolute righteousness, yet at the same time believers, even as Abraham was; and faith of the ungodly man is accounted to him for righteousness: So then, the subject of justification is a sinner, yet a believer. Now it's impossible that a man should be a believer, and his heart not purified, Acts 15. for whole Christ is the object of his faith, who is received not only to justify, but to sanctify. Hence Rom. 8. where the Apostle seemeth to make an exact order, he gins with Prescience (that is approbative and complacential, not in a Popish or Arminian sense) than Predestination, then Calling, than Justification, than Glorification. I will not trouble you with the dispute, in which place Sanctification is meant. Now the Antinomian, he goeth upon that as true, which the Papist would calumniate us with, That a profane ungodly man, if believing, shall be justified: We say this proposition supposeth an impossibility, that faith in Christ, or closing with him, can stand with those sins, because faith purifieth the heart; By faith Christ dwells in our hearts, Ephes. 3. Therefore those expressions of the Antinomians are very dangerous and unfound, and do indeed confirm the Papists calumnies.  
Another place they much stand upon is Rom. 5. Christ died for us while we were enemies, while we were sinners: But 1. if Christ died for us while we were enemies, why do they say, That if a man be as great an enemy as enmity itself can make a man, if he be willing to take Christ, and to close with Christ, he shall be pardoned? (which, we say, is a contradiction.) For, how can an enemy to Christ, close with Christ? So that this would prove more then in some places they would seem to allow.  
Besides, Christ died not only to justify, but save us: now will they hence therefore infer, that profane men, living so, and dying so, shall be saved? And indeed the grand principle, That Christ hath purchased and obtained all graces antecedently to us, in their sense, will as necessarily infer, that a drunkard, abiding a drunkard, shall be saved, as well as justified.  
But, thirdly, to answer that place, When it is said, that Christ died, and risen again for sinners, you must know, that this is the meritorious cause of our pardon and salvation; but, besides this cause, there are other causes instrumental, that go to the whole work of Justification: Therefore some Divines, as they speak of a conversion passive and active, so also of a justification active and passive; and passive they call, when not only the meritorious cause, but the instrument applying is also present, than the person is justified. Now these speak of Christ's death as an universal meritorious cause, without any application of Christ's death unto this or that soul: Therefore still you must carry this along with you, that, to that grand mercy of justification, something is requisite as the efficient, viz. the grace of God; something as meritorious, viz. Christ's suffering; something as instrumental, viz. faith; and one is as necessary as the other.  
I will but mention one place more, and that is Psal. 68 18. Thou hast received gifts even for the rebellious also, that the Lord God may dwell among them. Here they insist much upon this, yea for the rebellious; and saith the Author, pag. 411. Seeing God cannot dwell where iniquity is, Christ received gifts for men, that the Lord God might dwell among the rebellious; and by this means, God can dwell with those persons that do act the rebellion, because all the hatefulness of it is transacted from those persons upon the back of Christ. And, saith the same Author, pag. 412. The holy Ghost doth not say, that the Lord takes rebellious persons and gifts, and prepares them, and then will come and dwell with them; but even then, while they are rebellious, without any stop, the Lord Christ hath received gifts for them, that the Lord God may dwell among them. Is not all this strange? Though the same Author press sanctification never so much in other places, yet certainly such principles as these overgrow it.  
But as for this place, it will be the greatest adversary they have against them, if you consider the scope of it; for, there the Psalmist speaks of the fruit and power of Christ's ascension, as appeareth Ephes. 3. whereby gifts were given to men, that so even the most rebellious might be converted, and changed by this ministry; so that this is clean contrary: And besides, those words, with them, or, among them, are not in the Hebrew; therefore some refer them to the rebellious, and make Jah in the Hebrew, and Elohim, in the Vocative case, even for the rebellious (O Lord God) to inhabit; as that of Esay, The Wolf and the Lamb shall dwell together: Some refer it to God's dwelling, yet do not understand it of his dwelling with them, but of his dwelling, i. e. fixing the Ark after the enemies are subdued. But take our Edition to be the best (as it seemeth to be) yet it must be meant of rebels changed by his Spirit; for the Scripture useth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Gods dwelling in men, but still converted, Rom. 8. 11. Ephes. 3. 12. 2 Cor. 6. 16.   

LECTURE IU.  1 TIM. 1. 8, 9 Knowing the Law is good, if a man use it lawfully. 
HAving confuted some dangerous inferences, that the Antinomian makes from that precious doctrine of Justification, I shall at this time answer only one question, Upon what grounds are the people of God to be zealous of good works? for it's very hard to repent, to love, to be patiented, or fruitful, and not to do them for this end, to justify us: And, howsoever theologically, and in the notion, we may make a great difference between holiness as a way or means, and as a cause or merit of salvation; yet practically the heart doth not use to distinguish so subtilely. Therefore, although I intent not to handle the whole doctrine of Sanctification or new obedience at this time; yet I should leave my discourse imperfect, if I did not inform you, how good works of the Law done by grace, and justification of the Gospel, may stand together.  
First therefore take notice what we mean by good works. We take not good works strictly, for the works of charity or liberality; nor for any external actions of religion, which may be done where the heart is not cleansed; much less for the Popish good works of supererogation: but for the graces of God's Spirit in us, and the actions flowing from them: For, usually, with the Papists and Popish persons, good works are commonly called those superstitious and supererogant works, which God never commanded: or, if God hath commanded them, they mean them as external and sensible; such as, Coming to Church, and, Receiving of sacraments; not internal and spiritual faith, and a contrite spirit, which are the soul of all duties: and if these be not there, the outward duties are like clothes upon a dead man, that cannot warm him, because there is no life within. Therefore much is required even to the essence of a godly work, though it be not perfect in degrees: As, 1. It must be commanded 
Four things required to the essence of good works.  by God, 2. It must be wrought in us by the Spirit of God. All the unregenerate man's actions, his prayers, and services are sins. 3. It must flow from an inward principle of grace, or a supernatural being in the soul, whereby a man is a new creature. 4. The end must be God's glory. That which the most refined man can do, is but a glowworm, not a star: So that then only 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 ways about good works: Sometimes they speak very erroneously and grossly about them. Thus Islebius Agricola, the first Antimonian that was (who afterwards joined 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 think, 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 Christ's righteousness imputed to us, they hold all our works perfect, and so apply that place, Ephes. 1. Christ's cleansing his Church, so, as to be without spot or wrinkle, even pure in this life. They tell us not only of a righteousness or justification by imputation, but also Saintship and holiness by this obedience of Christ: And hence it is, that God seethe no sin in believers. This is a dangerous position: and, although they have Similes to illustrate, and distinctions to qualify it; yet, when I speak of imputed righteousness, there will be the proper place to show the dangerous falsehood of them.  
3. You must, in the discourse you shall hear concerning the necessity of good works, carefully distinguish between these two Propositions: Good works are necessary to believers, 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 holiness 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 deal with adversaries, especially Papists, in disputation; for than we ought to speak exactly: Therefore the Fathers would not use the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Virgin Mary, lest they should seem to yield to Nestorius, who denied her to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The second case is in our sermons and exhortations to people; for, what common hearer is there, that, upon such a speech, doth not conceive that they are so necessary, as that they immediately work our justification? The former proposition holds them offices and duties in the persons justified; the other, as conditions effecting justification.  
4. These good works ought to be done, or are necessary upon 
Good works are necessary:  these grounds: 1. They are the fruit and end of Christ's death, Titus 
1. Because they are the fruit of Christ's death.  2. 14. It's a full place: The Apostle there showeth, that the whole fruit and benefit of Christ's 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 purify from: If Christ redeem thee from the guilt of thy lusts, he will purify thee from the noisomeness of them. And mark a twofold end of this purification, that we may be a peculiar people: This word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Hierome saith, he sought for among humane authors, and could not find it: therefore some think the Seventy feigned this, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. It answers to the Hebrew word Begullah, and signifieth that which is precious and excellent, got also with much labour: so that this holiness, this repentance of thine, it cost Christ dear. And the other effect is, zealous of good works. 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 only preach of Christ and grace; These things speak, (saith he) and exhort: And Calvine thinketh the last words [Let no man despise thee] spoken to the people: they are for the most part of delicate ears, and cannot abide plain words of mortification.  
2. There is some kind of analogical relation between them and 
2. Because (in respect of evil works) there is some Analogy between heaven and them.  heaven, comparatively with evil works. So those places, where it's said, If we confess our sins, he is not only faithful, but also just, to forgive us our iniquities: So 2 Tim. 4. 8. a Crown of righteousness, which the righteous Judge, etc. These words do not imply any condignity, or efficiency in the good things we do; but an ordinability of them to eternal life: so that evil and wicked works, they cannot be ordained to everlasting life, but these may. Hence some Divines say, That though godliness be not meritorious, nor causal 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 causal of that preferment, but a mere 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 holiness 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. Godliness hath 
3. Because a promise is made unto them.  the promises (as it's in the Original;) because there are many promises scattered up and down in the Word of God: so that to every godly action thou dost, there is a promise of eternal life. And hereby, though God be not a debtor to thee, yet he is to himself, and to his own faithfulness; Reddis debita, nulli debens, cried Austin: 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, only the Lord is faithful; therefore, saith David, I will mention thy righteousness, i. e. faithfulness, only: and then mark what the Apostle saith of this speech, This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation. This made them labour, and suffer shame. If you ask, How then is not the Gospel a covenant of works? That in brief shall be answered afterwards.  
4. They are testimonies whereby our election is made sure. 2 Pet. 
4. Because testimonies assuring us of our election.  1. ver. 10. Make your calling and election sure. The Vulgar Translator interprets those words [per bona opera,] and complaineth of Luther, as putting this out of the Text, because it made against him, but it's no part of Scripture. Now observe the emphasis of the Apostle, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 first they must be very diligent, and the rather (which is spoken ex abundanti) [to make their calling and election sure] What God doth in time, or what he hath decreed from eternity to us in love: [to make sure, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.] Estius and other Papists strive for firm, and not sure; and so indeed the word is sometimes used: but here the Apostle speaketh not of what it is in itself, but what it is to us, and the certainty thereof. And observe the Apostles motives for making our election sure; 1. Ye shall never fail: the word is used sometimes of grievous, and sometimes of lesser sins; but here he meaneth such a failing, that a man shall not recover again. 2. An entrance shall be abundantly ministered into heaven. It's true, these are not testimonies without the Spirit of God.  
5. They are a condition, without which a man cannot be saved. So 
5. Because we cannot be saved without them.  that although a man cannot by the presence of them gather a cause of his salvation; yet by the absence of them he may conclude his damnation: so that it is an inexcusable speech of the Antinomian, Good works do not profit us, nor bade hinder us; thus Islebius. Now the Scripture, how full is it to the contrary? Rom. 8. 13. If ye live after the flesh, ye shall die. So, Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. Such places are so frequent, that its a wonder an Antinomian can pass them all over, and always speak of those places which declare God's grace to us, but not our duty to him. Without holiness no man can see God: now, by the Antinomians argument, as a man may be justified, while he is wicked, and doth abide so; so also he may be glorified and saved: for this is their principle, that, Christ hath purchased justification, glory, and salvation for us, even though sinners and enemies.  
6. They are in their own nature a defence against sin and corruption. 
6. Because they are a defence against sin.  If we do but consider the nature of these graces, though imperfect, yet that will plead for the necessity of them. Ephes. 6. 14, 16. There you have some graces a shield, and some a breastplate: now every soldier knoweth the necessity of these in time of war. It's true, the Apostle speaks of the might of the Lord, and prayer must be joined to these; but yet the principal doth not oppose the instrumental. Hence Rom. 13. they are called the weapons of the light. It's Luther's observation, He doth not call the works of darkness, the weapons of darkness; but good works he doth call weapons, quia bonis operibus debemus uti tanquam armis to resist Satan: and he calls them the weapons of light, because they are from God, the fountain of light; and because they are, according to Scripture, the true light; although Drusius thinketh light is here used for victory, as Jud. 5. 31. Psal. 132. 17, 18. and so the word is used of Homer: and Marcellinus speaks of an ancient custom, when, at supper time, the children brought in the candles, they cried, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
7. They are necessary by a natural connexion with faith, and the 
7. Because necessary by a natural connexion with faith, and the Spirit of God.  Spirit of God: Hence it's called faith which worketh by love. The Papist Lorinus thinketh we speak a contradiction, because sometimes we say, faith only justifieth; sometimes, that unless our faith be working, it cannot justify us: but here is no contradiction; for it's only thus: Faith, which is a living faith, doth justify, though not as it doth live; for faith hath two notable acts: 1. To apprehend and lay hold upon Christ, and thus it justifieth. 2. To purify and cleanse the heart, and to stir up other graces, and thus it doth not: And thus Paul and James may be reconciled; for James brings that very passage to prove Abraham was not justified by faith alone, which Paul brings to prove he was; because one intends to show that his faith was a working faith; and the other, that that alone did concur to justify: and thus in this sense some learned men say, Good works are necessary to preserve a man in the state of justification, although they do not immediately concur to that act: as in a man, although his shoulders and breast do not concur immediately to the act of seeing; yet if a man's eye and head were not knit to those parts, he could not see: and so, though the fire do not burn as it is light, yet it could not burn unless it were so; for it supposeth then the subject would be destroyed. It's a saying of John Husse, Vbi bona opera non apparent ad extra, ibi fides non est ad intra: Therefore, as Christ, while he remained the second Person, was invisible, but when he was incarnated, than he became visible; so must thy faith be incarnated into works, and it must become flesh as it were.  
8. They are necessary by debt and obligation: So that God by his 
8 By debt and obligation.  sovereignty might have commanded all obedience from man, though he should give him no reward of eternal life: Therefore David did well argue, that we cannot merit at God's hand, because the more good we are enabled to do, we are the more beholding to God. Hence it is, that we are his servants, Servus non est persona, sed res: and we are more servants to God, than the merest slave can be to man; for, we have our being and power to work from him: And this obligation is so perpetual and necessary, that no covenant of grace can abolish it; for, gratia non destruit naturam.  
9 By command of God. This is the will of God, your sanctification: 
9 By command of God. 1 Thes. 43. Rom. 12. 2.  So that you may prove what is that good and acceptable will of God. And thus the Law of God still remaineth as a rule and directory: And thus Paul professed he delighted in the Law of God in his inward man; and that place, Rom. 12. presseth our renovation, comparing us to a sacrifice, implying we are consecrated, and set apart to him (a dog or a swine might not be offered to God:) And the word [Offer] doth imply our readiness and alacrity. He also addeth many epithets to the will of God, that so we may be moved to rejoice in it. There is therefore not disputing or arguing against the will of God. If our Saviour, Mat. 5. saith, He shall be least in the Kingdom of heaven, that breaketh the least commandment; how much more inexcusable is the Antinomian, who teacheth, the abolition of all of them?  
10. They are necessary by way of comfort to ourselves. And this 
10. By way of comfort to ourselves.  opposeth many Antinomian passages, who forbidden us to take any peace by our holiness. Now it's true, to take them so as to put confidence in them, to take comfort from them, as a cause, that cannot be; for, who can look upon any thing he doth with that boldness? It was a desperate speech of Panigarola a Papist (as Rivet relates) who called it folly to put confidence only in Christ's blood. We know no godly man satisfieth his own heart in any thing he doth, much less can he the will of God. We cannot at the same time say, Lord, forgive me, and, Pay me what thou owest; yet these good works, though imperfect, may be a great comfort unto us, as the testimony of God's eternal love to us. Thus did Hezekiah, 2 Kings 20. 3. Hezekiah is not there a proud Pharisee, but a thankful acknowledger of what is in him: and some consider, that this temptation might fall upon Hezekiah, that when he had laboured to demolish all those superstitions, and now became dangerously sick that he had not done well; therefore he comforts himself in his heart, that he did those things with, not that he meant an absolute perfect heart, but sincere, and comparatively perfect. Hence it's observed, the word I have walked, is in Hiphil, I have made myself to walk; implying the dulness, and sluggishness, and averseness he found in his heart to that duty: so that prayer being, as one calls it well, Speculum animi, the soul's glass, you may gather what was a comfort to him. Thus Paul, 2 Tim. 4. I have fought a good fight, etc. It is true, those words, A crown of righteousness, The just Judge, and Render, do not prove any merits in Paul, as the Papists plead; but yet Paul declareth this, to keep up his heart against all discouragements. We are not therefore to take comfort from them, so as to rest in them; but so as to praise God thereby. It's a good way, nesciendo seire, that so we may praise God for them; and, sciendo nescire, that so we may be humble in ourselves.  
11. They are necessary in respect of God, both in that he is hereby 
11. Because God is glorified by them.  pleased, and also glorified. When we say, They are necessary in respect of God, we understand it declaratively, to set forth his glory; for, when God is said to be the end of all our actions and goodness, he is not finis indigentiae, an end that needs them; but finis assimilationis, an end that perfects those things, in making them like him: Now two ways they relate to God; 1. God is hereby pleased, so the Apostle, Hebr. 13. He is well pleased: So that as Leah, though bleareyed, yet, when she was fruitful in children, said, Now my husband will love me; so may Faith say, Now God will love me, when it abounds in the fruits of righteousness; for, our godly actions please God, though imperfect; only the ground is, because our persons were first reconciled with God. Secondly, they refer to God, so as to glorify him; as his name is blasphemed, when we walk in all wickedness. It's true, it's God's grace to account of this as his glory, seeing it's so defective.  
12. They are necessary in regard of others. Matth. 5. 17. Let your 
12. Because others are benefited thereby.  light shine before men. He doth not there encourage vainglory, but he propounds the true end of our visible holiness; for godliness, being light, it ought not to be under a bushel. Hence, both in the Tabernacle and Temple, the light was placed in the midst; and it ought to extend to others, that hereby they may glorify God in heaven: As, when we see an excellent picture, we do not praise that so much, as the Artificer who made it. We ought so to walk, that men should glorify God, who hath made us so heavenly, so humble, so mortified. Hierome said of Austin, that he did diligere Christum habitantem in Augustino; so ought we to walk, that others may love Christ dwelling in us. 1 Pet. 3. 1. it's an exhortation to wives, so to walk, that their husbands may be won to the Lord. Thou prayest for thy husband in a carnal condition, thou wouldst have him go hear such a Minister, and such Sermons; see that thy life also may convert him. The Apostle by the phrase, without the word, meaneth the public preaching; so that the wife's life may preach to him all the day: and that same phrase, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, doth imply, 1. the great prize that every man's soul is worth; 2. the delight that they ought to take in converting of others, even the same that merchants do in their trade.  
13. Holiness and godliness inherent is the end of our faith and justification: 
13. Because godliness inherent is the end of our faith and justification.  and that is the meaning of our Divines, who say, Charity, or Love of God is the end of faith, because God hath appointed this way of justification by faith, till he hath brought us into eternal glory, and there we have perfect inherent holiness, though even then the glory and honour of all that shall be given to Christ. Now, indeed, it hath pleased God to take another way for our acceptation, then shall be hereafter; not but that God might, if he had pleased, have given us such a measure of grace inherent, whereby we might have obtained eternal life, being without sin, and conformable to his will: but this way hath pleased his wisdom, that so Christ and Grace may be exalted, and we for our sins debased in ourselves. Therefore good is that of Anselme, Terret me tota vita mea; nam apparet mihi aut peccatum, aut tota sterilitas: Only this may make for the excellency of Sanctification, that therefore is Christ, and Grace, and Justification, and all, that at last we may be made perfectly holy.  
Now some Divines have gone further, but I cannot go along with them: As, 1. Those that do give them causality and efficiency of our justification and salvation: And, if they should use the word Efficiency in a large sense, it might be true, but dangerous: but otherwise, to take Efficient strictly, they cannot; for so was the covenant of works at first. Adam's obedience would not have meritoriously, but efficiently procured his happiness. Hence, by the Apostle, faith is not included as works are rejected, for they are rejected as efficients of our salvation; but faith is included as the instrumental and passive receiving of it.  
2. Some learned men have said, Though good works do not merit eternal life, for that is wholly purchased by Christ's death; yet, say they, accidental degrees of glory our godliness may obtain: but that is not safe; for, first it's questioned by some, whether there be such degrees at all, or no; but grant it, yet even that must be of grace as well as others.  
Lastly, some hold our temporal mercies to come to us by a covenant of works, but not our spiritual: this also is hard; for, we may have these good things either by Christ, or else by the forbearance of God, who doth not take the advantage against us for our sins.  
I shall say no more of this, then by answering a main doubt.  
Object. If good works be still necessarily requisite, why then is not the covenant of grace still a covenant of works: not as at first in Adam, when they were to be perfect and entire; but by grace, pardoning the imperfection of them, in which sense the Arminians affirm it?  
Answ. Although good works be requisite in the man justified or saved, yet it's not a covenant of works, but faith: and the reason is, because faith only is the instrument that receiveth justification and eternal life; and good works are to qualify the subject believing, but not the instrument to receive the covenant: so that faith only is the condition that doth receive the covenant, but yet that a man believe, is required the change of the whole man; and that faith only hath such a receiving nature, shall be proved hereafter (God willing.)  
Use. Of exhortation, to take heed, you turn not the grace of God into licentiousness: suspect all doctrines that teach comfort, but not duty; labour indeed to be a spiritual Anatomist, dividing between having godliness, and trusting in it: but take heed of separating Sanctification from Justification. Be not a Pharisee, nor yet a Publican: so that I shall exhort thee at this time, not against the Antinomianism in thy judgement only, but in thine heart also. As Luther said, Every man hath a Pope in his belly; so every man hath an Antinomian. Paul found his flesh rebelling against the Law of God, reconcile the Law and the Gospel, Justification and Holiness. Fellow holiness as earnestly, as if thou hadst nothing to help thee but that; and yet rely upon Christ's merits as fully, as if thou hadst no holiness at all. And what though thy intent be only to set up Christ and Grace, yet a corrupted opinion may soon corrupt a man's life; as rheum, falling from the head, doth putrefy the lungs, and other vital parts.   

LECTURE V.  1 TIM. 1. 9 Knowing this, that the Law is not made for a righteous man. 
WE are at this time to demolish one of the strongest holds that the Adversary hath: For, it may be supposed, that the eighth verse cannot be so much against them, as the ninth is for them: Therefore Austin observeth well, The Apostle (saith he) joining two things, as it were contrary, together, doth monere & movere, both admonish and provoke the Reader to find out the true answer to this question, how both of them can be true. We must therefore say to these places, as Moses did to the two Israelites fight, Why fall you out, seeing you are brethren? Austin improveth the objection thus, If the Law be good, when used lawfully, and none but the righteous man can use it lawfully, how then should it not be but to him, who only can make the true use of it? Therefore, for the better understanding of these words, let us consider, who they are that are said to know: and secondly, what is said to be known.  
The subject knowing is here in this Verse in the singular number, in the Verse before in the plural: it's therefore doubted, whether this be affirmed of the same persons or no. Some Expositors think those in the eighth, and these in the ninth, are the same, and that the Apostle doth change the number from the plural to the singular; which is very frequent in Scripture: as, Galat. 6. 1. Others (as Salmeron) make a mystical reason in the changing, Because (saith he) there are but few that know the Law is not made for the righteous, therefore he speaketh in the singular number. There is a second kind of Interpreters, and they do not make this spoken of the same, but understand this word, as a qualification of him that doth rightly use the Law: Thus, The Law is good, if a man use it lawfully; and he useth it lawfully, that knoweth it's not made for the righteous. Which of these interpretations you take is not much material: only this is good to observe, that the Apostle, using these words, We know, and Knowing, doth imply, what understanding all Christians ought to have in the nature of the Law.  
Secondly, let us consider, what Law he here speaks of. Some have understood it of the ceremonial Law, because of Christ's death that was to be abolished, and because all the ceremonies of the Law were convictions of sins, and hand-writings against those that used them: But this cannot be; for circumcision was commanded to Abraham a righteous man, and so to all the godly under the Old Testament: and the persons, who are opposed to the righteous man are such, who transgress the Moral Law. Others, that do understand it of the Moral Law, apply it to the repetition and renovation of it by Moses: for, the Law being at first made to Adam upon his fall, wickedness by degrees did arise to such an height, that the Law was added because of transgressions, as Paul speaketh. But we may understand it of the Moral Law generally; only take notice of this, that the Apostle doth not here undertake a theological handling of the use of the Law, (for that he doth in other places) but he brings it in as a general sentence to be accommodated to his particular meaning concerning the righteous man here. We must not interpret it of one absolutely righteous, but one that is so quoad conatum and desiderium; for the people of God are called righteous, because of the righteousness that is in them, although they be not justified by it. The Antinomian and Papist do both concur in this error, though upon different grounds, that our righteousness and works are perfect, and therefore do apply those places; A people without spot or wrinkle, etc. to the people of God in this life, and that not only in justification, but in sanctification also. As (saith the Antinomian) in a dark dungeon, when the door is opened, and the sun-light come in, though that be dark in itself, yet it is made all light by the sun: Or, As water in a red glass, though that be not red, yet, by reason of the glass, it looks all red: so though we be filthy in ourselves, yet all that God seethe in us looks as Christ's, not only in justification, but sanctification. This is to be confuted hereafter.  
Thirdly, let us take notice how the Antinomian explaineth this place, and what he means by this Text. The old Antinomian, Islebius Agricola, states the question thus: Whether the Law be to a righteous man as a teacher, ruler, commander, and requirer of obedience actively: Or, Whether the righteous man doth indeed the works of the Law, but that is passiuè; the Law is wrought by him, but the Law doth not work on him. So then, the question is not, Whether the things of the Law be done, (for they say the righteous man is active to the Law, and not that to him) but, Whether, when these things are done, they are done by a godly man, admonished, instructed, and commanded by the Law of God: And this they deny. As for the later Antinomian, he speaketh very uncertainly, and inconsistently: Sometimes he grants the Law is a rule, but very hardly and seldom; then presently kicketh all down again: For, saith he, it cannot be conceived that it should rule, but also it should reign; and therefore think it impossible, that one act of the Law should be without the other. The damnatory power of the Law is inseparable from it: Can you put your conscience under the mandatory power, and yet keep it from the damnatory? (Assertion of Grace page 33. Again, the same Author, page 31.) If it be true that the Law cannot condemn, it is no more a Law, saith Luther. I say not that you have dealt as uncourteously with the Law, as did that King with David's servants, who cut off their garments by the midst: but you have done worse, for even, Joab-like, under friendly words, you have destroyed the life and soul of the Law. You can as well take your Appendices from the Law, as you term them, and yet let it remain a true law; as you can take the brains and heart of a man, and yet leave him a man still. By this it appeareth, that if the Law doth not curse a man, neither can it command a man, according to their opinion. The same Author again, pag. 5. He dare not trust a believer to walk without his keeper [the Law,] as if he judged no otherwise of him then of a malefactor in Newgate, who would kill and rob if his Jailor were not with him: Thus they are only kept within the compass of the Law, but are not keepers of it. Yet, at another time, the same Author calls it a slander, to say, that they deny the Law. Now, who can reconcile these contradictions? Nor is this shuffling and uncertainty any new thing; for the old and first Antinomian did many times promise amendment, and yet afterwards fell to his error again; after that he condemned his error, and recanted his error in a public Auditory, and printed his revocation, yet, when Luther was dead, he relapsed into that error: so hard a thing is it to get poison out, when it's once swallowed down.  
In the fourth place we come to lay down those things that may clear the meaning of the Apostle: and first know, that humane Authors, who yet have acknowledged the help of precepts, do speak thus much of a righteous, man, only to show this, that he doth that which is righteous, for love of righteousness, not for fear of punishment: As Aquinas said of his love to God, Amorett, quia amo; & amo, ut amem. Thus Seneca, Ad Legem esse bonum exiguum est: Its a poor small thing to be good only according to the law. And so Aristotle, lib. 3. Polit. cap. 9 showeth how a righteous man would be good, though there were no law; as they say of a Magistrate, he ought to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a living law. Thus Socrates said of the Civil Law, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And Plato Polit. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, It is not fit to command or make laws for those that are good. These Say are not altogether true, yet they have some kind of truth in them. Hence it was that Antisthenes said, A wise man was not bound by any laws: And Demonax told a Lawyer, that all their laws would come to nothing; for good men did not need them, and wicked men would not be the better for them. And as the Heathens have said thus, so the Fathers: Hierome, What needs the Law say to a righteous man, Thou shalt not kill, to whom it's not permitted to be angry? Yet we see David, though a righteous man, needed this precept. But especially chrysostom, even from these words, doth wonderfully hyperbolise, A righteous man needs not the Law, no not teaching or admonishing; yea, he disdains to be warned by it, he doth not wait or stay to learn of it. As therefore a Musician or Grammarian, that hath these arts within him, scorns the Grammar, or to go to look to the rules; so doth a righteous man. Now these are but hyperboles; for what godly man is there, that needs not the Word as a light, that needs it not as a goad? Indeed, in heaven the godly shall not need the Law; no more shall they the Gospel, or the whole word of God.  
2. There are three interpretations which come very near one another, and all do well help to the clearing of the Apostle. 1. Some learned men lay an emphasis in the word [Made] 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. It is not made to a godly man as a burden, he hath a love and a delight in it; Lex est posita, sed non imposita: He doth not say, Justi 
The Law to a godly man is a delight, not a burden.  non habent legem, aut sunt sine lege; sed non imminet ●is tanquam flagellum, it's not like a whip to them. The wicked wish there were no Law, and cry out as he, Utinam hoc esset non peccare! The righteous man is rather in the Law, then under it. It's true, the word [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] in the general doth signify no more than to lie, or be, or is; therefore, in Athenaus, Vlpianus was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because of his frequent questions, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; where such or such a word might be found: but yet sometimes it signifieth to be laid to a thing, as to destroy it; so Matth. 3. 10. The axe is laid to the root of the tree, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the original. Now this is to be understood so fare forth as he is righteous, otherwise the things of God are many times a burden to a godly man. Let us not oppose then the works of the Law, and the works of the Spirit, Grace and Gospel; for the same actions are the works of the Law ratione objecti, and the works of the Spirit ratione efficientis. Indeed the Scripture opposeth Grace and Works, and Faith and Works, but in a clean other sense then the Antinomian, in time is to be showed.  
The second interpretation is of the damnatory and cursing part 
The godly are under the desert of the curse, but not the actual condemnation of the Law.  of the Law: The Law is not made to the believer so, as he should abide under the cursing, and condemning power of it: and in this sense we are frequently denied to be under the Law. It's true, the godly are under the desert of the curse of the Law, but not the actual curse, and condemnation: Nor doth it therefore follow, that there is no Law, because it doth not curse; for it's a good rule in Divinity, à remotione actus secund● in subjecto impediti, non valet argumentum ad remotionem actûs primi; from the removal of an act or operation, the argument doth not hold to the removing of the thing itself: as it did not follow, The fire did not burn the three Worthies, therefore there was no fire; God did hinder the act: And if that could be in natural agents, which work naturally, how much rather in moral causes, such as the Law is of condemnation, which works according to the appointment of God? So then the Law is not to curse or condemn the righteous man.  
The last interpretation is, that the Law was not made because 
The Law, in the restraining power thereof, was not made for the righteous, but unrighteous.  of righteous men, but unrighteous. Had Adam continued in innocency, there had not been such a solemn declaration of Moses his Law; for it had been graven in their hearts: Therefore, though God gave a positive law to Adam, for the try all of his obedience, and to show his homage; yet he did not give the Moral Law to him by outward prescript, though it was given to him in another sense: and so the phrase shall be like that Proverb, E malis moribus bonae leges nascuntur, Good laws arise from evil manners: And certainly laws, in the restraining and changing power of them upon the lives of men, are not for such who are already holy, but those that need to be made holy; and so it may be like that of our Saviour in a sense which some explain it in, I come not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. By repentance they mean conversion, and by the righteous, not Pharisees, but such as are already converted.  
Now that these interpretations, much agreeing in one, may the better be assented to, consider some parallel places of Scripture: Galat. 5. 23. speaking of the fruits of the spirit, Against such there is no law; The Law was not made to these, to condemn them, or accuse them: so that what is said of the actions and graces of the godly, may be applied to the godly themselves. You may take another parallel, Rom. 13. 3. Rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil: Wouldst thou not be afraid of them? do no evil. And thus the Apostle, to show how the grace of love was wrought in the Thessalonians hearts, I need not (saith he) writ to you to love, for you have been taught of God to do this: His very saying, I need not write, was a writing; so that these expressions do hold forth no more, then that the godly, so fare as they are regenerate, do delight in the Law of God, and it is not a terror to them. And if because the godly have an ingenuous free spirit to do what is good, he need not the Law directing or regulating; it would follow as well, he needed not the whole Scripture, he needed not the Gospel that calls upon him to believe, because faith is implanted in his heart. This rock cannot be avoided: And therefore upon this ground, because the godly are made holy in themselves, the Swencfeldians did deny the whole Scripture to be needful to a man that hath the Spirit: And that which the Antinomian doth limit to the Law, It is a kill letter, they apply to the whole Scripture; and I cannot see how they can escape this argument. Hence chrysostom that spoke so hyperbolically about the Law, speaks as high about the Scriptures themselves, We ought to have the word of God engraven in our hearts so, that there should be no need of Scripture: And Austin speaks of some, that had attained to such holiness, that they lived without a Bible. Now who doth not see what a damnable and dangerous position this would be?  
That the Law must needs have a directive, regulating, and informing power over a godly man, will appear in these two particulars:  
1. We cannot discern the true worship of God from superstition 
1. The true worship of God cannot be discerned from false, but by the Law.  and idolatry, but by the first and second Commandment. It is true, many places in Scripture speak against false worship, but to know when it is a false worship, the second Commandment is a special director. How do the orthodox Writers prove Images unlawful? how do they prove that the setting up any part or means of worship which the Lord hath not commanded is unlawful, but by the second Commandment? And, certainly, the want of exact knowledge in the latitude of this Commandment brought in all idolatry and superstition. And we shall show you (God willing, in time) that the Decalogue is not only Moses his ten Commandments, but it's Christ's ten Commandments, and the Apostles ten Commandments as well as his.  
2. Another instance at this time is, in comparing the depth of 
2. The depth of sin cannot be discovered without it.  the Law, and the depth of our sin together. There is a great deal more spiritual excellency and holiness commanded in the Law of God, the Decalogue, than we can reach unto: Therefore we are to study into it more and more: Open mine eyes, that I may understand the wonderful things of thy Law; thus David prayeth, though godly, and his eyes were in a great measure opened by the Spirit of God. And as there is a depth in the Law, so a depth in our original and native sin: There is a great deal more filth in us, than we can or do discover, Psal. 19 Who can understand his errors? Cleanse me from secret sins. Therefore, there being such a world of filth in thy carnal heart, what need is there of the spiritual and holy Law, to make thee see thyself thus polluted and abominable? Certainly, a godly man groweth partly by discovering that pride, that deadness, that filth in his soul he never thought of, or was acquainted with.  
The practical use that is to be made of this Scripture explained, is, to pray and labour for such a free heavenly heart, that the Law of God, and all the precepts of it may not be a terror to you, but sweetness and delight. Oh how I love thy Law! cryeth David; he could not express it. And again, My soul breaketh in the longing after thy judgements. In another place, he and Job do account of them above their necessary food; you do not hale and drag an hungry or thirsty man to his bread and water: I do not speak this, but that it's lawful to eye the reward, as Moses and Christ did; yea, and to fear God: for who can think that the Scripture, using these motives, would stir up in us sinful and unlawful affections? but yet such aught to be the filial and sonlike affections to God and his will, that we ought to love and delight in his Commandments, because they are his; as the poor son loveth his father, though he hath no lordship or rich inheritance to give him.  
There is this difference between a free and violent motion: a free motion is that which is done for its own self sake; a violent is that which cometh from an outward principle, the patiented helping it not forward at all: Let not, to pray, to believe, to love God, be violent motions in you. Where faith worketh by love, this maketh all duties relish, this overcometh all difficulties. The Lacedæmonians, when they went to war, did sacrifice to Love, because love only could make hardship, and wounds, and death itself easy. Do 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 die, and suffer for thee, was not a burden or terror to him. How doth he witness this by crying out, With desire I have desired to drink of this cup? Think with thyself, If Christ had been as unwilling to die for me, as I to pray to him, to be patiented, to be holy, what had become of my soul? If Christ therefore said of that Law, to be a Mediator for thee, Lo, I come to do 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 do for him? Thou hast not so much to part with for him, as he for thee. What is thy life and wealth to the glory of his Godhead, which was laid aside for a while? And then secondly, consider how that men love lusts for lust's sake, they love the world because of the world. Now evil is not so much evil, 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 carnal heart, can love his sin, though it cost him hell, because of the sweetness 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 show 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 several 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 ways: 1. As it is a mere law; and secondly, As it was a covenant of works made with Adam: And then in time I shall speak of the Moral Law given by Moses, which is the proper subject of these controversies.  
The Text I have read is a golden Mine, and deserveth diligent digging and searching into: Therefore, for the better understanding of these words, let us answer these Questions:  
1. Who are meant by the Gentiles here? It is ordinarily known, 
Who meant by Gentiles.  that the Jews did call all those Gentiles that were not Jew's, by way of contempt; as the Greeks and Romans called all other nations Barbarians. Hence sometimes in the Scripture the word is applied to wicked men, though Jew's: as, Psal. 2. Why do the heathen rage? It may be interpreted of the Pharisees resisting Christ. Indeed, the Jews will not confess, that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gentes, is any where applied 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 Laws of Moses, nor did live by them. Therefore Gal. 2. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉▪ to live like a Gentile, is, not to observe the Laws 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 mankind, 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 deal thus with the Gentile, because no law was delivered unto him, as unto the the Jew, the Apostle answereth that objection in this place, But grant it be understood of such Gentiles, than there is a greater question whether it be meant of the Gentiles abiding so, or the Gentiles converted and turned believers; for, that the Apostle speaks of such, most of the Latin Interpreters, both ancient and modern, do affirm: and so the Greek Father, chrysostom, and Estius, a learned Papist, do think there are so many arguments for it, that it's certain. I confess, 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 dangerons exposition and a sound one. The poisonous 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 attain to salvation; and this they hold the Heathens by the law and help of nature did sufficiently: But this is to overthrow the doctrine of Grace and Christ. Therefore the said interpretation is of the Gentiles indeed, but yet to understand the law written in their hearts, only of those relics of natural reason and conscience which was in the Heathens, as is to be proved anon.  
The 2d. Question is easily answered, How they are said to be 
How the Gentiles are said to be without a law.  without a law; to wit, without a written law, as the Jews 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 do the things of 
How said to do the things of the law by nature.  the law, and that by nature. To do the things of the law is not meant universally of all the Heathens, for the Apostle shown how most of them lived in the Chapter before: nor secondly universally in regard of the matter contained in the law, but some external acts, as Aristides and Socrates, with others. And here it's disputed, Whether a mere Heathen can do any work morally good? But we answer, No: for every action ought to have a supernatural end, viz. the glory of God, which they did not aim at; therefore we do refuse that distinction of a moral good, and theological, because every moral good aught to be theological: 
The distinction of Moral and Theological good rejected.  they may do that good matter of the law, though not well. And as for the manner how, by nature; those Interpreters that understand this Text of Gentiles believers, 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 showed to be improbable. By nature therefore we may understand that natural 
What is here meant by Nature.  light of conscience, whereby they judged and performed some external acts, though these were done by the help of God.  
The next Question is, How this Law is said to be written in their hearts? You must not, with Austin, compare this place with that gracious promise in Jeremy, of God writing his law in the hearts of his people. There is therefore a twofold writing in the 
A twofold writing of the Law in men's hearts, and which here meant.  hearts of men; the first, of knowledge and judgement, whereby they apprehend what is good and bad: the second is in the will and affections, by giving a propensity and delight, with some measure of strength, to do this upon good grounds. This later is spoken of by the Prophet in the covenant of Grace, and the former is to be understood here, as will appear, if you compare this with Chapt. 1. 19  
The last Question is, How they declare this Law written in their 
The Law written in men's hearts two ways.  hearts? And that is first externally, two ways: 1. By making good and wholesome laws to govern men by; and, 2dly. By their practice, at least of some of them, according to those laws: And secondly internally, by their consciences, in the comfort or fear they had there.  
Observat. There is a law of Nature written in men's hearts. And if this be not abolished, but that a believer is bound to follow the direction and obligation of it, how can the Antinomian think that the Moral Law, in respect of the mandatory power of it, ceaseth? Now, because I intent a methodical Tractate of the several kinds of God's Law, you might expect I should say much about Laws in general; but because many have written large Volumes, especially the Schoolmen, and it cannot be denied but that good rational matter is delivered by them; yet, because it would not be so pertinent to my scope, I forbear. I will not therefore examine the Etymology of the words that signify a Law; whether Lex in the Latin come of legendo, because it was written to be read (though that be not always necessary;) or of ligando, because a law binds to obedience; or of deligendo, because it selects some precepts: nor concerning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greek, whether it come of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is improbable; or of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because it destributes to every one that which is right: neither the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which some make to come of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to instruct and teach; others of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that signifieth a disposition, or compiling of things together, as laws use to be. In the next place, I will not trouble you with the desinition of a law, whether it be an act, or habit, or the soul itself: only this is good to take notice of, against a fundamental error of the Antinomian, about a law in general; for they conceive it impossible but that the damning act of a law must be where the commanding act of a law is, and this is frequently urged (as I shown the last time:) Therefore observe, that there are only two things go to the essence of a law, (I speak not of external causes) and that is, first, Direction, secondly, Obligation: 1. Direction, therefore a law is a rule; hence the Law of God is compared to a light. And, Prov. 20. 27. there is a notable expression of the law of Nature, It's a candle of the Lord, searching the inwards of the belly. So it is observed, that the Chaldee word for a law, is as much as light. The second essential constitute of a law is, Obligation, for therein lieth the essence of a sin, that it breaketh this law, which supposeth the obligatory force of it. In the next place there are two Consequents of the Law which are ad bene esse, that the Law may be the better obeyed; and this indeed turneth the law into a covenant, which is another notion upon it, as afterwards is to be shown. Now as for the sanction of the Law by way of a promise, that is a mere free thing; God, by reason of that dominion which he had over man, might have commanded his obedience, and yet never have made a promise of eternal life unto him. And as for the other consequent act of the law, to curse, and punish, this is but an accidental act, and not necessary to a law; for it cometh in upon supposition of transgression: and therefore, as we may say of a Magistrate, He was a just and complete Magistrate for his time, though he put forth no punitive justice, if there be no malefactors offending; so it is about a law, a law is a complete law obliging, though it do not actually curse: as in the confirmed Angels, it never had any more than obligatory, and mandatory acts upon them; for that they were under a law is plain, because otherwise they could not have sinned, for where there is no law, 
Rom. 4. 15.  there is no transgression. If therefore the Antinomian were rectified in this principle, which is very true and plain, he would quickly be satisfied: but of this more in another place. But we come to the particulars of the doctrine, the pressing of which will serve much against the Antinomian. Therefore, for the better understanding of this Law of Nature, consider these particulars:  
1. The nature of it in which it doth consist; and that is in those 
The Law of Nature consists in those common notions which are ingraffed in all men's hearts.  common notions and maxims, which are ingraffed in all men's hearts: and these are some of them speculative, that there is a God; and some practical, that good is to be embraced, and evil to be avoided: and therefore Aquinas saith well, that what principles of Sciences are in things of demonstration, the same are these rules of nature in practicals: therefore we cannot give any reasons of them; but, as the Sun manifests itself by its own light, so do these. Hence chrysostom observeth well, that God, forbidding murder, and other sins, giveth no reason of it, because its natural: but, speaking of the seventh day, why that in particular was to be observed, he giveth a reason, because on the seventh day the Lord rested, not but that the seventh day is moral (as some have denied,) but because it's not moral natural, only moral positive, as the Learned show.  
2. The difference of its being in Adam and in us. This is necessary 
Some fragments only of this Law left in us.  to observe; for it was perfectly implanted in Adam's heart, but we have only some fragments, and a mere shadow of it left in us. The whole Law of Nature, as it was perfectly instructing us the will of God, was then communicated to him: and howsoever God, for good reasons hereafter to be mentioned, did give, besides that law of Nature, a positive law to try his obedience; yet the other cannot be denied to be in him, seeing he was made after God's image, in righteousness, and holiness, and otherwise Adam had been destitute of the light of reason, and without a conscience. Therefore it's a most impudent thing in Socinus, to deny that Adam had any such law or precept, and that he could not lie, or commit any other sin though he would; for, it may not be doubted, but that if Adam had told a lie, or murdered Eve, it had been a sin, as well as to eat of the forbidden fruit.  
3. The natural impression of it in us. We have it by nature; it's 
Those common notions, in which this law consists, are in us by nature.  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 original sin in us, and to show how destitute we are of the image of God, doth labour to show, that those common notions and dictates of conscience are infused de novo into us, and that we 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 only to do the Law, and not asserted to do 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 do: and therefore presseth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is a particle of the Subjunctive Mood, and is equivalent to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, If the Gentiles, etc. But his supposition is false; for the Apostles scope is, to show that the Gentile hath no excuse if God condemn him, because he hath a law in himself: 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 he saith, that the Apostle speaketh such great things of men by nature, that if they were true, it would necessarily justify all Pelagianism. I shall not speak of his many arguments against natural principles and knowledge of a God; for he doth in effect at last yield 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, Legens Naturae opiniones suas vecant, They call their opinions the law of Nature. There are four ways of bounding this law.  
1. Some make it those general things wherein man and beast agree; 
Four bounds of the law of Nature.  as, defence of itself, and desire of life: but by this means, that of natural honesty and righteousness 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 tied by a law: but God, to show the horridness of the fact, would have the very instrument punished.  
2. Some bond it by the custom of Nations, that is, jus Gentium; but that is so diversified, that a sin with some, was a virtue with others.  
3. Some do bind it by reason in every man: but this is very uncertain, and one man's reason is contrary to another's, and one man's conscience is larger than another's; even as it is with measures in divers countries, though they have the fame name, as a bushel, etc. yet they are different in quantity, one is larger than another.  
Lastly, Others bond it by the will of God, declared and manifested first to Noah in seven precepts, and afterwards to Moses in the ten Commandments: but these extend the law of Nature not only to first principles, but conclusions also deduced from thence.  
5. The obligation of it, when the law of Nature doth bind: And 
The obligation of the law of Nature is from God.  that is from God the author of it, God only is under no law. Every believer, though justified by Christ, is under the Moral Law of Moses, as also the law of Nature: but now this law of Nature doth not so properly bind, as its man's 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 Moral Law as yet given. It is true indeed, our Divines do well reprove the Papists, for calling all that time from Adam to Moses, a state, or law of Nature: and this the Papists do, 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. 
The obligation of the law of Nature is perpetual and immutable.  And herein we may demand of the Antinomian, Whether the law of Nature do bind a believer, or no? Whether he be bound to obey the dictates of his natural conscience? Suppose a believer hath his natural conscience dictating to him, This sin he may not do; is he not obliged hereunto not only from the matter (for that he grants,) but as it is a law and command of God implanted in his sonle? I know there is a difference between the law of Nature, and the ten Commandments, as may be showed hereafter; but yet they agree in this, that they are a rule immutable, and of perpetual obligation. Therefore think not, that because he died to free you from the curse of the Law, that therefore you are freed from the obedience unto the law natural, or delivered by Moses. To deny this, is to deny that a believer is bound to obey the sure dictates of a natural conscience. I know we are not always 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 W●ndelinus reports) Swencfeldians, that held a man was never truly mortified, till he had put out all sense of conscience for sin; if his conscience troubled him, that was his imperfection, he was not mortified enough. I should do the Antinomians wrong, if I should say, they deliver such things in their books; but let them consider, whether some of their Positions will not carry them near such a dangerous rock: For, if the Law have nothing to do with me in respect of the mandatory part of it, then if I be troubled for the breach of it, it is my weakness, because I am not enough in Christ.  
Use 2. Of Reproof, to those who live against this Law. Sins that are against the law of Nature do most terrify. How many live in such sins that the law of Nature condemneth? Doth not Nature condemn lying, cozening in your trades, lusts, and uncleanness? How many Tradesmen are there that need not a Paul? Even Tully in his Book of Offices will condemn their lying, sophisticate wares, and unlawful gain. It's much how far they saw this way. Sins against natural conscience are called Crying sins; and, though men have repent of them, yet how long is it ere faith can still their cry? Have not many Heathens been faithful and just in their deal? It's true, that man hath not godliness enough, who hath natural honesty; therefore there are many spiritual sins that he never humbleth himself for: as Paul saith, he knew not the motions of his heart to be sin. Hence men are to be exhorted to get further light, and more tenderness than a natural conscience can ever attain unto. Nevertheless, if men so live, as if they had not this Law in their hearts, they are the more inexcusable: Are there not men who call themselves Christians, that yet the very Heathens will condemn at that great day?  
Use 3. Why it is so hard to believe in the Lord Christ; because here is nothing of nature in it, it's all supernatural. The Papists say, we make an easy way to heaven; for, let a man be never so great a sinner, yet if he do but believe, all is well. Now the people of God, sensible of their sin, find nothing harder: for, it's in the law of Nature they should not lie, or steal, but that they should believe in Christ for pardon, when labouring under their offences, here nature doth not help at all. I acknowledge it's a dispute among Divines, Whether in that law implanted in Adam's heart, there was not also a power to believe in Christ, when revealed? But of that hereafter; but the orthodox deny, that he had explicit justifying faith, for that was repugnant to the condition he was in. But the thing I intent is, to show how supernatural and hidden the way of believing is. No marvel therefore if it be made such a peculiar work of the Spirit, to convince of this sin.   

LECTURE VII.  ROM. 2. 14. For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things of the law, etc. 
THe Doctrine already gathered from these words is, that, The Gentiles have a law of Nature written in their hearts: Which law doth consist partly in light and knowledge of speculative principles; and partly in practice and obedience to practical principles. So then from hence we may consider, first, Of the light of Nature, and then secondly, Of the power of Nature; and from both these we may have profitable matter, and also may confute some dangerous errors, which have poisoned too many. I shall begin therefore with the light of Nature, or Reason, and shall endeavour to show the Necessity of it, and yet the Insufficiency of it: It is not such a star that can lead us to Christ.  
In the first place take notice, that this light of Nature may be considered in a threefold respect:  
First, As it's a relict or remnant of the image of God: for, howsoever 
The light of Nature is a remnant of God's image.  the image of God did primarily consist in righteousness and true holiness; yet secondarily it did also comprehend the powers and faculties of the reasonable soul in the acts thereof: And this later part abideth. It is true, this light of Nature, comparatively to that of faith, is but as a glowworm to the Sun; yet some light and irradiation it hath. God, when he made man, had so excellently wrought his own image in him, that man could not fall, unless that were also destroyed; as they writ of Phidias, who made Alexander's statue, yet had wrought his own picture so artificially in it, that none could break Alexander's statue, but he must also spoil Phidias his image, who was the maker of it: And thus it is in Adam's fall, yet there remaineth some light still, which the Apostle calleth (Rom. 1.) Truth; he vouchsafeth that name to it, They detain the truth in unrighteousness. Now this moonlight or glimmering of Nature is of a threefold use:  
1. For societies and public Commonwealths, whereby they have 
1. The light of Nature useful and necessary for the making of wholesome laws in Commonwealths.  made wholesome laws. It's wonderful to consider, how excellent the Heathens have been therein. Thus chrysostom, speaking how the most excellent men need the counsel of others, instanceth in Jethroes advice to Moses, about choosing assistant officers: That great man Moses (saith he) who was so potent in words and works, who was the friend of God, which commanded the creatures, was helped in counsel by Jethro his father-in-law, an obscure man, and a Barbarian: Although, to speak the truth, Jethro, when he gave this counsel, was not so, but had the knowledge of the true God.  
2. This light of nature serveth for the instigation and provocation 
2. It instigateth to good duties towards God and man.  of men to many good actions and duties towards God and man. Hence still observe that phrase, They detain: reason and natural light is bound, as a prisoner, by the chains of lusts and sinful affections; which thing Aristotle doth fully set forth in his incontinent person, whom he describeth to have a right opinion in the general about that which is good; yet, being too much affected to some particular pleasure or profit, by that means the better part is over-borne: and therefore Aristotle saith, the better part of the mind did provoke to better things. This agreeth with that of Paul. And as they bond captivated practical truths towards man, so they also imprisoned them about God. Plato had the knowledge of one God, yet he dared not to communicate it to the vulgar: Therefore (saith he) Opificem universorum neque invenire facile, neque inventum in vulgus promulgare tutum: Here for fear of the people, he detained this truth. And Austin hath a most excellent chapter, cap. 10. lib. 6. de Civit. to show how Seneca kept the truth in unrighteousness: he speaks of a Book Seneca wrote (which now is lost) against Superstitions, where he doth most freely and boldly write against the practices of their worship; but, saith Austin, Libertas affuit scribenti, non viventi. I will name some passages, because they are applicable to Popish Idolatry, as well as Paganish: Immortales does in materia vilissima & immobili dedicant— Numina vocant, quae si spiritu accepto subitò occurrerent, monstra haberentur— Faciunt tam indecora honestis, tam indigna liberis, tam dissimillima sanis, ut nemo fuerit dubitaturus furere eos, si cum paucioribus furerent; nunc sanitatis patrocinium est insanientium turba. But Seneca, when he had spoken thus, and much more, in the scorn of those gods, what doth he resolve upon that his wise man shall do in those times? In animi religione non habeat, sed in actibus fingat. And again, Quae omnia sapiens servabit tanquam legibus jussa, non diis grata. And further, Istam ignobilem deorum turbam, quam longo aevo longa superstitio congessit, sic adorabimus, ut meminerimus cultum ejus ad morem magis pertinere quàm rem. Some say, Seneca was coetaneous with Paul, and that he had Paul's Epistles; might he not (if so) see himself described in this phrase, detaining the truth in unrighteousness? But how well doth Austin in the same place stigmatize him? Colebat, quod reprehendebat; agebat, quod arguebat; quod culpabat, adorabat. And are there not many such Popish spirits, that know their superstitions and falsehoods, yet, because of long custom, will not leave them? What else was the meaning of Domitianus Calderinus, when, speaking of going to Mass, he said, Eamus ad communem errorem? And so it was a speech of a disputing Sophister, Sic dico quando sum in scholis, sed, penes nos sit, aliter sentio. You see then by this, that natural truth would incline to better actions, but it is suppressed. When I say, natural light inclineth the heart to good, it is to be understood by way of object merely, showing what is to be desired, not that we have any strength naturally to what is good. If you ask why truth, apprehended by natural light, should be less efficacious to alter and newmould the heart and life, than truth received by faith (for in the Scripture we read of wonderful conversions; and the Heathens have but one story that they much boast of, of one Palemon (if I mistake not) who was a great drunkard, and came to deride Socrates, while he was reading his discourse to his scholars, but was so changed by that lecture, that he lest off his drunkenness: This alteration was only in the skin, and not in the vitals. What then should be the difference?) I answer, not that one truth in itself is stronger than another, but the difference is in medio, or instrumento, the instrument to receive this truth. When Nature receives a truth, it's but with a dim eye, and a palsie-hand; but when we receive it by faith, that is accompanied with the power and might of the holy Ghost. The influence of truth by natural light, is like that of the Moon, waterish and weak, never able to ripen any thing; but that of faith is like the influence of the Sun, that doth heat, and soon bring to maturity.  
3. The last use of this natural light is, to make men inexcusable; 
3. It makes men inexcusable.  for, seeing they did not glorify God according to their knowledge, for that they are justly condemned. This indeed is not the only use of the light of Nature, as some say; but it is a main one, Rom. 1. 20. not that this is the end of God, in putting these principles into us, but it falleth out by our sinfulness. But how are they inexcusable, if they could not glorify God by nature, as they ought? Some answer, the Apostle speaks of excuse in regard of knowledge: but if you understand it of power, it is true; for by our fault we are unable, and none went so fare as naturally they were able. And thus Nature is considered in the first place.  
Secondly, You may consider it as corrupted and obscured by sin: 
The light of Nature, as corrupted by sin, is an enemy to God and goodness.  And in this sense it's no help, but a desperate enemy to what is good; and the more reason this way, the more opposition to God: and thus it fell out with all the great natural Luminists; they became vain in their reasonings, the more they enquired and searched, the further off they were from what is true, 1 Cor. 2. 14. The natural man perceiveth not the things of God: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is not a man carnal and gross in sin, but a souly man, one that doth excolere animam, such as Tully and Aristotle. Now the wiser these men were, the vainer they were. Chrysostome's comparison doth well agree with them: As if (saith he) a king should give much money to a servant, that by it he should make his family more glorious, and he goeth presently and spends all his money upon whores and bawds. Thus did the Heathens: As Austin wrote to a man of great parts, Ornari abs te Diabolus quaerit, The Devil seeks to be adorned by thee.  
Hence Egypt, that is accounted the mother of Sciences, and Moses in regard of knowledge is preferred before the Egyptians; yet that was the seat also of Idolaters: and so the Astronomers, who lifted up themselves above others in their knowledge of heavenly things, brought in those monsters into heaven, and attributed worship to them, and in their worship of their gods they added many feasts and sports. Thus they invented an happiness, which Austin calleth Scyllaeum bonum, consisting of humane and brutish parts. If you ask how this natural light cometh to be thus obscured; I answer, three ways: 1. By ill education. This 
The light of Nature obscured three ways.  is like the first concoction, or the first settling of the limbs of a man. Secondly, By long custom and degeneration. Hence some Nations have by their public laws allowed gross sins lawful; as some Nations have allowed robberies, some incest, some that all old men should be thrown down headlong a steep hill. Thirdly, By the just judgement of God; therefore three times in Rom. 1. God is said to give them up to sin.  
Thirdly, You may speak of Nature as informed, and enlightened 
The light of Nature informed by God's word an excellent help.  by God's word: and while it's thus, you need not cast this Hagar out of doors. Let Scripture and the word of God lay the foundation stone, and then Reason may build upon it. It is Stella his comparison: It is with Faith and Reason, as with the mould that is at the root of the barren and fruitless tree; take the mould out, and throw in muck or other compost, and then put the mould in, it will much help the tree, which hindered it before. Thus, lay aside Reason at first, and then receive truths by Faith; and afterwards improve them by Reason, and it will excellently help. Divine truths are not founded upon Reason, but Scripture; yet Reason may bear them up: as you see the elm or wall bear up the vine, but the elm or wall doth not bring forth the fruit; only the vine doth that. As long therefore as the light of Nature is not the rule, but ruled and squared by God's word, so long it cannot deceive us. 
The light of Nature, as it is a relict of God's image, is necessary in religious and moral things, and that two ways.   
The second grand consideration is, That the light of Nature is necessary in religious and moral things, though it be not sufficient. We speak of the light of Nature in the first consideration, as it is the residue of the glorious image of God put into us (for of the later, as it is informed by Scripture, it is no question.) Now this is absolutely necessary two ways: 1. As a passive qualification of the subject for faith; for, there cannot be faith in a stone, or in a beast, no more than there can be sin in them: Therefore Reason, or the light of Nature, makes man in a passive capacity fit for grace; although he hath no active ability for it: And, when he is compared to a stone, it is not in the former sense, but the later. And secondly, it's necessary by way of an instrument; for we cannot believe, unless we understand whether knowledge be an act ingredient into the essence of faith, or whether it be prerequisite: all hold there must be an act of the understanding, one way or other, going to believe. Hence knowledge is put for faith, and Hebr. 11. By saith we understand. Thus it is necessary as an instrument.  
3. There is nothing true in Divinity that doth cross the truth of 
Though some divine truths may transcend the reach of Nature, none do cross the truth thereof, as it is the remnant of God's image.  Nature, as it's the remnant of God's image. This indeed is hard to clear in many points of Divinity; as in the doctrine of the Trinity, and the doctrine of Christ's Incarnation, which seemeth paradoxal to Reason; of whom Tertullian, lib. 5. de carne Christi, cap. 5. thus, Natus est Dei Filius, non pudet, quia pudendum est; Mortuus est Dei Filius, prorsus credibile est, quia ineptum; Sepultus resurrexit, certum est, quia impossibile. Yet, seeing the Apostle calls the natural knowledge of a man Truth, and all truth is from God, which ways soever it come, there can therefore be no contradiction between it. And hereupon our Divines do, when they have confuted the Poposh doctrine of Transubstantiation by Scripture, show also, that for a body to be in two places, is against the principles of Nature. They indeed call for faith in this point: and Lapide, upon these words, Hoc est corpus meum, saith, If Christ should ask me at the day of judgement, Why did you believe the bread to be the body of Christ? I will answer, This text, if I be deceived, These words have deceived me. But we must compare place with place, and Scripture with Scripture. As for the doctrine of the Trinity, though it be above Reason, and we cannot look into that mystery, no more than an Owl can into the Sun 
Faith and the light of Nature go to the knowledge of the same thing different ways.  beams, yet it is not against it.  
4. The same object may be known by the light of Nature, and by the light of Faith. This may easily be understood: I may know there is a God by the light of Nature; and I may believe it, because the Scripture faith so: so Hebr. 11. I may by faith understand the Word was made, and by arguments know it was made; and this is called faith, by James. The devils believe, that is, they have an evident intuitive knowledge of God, and feel it by experience; not that they have faith, for that is a supernatural gift wrought by God, and hath accompanying it pia affectio, to him that speaketh, as the first truth. Faith therefore, and the light of Nature go to the knowledge of the same thing different ways: faith doth, because of the testimony and divine revelation of God; the light of Nature doth, because of arguments in the thing itself by discourse. And faith is not a dianoetical or discursive act of the understanding, but its simple and apprehensive.  
5. Though Reason and the light of Nature be necessary, yet it is not 
The light of Nature a necessary instrument, but no Judge in matters of Faith.  a Judge in matters of faith. The Lutheran seemeth to depress Reason too much, and the Socinian exalteth it too high: They make it not only an instrument, but a Judge; and thereupon they reject the greatest mysteries of Religion. I know some have endeavoured to show, that Religio est summa ratio; and there are excellent men that have proved the truth of the Christian Religion by Reason: and certainly, if we can by Reason prove there is any Religion at all, we may by the same Reason prove that the Christian Religion is the true one. But who doth not see how uncertain Reason is in comparison of Faith? I do not therefore like that assertion of one, who affects to be a great Rationalist (it is Chillingworth) that saith, We therefore receive the Scriptures to be the Word of God, because we have the greatest Reason that this is the Word of God. But we must not confound the instrument and the Judge: holy truths, they are Scripture truths, though hammered out by Reason. As the Smith that takes golden plate, and beats it into what shape he pleaseth, his hammer doth not make it gold, but only gold of such a shape: And thus also Reason doth not make a truth divine, only holds it forth, and declareth it in such a way.  
6. It's altogether insufficient to prescribe or set down any worship of 
Nature insufficient to prescribe divine Worship.  God. Hence God doth so often forbidden us to walk after our own imaginations, and to do that which we shall choose. The Apostle calleth it Will-worship, when a man's Will is the mere cause of it. Now, its true, men are more apt to admire this, as we see in the Pharisees and Papists; they dote upon their Traditions more than God's Institutions. Hence Raymundus, a Papist, speaking of the Mass, It is (saith he) as full of mysteries, as the sea is full of drops of water, as the heaven hath Angels, as the firmament hath stars, and the earth little crumbs of sand. But what saith our Saviour, Luk. 18. that which is highly esteemed before men, is abomination before God? That word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is applied to idols and false-worship. It's true indeed, even in worship, light of Nature and prudence is instrumentally required to order the Institutions of God; but as Reason may not make a new Article of Faith, so neither a new part of worship. Now Natures in sufficiency is described in these three reasonings:  
1. To have all the worship of God sensible and pleasing to the eye. It 
1. Because it would have all the worship of God sensible and pleasing to the eye.  was well called by Parisiensis, a madness in some, who doubted not to say, The Church was better ruled by the inventions of men then by the Scriptures. The people of Israel would have sensible gods, that they might see them: and certainly men do as much delight in sensible pompous worship, as children do in gay babies; therefore the Prophet speaketh of their goodly images. But all this ariseth, because they are ignorant of spiritual worship, and cannot tell how to make spiritual advantage from God. It was well said by one, that A superstitious man is God's flatterer, and not his friend; he is more officious than needs: and where a man is busy ubi non oportet, (said Tertullian) he is negligent ubi oportet. Such carnal sensible worshippers are well compared to those that, because they have no children, delight in birds and dogs; so because they have no true graces of the Spirit of God, they delight in these imitations.  
2. To appoint mediators between us and God. This was the 
2. Because its prone to appoint mediators between God and us.  great Argument of the Heathens; they thought themselves unworthy, and therefore appointed others to mediate between them and God; which Argument of the Heathens, some of the Fathers wrote against. But, do not the Papists the same thing? Do not they tell us, Petitioners at the Court do not address themselves immediately to the Prince, but get Favourites to speak for them; so must we to God? And therefore Salmeron doth give some reasons why it's more piety and religion to pray to God and Saints together, then to God alone. But is not this to forget Christ our head, who is made nearer to us then Angels are? And, indeed, Angels are reconciled to us by Christ. If therefore we follow the light of Nature thus, we shall fall into the ditch at last; and superstition is never more dangerous, then when it's coloured over with the specious colours of Arguments.  
3. To do all by way of compensation, and satisfaction to God. 
3. Because it performs all duties by way of compensation & merit.  Upon this ground were all the sacrifices of the Heathens. And is not all this with Popery? Do they not make all penal things compensative? If they pray, that is meritorious; if they fast, that is satisfactory. Hence ariseth that seeming not to spare the flesh, Col. 3. ult. and the Apostle saith, it hath a show of wisdom. But the more like any actions are to worship and wisdom, and are not so, the more loathsome they are: as in an Ape, that which makes an Ape so much deformed and loathsome, is because it is so like a man, and is not a man.  
Use. Of Instruction. What hath made the idolatry of the Church of Rome so like Paganish and ethnical idolatry? Even because they followed their light, the light of Nature and Reason. Look over all their Paganish gods, and they have answerable saints. As the Heathens had their Ceres, and Bacchus, and Aesculapius; insomuch that Varro said, Discendum fuisset quâ de causâ quisque deorum avocandus esset, nè à Libero aqua, à Lympho vinum optaretur: so here, they have their St. Martin for the vineyard, Christopher for sudden death, Nicholas for mariners, etc. And this was done at first, they say, to gain the Heathens; but the contrary fell out. Let us then follow the light of Nature no further than we ought; let her be an handmaid, not a mistress And then we must take heed of going against her where she doth truly direct. Are there not many, not only unchristian, but also unnatural actions; let us remember that.   

LECTURE VIII.  ROM. 2. 14. For the Gentiles, etc. 
YOu have heard of two things considerable in the law of Nature; the knowledge or light of it, and the power or ability of it. We shall (God willing) at this time prosecute the doctrine of the former part, and the task we have at this time is to answer some Questions about the light of the Nature: for, as there are some who depress it too much; so there are others advance it too high. The Philosophers called the Christians Credentes, by way of reproach, because they did not argue by reason, but receive upon trust: and there are some, who do not indeed, with Abilardus, make faith [aestimatio] a fancy, yet they make it ratio. Let us see therefore what this light can do, by way of answer to some Questions only; not to answer all.  
The first Question, Whether a man can by the light of Nature, 
That there is a God, may be known by the light of Nature.  and by the consideration of the creatures, come to know there is a God. This is denied by Socinians and others. Indeed Bellarmine chargeth tenets to this effect upon Calvin, but that which the Protestant Authors hold, is, that he may indeed have a knowledge that there is a God, but what this God is, whether he be one, and what his attributes are, they cannot so reach to. Nihil Deo notius, nihil ignotius: otherwise, they say, there is no natural Atheist in opinion, though many in affections, desiring there were not God. As Tully argueth, let us take heed, how we bring this opinion into the world, that there is a God, lest hereby we bring a great slavery and fear upon ourselves. Are there not many Politicians have too much of this poison in their hearts? But of this more anon. Only that there is such a knowledge natural, appeareth by some places: as first, Rom. 1. 19 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, That which may be known of God: for there are some things, that by Nature could never be known, as the Trinity and Incarnation of Christ. Now this knowledge is by the book of the creatures. This whole universe may be called the laymen's book; Rebus pro speculo utamur, we may see the power and wisdom of God in them. Tully hath a good comparison: As a man that seethe and readeth a book, and observeth how every letter is put together to make an harmonious sense, must needs gather, that all those letters did not fall together by chance, but that there was a wise author in the composing of them: so it's in the world, which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, none can think such a sweet compagination of all the parts of it should come together merely accidentally. It's said to be the speech of one Antony, much spoken of in Ecclesiastical story, that he called the world a great volume, and the heaven, and water, and earth were the pages and leaves; the stars and living creatures were the letters in those pages: and how glorious a letter is the Sun, when Eudoxus said, he was made only to behold it? The ways and arguments by which Naturalists have proved this, have not been by demonstrations à priori, for that is impossible; but by the effects. As a man that cannot see the Sun in itself, it is so dazzling, doth look upon it in a basin of water: thus we who cannot know God in himself, know him in the creatures.  
The second proof is from Psal. 19 compared with Rom. 10. where the Psalmist makes the creatures so many tongues speaking a God, yea the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 eructat doth signify the plenty and serenity, as also the fluid eloquence of the 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 wisdom 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 Psalm allegorically. Others think the Apostle allegeth that place allusively, not by way of argument, as in that place of the Epistle to the Corinthians, where the Apostle applieth 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 literal 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 Jews by the Prophets? Which way soever you take it, it proveth that God hath a school of Nature by his creatures, as well as a school of Grace by his Ministers.  
The last proof is from John 1. He is the true light, which enlighteneth every man coming into the world: for so we think [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] doth refer 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 Author hath in a manuscript Sermon upon this place, because it is not pertinent. So then, there is an implanted sense and feeling of a deity; which made Tertullian say, O anima naturaliter Christiana! and Cyprian, Summa est delicti nolle agnoscere, quem ignorare non potes. If you object, that the Scripture speaks of the Gentiles as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is to be understood of a distinct and obedient knowledge of him. And as for some Atheists spoken of, that have expressedly professed it; what they did was partly in derision of the many gods, as Socrates and another, who needing a fire, threw a statue of Hercules into the fire, saying, Age Hercules, XIII. laborem subiturus adesto, obsonium nobis cocturus. Besides, they did this with their tongue more than 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 persuaded them, but only they thought, that if any were God, he was, for his eloquence sake: and then this wretch, like Herod, was content to be thought a god.  
The second Question is, Whether the mystery of the Trinity, and 
The mystery of the Trinity, and the Incarnation of Christ cannot be found out by the light of Nature.  of the Incarnation of Christ, can be found out as a truth by the light of Nature. And here, certainly, we must answer negatively; for the Apostle, 2 Corinth. 2. speaking of the mysteries of the Gospel, saith, It hath not entered into the heart of a man to conceive of them: which is to be understood, not only of the blessed joy and peace of those truths, but also as they are truths; so that all these things are of mere supernatural revelation. Hence we read, 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 do acknowledge, that Austin and others have sought the footsteps 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 intent by the works of creation, to declare the mysteries of graces; as by those artificial things of the Ark, Tabernacle, and Temple, he intended spiritual mysteries: but this is false. But then they did first know and believe this doctrine by Scripture, and then afterwards go to represent it. Yet it must be confessed, that all these Similes have scarce one foot, much less four, to run on. The Schoolmen speak of the three things in every creature, Esse, Posse, & Operari. But especially that is taken up about the soul, 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 scholastical sense, but because he doth reveal and make known 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 wonderful or singular. We conclude then, that the Scriptures are the only ladder, whereby we climb up to these things, and our understandings are of such a little stature, that we must climb up into the tree of life (the Scriptures) to see Jesus. 
The light of Nature insufficient for salvation.   
The third Question concerning this natural 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 threefold piety: Judaica, Christiana, and Ethnica. Therefore say they, What Moses was to the Jews, 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 only 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 works were joined to him; how much more if he be totally excluded? It is true, it seemeth a very hard thing to man's reason, that the greater part of the world, being Pagans and Heathens, with all their infants, should be excluded from heaven. Hence, because Vedelius, a learned man, did make it an aggravation of God's grace to him, to choose and call him, when so many thousand thousands of pagan-infants are damned: this speech, as being full of horridness, a scoffing Remonstrant takes, and sets it forth odiously in the Frontispiece of his Book. But, though our Reason is offended, yet we must judge according to the way of the Scripture; which makes Christ the only way for salvation. If so be it could be proved, as Zwinglius held, that Christ did communicate himself to some Heathens, than it were another matter. I will not bring all the places they stand upon, that which is mainly urged is Act. 10. of Cornelius; his prayers were accepted, and, saith Peter, Now I perceive, etc. But this proceedeth from a mere mistake; for Cornelius had the implicit knowledge and faith of Christ, and had received the doctrine of the Messiah, though he was ignorant of Christ, that individual Person. And as for that worshipping of him in every Nation, that is not to be understood of men abiding so, but whereas before it was limited to the Jews, now God would receive all that should come to him, of what Nation soever.  
There is a twofold Unbelief: one Negative, and for this no Heathen is damned: He is not condemned because he doth not believe in Christ, but for his original and actual sins. Secondly, there is Positive Unbelief, which they only are guilty of, who live under the means of the Gospel.  
The fourth Question is, Whether that be true of the Papists, which hold, that the sacrifices the Patriarches offered to God, were by 
The Patriarches did not offer sacrifices by the light of Nature, but God revealed his will to Adam to be so worshipped.  the mere light of Nature: For so saith Lessius, Lex Naturae & obstringit & suadet, etc. the Law of Nature both bindeth and dictateth all to offer sacrifices to God; therefore they make it necessary that there should be a sacrifice now under the New Testament offered unto God: And upon this ground Lessius saith it is lawful for the Indians to offer up sacrifices unto God, according to their way and custom. And, making this doubt to himself, How shall they do for a Priest? He answereth, that as a commonwealth may appoint a Governor to rule over them, and to whom they will submit in all things; so may it appoint a Priest to officiate in all things for them. This is strange for a Papist to say, who doteth so much upon succession, as if where that is not, there could be no ministry. Now in this case he gives the people a power to make a Priest. But, howsoever it may be, by the light of Nature, that God is religiously to be worshipped; yet it must be only instituted worship that can please him: And thus much Socrates an Heathen said, That God must only be worshipped in that way wherein he hath declared his will to be so. Seeing therefore Abel, and so others, offered in faith, and faith doth always relate to some testimony and word, it is necessary to hold, that God did reveal to Adam his will, to be worshipped by those external sacrifices, and the oblations of them. It is true, almost all the Heathens offered sacrifices unto their gods, but this they did, as having it at first by hearsay from the people of God; and also Satan is always imitating of God in his institutions: And howsoever the destructive mutation or change of the thing (which is always necessary to a sacrifice) doth argue, and is a sign of subjection and deepest humiliation; yet how should Nature prescribe, that the demonstration of our submission must be in such a kind or way?  
The fifth Question is, Whether original sin can be found out by 
Original sin can only be truly known by Scripture-light.  the mere light of Nature, Or, Whether it is only a mere matter of faith that we are thus polluted. It is true, the learned Mornay labours to prove by natural reason our pollution, and showeth how many of the ancient Platonists do agree in this, That the soul is now vassalled to sense and affections, and that her wings are cut whereby she should so are up into heaven. And so Tully he saith, Cum primùm nascimur, in omni continuò pravitate versa, mur; much like that of the Scripture, The Imagination of the thoughts of a man's heart is only evil, and that continually: But Aristotle (of whom one said wickedly and falsely, that he was the same in Naturals, which Christ was in Supernaturals) he makes a man to be obrasa tabula, without sin or virtue; though indeed it doth incline ad meliora. Tully affirmeth also, that there are semina innata virtutum in us, only we overcome them presently: Thus also Seneca, Erras, si tecum nasci vitia putas, supervenerunt, ingesta sunt, as I said before. Here we see the wisest of the Philosophers speaking against it. Hence Julian, the Pelagian, heaped many sentences out of the chiefest Philosophers against any such corruption of nature. But Austin answered, It was not much matter what they said, seeing they were ignorant of these things. The truth is, by nature we may discover a great languishment and infirmity come upon us; but the true nature of this, and how it came about, can only be known by Scripture-light: Therefore the Apostle, Rom. 7. saith, he had not known lust to be sin, had not the Law said, Thou shalt not lust.  
The sixth Question is, What is the meaning of that grand rule of 
Matth. 19 12. expounded.  Nature, which our Saviour also repeateth, That which you would not have other men do to you, do not you to them, Matth. 7. 12. It is reported of Alexander Severus, that he did much delight in this saying, which he had from the Jews or Christians: and our Saviour addeth this, that, This is the Law, and the Prophets; so that it is a great thing even for Christians to keep to this principle. Men may pray, and exercise religious duties, and yet not do this; therefore the Apostle addeth this to prayer, so that we may live as we pray, according to that good rule of the Platonish, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. How would this subdue all those proud, envious, censorious, and inimicitious carriages to one another? But 
Communion of all things no precept of Nature, and the Apostles practice of it was only occasional, not binding to posterity.  now when we speak of doing that to another, which we would have done to ourselves, it is to be understood of a right and well-regulated will, not corrupted or depraved.  
The seventh Question is, Whether the practice of the Apostles, making all their goods common, was according to the precept of Nature, and so binding all to such a practice. For there have been, and still are those that hold this. But now, that communion of all things is not jure Naturae, appeareth, in that theft is a sin against the Moral Law; which could not be, if division of goods were not according to the law of Nature. Indeed, by Nature all things were common, but than it was Natures dictate to divide them; as Aristotle showeth in many reasons against Plato. What would have been in innocency, if Adam had stood, whether a common right to all things, or a divided propriety (I speak of goods) is hard to say. But as for the practice of the Church of Jerusalem, that was occasional, and necessary, therefore not to be a ground for perpetual command; for other Churches did it not, as appeareth by the alms that were gathered, nor was it laid necessarily upon all to sell what they had, as appeareth by Paul's speech to Ananias.  
Use 1. If God be so angry with those that abuse natural 
God is more offended with those that abuse Gospel light, than those that abuse the light of Nature.  light, how much rather then with such, who also abuse Gospel light? These do not put light under a bushel, but under a dunghill. There are many that are Solifuga, as Bats and Owls are. In one Chapter God is said three times to deliver them up, because they did not glorify God according to Nature's light; how much more than according to the Gospel's light? Gravis est lux conscientiae, said Seneca; but gravior est lux Evangelii: The light of the Ministry and Word must needs be more troublesome to thy sinful ways.  
Use 2. Of Examination, whether, even among Christians, may not be found men no better than Heathens. Now such are, 1. Ignorant people: how few have any knowledge of God? 2. Violent 
Three sorts of Christians little better than Heathens.  adherers to former idololatrical courses, taken up by forefathers. There is this difference between an Idolater and a true Believer: The Believer is like those creatures, that you can make nothing lie on their backs, unless it be fastened by some Scripture or reason; but the Heathen is like the Camel, that had a back for burdens on purpose: so that any idolatry he would bear, though it were tied on by arguments. 3. Such as are inordinately distracted about the things of this world, Matth. 6. After these things do the Heathens seek. Hast thou not much of an Heathen in thee? 4. Such as rage's at Christ, and his reformation, Psal. 2. Why do the Heathens rage?   

LECTURE IX.  ROM. 2. 14. For the Gentiles do by nature the things of the law. 
WE have handled those things that concern the light and conduct of Nature: now we shall speak of that which belongs to the ability and power of Nature; for herein are two extreme errors: one of the Pelagian, Papist, and Arminian, with others, who lift up this power too high, Sub laudibus Naturae latent inimici gratiae; and the other of the Antinomians, who seem to deny all the preparatory works upon the heart of a man; holding, that Christ immediately communicateth himself to gross sinners abiding so: and though they hold us passive at the first receiving of Christ, which all orthodox do; yet they express it in an unsound sense, comparing God unto a Physician, that doth violently open the sick man's throat, and pour down his physic whether he will or no; whereas God, though he doth convert fortiter, yet he doth it also suaviter. Now for the full clearing of our inability to any good thing, we will lay down these Propositions:  
1. There is a natural power of freewill left in us.  is 
There is in man a natural power, by the help of Reason, to choose or refuse this or that thing.  not indeed a Scripture name, but merely ecclesiastical, and hath been so abused, that Calvin wished the very name of it were quite exploded: but if we speak of the quid sit, and not the quid possit, the being of it, and not the working of it, we must necessarily acknowledge it. The nearest expression to the word , is that 1 Cor. 7. 37. having 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, power over his own will: but generally the Scripture useth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is as much as we intent. There is in all men naturally that power, whereby, through the help of Reason, he chooseth this, and refuseth another thing; only this must not be extended to the things of grace. Now to say what this  is, is very hard: Perkins, following some Schoolmen, maketh it a mixed power of the Understanding and the Will; others a third real distinct power from them: but it may probably be thought, that it is nothing but the Will in electing or refusing such things; so that we call it the Will in those things its necessarily carried out to, as to will what is good, and not sin as sin: and then , when it's carried out to those things that are not necessarily connexed with it: Even as in the Understanding, while the Understanding doth consider first Principles, it's called Intellectus; while Conclusions that are gathered from them, it's called Ratio. Therefore our Adversaries do but calumniate us, when they say, we turn men into beasts; for we hold the Understanding going before, and the Will after: and this is more than a mere spontaneous inclination in things natural. Therefore it is, that we do not bid the fire burn, or persuade an horse to go, because there is not Understanding or Will in these things, as there is in a man.  
2. This which is left in us is not able to perform natural actions, 
This natural power in man not able to perform natural actions without God's general assistance.  without the general help of God. That which we have acknowledged to be in a man naturally, must still be limited to his proper sphere, to natural, and civil actions, or some externally religious duties: but even then we must acknowledge a general help, or assistance of God, without which we could not do any natural thing; so that place in the Acts, In him we live, and move, and have our being: by which we prove, that God doth not only give us the principles of being and moving, but we move in him, i. e. by him. Therefore Hierome did well reprove the Pelagians, that thought, without the general aid of God, a man might move his finger, or write, and speak. There have been some who have thought, that all which God doth for us in our natural actions, is only to give the principles and power of actions; and then afterwards we need no further aid, then mere preservation of our being, no concourse or aid of God helping us in the action: Thus Durand of old, and one Dodo of late, who hath written a Book only to that purpose: but the place above said doth evidently convince it; and we see, that God did hinder the fire from burning the three Worthies, though he did preserve the fire at the same time in the power of burning, which could not be otherwise, then by denying his actual aid to the working of the fire: For, to say that the reason was because of Gods doing something upon their bodies, were to make the miracle there, where the Scripture doth not lay it If you ask then, why this may not be called a special help of God, as well as that, whereby we are enabled to believe, or repent; I answer, there is a great deal of difference:  
1. Because this general aid is necessary to wicked actions, in regard of their positive nature, as well as to good.  
2. God doth this in the way of his Providence, as a Creator; the other he doth in the way of Predestination, as a father in Christ.  
3. The other aid may be said to be due, as our Divines speak of original righteousness, upon a supposition that a man is made a creature to do such actions; yet not properly a debt, but that for our sin we are deprived of it: but this special help of grace cannot be called so.  
3. It is wholly unable to work any good thing. All this while we 
Man by the power of nature wholly unable to perform good actions.  have considered the power of man but as in the lower region; and if you do consider him, in reference to good things, so he hath no power, or will, or freewill at all; but, as Austin said before Luther, it's servum arbitrium, a servant, and enslaved will to sin only. Indeed we have not lost our understandings or our wills, but to know or will that which is good, is wholly lost: Though we have not lost the will, yet we have the rectitude in that will, whereby we should incline to good. And this may be proved from many Arguments:  
1. From all those places of Scripture which declare our estate 
1. Because our natures are full of sin and corruption.  to be full of sin and corruption, and altogether wicked. Now, Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Hence the Father compareth us well to the ship in a tempest, that is destitute of a Pilot: we are dashed continually upon rocks, though this speak of the negative only, not the positive corruption.  
2. All those places, which speak of grace, and conversion, and 
2. Because grace and conversion are the work of God.  regeneration, as the work of God. As for those places, where we are said to repent, and to turn unto God, in time we shall clear; only these Texts prove, that all the good things we do, they are the works of the Lord: not that God believeth or repenteth in us, but he worketh those actions in us efficiently, which we do formally and vitally.  
3. All those places whereby glory and praise is to be given 
3. Because glory is to be given to God only, not to ourselves.  unto God only, and not unto ourselves. What hast thou thou hast not received? We are to glory in nothing, because no good thing is ours. Therefore, we bring forth good things, as Sarahs' dead womb brought forth a child; it was not a child of nature, but a child of the mere promise: thus are all our graces. And, indeed, if we could either in whole or part work our own conversion, we might thank God, and our wills: But how absurd would this be, Lord, I thank thee for the turning of my heart, when I was willing to turn it?  
4. It cannot prepare or dispose itself for the grace of justification 
Nature of itself cannot dispose for justification, or sanctification: and the reasons why.  or sanctification. As it cannot immediately work any good thing, so neither can a natural man dispose, or prepare himself for the great works of grace. There is no truth in such an assertion. Let man do what he can naturally, God will meet him graciously; and the reasons are plain:  
1. Because no natural thing is in itself an order or a disposition to a supernatural thing; for they differ in their whole kind and nature. Hence it is, that we never read of any Heathens, that, by the improvement of a natural light, had supernatural vouchsafed unto them.  
2. Those places that speak of our total corruption, intensively only evil, and extensively, all the thoughts of a man are evil, and protensively, continually, do sufficiently declare, that we cannot prepare ourselves to meet God.  
3. If we could prepare, or dispose ourselves to grace, than the greatest cause of glory would still be in a man's own self: For, Why doth Peter repent, and not Judas? Because, may some say, he disposed and set himself to repent, and not Judas. But still here is the Question, Why did Peter set himself to repent, and not Judas? Here it must be ultimately resolved either into the grace of God, or the will of man.  
4. All those similitudes that the Scripture useth, do illustrate this thing. We are not said to be blind, or lame, but dead in sin: now did Lazarus prepare himself to rise? So it's called Regeneration. Can a man dispose himself to have life? I know these comparisons must not be extended too far; yet, the Scripture using such expressions to declare our utter inability, we may well press those breasts of the Scripture so far, and bring out no blood. The parched earth doth not dispose itself for the rain, nor doth the cold ice of itself thaw, which is the Father's Simile.  
Yet fifthly, We may hold truly some antecedaneous works upon the 
There are, and may be some preparatory and antecedaneous works upon the heart before justification or sanctification.  heart, before those graces be bestowed on us. This take to antidote against the Antinomian, who speaks constantly of the soul taking Christ, even while it's a grievous polluted soul; as if there were no polishing of this crooked timber and rough stone, but even taken out of the quarry, and so immediately put into the building. Those in the Acts that were pricked in heart, were yet bid to repent; and so they cried out, What shall we do to be saved? The sick feeleth his burden before he cometh for ease, so that a gross sinner is not immediately put out of his vile ways into Christ; only these limitations you must take:  
1. That all these things, sight of sin, trembling for fear, confused desires, they are the works of God's grace moving us, they do not come from our own natural strength.  
2. These are not absolutely necessary in every one. We know how Matthew and Lydia did follow Christ; and God saith, he was found of some that did not seek him. Paul was in a most cursed indisposition when the Lord called him: but generally God takes this way.  
3. These are not necessary antecedents, so as the grace of conversion doth necessarily follow. We read of Cain and Judas troubled for sin. These are a wilderness that a man may die in, and never go into Canaan: There may be throes and pangs, when yet no child, but wind is to be delivered. Hence a people that have been civil, have not been called: but Publicans and Harlots. The object of election is for the most part few for number, infirm for power, and sinful for conversation: though in the godly these are needles that will draw in the thread, yet this state must not be called a third middle estate between regenerate and unregenerate, as some feign.  
Lastly, none of these workings can be called so properly preparations, or dispositions in themselves, but only intentionally in God. Our Saviour looked on a young man, and loved him, and said, he was not fare from the Kingdom of heaven: that is, the life he lived was not fare from the Kingdom of heaven; yet this was no preparation in itself to it: nay, he may be further off, as two high hills may be near in the tops to one another, but the bottoms some miles asunder. And this is so great a matter, that great sins are made by God a preparation to some man's conversion, which yet of themselves they could never be: As a child, whose coat is a little dirty, hath it not presently washed; but when he falls wholly all over in the dirt, this may be the cause of the washing of it: so that they are preparations only so far as God intendeth them.  
6. All determination to one doth not take away that natural liberty. 
Determination to one kind of acts takes not away liberty.  This will further clear the truth: for it may be thought strange, that there should be this freedom of will in a man, and yet thus determined to one sin only; whereas it's plain, a determination to one kind of acts, good or evil, doth not take away liberty. God can only will that which is good, and so the Angels and Saints confirmed in happiness; yet they do this freely: and so the Devil's will that which is wicked only. It's true, some exclaime at such passages, but that is only because they are prepossessed with a false opinion about liberty; for a determination to one may arise from perfection, as well as natural imperfection. It is from God's absolute perfection that he is determined to will only good; and when Adam did will to sin against God, it did not arise from the liberty of his will, but his mutability. There is a natural necessity, such which determineth a thing to one; and that is imperfection: but a necessity of immutability in that which is good, is a glorious perfection. The Learned speak of a threefold liberty: 1. From misery, 
A threefold liberty.  such as the Saints shall have in heaven. 2. From sin, to which is opposed that freedom to righteousness, of which our Saviour speaketh, Then are ye free indeed, when the Son hath made you free; and of which Austin, Tunc est liberum, quando liberatum. 3. From natural necessity, and thus also man, though he be necessarily carried on to sin, yet it is not by a natural necessity, as beasts are, but there is Reason and Will in him when he doth thus transgress: only you must take notice, that this determination of our Will only to sin, is the loss of that perfection we had in Adam, and doth not arise from the primaeve constitution of the will, but by Adam's fall, and so is merely accidental to it.  
7. Nor doth it take away that willingness or delight in sin, which 
Determination to sin, takes not away that delight in sin which man is inevitably carried out unto.  we are inevitably carried out unto: For now, if man were carried out to sin against his will and his delight, than there might be some show of pleading for him; but it is not so, he sinneth as willingly, and as electively in respect of his corrupt heart, as if there were no necessity brought upon him. Therefore that is good of Bernard's, The necessity takes not away the willingness of it, nor the willingness of it the necessity. It's both an handmaid, and so free, and, which is to be wondered, eoque magis ancilla, quò magis libera. Hence therefore no wicked or ungodly man can have any excuse for himself, to say the fates or necessity drove him: for, besides that by his fault he hath cast himself into this necessity, and so is, as if a man in debt, who was once able to pay, but by his wilful prodigal courses hath spent all, should think to be excused because he cannot pay. Besides (I say, this just and full answer) this also is to be said, that no man sins constrainedly, but every one is carried on with that delight to sin, as if he were independent upon any providence, or predefinitive permissive decrees of God, or any such corrupt necessity within him. Hereby he pitieth not himself, he seethe not his undone estate, & nihil miserius misero non miserante seipsum. Hence it is, that a man's whole damnation is to be ascribed to himself. We ourselves have destroyed our own souls, we cannot cast it upon God's decrees. And this is necessarily to be urged, because of that natural corruption in us with Adam, to cast our sin upon God.  
8. A man may acknowledge grace and give much to it, and yet 
Much may be ascribed to grace, and yet the total efficacy not given unto it.  not give the total efficacy unto it. This is amain particular to consider; for Pelagius, and Arminius, and Papists, all do acknowledge grace. Pelagius, it's noted of him, that he did four times incrustate his opinion, and held grace in every one of them: He did gratiae vocabulo uti ad frangendum invidiam; yea, by this means, he deceived all the Eastern Churches, and they acquitted him when he said thus: If any man deny grace to be necessary to every good act we do, let him be an anathema. So Papists and Arminians, they all acknowledge grace, but not grace enough; Gratia non est gratia, nisi sit omni modo gratuita: As for example; First, they acknowledge grace to be only as an universal help, which must be made effectual by the particular will of man: so that grace is efficacious with them, not by any inward virtue of itself antecedaneous to, and independent upon the Will, but eventually only, because the Will doth yield; and therefore Bellarmine compareth it to Sol & homo generant hominem: one as the universal cause, the other as the particular cause. Thus grace and freewill produce a good action; grace as the general cause, and freewill as the particular: but how derogatory is this to grace? how can our actions be said to be the fruit of grace? For, if I should ask, Who is the father of such a man? it would be very hard to say, The Sun in the firmament: so it would be as absurd to say, Grace regenerated and converted this man. Again, they make grace a partial cause only; so that it stirreth up our natural strength to work this or that good thing: and therefore we are synergists or co-workers with God in the work of conversion; but this supposeth us not dead in sin.  
9 Men may naturally perform the outward act of a commandment. 
The outward act of a commandment may be performed by the power of Nature.  Now though we be thus corrupt, yet for all that, men by nature may do that outward act which is commanded by God, or abstain from the matter prohibited. Thus Alexander abstained from the Virgins he took captives, which is so much related in stories, and many other famous instances of the Heathens, though some indeed think they had a special help and aid from God to do that: but here the Apostle in the Text is clear, They do by nature the things of the law. Some do not like that distinction, They may do the substance of the work, but not the manner of a good work, because they think the substance doth comprehend that indeed which makes a good work; howsoever, they agree that the external act may be done. Thus Ahab he externally humbled himself, and some think that Uriah, which Esay calls, The faithful witness he took to him, to be the same with him that brought in the Altar of Damascus: so that, though he was an idolater, and an ungodly man, yet he was reputed a faithful man in his word. And certainly this is something, to make many men inexcusable. They may forbear those acts of gross impiety which they do, supposing they have not customarily, or by the just judgement of God thrown themselves into the power of such sins; not that this will help to save them, only their punishment will be less. Thus Fabritius and Camillus (saith Austin) will be less punished than Verres or Catiline, not because these were holy, but because they were less wicked, & minora vitia virtutes vocamus. I know it's a question, Whether a godly man can do more good than he doth, or less evil than he doth: but this may be handled in the controversal part; we speak now of a wicked man, who can do no good at all, unless in the external act.  
Yet 10. All that they do is a sin before God. This is an antidote 
Whatsoever mere natural men do, is sin before God: because 1. The act wants faith, the person reconciliation with God. 2. It proceeds not from a regenerate nature.  to the former: Whatsoever they have done, though for the matter glorious, yet they were but glorious sins; for,  
1. They could not come from faith, or one reconciled with God: and the person must be first accepted before the action, Heb. 11. Without faith it's impossible to please God.  
2. It could not come from a regenerate nature; and therefore the tree not being good, the fruit was also bad. It's not in Divinity as in Moral Philosophy, where justa, & justè agendo fimus justi; but we have the esse or being first, and then the operari. It's a question worth the disputing, Whether the grace of God works the act of believing and other graces in us first, and then by them we receive the habits. The Papists, and Arminians, and some others go that way; but it is not consonant to Scripture, as may be showed hereafter.  
3. They could not be good, if you regard the end: They could do 
3. 'Tis not done in reference to God's glory.  nothing for the glory of God. This made Theophylact say, We could not instance in one good Heathen; for, that which they did was for their vainglory, & carnalis cupidit as non aliâ sanatur, one devil did but cast out another: and if they did intent some particular good end, as to relieve the miserable, to help the commonwealth, this was not enough; for the ultimate and chief end ought to be intended by them. 
4. There is no promise annexed to any act that wants saith.   
Lastly, There is no promise of God made to any thing a man doth, that hath not faith. Ahab indeed, and Nabuchadnezzar had temporal rewards, but in what sense, I shall show in answering the Objections.  
Use. To bewail the woeful condition of man by nature. How is every bird in the air, and beast in the field in a better natural condition than they are? This is worse than to be blind, to be lame; for our souls are all blind, lame, deaf, yea and dead in sin. What a sad thing is it, to be all the day and year long damning our souls? If we eat or drink, we sin; if we buy or sell, we sin. And consider, that sin is the greatest evil, and that only which God loathes and abhors. Let all thou dost therefore terrify thee, and make thee to tremble; let this make thee cry for grace, as the poor, blind, and lame did, that they might be healed: And, because you do not feel this, or are unwilling to be heard, therefore you are the more miserable: Nolunt phrenetici ligari, & lethargici excitari.   

LECTURE X.  ROM. 2. 14. For if the Gentiles do by nature the things of the law, etc. 
WE have already positively and plainly (so fare as we conceived necessary) declared and proved the truth about the power and ability of a man by Nature to do that which is good: now it remaineth we should antidote against those objections that do militate against this truth, and that indeed with much show of reason; for never have men been more witty, then when they have undertaken to be the patrons of Nature. But Austin well called it vitreum acumen: the more it glitters, the easier it's broken. The Heathens are very obstinate in propugning man's power. Ignavis opus est auxilio divino, saith Seneca the Tragedian; and so the other Seneca, Deorum quidem munus esse quod vivimus, nostrum verò quòd bene sanct●que vivimus: and that of Tully is very arrogant, lib. 3. the nat. deorum, Quia sibi quisque virtutem acquirit, neminem è sapientibus unquam de ea gratias Deo egisse: and (saith he) We are praised for our virtue; which could not be, if it were the gift of God, and not of ourselves. But how different are the holy men in the Scripture, from these wise men of the world, who, when they have been enabled by God to do any good thing, have not taken the glory of it to themselves? And, as Joab did about Rabbah, when he had taken it, sent to David to come and take all the glory; so do they say, Not I, but the grace of God which worketh in me: for so 1 Cor. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to be understood, which was present with me, not which did work with me.  
First therefore they say, If so be we are not able to do any thing 
There is in man's nature a passive capacity of grace, which is not in stones and beasts.  towards our salvation, this is to turn men into stocks, and stones, or beasts, & so no difference between them and us. But we say, Although those similitudes the Scripture holds forth do prove our inability for that which is good, yet they must not be made alike in all things. It's true, to convert men, is to make children unto Abraham out of stones; yet we must not think that is therefore an universal likeness between men and stones: For first, consider this vast dissimilitude; In stones and beasts there is no passive capacity of grace, but in man there is. We say, there is a power for grace in a man's nature; and the Papists say, there is a power: only they say it's an active power, though remote, we say, only a passive. There is a power to be converted to God, which is not in stones or beasts: they say, there is a power to convert or turn to God; here is a great difference.  
Besides, we may consider these degrees in the creatures: 1. There is an inclination to such an act, as in the fire to burn. 2. A spontaneous inclination to some acts accompanied with sense, and sensible apprehensions, as in beasts. 3. A willing inclination accompanied with reason or judgement, and this is in man: Now, because man is thus affected, therefore God in converting, though he doth it by a potent work, yet by arguments, which we never use to horses, or brute beasts: and although man hath lost that rectitude in his will and mind, yet he hath not lost the faculties themselves; therefore though he be theologically dead, yet he is ethically alive, being to be wrought upon by arguments. Hence is that saying, To will is of nature, To will well of grace, To will ill of corrupt nature. Hence we may grant those objections, that if a man had not this freewill (if you do not extend it to good things) there could be no conversion or obedience; for grace doth not destroy, but perfect nature.  
2. This putteth men upon speaking and preaching contradictions: 
To press a duty, and yet to acknowledge God's grace or gift to do it, is no contradiction.  For so some have said, that the Calvinists, though they be Calvinists in their Doctrines, yet they are Arminians in their Uses. And they say, How incongruous is it, to tell us we can do nothing of ourselves, and then to make this use, Therefore let us seek out for the grace of Christ? But to answer, 1. This contradiction may be cast as well upon Christ and Paul: Take Christ for an instance, John 6. in that Sermon, he bade the Jews labour for that meat that perisheth not, and yet at the same time said, None can come unto me, except my Father draw him. Might not the Arminian say, How can these two things stand together? So John 15. our Saviour telleth them, Without him they can do nothing and yet at the same time he exhorteth them, to abide in him, and keep his commandments: So Paul; take two instances from him, Rom. cap. 9 & cap. 11. The Apostle there showeth, God will have mercy on whom he will have mercy, and that it is not of him that runneth or willeth, but of God that calleth; yet he bids them that stand take heed lest they fall: and, Be not highminded, but fear. So Phil. 2. 12, 13. Work out your salvation with fear and trembling; for it's God that worketh in you both to will and to do. This reason, in their sense, would quite overthrow the former. Nay (say they) it being attributed thus to God, and to man, it seemeth both do it. How this may be answered, we shall see anon. But to make us speak contradictions, because we press a duty, and yet acknowledge God's grace or gift to do it, is to make a perpetual discord between precepts and promises: For the same things which God commands us to do, doth he not also promise to do for us, as, to circumcise our hearts, and, to walk in his commandments? How much better is that of Augustine's, O man, in God's precepts acknowledge what thou oughtest to do, in his promises acknowledge that thou canst not do it? But 2. we may return upon them, that their Sermons and Prayers are contradictions; they say, they can do it, and then they pray God they may do it: They say, the Will may receive the grace of God, and may obey God calling; and then they pray, God would make them obey his calling; as much as to say, O Lord, make me to obey if I will.  
3. This evacuateth the whole nature of God's precepts and commands: 
Man's inability to observe God's precepts, maketh not void the nature of the precepts, because this inability proceeded from man's own fault. A thing said to be impossible three ways.  For, say they, Is not this to make God mock us, as if we should bid the blind man see; or tell a dwarf, if he would touch the heavens with his finger, he should have so much money? Now, to this many things are to be said: as, first, If these things were absolutely and simply impossible, that which they say would be true; but a thing may be said to be impossible three ways:  
1. Simply and universally, even to the power of God: and so all those things are, that imply a contradiction; and this impossibility ariseth from the nature of the thing, not from any defect in God: Yea, we may say with one, Potentissimè-hoc Deus non potest.  
2. There may be a thing impossible in its kind; as for Adam to reach the heavens, for a man to work above natural causes.  
3. That which is possible in itself to such a subject, but becomes impossible accidentally through a man's fault. Now for a man to be commanded that, which through his own fault he becometh unable to do, is no illusion or cruelty. If a creditor require his debt of a bankrupt, who hath prodigally spent all, and made himself unable to pay, what unrighteousness is this? Therefore they are but odious instances, of touching the skies, of bidding blind men to see; for this Rule observe, Whatsoever is so impossible, that it is extra officium debitum, and potentiam unquam datam, that indeed were absurd to press upon men. Again consider, that the commands of God do imply if any power, then more than they will acknowledge; for they suppose a man can do all of himself without the grace of God, and therefore indeed the old Pelagian, and the new Socinian speak more consonantly than these, that divide it between grace, and the power of man.  
Lastly, The commands of God are for many other ends, as to convince, 
God's commands, though they be not a measure of our power, may serve to convince, humble, etc.  and humble, though they be not a measure or rule of our power. That place, Deut. 30. 11. is much urged by the adversary, where Moses seemeth to declare the easiness of that command: and certainly it hath a very great show; for, as for that answer, That Moses speaketh of the easiness of knowing, and not fulfilling, Calvin doth not stand upon it; and indeed of ourselves we are not able to know the Law of God. The answer then to this may be taken out of Rom. 10. 11. That howsoever Moses speaks of the Law, yet Paul interprets it of the Gospel. What then? Doth Paul pervert the scope of Moses? Some do almost say so; but the truth is, the Law (as is to be showed against the general mistake) if it was not in itself a covenant of grace, yet it was given Evangelically, and to Evangelicall purposes, which made the Apostle allege that place: and therefore the Antinomian doth wholly mistake, in setting up the Law as some horrid Gorgon, or Medusa's head, as is to be showed.  
4. How can God upbraid or reprove men for their transgressions, 
Necessity of sinning hinders not the delight and willingness man hath in sin, and consequently God may reprove him for his transgressions.  if they could do no other ways? This also seemeth very strange, if men can do no otherwise. Is not this as ridiculous to threaten them, as that of Xerxes, who menaced the sea? I answer, No, because still whatsoever man offends in, it's properly his fault, and truly his sin; for whatsoever he sinneth in, he doth it voluntarily, and with much delight; and is therefore the freer in sin, by how much the more he delights in it. And this Austin would diligently inculcate, that so no man might think to cast his faults upon God. There is no man forced to sin, but he doth it with all his inclination and delight. How fare voluntariness is requisite to the nature of a sin, at least actual, though not to original, is not now to be determined; for we all acknowledge, that this necessity of sinning in every man, doth not hinder the delight and willingness he hath in it at the same time.  
Nor should this be thought so absurd, for even Aristotle saith, 
* Cap. 5. l. 3. Ethie. ad Nicom.  that though men at first may choose, whether they will be wicked or no, yet if once habituated, they cannot but be evil: and yet for all that, this doth not excuse, but aggravate. If an Ethiopian can change his skin, saith the Prophet, then may you do good, who have accustomed yourselves to do evil. The Oak, while it was a little plant, might be pulled up; but when it's grown into its full breadth and height, none can move it. Now if it be thus of an habit, how much more of original sin, which is the depravation of the nature? And howsoever Austin was shy of calling it naturale malum, for fear of the Manichees; yet sometimes he would do it. Well therefore doth the Scripture use those sharp reproofs and upbraid, because there is no man a sinner or a damner of himself, but it is by his own fault: and withal, these serve to be a goad and a sharp thorn in the sinner's side, whereby he is made restless in his sin.  
5. To what purpose are exhortations and admonitions? Though 
Though God works all our good in us, yet exhortations are the instrument whereby he works it.  the other answers might serve for this, yet something may be specially answered here, which is, that though God work all our good in us, and for us, yet it is not upon us as stocks or stones; but he dealeth suitably to our natures, with arguments and reasons: And if you say, To what purpose? Is it any more than if the Sun should shine, or a candle be held out to a blind man? Yes, because these exhortations and the word of God read or preached, are that instrument, by which God will work these things. Therefore you are not to look upon preaching, as a mere exhortation, but as a sanctified medium or instrument, by which God worketh that he exhorteth unto. Sometimes indeed we read, that God hath sent his Prophets to exhort those, whom yet he knew would not hearken: Thus he sent Moses to bid Pharaoh let the people of Israel go, and thus the Prophets did preach, when they could not believe, because of the deafness and blindness upon them. But unto the godly these are operative means, and practical, even as when God said, Let there be light, and there was light; or, when Christ said, Lazarus, come forth of the grave. And this by the way should keep you from despising the most plain ministry or preaching that is; for, a Sermon doth not work upon your hearts, as it is thus elegant, thus admirable, but as it is an instrument of God, appointed to such an end: Even as Austin said, The conduits of water, though one might be in the shape of an Angel, another of a beast, yet the water doth refresh as it is water, not as it comes from such a conduit; or the seed that is thrown into the ground fructifieth, even that which comes from a plain hand, as well as that which may have golden rings or jewels upon it: not but that the Minister is to improve his gifts, Qui dedit Petrum piscatorem, dedit Cyprianum rhetorem, but only to show whence the power of God is. Bonorum ingoniorum insignis est indoles, in verbis verum amare, non verba. Quid obest clavis lignea, quando nihil aliud quaerimus, nisi patere clausum?  
6. The Scripture makes conversion and repentance to be our acts, 
How conversion and repentance may be said to be our acts.  as well as the effects of God's grace. And this cannot be denied but that we are the subject, who being acti, agimus▪ enabled by grace, do work; for, grace cannot be but in an intelligent subject: As before the Manna fell upon the ground, there fell a dew, which (say Interpreters) was preparatory to constringe and bind the earth, that it might receive the Manna; so doth reason and liberty qualify the subject, that it is passively capable of grace: but when enabled by grace, it is made active also. These be places indeed have stuck much upon some, which hath made them demand, Why, if those promises of God converting us do prove conversion to be his act, should not other places also, which bid us turn unto the Lord, prove that it is our act? The answer is easy: none deny, but that to believe, and to turn unto God, are our acts; we cannot believe without the mind and will. That of Austin is strong and good, If, because it's said, Not of him that willeth and runneth, but of him that showeth mercy, man is made a partial cause with God, than we may as well say, Not in him that showeth mercy, but in him that runneth and willeth.  
But the Question is, Whether we can do this of ourselves, with grace? Or, Whether grace only enable us to do it? That distinction of Bernard's is very clear: The heart of a man is the subjectum in quo, but not à quo; the subject in which, not from which this grace proceedeth: Therefore you are not to conceive, when grace doth enable the mind and will to turn unto God, as if those motions of grace had such an impression upon the heart, as when the seal imprints a stamp upon the wax, or when wine is poured into the vessel, where the subject recipient doth not move, or stir at all: Nor is it as when Balaam's Ass spoke, or as when a stone is thrown into a place, nor as an enthusiastical or arreptitious motion, as those that spoke oracles, and understood not; Nor as those that are possessed of Satan, which did many things, wherein the mind and will had no action at all: but the Spirit of God inclineth the Will and Affections to their proper object.  
Nor is the Antinomians similitude sound, that (as you heard) makes God converting of a man, to be as when a Physician poureth down his potion into the sick-man's throat, whether he will or no: For it is most true, that the Will, in the illicite and immediate acts of it, cannot be forced by any power whatsoever: Its impossible that a man should believe unwillingly; for, to believe, requireth an act of the Will. The Schoolmen dispute, Whether fear, or ignorance, or lust do not compel the Will; and they do rightly conclude, that it cannot: Therefore, though a man's conversion be resisted by the corrupt heart and will of a man, yet when it is overcome by the grace of God, it turneth willingly unto him. Therefore this argument, though it seem strange, yet we may say of it as he in another case, Hoc argumentum non venit à Dea Suada.  
7. Then men may sit still and never stir, only expecting when 
God's working upon the heart of a sinner for conversion, excludes not man's working.  grace shall come; for, if we have no power, why are men exhorted to come to Christ, and read the word? And indeed, this hath so wrought upon some, that they have not used any means at all, but expect God's providence to be a supplyer of all, as Brentius (if I mistake not) relateth of an Anabaptist woman, who invited many to supper, and never provided any thing, expecting God would do it. Now this Question is built upon a falsehood, as if a man's working were wholly excluded; whereas you are to know, that there are two kinds of holy things:  
1. There are holy things that are internally and essentially so, and these we cannot do without God, John 15. Without me ye can do nothing. Austin observes the emphasis; he doth not say, No hard thing, but nothing: and he doth not say Perficere, perfect; but Facere, you cannot do it any way.  
2. There are holy actions externally so, as to come to hear the word preached, to read and meditate upon the word: experience teacheth, that men have a natural power to this; witness those many Comments and learned Expositions, that men without any grace have made upon the Scripture. Now it's true, to do any of these holily is God's act, The natural man perceiveth not the things of God: and, God opened Lydia's heart. But yet God converteth in the use of these means. He will not ordinarily change the heart of any, that doth not wait at the gates of wisdom. Therefore God doth not work upon the heart, as the Artificer useth his instrument, but he commands to read and hear; and this is the organ, or the means by which the Spirit of God will change his heart. Now indeed, when a man readeth or heareth any natural or philosophical truth, he is able by these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, strength left in nature, to comprehend them, but he cannot in the same manner bring forth any thoughts or affections of heart suitable unto those spiritual mysteries laid open before him. But now the patrons of Nature speak otherwise; they say it is, as if a man, almost spent by a disease, should receive physic, and so that physic doth repair and increase strength, not infuse strength: Or, as a bird tied by a string, that hath a power to fly, only is outwardly hindered, so that they suppose a latent power in Nature to be excited and stirred up by grace: we say, the power must be first infused.  
8. If they thus necessarily sin, than they were not bound to pray, nor 
Though wicked men cannot but sin in praying and hearing, yet they are bound to these duties.  to come to hear the Word of God preached; for then also they sin, and no man is bound to sin. Now to this the answer is clear, that though a wicked man cannot but sin in praying and hearing, yet he is bound to these things: and the reason is, because, that he sinneth in them, it is merely accidental, but the duty is a duty essentially in itself; and a man must not omit that which is per se requisite, for that which is accidentally forbidden: so that his resolution should not be, not to pray, or to hear, but deponere peccatum, to lay down his sin, which corrupteth, leaveneth, and maketh sour all he doth. Besides, there is less judgement to him that prayeth, then to him that prayeth not, although in some particular consideration his aggravation may be the greater.  
9 The Scripture doth say, To him that hath, shall be given, 
God doth not bind himself to this way.  and, when God distributed his talents, it was to every one as he was able, Matth. 25. If we answer to this, that theologia symbolica non est argumentativa, that is denied, and is now o'late questioned; although Augustine's and others comparisons about parables must needs be granted: which are, As in a picture there are lineaments, and essentials of it, but, besides these, the shadows and colours, which are for mere ornament; so in parables: Or, as others, As in the musical instrument, only the strings touched make the noise or tune, yet they could not do so, unless fastened unto the wood; so only the scope of the parable is that which is argumentative, though this principal have many accessaries joined to it: And thus we may say of that passage, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that it's taken from the custom of men, and goeth to make up the parable. But let us consider it otherwise, and Theophylact referreth it dangerously to our preparations and dispositions. In the vessel (saith he) which I am to bring to God, he poureth in his gift: If I bring a little vessel, he giveth a little gift; if a great vessel, he giveth a great gift: But, seeing that under the name of these talents, be understood not only dona sanctificantia, but ministrantia, and the Apostle saith expressly, that the Spirit of God giveth these diversity of gifts, as he pleaseth, this wholly overthroweth that exposition. Therefore the Papists, Barradius and Maldonat, do confess it makes only ad ornatum, non ad rem per parabolam significatam; and that it's taken from the custom of men, who use indeed to look to the gifts of men, their prudence and fidelity: but we know by experience, God did not so. But if we make an argument of it, than this disposition or capacity must be either supernatural, and then it's the gift of God; or if of natural capacity, as sometimes to him that hath excellent parts, a prompt wit, an happy memory, God giveth the habit of Divinity (for there is such a thing that is distinct from the habit of faith) and a gift of interpreting Scripture, although that natural dexterity be a gift of God also, but in another kind; and than God doth not tie or bind himself to this way: and therefore, if we should say, as some do, God gave the spirit of government to Moses, because by nature he was most prudent and meek; yet it's not universally so, because God gave to Saul a spirit of government from his own mere good will, without any respect to Saul. And how many men of parts have been so far from being blest, because of these natural endowments, that they have turned their wedge of gold into an idol, to worship it?  
Use 1. To extol the work of grace for the initial, progressive, and consummative work of conversion: for by all that hath been said, you have seen the weakness 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 soul to that grace, which thou hast disputed against? And be not content with giving something to it, unless thou give all to it; Grace that justifieth, Grace that sanctifieth, Grace that saveth.  
Use 2. Not to abuse the doctrine of grace to idleness 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: do not so trouble yourselves about the doctrine of grace, that you feel not the power of grace in your hearts; and do not so far dispute about your natural 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 do 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 evil thou mayest not eat; 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 ways: 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 natural, and partly positive, both which did go 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 symbolical precept, because the obedience unto it was a symbolum, or outward testimony of our homage and service to God And the object of this command is not a thing good or bad in its own nature, but indifferent, and only evil because prohibited: So that in the words you have the object of this negative precept described two ways; first, by that which is proper to it, the tree of knowledge of good and evil: secondly, by that which is accidental to it, viz. death infallibly upon the eating of it. And that this commandment might be the better received, in the Verse before, God giveth a large commission to eat 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 trial of obedience, he must acknowledge his Landlord. That Adam did eat in the state of innocency, and was hungry, doth appear by this text; only hunger was not in him, as it is in us, with pain and trouble. The difficulties must be handled in the opening of the doctrine, which is, That God, besides the natural law engraven in Adam's 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 evil? And here, certainly, we must take heed of being too curious, lest, as it was Adam's sin, to eat of it; so it may be our curiosity to dive too fare into the knowledge of it. Now when I ask what is meant by it, I do 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 dreams 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 infants cadere non posiit.  simple, and weak in understanding; and, say they, it's impossible to conceive, that if Adam's soul were created so adorned with all knowledge and graces (as the firmament is bespangled with stars) how he should come to eat 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 do much labour to express 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 evil: and so it's usual 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 mere 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 natural 
God, besides the natural law engraven in Adam's heart, did give a positive law:  law in his heart. There are these reasons commonly given:  
1. That hereby God's dominion and power over man might be the more acknowledged: for, to obey the natural law, might be a necessary condition, and not an act of the Will: Even as the Heathens do abstain 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 natural reason. And even among Christians there is a great deal of difference between good actions, that are done because God commands, and because of a natural 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 greatness or goodness 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 Adam's obedience.  Adam's obedience might be the more tried, and be manifested to be obedience. For, as Austin, speaking of himself in confessing his wickedness, that though he had no need or temptation to sin, yet to be a sinner he delighted in that; Nulla alia causa malitiae, nisi malitia: so on the contrary, it's an excellent aggravation of obedience, when there is nulla alia causa obedientiae, nisi obedientia; so that the forbearing to eat, was not from any sin in the action, but from the will of the lawgiver. And Austin doth well explain this: If a man (saith he) forbidden another to touch such an herb, because it's poison, this herb is contrary to a man's health, whether it be forbidden or no: Or if a man forbidden a thing, because it will be an hindrance to him that forbiddeth; as to take away a man's money, or goods, here it's forbidden, because it would be loss to him that forbiddeth: but if a man forbids that which is neither of these ways hurtful, therefore it's forbidden, because bonum obedientiae per se, & malum inobedientiae per se monstraretur.  
And this is also further to be observed, that though the obedience unto this positive law be far inferior unto that of the moral law, because the object of one is inwardly good, and the object of the other rather a profession of obedience, than obedience; yet the disobedience unto the positive law is no less heinous than that to the moral law, because hereby man doth professedly acknowledge he will not submit to God: Even as a vassal, that is to pay such homage a year, if he wilfully refuse it, doth yearly acknowledge his refractoriness. Hence the Apostle doth expressly call Adam's sin disobedience, Rom. 5. not in a general sense, as every sin is disobedience; but specifically it was (strictly taken) the sin of disobedience: he did by that act cast off the dominion and power that God had over him, as much as in him lay; and though pride and unbelief were in this sin, yet this was properly his sin.  
3. Why God would make this law, seeing he fore-knew his fall, and 
The proper essential end of the positive law was to exercise Adam's obedience.  abuse of it. For such is the profane boldness of many men, that would have a reason of all God's actions, whereas this is as 
* Altitudinem consilii ejus penetrare non possum, & longè supra vires meas esse confiteor, August.  if the Owl would look into the Sun, or the Pigmy measure the Pyramids. Although this may be answered without that of Paul's, Who art thou, O man, etc. for God did not give him this law to make him fall; Adam had power to stand. Therefore the proper essential end of this commandment was to exercise Adam's obedience. Hence there was no iniquity or unrighteousness in God. Bellarmine doth confess, that God may do that, which if man should do, he sinned: as, for instance, Man is bound to hinder him from sin that he knoweth would do it, if it lay in his power; but God is not so tied, both because he hath the chief providence, it's fit he should let causes work according to their nature; and therefore Adam, being created free, he might sin, as well as not sin; as also because God can work evil things out of good; and lastly, because God, if he should hinder all evil things, there would many good things be wanting to the world, for there is nothing which some do not abuse. The English Divines in the Synod of Dort held, that God had a serious will of saving all men, but not an efficacious will of saving all: Thus differing from the Arminians on one side, and from some Protestant Authors on the other side; and their great instance of the possibility of a serious will and not efficacious, is this of Gods to Adam, seriously willing him to stand, and withal giving him ability to stand: yet it was not such an efficacious will, as de facto did make him stand; for, no question, God could have confirmed the will of Adam in good, as well as that of the Angels and the glorified Saints in heaven. But concerning the truth of this their assertion, we are to inquire in its time: For that error much spreads, and the Antinomian cannot by his principles avoid, that Christ intentionally died, and so offereth his grace to all. But for the matter in hand, if by a serious will be meant a will of approbation and complacency, yea and efficiency in some sense, no question but God did seriously will his standing, when he gave that commandment. And howsoever Adam did fall, because he had not such help that would in the event make him stand, yet God did not withdraw or deny any help unto him, whereby he was enabled to obey God. To deny Adam that help, which should indeed make him stand, was no necessary requisite at all on God's part.  
But secondly, that of Augustine's is good, God would not have suffered sin to be, if he could not have wrought greater good than sin was evil: not that God needed sin to show his glory; for he needed no glory from the creature: but it pleased him to permit sin, that so thereby the riches of his grace and goodness might be manifested unto the children of his love. And if Arminians will not be satisfied with these Scripture considerations, we will say as Austin to the Heretics, Illi garriant, nos credamus, Let them prate, while we believe.  
5. Whether this law would have obliged all posterity. And certainly 
The positive law did lay an obligation upon Adam posterity.  we must conclude, that this positive command was universal, and that Adam is here taken collectively; for, although that Adam was the person to whom this command was given, yet it was not personal, but to Adam as an head, or common person: Hence Rom. 5. all are said to sin in him, for whether it be in him, or, in as much as all have sinned, it cometh to the same purpose; for how could all be said to have sinned, but because they were in him? And this is also further to be proved by the commination, In the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt die: now all the posterity of Adam dyeth hereby. Besides, the same reasons which prove a conveniency for a positive law, besides the natural for Adam, do also infer for Adam's posterity. It is true, some Divines that do hold a positive law would have been, yet seem to be afraid to affirm fully, that the posterity of Adam would have been tried with the very same commandment of eating the forbidden fruit: but I see no cause of questioning it. Now all this will be further cleared, when we come to show, that this is not merely a law, but a covenant, and so by that means there is a communicating of Adam's sin unto his posterity. And, indeed, if God had not dealt in a covenant way in this thing, there could be no more reason, why Adam's sin should be made ours, than the sins of our immediate parents are made ours. I know Peter Martyr (and he quoteth Bucer) is of a mind, that the sins of the immediate parents are made the sins of the posterity, and Austin inclineth much to that way: but this may serve to confute it, that the Apostle, Rom. 5. doth still lay death upon one man's disobedience. Now, if our parents and ancestors were as full a cause as Adam was, why should the accusation be still laid upon him? But of this more hereafter.  
6. How the threatening was fulfilled upon him, when he did eat of 
Adam, by eating the forbidden fruit, became mortal, and in the state of death, not natural only, but spiritual and eternal also.  the forbidden fruit. We need not run to the answer of some, that this was spoken only by way of threatening, and not positively, as that sentence upon the Ninivites; for these conclude, therefore Adam died not, because of his repentance: but Adam did not immediately repent, and when he did, yet for all that he died. Others read it thus, In the day thou eatest thereof, and then make the words absolute that follow, Thou shalt die: as if God had said, There is no day excepted from thy death, when thou shalt eat. But the common answer is best, which takes to die, for to be in the state of death: and therefore Symmachus his translation is commended, which hath, Thou shalt be mortal; so that hereby is employed a condition and a change of Adam's state as soon as he should eat this forbidden fruit: And by death, we are not only to mean that of the actual dissolution of soul and body, but all diseases and pains, that are the harbingers of it. So that hereby Christians are to be raised higher, to be more Eagle-eyed than Philosophers: They spoke of death and diseases, as tributes to be paid, they complained of Nature as a stepmother; but they were not able to see sin the cause of this. Yea, in this threatening we are to understand spiritual death, and eternal also. Indeed, it's made a question, Whether, if Adam had continued, he should have been translated into heaven, or confirmed only in Paradise: but that his death would have been more than temporal, appeareth fully by Rom. 5. Indeed, the things that concern heaven and hell, or the resurrection, are not so frequently and plainly mentioned in the Old Testament as in the New; yet there are sufficient places to convince, that the promises and threaten in the Old Testament were not only temporal, as some do most erroneously maintain.  
7. Whether Adam was mortal, before his eating of the forbidden 
Adam before his sin was immortal.  fruit. And this indeed is a very famous question; but I shall not be large in it. The orthodox they hold, that immortality was a privilege of innocency, and that Adam's body then only became mortal, when his soul was made sinful. This is vehemently opposed by Papists, and by Socinians: now they both agree, that man should not actually have died, but for sin; only they say, he was mortal, as the Socinians, or immortal, by a mere supernatural gift of God. But a thing may be said to be immortal several ways, as the Learned observe: 1. From an absolute 
A thing may be said to be immortal four ways.  necessity, either inward or outward; in this sense God only is said to be immortal. 2. When there is no inward material cause of dissolution, though outwardly it may be destroyed; and thus are Angels, and the souls of men. 3. A thing may be said to be immortal by some special gift and appointment of God, as the bodies glorified: and, as some say, the heavens and main parts of the world shall have only a qualitative alteration, not a substantial abolition. 4. That is immortal, which hath no propensity to death, yet such a condition being put, it will die; and thus Adam was: therefore in some sense he may be said mortal, in another immortal: But because he is commonly called mortal that is obnoxious to death, therefore we say, Adam, before his sin, was immortal; and this is abundantly confirmed by this sentence of commination. And therefore though Adam would have eaten and drunk, though his body was elementary, and the original of it dust, though he would have begotten children; yet none of these can prove him mortal, because the righteousness in his soul would have preserved the fit temperament of his body, especially having Gods promise made to his obedience.  
8. Whether upon this threatening, Thou shalt die, can be fixed 
The mortality of the whole man cannot be evinced from this threatening, In the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt die.  that cursed opinion of the mortality of the whole man, in soul as well as body. Of all the errors that have risen up, there is none more horrid in nature, and more monstrous in falsehood then this: so that if it could be true of any man's soul, that it was not an immaterial substance, but only a quality of the temperament; it would be true of the Author of that Book, which seemeth to have little sense and apprehension of the divine authority in the Scriptures concerning this matter. What an horrid falsehood is it to call the doctrine of the immortal soul an hell-hatched doctrine? But certainly you would think, for a man to dare to broach such an opinion, he must have places of Scripture as visible as the Sun. But this Text is his Achilles, and all the rest shroud under this, from which he frames his first and chiefest argument, thus:  
What of Adam was immortal through innocency, was to be mortalized by transgression:  
But whole Adam was in innocency immortal:  
Therefore all and every part, even whole man was liable to death by sin. But what Logician doth not see a great deal more foisted into the Conclusion, than was in the Premises? Whole Adam was to be mortalized, therefore all and every part. What a non sequitur is here? That is true of the whole, as it is the whole, which is not true of every part. If I should say, Whole Christ died, (for death is of the concrete, the person) therefore all and every part of Christ died, therefore his divine nature died; this would be a strange inference: yet upon this fallacy is the frame of all his arguments built. Man is said to be mortal, whole man dieth, therefore every part of man dieth. There is difference between totum and totalitas, the whole, and every part of that whole. It's true, death doth bring the compositum, the person, to a nonentity, but not every part of that compositum to a nonentity.  
Besides, that which was immortal, is mortalized, according to their natures, the soul dieth a spiritual and an eternal death. But see how the Devil carries this man further, and sets him upon the pinnacle of error, and bids him throw himself headlong; because he doth evidently say, that if the souls were destroyed as well as the bodies, than there would be no heaven nor hell as yet; he is bold, and confesseth there is none till the resurrection. Now if this be so, then how shall that be true, that the heaven must contain Christ till he come. This doth exceedingly puzzle him, but he takes the heaven for the place where the Sun is, and concludes peremptorily (as if he had been in the same also) that Christ's glorified body is in the Sun: Without doubt (saith he, pag. 33.) he must be in the Sun; and (saith he, pag. 34.) The Sun may be called well the right hand of God, by which through Christ in him we live, and move, and have our being: and there speaketh nothing but darkness about light, as that the Sun is the veil, to keep off the light of Christ's body from us, which otherwise would be so glorious, we could not see it and live. But how dare any man make this interpretation, The heavens must contain him, that is, he must be in the Sun, till be come to restitution of all things? The naming of these things is confutation enough, only this I brought as in a passage merely, to see what cause we have to pray to God to keep us from ourselves, and our own presumptuous thoughts.  
Use 1. Of Instruction, that a law may be made, even to a righteous man, and that threaten may be menaced to a man, who yet is not under the actual curse and damning power of the Law.  
Use 2. To see the goodness of God, that tried Adam but with one positive precept. This should be a caution against multitude of Church precepts: how did Austin complain of it, and Gerson in his time?  
Use 3. How the Devil doth still prevail over us with this temptation of knowledge. There were Heretics called Gnostici, and Ophitae. This desire to eat of the tree of knowledge, hath brought much ignorance and error. I know there are many people so sottish and stupid, that the Devil could never entice them with this temptation: They account it a trouble, even the knowledge of mere necessary things to salvation; but when men desire to know above that which is written, this is a dangerous precipice.  
Use 4. To take heed of ourselves. If Adam, thus perfect, did fail in a command of trial about so little a matter, take heed where you set gunpowder, seeing fire is in your heart. Compare this of adam's with that of Abraham, what a vast difference? Austin thanks God that the heart and temptation did not meet together.   

LECTURE XII.  GENES. 1. 26. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. 
YOu have heard of a twofold law given to Adam: one by outward prescript, for trial and exhortation of his obedience; the other by implantation, which was the Moral Law, and of that at this time.  
When God had made all other things, than man, the immediate and proxime end, was created; it being God's goodness to make no living creature before he provided the food and nourishment of it. And thus man, the last, but the choicest external and visible piece of his workmanship, is created, but in a great difference from the former; for his creation is brought in by way of deliberation and advice, Let us make man: which words denote, 1. the excellency of the man to be made, 2. the mystery of the Trinity is here employed; for, howsoever the Jews would have it, that he spoke to the Angels, or the inanimate creatures: or others, that the word is used in the plural number for dignity sake, as they show examples in the Hebrew: yet we rather join with those that do think it employed, not indeed that this text of itself can prove a Trinity, for the plural number proveth no more three, than four or two, but with other places that do hold forth this doctrine more expressly: so that in the words you have the noble and great effect, Man; the wise and powerful efficient, God; the excellent and admirable pattern or exemplar, After our image: God made man after his image, and so implanted it in him, that that image could not be destroyed, unless man destroyed himself; not that this image was his natural substance and essence, but it was a concreated perfection in him. Now, for the opening of this truth, let us consider these particulars:  
1. Whether image or likeness do signify the same thing. For 
Image, and likeness signify one and the same thing.  the Papists, following the Fathers, make this difference: That image doth relate to the naturals that man hath, his rational soul with the natural properties; and likeness to the gratuitalls or supernaturals, which were bestowed upon him. Now the orthodox, especially the Calvinists, though they deny not but that the soul of a man, with the faculties thereof, may be called the image of God, secondarily and remotely (herein differing from the Lutherans, who will not acknowledge thus much) so that principally and chief it be placed in righteousness and holiness; yet they say, this cannot be gathered from the words, for these reasons: 1. Because verse 27. where there is the execution of this decree in the text, there only likeness is named, and Gen. 9 there is only image named, and Gen. 5. Adam is said to beget Seth after his image and likeness; where such a distinction cannot be made: And this is so clear, that Pererins and Lapide do confess it. Nor is that any matter, because they are put down as two Substantives: for that is usual with the Hebrews, when the later is intended only as an Adjective: so Jerem. 29. 11. To give you an end and expectation, that is, an expected end; so here, image and likeness, that is, an image most like.  
2. It's considerable in what an image doth consist. Now the 
An Image consists in likeness to another pattern after which it is made. A Four-sold image.  Learned, they speak of a  image, or likeness: 1 Where there is a likeness in an absolute agreement in the same nature: and thus the Son of God is the express image of the Father. 2. By participation of some universal nature: so a man and a beast are alike in their common nature of animality. 3. By proportion only: as the Pilot of a ship, and the Governor in the commonwealth are alike. 4. By agreement of order, when one thing is a pattern for another to be made after it: and this is properly to be an image; for two things go to the nature of an image: 1. Likeness, and then 2. that this likeness be made after another as a pattern. Thus one egg is like another, but not a pattern of another: so man was made like Angels, yet not after their image, as the Socinians would have it. So that, to be made after the image of God, implieth a likeness in us to God; and then, that this likeness in us, is made after that pattern which is in God. And howsoever man is a body, and God a spirit; yet this image and likeness may well be in other considerations. It was the opinion of Osiander, that therefore we are said to be made after the iof God, because we are made after the likeness of that humane nature, which the second Person in Trinity was to assume: and this hath been preached o'late as probable; but that may hereafter be confuted, when we come to handle that Question, Whether Christ, as a Mediator, was known and considered of in the state of innocency.  
3. Let us consider in what that image or likeness doth consist. 
The image of God in Adam consisted in the several perfections and qualifications in his soul.  Where, not standing upon the rational soul of a man, which we call the remote image of God, in which sense, we are forbid to kill a man, or to curse a man, because he is made after the image of God; we may take notice of the several perfections and qualifications in Adam's soul: As, 1. In his Understanding there was 
1. In his Understanding was exact knowledge of divine and natural things  an exact knowledge of divine and natural things: Of divine, because otherwise he could not have loved God, if he had not known him, nor could he be said to be made very good. Hence some make a threefold light: 1. That of immediate knowledge, which Adam had. 2. The light of faith, which the regenerate have: 3. The light of glory, which the Saints in heaven have. Now how great is this perfection? Even Aristotle said, that a little knowledge, though conjectural, about heavenly things, is to be preferred above much knowledge, though certains, about inferior things. How glorious must Adam's estate be, when his Understanding was made thus perfect? And then for inferior things, the creatures, his knowledge appeareth in the giving of Names to all the creatures, and especially unto Evo. Adam indeed did not know all things, yea he might grow in experimental knowledge; but all things that were necessary for him, created to such an happy end, to know, those he did: but to know that he should fall, and that Christ would be a Mediator, these things he could not, unless it were by revelation, which is not supposed to be made unto him. So, to know those things which were of ornament and beauty to his soul, cannot be denied him. Thus was Adam created excellent in intellectual abilities; for sapience, knowing God; for science, knowing the creatures; and for prudence, exquisite in all things to be done.  
2. His Will, which is the universal appetite of the whole man, 
2. His Will was wonderfully good, and furnished with many habits of goodness.  which is like the supreme orb, that carrieth the inferior with the power of it, this was wonderfully good, furnished with several habits of goodness, as the firmament with stars: for in it was a propensity to all good, Ephes. 4. 24. It's called righteousness and true holiness: and Eccl. 7. 29. God made man upright: His Will was not bad, or not good, that is, indifferent; but very good. The imaginations of the thoughts of his heart were only good, and that continually. And certainly if David, Job, and others, who have this image restored in them but in part, do yet delight in God's will, how much more must Adam, who when he would do good, found no evil present with him? He could not say as we must, Lord, I believe, help my unbelief: Lord, I love, help my want of love. He could not complain, as that man, Libenter bonus esse vellem, sed cogitationes meae non patiuntur.  
Yet, though his Will was thus good, he needed help from God to be able to do any good thing. I know there are some learned Divines, as Pareus, that do deny the holiness Adam had, or the help God gave Adam, to be truly and properly called grace; righteousness they will call it, and the gift of God, but not grace. Therefore Pareus reproveth Bellarmine for styling his Book De gratia primi hominis: and his reason is, because the Scripture makes that only grace which comes by Christ, and when the subject is in a contrary condition, as we are; but it was not so with Adam: but I cannot tell whether this be worth the while to dispute. This is certain, 1. that Adam could not persevere or continue in obedience to God, without help from God. Nor secondly, was he confirmed in a state of goodness, as the Angels are; yea, as every godly man now is through Christ: and therefore being mutable, we may well conceive a possibility of his falling, though made thus holy.  
3. In his Affections. 1. These tempests and waves were under the 
3. In his Affections regularity and subjection.  command of that holiness: They were to Adam as wings to the bird, as wheels to the chariot; and he was not, as Actaeon, devoured of those that followed him, as it is with us: for, if you consider Affections in the rise of them, they did not move, or stir, but when holiness commanded them. This is proved, in that he was made right: Therefore there could not any Affection stir or move irregularly; as it's said of Christ, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he troubled himself. There were indeed Affections moving in Christ, and so in Adam; but they were as clean water moved in a clear glass: but in us they are as water stirred in a muddy place, which casteth great desilement. Adam therefore, being made right, he could set his Affections, as the Artificer doth his clock, to make it strike when and what he will.  
2. These Affections are subjected in regard of the continuance of them. When our Affections and Passions are raised, how hardly are they composed again? how are we angry, and sin? how do we grieve, and sin? whereas in the state of innocency, they were so under the nurture of it, that, as we command our dogs to fetch and carry, and to lay down; so could Adam then do, bid come fetch such an object, and then bid it to lay down again.  
3. In regard of the degrees of them. We are so corrupted, that we cannot love, but we overlove; we cannot grieve, but we overgrieve: All our heat is presently feverish; but it was then far otherwise. Now then by this righteousness you may perceive the glorious image that God put upon us, and apply it to us, who are banished not only out of a place of Paradise, but out of all these inward abilities: and who can deplore our estate enough?  
Thus was the Moral Law written in his heart: and what the command is for direction, that he was for conversation. And howsoever the Socinians deny this law written in his heart, yet acknowledging he had a conscience, which had dictates of that which was good and righteous, it amounts almost to as much. Nor is it any matter, though we read not of any such outward law given to him: nor is it necessary to make such a Question, Whether the breach of the Moral Law would have undone Adam and his posterity, as well as the transgression of the positive law. For all must necessarily think, that the Moral Law implanted in his heart, and obedience thereunto, was the greatest part of Adam's happiness and holiness. Although we told you, disobedience unto that positive precept, which was only for trial, might in some sense be judged more heinous, than disobedience to the Moral Law.  
In the next place, the image of God did consist in a freedom from 
2. The image of God consisted in a freedom from all misery and danger.  all fear of misery and danger, even proportionably as God is without fear: And this happiness is the consequent of his holiness. And if it be true of the image of God repaired in us, that it is to make us serve him without fear all the days of our life, how much more must it be verified of Adam in that estate? And if you demand how Adam could be without fear, seeing he knew he might fall, and so become miserable: the Answer is to be taken from that state wherein he was created; having no guilt within him, he could have no fear: Even as some learned men say, the godly shall remember their sins in heaven, yet without shame and sorrow, because that glorified nature is not capable of it. And this is a reason why Eve was not a friend of the Serpent, though it was used by the Devil to speak.  
Lastly, this image of God consisted in the dominion and sovereignty 
3. It consisted in that dominion and sovereignty Adam had over the creatures.  he had over the other creatures. And this was rather a consequent of this image, than part of it; for when God had declared his will to make man after his image, than he also said he should rule over the rest. The Socinians indeed make this the only ground or particular wherein this image doth consist, and therefore hold that the woman was not made after the image of God, because she was made in subordination to the man. But that is easily answered; for, although she was made in subjection to him, yet with dominion over the rest of the creatures. Now we might add also, that in his body there was something of God's image; as the impassibility of it, and the immortality: but these things do not come within my subject.  
We therefore come to show the properties of this righteousness and holiness that was thus fixed in Adam's heart.  
1. It's called original, to difference it from actual holiness; as 
That righteousness and holiness fixed in Adam was,  we call it original sin, to distinguish it from actual: and therefore the Learned call it original, partly in regard of itself, because 
1. Original.  it was the first righteousness; partly because of Adam, who had it as soon as he was created. As the Schools say of original sin, Quàm primum originatur homo, originatur itidem peccatum; so we may of Adam in his righteousness, In ortu virtus, as the Father said, In ortu vitium est: and partly in regard of his posterity, for it should have been propagated to them.  
2. Another property of this righteousness is, That it is universal, 
2. Universal.  comprehending the rectitude of all the parts and faculties of the soul: so that Adam was, for his soul, as Absolom is said to be comely for his body, from the head to the foot no blemish at all: so that this was not a perfection in one part only, but all over; as our corruption makes us, as he said of the Martyr wounded in many places, totum vulnus.  
3. It was harmonious: there was not only rectitude in every 
3. Harmonious.  part, but a sweet correspondency one with the other; there was no rebellion or fight between the inferior appetite and the understanding. Therefore some learned men say, This righteousness is not to be conceived as an aggregation of several habits, but as an inward rectitude of all faculties: Even as the exact temperament of the body is not from any superadded habit, but from the natural constitution of the parts.  
4. This righteousness and holiness it was a perfection due to 
4. A perfection due unto him, upon supposition of the end whereunto God made him.  Adam, supposing the end to which God made him. If God required obedience of Adam to keep the law, and happiness thereupon, it was due not by way of merit, but condecency to God's goodness, to furnish him with abilities to perform it; as the soul of Adam was a due to him, supposing the end for which God made him. Indeed, now it's of grace to us, and in a far different consideration made ours, because we lost it. Lastly, this was to be a propagated righteousness; for, as it is to be proved hereafter, God did all this in a way of covenant with Adam, as a public person: And howsoever every thing that Adam did personally was not made ours, (we did not eat in his eating, nor drink in his drinking, we did not dress the garden in his dressing of it) yet that which he did federally, as one in covenant with God, that is made ours; so his sin and misery is made ours, than his righteousness and happiness: As it is now, By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; so than it would have been by one man righteousness, and life by righteousness.  
Questions to be made:  
1. Whether this righteousness was natural to Adam, or no. Howsoever 
Righteousness was a perfection suitable and connatural to Adam.  some have thought this a mere contention of words, and therefore if they were well explained, there would be no great difference; yet the Papists make this a foundation for other great errors: for, grant this righteousness to be supernatural to Adam, as it is to us, than 1. it will follow, That all the motions rising in the Appetite against Reason, are from the constitution of our nature; and so no more sin, than hunger and thirst is. 2. That freewill is still in us, and that we have lost nothing but that which is merely superadded to us. Or they compare this righteousness Adam had, sometimes to an Antidote, which preserves against the deadly effect of poison: sometimes to a bridle, that rules the horse; so that they suppose man's nature would of itself rebel, but only this was given to Adam to check it: sometimes to Sampsons' hair, whereby he had supernatural strength, but when that was cut off, he had only natural: So that by this doctrine, man, now fallen, should be weaker than he was, but not corrupted. Therefore we must necessarily conclude, that this righteousness was natural to him; not in-indeed flowing from the principles of nature, for so it was of God, but it was a perfection suitable or connatural to him; it was not above him, as it is now in us. As a blind man that was made to see, though the manner was supernatural, yet to see was a natural perfection.  
2. Whether justifying faith was then in Adam: Or, Whether faith 
Adam had power to believe, so far as it did not imply an imperfection in the subject.  and repentance are now parts of that image. This is a dispute among Arminians, who plead Adam had not a power to believe in Christ, and therefore it's unjust in God to require faith of us, who never had power in Adam to do it. The Answer is easy, that Adam had power to believe, so fare as it did not imply an imperfection in the subject. It was a greater power then to believe in Christ, and therefore it was from the defect of an object that he could not do it: as Adam had love in him, yet there could be no miserable objects in that state to show his love.  
As for that other Question, Whether repentance be part of the 
Repentance, as it flows from a regenerate nature, reductively the image of God.  image of God: Answ. So far forth as it denoteth an imperfection in the subject, it cannot be the image of God; for we do not resemble God in these things: yet as it floweth from a regenerated nature, so far it is reductively the image of God.  
3. Whether this shall be restored to us in this life again. Howsoever 
God's image not fully repaired in us in this life.  we are said to be partakers of the divine nature, and to be renewed in the image of God; yet we shall not in this life have it fully repaired. God hath declared his will in this, and therefore are those stubs of sin and imperfection left in us, that we might be low in ourselves, bewail our loss, and long for that heaven, where the soul shall be made holy, and the body immortal: yet, for all this, we are to pray for the full abolition of sin in this life, because Gods will and our duty, to be holy as he is holy, is the ground of our prayer, and not his decree for to have such or such things done. Yea, this corruption is so far rooted in us now, that it is not cleansed out of us by mere death, but by cinerifaction, consuming the body to ashes: for we know, Lazarus and others that died, being restored again to life, yet could not be thought to have the image of God perfectly, as they were obnoxious to sin and death.  
Use 1. To humble ourselves under this great loss. Consider what we were, and what we are, how holy once, how unholy now: and here who can but take up bitter mourning? Shall we lament, because we are banished from houses and habitations, because we have lost our estates, and comforts? and shall we not be affected here? This argueth us to be carnal more than spiritual: we have lost a father, a friend, and we wring our hands; we cry, We are undone: and though we have lost God and his image, all happiness thereby, yet we lay it not to heart. Oh think what a glorious thing it was to enjoy God without any interruption; no proud heart, no earthly heart, no lazy heart to grapple with: see it in Paul, Oh miserable man that I am, etc. Basil compareth Paul to a man thrown off his horse, and dragged after him, and he crieth out for help; so is Paul thrown down by his corruptions, and dragged after them.  
Use 2. To magnify the grace of God in Christ, which is more potent to save us, than Adam's sin can be to destroy us. This is of comfort to the godly, Rom. 5. the Apostle, on purpose, makes a comparison between them, and showeth the preeminency of one to save, above the other to destroy. There is more in Christ to save, then in Adam to damn: Christ's obedience is a greater good, than Adam's sin is an evil: It's more honour to God, than this is or can be a dishonour. Let not then sin be great in thy thoughts, in thy conscience, in thy fears; and grace small and weak. As the time hath been, when thy heart hath felt the gall and wormwood of sin; so let it be to feel the power of Christ. As thy 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 sovereign Lord over him; now I shall reassume 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 goodness of God, whereby he doth sweeten and mollify that power of his, and engageth himself to reward that obedience, which were otherwise due, though God should never recompense it. The words therefore being heretofore explained, and the Text eased of all difficulties, I observe this Doctrine, That Doctr. God did not only, as a Lawgiver, enjoin obedience unto Adam; but, 
The covenant with Adam before the fall more obscurely laid down, than the covenant of grace after the fall.  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, than the covenant of grace after the fall: for afterwards you have the express name of the Covenant, and the solemn entering into it by both parties; but this Covenant made with Adam, must only be gathered by deduction and consequence. This Text cometh the nearest to a Covenant, because here is the threatening expressed, and so by consequent some good thing promised to obedience. We are not therefore to be so rigid, as to call for express places, which do name this Covenant; for that which is necessarily and immediately drawn from Scripture, is as truly Scripture, as that which is expressly contained in it. Now there are these grounds to prove God dealt in these commandments by way of Covenant:  
1. From the evil threatened, and the good promised. For, while 
That God dealt with Adam by way of Covenant, appears, 1. From evil threatened, and good promised.  there is a mere command, so long it is a law only; but when it is further confirmed by promises and threaten, than it becomes a Covenant. And if that position be true of some, which maketh the tree of life a sacrament, than here was not only nudum pactum, a mere covenant; but a seal also to confirm it. And certainly, being God was not bound to give Adam eternal life if he did obey, seeing he owed obedience to God under the title of a creature, it was of his mere goodness to become engaged 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 only in that natural life, which was marvellous happy: But either way would have been by mere promise of God, not by any natural necessity. Life must be extended as far as death; now the death threatened was not only a bodily death, but death in hell: why therefore should not the life promised be a life in heaven?  
In the second place, another argument to confirm that God 
2. Because his posterity become guilty of his sin, and obnoxious to his punishment.  dealt in a Covenant with Adam is, in that his posterity becomes guilty of his sin, and so obnoxious unto the same punishment which was inflicted upon Adam in his own person. Now we must come to be thus in Adam, either by a natural propagation, and then Adam should be no more to us then our parents, and our parents sins should be made ours as well as Adam's; which is contrary to the Apostle, Rom. 5. who chargeth it still upon one man. And besides, who can say, that the righteousness, holiness and happiness, which we should have been partakers of in Adam's standing, could come by a natural necessity, but only by the mere covenant and agreement of God? Adam's 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 believers come to receive of Christ, not from a natural necessity, because they have that humane nature which Christ took upon him (for so all should be saved) but by a federal agreement.  
2. Let us consider in the next place, what a Covenant doth imply; 
A Covenant implies God's decree, will, or promise to, & concerning his creatures, whether rational, or irrational.  first in the word, then in the thing signified. For I should deal very imperfectly, if I did not speak something of the general nature of it, though hereafter more may be spoken of. You may therefore take notice, that there are things among men, that do induce a public obligation, that yet do differ: A Law, a Covenant, and a Testament. Now a Law and a Testament, they are absolute, and do not imply any consent of the party under them: As a Law requireth subjection, not attending unto, or expecting the consent of inferiors; and so a Testament, or a Will of man, is to bequeath such goods and legacies unto a man, not expecting a consent. Indeed sometimes such goods are bequeathed to an heir with a condition, and so a man may refuse whether he will be executor, or no; but this is accidental 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 (mere Covenants) but are accompanied with some solemnities, there were stipulations added, which were done by Question and Answer: Do you promise? I promise. Hence it is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. and we call it Stipulation, from the Latin word, which comes from the Greek word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is as much as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because these words did make the Covenant valid. As for Isidorus his definition of stipulation, à frangendis stipulis, because, when they promised or entered into an agreement, they broke a stick between them, and then joining it together, so made a promise, and every party kept a piece, as Tully, 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 implieth no consent? Let us answer first to the word, and then to the matter. Therefore is a Covenant called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Testament, and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (as Aquila translates it) because this word is of a large sense, coming from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to order and dispose: and when we say, the New or Old Testament, it is not to be taken so strictly, as we call a man's Will and Testament, though sometimes the Apostle doth, in reference to Christ's death; but more largely, for God's gracious ordering of such mercies and spiritual benefits to us, by the death of Christ: for the Covenant of grace implieth Christ's death, it being a Covenant of reconciliation. Now, because there is in the Covenant of grace something of a Covenant, and something of a Testament also, hence some do call it a Testament-Covenant, because it is of a mixed nature. The rise of the Hebrew word Berith is variously conjectured: some make it to come from a word that signifieth to eat, because of the sacrifices and feasts that were at a Covenant: some from a word that signifieth to cut, because then in the striking of the Covenant, there was a division of the beast that was killed: some from the word that signifieth to create, as also to order and dispose things by way of likeness: some from a word that signifieth to be pure, and to choose, either because it's by agreement, or because in Covenants they ought to deal without all fraud: but I stand not upon these things.  
By this which hath been said it may appear, that the Covenant God made with Adam, though it be truly called a Covenant; yet no ways a Testament, because there did not intervene the death of any to procure this good for Adam. Now to all this that hath been said, there must this caution be added, That a Covenant is not so properly said to be with God and man, as between man and man: for among them consent is requisite, and doth mutually concur to make the Covenant valid: but neither in the Covenant of Nature or Grace is this consent anteceding the validity of the Covenant required in man. Therefore if you regard the use of the word, and the application of it, it doth denote God's decree, and will, or promise about things, whether about the irrational creatures, or the reasonable: Such was God's Covenant not to drown the world, and God's Covenant with day and night; yea, God's Covenant with Abraham did induce an obligation and tye upon Abraham to circumcise his child. And thus it was with Adam, God's Covenant did not depend properly upon his consent and acceptation, for he was bound to do as God commanded, whether he would agree, or no.  
That Adam's consent was not necessary to make the Covenant valid, doth appear, in that he was bound to accept what God did require. And it's indeed disputed, Whether Adam did so much as know (and if he did not know, he could not consent) that God did indent with him as a public person, and so all his 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 heinous, in undoing himself and all his; as also, by the knowledge of this, he would be the more thankful 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 confirm 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 do 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 than 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 own self: so that we have not a right of justice to the thing, because God hath promised it to us; but only God cannot deny himself nor his word, and therefore we are confident.  
And so Aquinas well, Deus non est debtor, 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 again, Justus est, non quia reddit debitum, sed quia facit quod decet summè bonum: So that when God entereth into a covenant or promise, you must conceive of this suitably to his great majesty; you must not apprehend of it, as when two men agree that are equal, and therefore a debt of justice ariseth between them, and one may implead the other; but as a merciful condescension on God's 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 God's promises do not induce an obligation, but denote the disposition of God to give, although their arguments exclude only a debt of justice from God.  
4. Consider why God will deal with man in a covenant way, rather than in a mere absolute supreme way. There may be these Reasons:  
1. That God might hereby sweeten and endear himself to us. For, 
God deals 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 happiness; to show how good and loving he is, he will reward that most bountifully, which is otherwise due to him: for God did 
1. To endear himself 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 goodness, or, that extendeth not to thee, saith David. It's Augustine's expression, The earth doth fare otherwise dry up, or swallow the water, thirsting for it, than the Sun beams, 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 thankful and loving thoughts of God, that would thus condescend.  
2. Another Reason might be, to incite and encourage Adam the 
2. To incite man to more obedience.  more to obedience. For, howsoever there was no sin in Adam, or remissness; yet this might serve as a means 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 unlawful thing; for did not God deal thus with Adam? If he would obey, he should live; but if not, than he must die. Will you say, with the Antinomian, That this was an unlawful thing, and this was to make Adam legal, and one that was not affected with the goodness of God to him? It is true, if a man obey God out of love to any thing more than God, or equally with God, this is unlawful, according to that, Minus te amat, qui tecum (Domine) aliquid amat.  
3. That hereby Adam's 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 appear more free and willing, as if Adam would have obeyed, though there could have been no obligation upon him to do it.  
5. Consider that the nature of this Covenant was of works, and not 
The Covenant God made with Adam was of works, not of faith.  of faith. It was not said to Adam, Believe, and have life eternal; but, Obey, even perfect and entire obedience. It is true indeed, there was faith of adherence and dependence upon God in his promise and word, and this faith doth not imply any imperfection of the state of the subject as sinful, (which justifying faith doth) for it was in Christ, who in his temptations and trials did trust in God. And what the Old Testament calls trusting, the New calls believing; yea, some say, that this kind of faith shall be in heaven, viz. a dependence upon God for the continuance of that happiness which they do enjoy. This faith therefore Adam had, but in that Covenant it was considered as a gracious act and work of the soul, 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 radical do the natural life: Faith is like the calor innatus, and Repentance is like the humidum radical; and, as the Philosopher saith, if the innate heat devour too much the radical moisture, or the radical moisture too much the heat, there breed presently diseases: so it is with us, if believing make a man repent less, or repenting make a man believe the less, this turneth to a distemper.  
Yet, though it were a Covenant of works, it cannot be said to be of merit. Adam, though in innocency, could not merit that happiness which God would bestow upon him: first, because the enjoying of God, in which Adam's happiness did consist, was such a good, as did fare 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. Though some will not call it grace, because they suppose that only cometh by Christ; yet all they that are orthodox do acknowledge a necessity of Gods enabling Adam to that which was good, else he would have failed. Now then, if by the help of God Adam was strengthened to do the good he did, he was so fare from meriting thereby, that indeed he was the more obliged to God.  
6. God, who entered into this Covenant with him, is to be considered 
God, entering into Covenant with Adam, must be looked upon as one already pleased with him, not as a reconciled Father through Christ.  as already pleased, and a friend with him, not as a reconciled Father through Christ. Therefore here needed no Mediator, nor comfort, because the soul could not be terrified with any sin. Here needed not one to be either medius, to take both natures; or Mediator, to perform the offices of such an one. In this estate that speech of Luther's was true, which he denieth in ours, Deus est absolutè considerandus. Adam dealt with him as absolutely considered, not relatively: with us, God without Christ is a consuming fire, and we are combustible matter, chaff and straw: we are loathsome to God, and God terrible to us; but Adam he was Deo proximo amicus, & Paradisi colonus, as Tertullian, and therefore was in familiarity and communion with him.  
But, although there was not that ordered administration and working of the three Persons in this Covenant of works, yet all these did work in it. Hence the second Person, though not as incarnated, or to be incarnated; yet he with the Father did cause all righteousness in Adam: and so the holy Ghost, he was the worker of holiness in Adam, though not as the holy Spirit of Christ purchased by his death for his Church, yet as the third Person; so that it is an unlikely assertion which one maintains, That the Trinity was not revealed in this Covenant to Adam: so that this showeth a vast difference between that Covenant in innocency, and this of grace. What ado is here for the troubled soul to have any good thoughts of God, to have any faith in 
God's Covenant did suppose a power and possibility in Adam to keep it.  him as reconciled? but than Adam had no fear, nor doubt about it.  
7. This Covenant did suppose in Adam a power, being assisted by God, to keep it; and therefore that which is now impossible to us, was possible to him. And certainly, if there had been a necessity to sin, it would have been either from his nature, or from the Devil: Not from his nature, for than he would have excused himself by this, when he endeavoured to clear himself. But Tertullian speaks wittily, Nunquam figulo suo dixit, Non prudenter definxisti me, rudis admodum haereticus fuit, non obaudiit, non tamen blasphemavit creatorem, lib. 2. ad Mar. cap. 2. Nor could any necessity arise from the Devil, whose temptations cannot reach beyond a moral suasion. Therefore our Divines do well argue, that if God did not work in our conversion beyond a moral suasion, he should no further cause a work good, than Satan doth evil.  
Nor could this necessity be of God, who made him good and righteous: nor would God subtract his gifts from him before he sinned, seeing his fall was the cause of his defection, not Gods deserting of him the cause of his fall. Therefore, although God did not give Adam such an help, that de facto would hinder his fall, yet he gave him so much, that might and ought to prevent it. And upon this ground it is, that we answer all those cavils, why God doth command of us that which is impossible for us to do: for the things commanded are not impossible in themselves, but, when required of Adam, he had power to keep them; but he sinned away that power from himself and us. Neither is God bound, as the Arminians fancy, to give every one power to believe and repent, because Adam in innocency had not ability to do these; for he had them eminently and virtually, though not formally: But more of these things in the Covenant of grace.  
Use 1. To admire with thankfulness God's way of dealing with us his creatures, that he condescends to a promise-way, to a covenant-way. There is no natural or moral necessity that God should do thus. We are his, and he might require an obedience, without any covenanting: but yet, to show his love and goodness, he condescends to this way. Beloved, not only we corrupted, and our duties, might be rejected; not only we in our persons might be abashed, but had we all that innocency and purity which did once adorn our nature, yet even then were we unprofitable to God, and it was God's goodness to receive it, and to reward it. Was then eternal life and happiness a mere gift of God to Adam for his obedience and love? what a free and mere gift than is salvation and eternal life to thee? If Adam were not to put any trust in his duties, if he could not challenge God for a reward; how then shall we rely upon our performances, that are so full of sin?  
Use 2. Further to admire Gods exceeding grace to us, that doth not hold us to this Covenant still. That was a Covenant which did admit of no repentance: though Adam and Eve had torn and rend their hearts out, yet there was no hope or way for them, till the Covenant of grace was revealed. Beloved, our condition might have been so, that no tears, no repentance could have helped us: the way to salvation might have been as impossible, as to the damned angels. To be under the Covenant of works, is as woeful, as the poor malefactor condemned to death by the Judge, according to the law; he falls then upon his knees, Good my lord spare me, it shall be a warning to me, I have a wife and small children, O spare me: But, saith the Judge, I cannot spare you, the Law condemns you: So it is here, though man cry and roar, yet you cannot be spared, here is no promise or grace for you.   

LECTURE XIV.  GENES. 2. 17. In the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt die the death. 
HAving handled the Law of God both natural and positive, which was given to Adam absolutely; as also relatively in the notion of a Covenant God made with Adam, I shall put a period to this discourse about the state of innocency, by handling several Questions, which will conduce much to the information of our judgement against the errors spread abroad at this time, as also to the inlivening and inflaming of our affections practically.  
These Questions therefore I shall endeavour to clear:  
1. Whether there can be any such distinction made of Adam, while innocent, so as to be considered either in his naturals, or supernaturals. For this is affirmed by some, that Adam may be considered in his mere naturals, without the help of grace, and so he loveth God as his natural utmost end, in that he is the preserver and author of nature: or else in his supernaturals, as God did bestow righteousness upon him, whereby he was enabled to enjoy God as his supernatural end. And for this end is this error maintained, that so man now borne, may be made no worse than Adam in that condition at first: which error, if admitted, would much eclipse all that glory which is attributed in Scripture to grace converting and healing of us. Therefore to this Question these things may be answered:  
1. That it cannot be denied, but that in Adam such qualities 
1. In Adam such qualities and actions may be considered, as did flow from him as a living creature, endued with a rational soul.  and actions may be considered, which did flow from him as a living creature, endued with a reasonable soul; so 1 Cor. 15. 45. there the first Adam is said to be made a living soul, that is, a living creature in his kind, whereby he did provide and prepare those things for his nourishment and life that he needed: and this is to have a natural body, as the Apostle calls it. But we may not stay in the consideration of him as a man in an abstracted notion, but as so created by God for that end, to be made happy. Therefore howsoever some learned speak of the animal state and spiritual estate of Adam, yet both must be acknowledged to be natural to him.  
2. In the next place, we do not hold in such a manner his 
2. The principle and habit of righteousness was natural to Adam, but help from God to persevere, supernatural.  righteousness and holiness to be natural to him, as that we deny every thing to Adam that was supernatural; for, no question but the favour of God, which he did enjoy, may well be called supernatural; so also that actual help of God (say some,) which was to be continued to him: For howsoever the principle, and habit as it were of righteousness, was natural to him; yet to have help from God to continue and persevere, was supernatural. 
Adam in the state of innocency needed not Christ by way of reconciliation, but of conservation in righteousness.  Even as you see the eye, though it hath a natural power to see, yet there is a further requisite to the act of seeing, which is light, without which it could not be.  
The second Question is, Whether Christ did intervene in his help to Adam, so that he needed Christ in that state. For here we see many learned and sound men differ: some say, that Christ, being only a Mediator of reconciliation, could no ways be considered in any respect to Adam; for God and he were friends: Others again make the grace of Christ universally necessary, even to Angels, and Adam; saying that proposition, [Without me ye can do nothing,] is of everlasting truth, and did extend to Adam, not indeed by way of pardon or reconciliation, but by way of preservation and conservation in the state of righteousness: Thus those excellent pillars in the Church of God, Calvin, Bucer, and Zanchy, with others. Now for the clearing of this truth, we must consider these particulars:  
1. That it cannot be denied, but that Christ, as the second Person of the Trinity, did create and make all things. This is to be diligently maintained against those cursed opinions that begin, even publicly, to deny the Deity of Christ. Now there are three general ways of proving Christ to be God: 1. In that the name Jehovah, and God, is applied to him, without any such respect as to other creatures. 2. In that he hath the attributes of God, which are Omnipotency and Omnisciency, etc. 3. In that he doth the works which God only can do; such are, raising up from the dead by his own power, and creation: Now that Christ doth create and sustain all things appeareth, John 1. Colos. 1. and Hebrews 1. 3. so that it's impudent blasphemy which opposeth clear Scripture, to detract this from Christ. Indeed, his creating of the world, doth not exclude the other Persons, only he is included hereby.  
2. What help the Angels had by Christ. Here I find different thoughts, even of the judicious. That place Colos. 1. 20. To reconcile all things to himself by him, whether things in heaven or earth, is thought by some a firm place, to prove that the Angels needed Christ, even as a Mediator: and Calvin upon the place brings two Reasons why the Angels need Christ's mediation:  
1. Because they were not without danger of falling, and therefore their confirmation was by Christ. But how can this be proved, that their confirmation came from Christ, and not from God, as a plentiful rewarder of their continued obedience? Indeed, if that opinion of Salmerons were true, which holds it very probable, that the fallen Angels were not immediately condemned, but had a set space and time of repentance given them, this would with more colour have pleaded for Christ's mediation; but that opinion cannot be made good out of the Scripture.  
2. The second Reason of calvin's is, that the obedience of the 
The obedience of Angels may be said to be imperfect negatively, not privatively.  Angels was imperfect, or not so perfect, but that it needed pardon; which he groundeth upon Job 4. 18. His Angels he charged with folly. This may be answered thus, That the obedience of the Angels may be said imperfect negatively, or comparatiuè, in respect of God; it is not answerable to his greatness: but yet it is not imperfect privatively, as if it did want any perfection due to it, and so was to be pardoned. Therefore Eliphaz his expression tends only to this, to show the greatness and majesty of God, and that even Angels themselves are but darkness to his glory. If you ask then, What shall be thought of the place Colos. 1. 20? I answer, This place compared with Ephes. 1. 10. [That he might gather together in one all things in Christ,] may well be laid together; for they speak the same thing. In the Epistle to the Colossians it's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to reconcile; and that to the Ephesians, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which word some expound to be as much as to bring to its first beginning; and so it's explained by them, that all things have suffered a defect from the beginning, and by Christ are to be restored to their former state: Others expound it of reducing all to one head, which is Christ: Others make it a metaphor, from those things which are largely set down, and then briefly capitulated, and summed up again; thus, say they, all that was prefigured by the sacrifices, is fulfilled in Christ: but we take the word in this sense, as it doth imply, to gather together those things which were scattered and divided; and so it doth excellently describe the ruin and confusion that is brought upon all by sin. But then here is the difficulty again, how the Angels can be said to be gathered, seeing they were never divided. To this some answer, that the All things here spoken in the text, are to be limited to men only: so that the things in heaven, shall be the spirits of godly men already translated thither; and the things in earth, those men that are living. But suppose it be extended to Angels, yet will not this infer their need of mediation by Christ, but only some benefit to redound unto them by Christ; and that is certain: for, first, by Christ they have a knowledge of the mysteries of our salvation, as appeareth, Ephes. 3. 10. and secondly, hereby they have joy in the conversion of a sinner, and, lastly, Angels become hereby reconciled with man: and this seemeth to be the most proper and immediate sense of the place. So that I cannot see any ground for that assertion, which saith, Because there is no proportion between a creature and the Creator, therefore there must be a Mediator. And if this hold true of the Angels, than it will also hold about Adam; for, there being no offence or breach made, there needed no Mediator to interpose.  
It's hard to say, Christ would have been incarnated, if Adam had 
Christ's incarnation cannot be supposed, but upon supposition of Adam's fall.  not sinned. All those, who hold the necessity of Christ to Adam and Angels, must also necessarily maintain, that, though Adam had not fallen, Christ would have been incarnated. Now when the Scripture nameth this to be the principal end of Christ's coming into the world, to save that which is lost; unless this had been, we cannot suppose Christ's coming into the flesh. Whether indeed Christ was not the first object in God's decree and predestination, and then afterwards men, and then other things, is a far different question from this. As for Colos. 1. which seemeth to speak of Christ as head of the Church, that he might have preeminency in all things, this doth not prove his incarnation, though no fall of Adam, but rather supposeth it.  
3. Whether the tree of life was a sacrament of Christ to Adam, or 
The tree of life was not a sacrament of Christ to Adam.  no. For this also is affirmed by some, that the tree of life was a sacrament given to Adam, which did represent Christ, from whom Adam was to receive his life. But upon the former grounds I do deny, the tree of life to have any such sacramental signification. It is true, I grant it to be a sacrament; for there is no good reason to the contrary, but that sacraments may be in the state of innocency; only they did not signify Christ. Why it was called a tree of life, is not the same way determined by all: some think, because it had a special quality and efficacy with it, to preserve Adam immortal; for, although he was so made, yet there were means appointed by God to preserve this state. But we will not conclude on this; only we say, It was a sacrament, not only to admonish Adam of his life received from God, but also of that happy life, which upon his obedience he was always to enjoy. Hence Revel. 2. 7. happiness is called eating of the tree of life, which is in the midst of Paradise. We do not in this exclude Adam from depending upon God for all things, or acknowledging him the sole author of all his bliss: but only there was not then that way of administration of good to us, as is now by Christ to man plunged into sin. And this must be said, that we must not curiously start questions about that state in innocency; for the Scripture, having related that there was such a state once, doth not tell us what would have been, upon supposition of his obedience.  
4. And so we may answer that demand, Whether there was 
The Scripture doth not affirm any revelation of a Christ unto Adam.  any revelation unto Adam of a Christ. Now what might be done, we cannot say; but there is no solid ground to assert it: for, howsoever the Apostle indeed makes a mysterious application of that speech of Adam unto Christ and his Church, to set forth their immediate union; yet it doth not follow, that Adam did then know any such mystery. Indeed Zanchie saith, that Christ did in an humane shape appear, and put Adam and Eve together in that conjugal band; but we cannot affirm this from Scripture. And by this also it doth appear, that the Sabbath, as it was figurative of Christ, had this consideration added unto it, as it was given to the Jews afterward, and in that respect it was to be abolished. That opinion is very much forced, which makes those words of God's blessing and sanctifying the Sabbath day, Genes. 1. to be by way of anticipation; and therefore would deny the command of the Sabbath to be given to Adam, saying, there was only one positive law, which was that of not eating the forbidden fruit, that was delivered unto Adam. Now, though this be false, yet that consideration of the Sabbath, as it was figurative of Christ, was not then in the state of the innocency.  
5. Another main question is, Whether this state of reparation 
The state of innocency excelled the state of reparation in rectitude, immortality, and outward felicity.  be more excellent than that in innocency. Now here we cannot say one is absolutely better than the other, only in some respects one is excelled by the other: As, the first estate of Adam did far exceed this in the rectitude it had, being altogether without any sin; for he was not created (as some would have it) in a neutral estate, as being neither good or bad, but possibly either: such an estate doth plainly repugn that image of God, after which he is said to be created. Now what a blessed estate it is to have an heart not stained with sin, to have no blemish, nor spot in the soul, will appear by Paul's bitter complaint, Who shall deliver me from this body of death? That estate also doth excel ours in the immortality and outward felicity he enjoyed; for our second Adam, Christ, howsoever he hath destroyed the works of sin and Satan, yet he hath not fully removed the scars which those sins have left upon us: Christ doing here, as those Emperors, who had taken their enemy's prisoners and captives, but yet killed them not immediately, till the day of triumph came.  
But on the other side, our condition is in one respect made 
The state of reparation more happy than that of innocency, respect of the certainty of perseverance in the state of grace.  happier than Adam's; which is the certainty of perseverance in the state of grace, if once translated into it. And this consideration Austin did much press. We have indeed much sin with our grace, yet God will not let that spark of fire go out: but Adam had much holiness, and no sin; yet how quickly did he lose it? Not but that grace of itself is amissible as well as that of adam's, but because of the special promise and grace of God in Christ; therefore whom he loves, he will always love.  
The next Question is, Whether we may be now by Christ said to 
The imputation of Christ's righteousness doth not infer, that therefore we are more righteous than Adam.  be more righteous than Adam. For so an Antinomian in his Treatise of Justification, pag. 320. 321. quoteth places out of some Authors, as affirming this, that now by Christ we have a more perfect righteousness, then that of Angels, or was lost in Adam; and by this means labours to prove, that we are so holy, that God can see no sin in us. Now, to answer this, I deny not, but the orthodox sometimes have used such expressions, and upon this ground, because the righteousness of Christ as it was his, was of infinite value and consequence; and so as we are in a Mediator, we are in a better and surer condition, than the Angels or Adam was: but they never used such expressions to the Antinomian sense, as if hereby we were made not only perfectly righteous, but also holy, and without sin. This opinion is at large to be refuted in the Treatise about Justification; only thus much take for an answer, That the doctrine, which holdeth the imputation of Christ's righteousness, doth not necessarily infer, that therefore we have righteousness more excellent than Angels or Adam; for it is only imputed to us for that righteousness which we ought to have: it is not made ours in that largeness or latitude as it was Christ's, but as we needed it. Now God never required of us such an holiness as the Angels have, or a greater righteousness than Adam had; and therefore it's a senseless thing to imagine, that that should be made ours which we never needed, or ever were bound to have: so that those expressions of the orthodox must be understood in a sound sense.  
7. Whether that which God requireth of us be greater, then that he 
What God requireth of us, is not greater than what he demanded of Adam in innocency.  demanded of Adam in the state of innocency. For thus the Arminians hold, that greater abilities are now required of a man to believe the Gospel, than were of Adam to fulfil the Law; partly, because the mystery of the Gospel doth consist in mere revelation, which the Law doth not; as also, because all the actions required by the Gospel do suppose a resurrection from that first fall. Now (say they) more is required to rise from a fall, then to prevent a fall. And all this they urge, to prove the necessity of universal grace given to all.  
Now to answer this: First, I conclude (as before hath been proved) that the nature of justifying faith was in Adam, though there was not such a particular object about which it may be exercised; for a thing may be for the nature of it, and yet not have such a name which it hath from a certain respect to some object that now is not, or from some effects which it cannot now produce: So Mercy and Grace was in God for the nature of it always, but as it hath respect to a miserable and wretched creature, that was not till the creature was made so. And so in Adam, there was the nature of love and pity, but yet in regard of some effects, which could not be exercised in that estate, his love could have no such name, as mercy or pity. Thus Adam for his faith, that faith which he did put forth in God's promise about eternal life, upon his obedience, was a justifying faith for the nature of it, but had not the denomination or respect of justifying, because such an object was impossible in that condition. Hence that faith of dependency which Adam had, was the same in nature which justifying faith is. Therefore to the arguments proposed, we deny, that greater strength is required to rise, then to keep from falling, for the same things which would have preserved Adam from falling, as saith in the first place, the same also are required for a man to rise. And as Adam would have stood, as long as his faith in God stood, the Devil labouring to shake that by his temptation; so Christ praying for Peter, a man fallen by Adam, doth especially pray, that his faith may not fail, because by that he was supported and strengthened.  
Lastly, Whether Adam's immortality in that estate, be not different 
Adam's immortality in the state of innocency different from, & short of that which shall be in heaven.  from that which shall be in heaven. Yes, it is very plain it is so; for he was so immortal, as that there was a possibility of mortality, but it is not so with those that are glorified. Again, he was so immortal, as that he had a natural body, which did need nourishment; but it is not so with those that are made happy. It is true, we have heretofore concluded, that Adam in his first estate was naturally immortal, for if death had been natural, God had been the author of death, and man would not have abhorred it. Neither did Christ die simply because he was a man, but because he was a man made for us, who ought to die because of our sin. Indeed, because Adam did eat and drink, and his body was a natural body, therefore there was mortality in him in a remote power, but actual mortality was hindered, by reason of that glorious condition he was placed in; and therefore not actually to die, but to be in a mortal state was threatened as a punishment to him of all apostasy from God.  
Use 1. Of Instruction. What comfort may be to the godly from Christ, though by nature all is lost. Who can hear without trembling of this great loss? Righteousness and immortality lost, God and his image lost. If thou lookest upon thy proud earthly sinful heart, thou mayest say, It was not thus from the beginning: if upon thy sick, weak, and mortal 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 express image of his Father. Though thou hast not perfect righteousness, he hath. Whatsoever thy loss and evil be by the first Adam, thy gain and good may be by the last Adam. Admire herein the mysteries of God's grace and love. What may we not expect for temporals, if needful, when he is thus gracious in spirituals? Are riches, subsistence, equal 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 ruins. Let us not therefore stay in this condition: It's a condition of sin, of wrath: Oh, much better never to have been borne, then to be thus. How happy are all the irrational 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. Holiness must be as inwardly rooted and settled in thee, as ever sin and corruption hath soaked into thee. Thou didst drink iniquity like water; dost thou now, as the Hart, pant after the water-brooks? The resurrection of the soul must be in this life. It was sinful, proud; but it's raised an holy, humble soul.   

LECTURE XV.  EXOD. 20. 1. And God spoke all these words, saying, etc. 
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 ministry of Moses, to the people of Israel; which is the great subject in controversy 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 itself, and then relatively as a Covenant: for, as God (you have heard) hath suffered other errors about the Deity of Christ, and the Trinity, and the Grace of God, therefore to break forth, that the truth about them may be more cleared and manifested; so happily the Law will be more extolled in its dignity and excellency then ever, by those opinions which would overthrow it. The Text, upon which most of the matter I have to say, shall be grounded, are the words now read unto you, that are an introduction to the Law, containing briefly,  
1. The nature of the matter delivered, which is called Words; 
1. What meant by words.  so Deut. 4. ten words: hence it's called the Decalogue. Now the Hebrew word is used not for a word merely, as we say, one word; for so the ten Commandments are more than 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, Galat. 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 show, 
2. Nothing to be added or taken from them.  that nothing may be added to them, or diminished: only 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, only 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
3. God the Author of this Law.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. This word is used in the plural, as some of the Learned observe, defectively; and is to be supplied thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to denote the excellency of God, as they say the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for excellentissima fera. By the Septuagint its translated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because (saith a learned man) they interpreting this for the Grecians, and the wisemen amongst them attributing the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to those that are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, therefore they would use a word, to show, 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 Lawgivers have endeavoured to persuade the people, that they had their Laws from God.  
4. You have the manner of delivering them, God spoke them, 
4. The manner of delivering it.  saying: which is not to be understood, as if God were a body, and had organs of speaking; but only that he form a voice in the air. Now here ariseth a great difficulty, because of Acts 7. where he that spoke to Moses on Mount Sinai is called the Angel: This maketh the Papists and Grotius go upon a dangerous foundation, That God did not immediately 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 Doctr. 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 
The word Law is capable of divers senses and significations.  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 always 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, Moral, Judicial, and Ceremonial: Or else more strictly, for that part which we call the Moral Law; yet with the preface and promises added to it: and in both these respects the Law was given as a Covenant of grace (which is to be proved in due time:) Or else most strictly, for that which is mere mandative and preceptive, without any promise at all: And in this sense, most of those assertions which the Learned have concerning the difference between the Law and the Gospel, are to be understood; for, if you take (as for the most part they do) all the precepts and threaten scattered up and down in the Scripture, to be properly the Law; and then all the gracious promises, wheresoever they are, to be the Gospel, then it's no marvel if the Law have many hard expressions cast upon it. Now this shall be handled on purpose in a distinct question by itself, because I see many excellent men peremptory for this difference: but I much question, whether it will hold, or no.  
2. What Law this delivered in Mount Sinai is, and what kinds of 
Of the division of Laws in general, and why the Moral so called.  laws there are, and why it's called the Moral Law. It is plain by Exod. 20. and cap. 21. All the laws that the Jews had were then given to Moses, to deliver unto the people, only that which we call the Moral Law, had the great preeminency, being twice written by God himself in tables of stone. Now the whole body of these laws is, according to the matter and object, divided into Moral, Ceremonial, and Judicial. We will not meddle with the Queries that may be made about this division. We may, without any danger, receive it, and that Law which we are to treat upon is the Moral Law. And here it must be acknowledged, that the different use of the word Moral, hath bred many perplexities; yea in whatsoever controversy it hath been used, it hath caused mistakes. The word Moral, or Morally, is used in the controversy of the Sabbath, in the question about converting grace; in the doctrine of the Sacraments, about their efficacy and causality; and so in this question, about a Law, what makes it moral. Now in this present doubt, howsoever the word Moral beareth no such force in the notation of it, (it being as much as that which directeth and obligeth about manners, and so applicable even to the Judicial and Ceremonial: and these are in a sense commanded in the Moral Law, though they be not perpetual) as to denote that which is perpetual and always obliging; yet thus it is meant here, when we speak of a thing moral, as opposite to that, which is binding but for a time.  
3. Whether this law repeated by Moses be the same with the Law 
The Law of Moses differs from the law, of Nature:  of Nature implanted in us. And this is taken for granted by many: but certainly there may be given many great differences between them; for,  
First, if he speak of the Law of Nature implanted in Adam at 
1. In respect of power of binding.  first, or as now degenerated, and almost defaced in us, whatsoever is by that law enjoined, doth reach unto all, and bind all, though there be no promulgation of such things unto them: But now the Moral Law in some things that are positive, and determined by the will of God merely, did not bind all the nations in the world; for, howsoever the command for the Sabbath day was perpetual, yet it did not bind the Gentiles, who never heard of that determined time by God: so that there are more things expressed in that, then in the law of Nature.  
Besides, in the second place, The Moral Law given by God 
2 The breach of the Law given by Moses, is a greater sin, than the breach of the law of Nature.  doth induce a new obligation from the command of it; so that though the matter of it, and of the law of Nature agree in many things, yet he that breaketh these Commandments now, doth sin more heinously than he that is an Heathen or Pagan; because by God's command there cometh a further obligation and tye upon him.  
In the third place, in the Moral Law is required justifying 
3. The Moral Law requires justifying faith and repentance, and contains more particulars in it, than the law of Nature.  faith and repentance, as is to be proved, when I come to speak of it as a Covenant; which could not be in the Law given to Adam: so the second Commandment requireth the particular worship of God, insomuch that all the Ceremonial Law, yea our Sacraments are commanded in the second Commandment; it being of a very spiritual and comprehensive nature: so that although the Moral Law hath many things which are also contained in the law of Nature, yet the Moral Law hath more particulars than can be in that. Hence you see the Apostle saith, he had not known lust to be sin, had not the Law said so, although he had the law of Nature to convince him of sin.  
4. Why it was now added. The time when it was added appeareth 
The Law was given when the Israelites were in the wilderness, and not sooner:  by the 18. Chapter, to wit, when the people of Israel were in the Wilderness, and had now come to their twelfth station in Mount Sinai. That reason which Philo giveth, because the Laws of God are to be learned in a Wilderness, seeing there we cannot be hindered by the multitude, is no ways solid. Two reasons there may be, why now, and not sooner or later, God gave this Law:  
First, because the people of Israel coming out of Egypt, had 
1. Because, being come out of Egypt, they were to be restrained of their impiety and idolatry.  defiled themselves with their ways: and we see, while they were in their journey in the Wilderness, what horrible gross impieties they plunged themselves into: therefore God, to restrain their impiety and idolatry, giveth them this Law, to repress all that insolency, so Rom. 5. and Gal. 3. The Law came because of transgressions. But,  
Secondly, I conceive the great and proper reason why God at 
2. Because they were now to grow into a Commonwealth.  this time, rather than another, gave the Law, was, because now they began to be a great people: they were to enter into Canaan, and to set up a Commonwealth, and therefore God makes them laws, for he was their King in a special manner; insomuch that all their laws, even political, were divine: and therefore the Magistrates could not dispense in their laws, as now Governors may in their laws of the Commonwealth, which are merely so; because than they should dispensare de jure alieno, which is not lawful. This therefore was the proper reason, why God at this time set up the whole body of their Laws, because they were now to grow into a Commonwealth. Hence Josephus calls the Commonwealth of the Jews 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a place where God was the Governor.  
5. Whether this Law was not before in the Church of God. And 
The Law not only was, but was publicly preached in the Church before Moses.  certainly, he that should think this Law was not in the Church of God before Moses his administration of it, should greatly err. Murder was a sin before, as appeareth by God's words to Cain; yea the very anger itself that goeth before murder: So all the outward worship of God, as when it's said, This began man to call upon the Name of the Lord; so that the Church of God never was, nor ever shall be without this Law. And when we say, the Law was before Moses, I do not mean only, that it was written in the hearts of men, but it was publicly preached in the ministry that the Church did then enjoy, as appeareth by Noah's preaching to the old world, and Gods striving with men then by his word.  
So that we may say, the Decalogue is adam's, and abraham's, and Noah's, and Christ's, and the Apostles, as well as of Moses. Indeed there was special reason, as you heard, why, at that time, there should be a special promulgation of it, and a solemn repetition; but yet the Law did perpetually sound in the Church, ever since it was a Church. And this consideration will make much to set forth the excellency of it, it being a perpetual means and instrument which God hath used in his Church for information of duty, conviction of sin, and exhortation to all holiness: So that men who speak against the use of the Law, and the preaching of it, do oppose the universal way of the Church of God in the Old and New Testament.  
6. The end why God gave this law to them. I spoke before of the 
The ends of the promulgation of the Law were.  end, why he gave it then, now I speak of the final cause in general: and here I shall not speak of it in reference to Christ, or Justification, (that is to be thought on when we handle it as a Covenant) but only as it was an absolute rule or law. And here it will be a great error, to think the promulgation of it had but one end, for there were many ends:  
1. Because much corruption had now seized upon mankind, 
1. That the Israelites might see what holiness was required of them.  and the people of Israel had lived long without the public worship and service of God, it was necessary to have this law enjoined them, that they might see fare more purity and holiness required of them, than otherwise they would be persuaded of.  
2. By this means they would come to know sin, as the A 
2. That they might come to know sin, and be humbled.  postle speaks, and so be deeply humbled in themselves: the law of God being a clear light to manifest those inward heart-sins and soule-lusts that crawl in us as so many toads, and serpents, which we could never discover before.  
3. Hereby was shadowed forth the excellent and holy nature 
3. To shadow out unto them the excellent and holy nature of God.  of God, as also what purity was accepted by him, and how we should be holy, as he himself is holy; for the law is holy as God is holy: It's nothing but an expression and draught of that great purity which is in his nature; insomuch that it's accounted the great wisdom of that people of Israel to have such laws; and the very nations themselves should admire at it.  
7. The great goodness and favour of God in delivering this law to 
The delivering of this Law to the Israelites, was a great mercy unto them.  them. And this comes fitly in the next place to consider of, that it was an infinite mercy of God to that people to give them this law. Hence Deut. 9 and in other places, how often doth God press them with this love of his in giving them those commandments? And that it was not for their sakes, or because of any merit in them, but because he loved them? So David, Psal. 147. he hath not done so to other nations. And to this may be referred all the benefits that the Psalmist and Prophets do make to come by the law of God: insomuch that it is a very great ingratitude and unthankfulness unto God, when people cry down the Law, and the preaching of it. That which God speaks of as a great mercy to a people, these do reject.  
Nor, because that God hath vouchsafed greater expressions of his love to us in these latter days, therefore may those former mercies be forgotten by us, seeing the Law doth belong unto us for those ends it was given to the Jews now under the Gospel, (as is to be proved) as much as unto them. And therefore you cannot read one commandment in the spiritual explication of it, (for the law is spiritual) but you have cause to bless God, saying, Lord, what are we, that thy will should be so clearly, and purely manifested to us, above what it is to Heathens, yea and Papists, with many others? Therefore, beloved, it is not enough for you to be no Antinomian, but you are to bless God, and praise him for it, that it's read, and opened in our congregations.  
8. The perfection of this law, containing a perfect rule of all things 
The Law of Moses is a perfect rule.  belonging to God or man. And here again I shall not speak of it as a covenant, but merely as its a rule of obedience. And thus, though it be short, yet it's so perfect, that it containeth all that is to be done, or omitted by us: Insomuch that all the Prophets, and Apostles do but add the explication of the Law, if it be not taken in too strict a sense. Hence is that commandment of not adding to it, or detracting from it. And in what sense the Apostle speaks against it, calling it the kill letter, and the ministration of death working wrath, is to be showed hereafter. When our Saviour, Matth. 5. gave those several precepts, he did not add them as new unto the Moral Law, but did vindicate that from the corrupt glosses and interpretations of the Pharisees, is is to be proved. Indeed it may seem hard to say that Christ, and justifying faith, & the doctrine of the Trinity, is included in this promulgation of the Law; but it is to be proved, that all these were then comprehended in the administration of it, though more obscurely. Nor will this be to confound the Law and the Gospel, as some may think. This law therefore and rule of life which God gave the people of Israel, and to all us Christians in them, is so perfect and full, that there is nothing necessary to the duty and worship of God, which is not here commanded; nor no sin to be avoided, which is not here forbidden. And this made Peter Martyr (as you heard) compare it to the ten Predicaments.  
Use. Of Admonition, to take heed how we vilify or contemn this Law of God, either doctrinally or practically. Doctrinally, so the Marcionites, and the Manichees, and Basilides; whereof some have said, it was carnal, yea that it was from a Devil, and that it was given to the Jews for their destruction; because it's said to work wrath, and to be the instrument of death. And those opinions and expressions of the Antinomians about it are very dangerous. What, shall we revile that which is God's great mercy to a people? Because the Jews and Papists do abuse the Law, and the works of it to justification, shall it not therefore have its proper place and dignity? How sacred are the laws of a Commonwealth, which yet are made by men? But this is by the wise God.  
Take heed therefore of such phrases, An Old-Testament-spirit, and, His Sermon is nothing but an explication of the Law: For it ought much to rejoice thee, to hear that pure and excellent image of God's holiness opened. How mayest thou delight to have that purity enjoined, which will make thee loathe thyself, prize Christ and Grace more, and be a quick goad to all holiness? And if you say, Here is nothing of Christ all this while: I answer, That is false, as is to be proved, if the Law be not taken very strictly: And besides, the Law and the Gospel are not to be severed, but they mutually put a fresh relish and taste upon each other. And shall no mercy be esteemed, but what is the Gospel? Thou art thankful for temporal mercies, and yet they are not the Gospel; but this is a spiritual mercy.   

LECTURE XVI.  EXOD. 20. 1. God spoke these words, saying, etc. 
I Have already begun the discourse about the Moral Law; and shall at this time consider those historical passages, which we meet with in the promulgation of it, that so the excellency of it may hereby be more known; for, whosoever shall diligently observe all the circumstances of the history of the Law, he shall find, that God did put glory, upon it: and howsoever the Apostle, Hebr. 12. and 2 Corinth. 3. doth prefer the Gospel above this ministration of Moses; yet absolutely in itself, it was greatly honoured by God. In the general therefore you may take notice, that therefore did God so solemnly, and with great majesty 
1. The Law was given with great majesty, thereby to procure the greater authority to it.  give the Law, that so the greater authority may thereby be procured to it. Hence it is related of many Heathens, that they have feigned some familiarity with their gods, when they made their laws, that so the people might with greater awe and reverence receive them: Thus Numa feigned his discourse with the goddess Aeg●ria for his laws; and it's related of Pythagoras, that he had a tamed Eagle, which he would cause to come flying to him, to make people think his sentences were delivered from heaven to him. If laws of men might well be called by Demosthenes' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, how much rather this Law of God? It's but a conceit of Prospers, that Judaei were so called, because they received Jus Dei, the Law of God. It's further also to be observed in the general, that God hath always had apparitions suitable to the matter in hand. Thus he appeared in a burning bush to Moses, like an armed man to Jusua; and with all signs of majesty, and a great God, being to deliver laws to the people, that they might see how potent he was to be avenged for every breach.  
Again, in the next place, take also this general Observation, That although the Judicial and Ceremonial laws were given 
There is a difference between the Moral, Judicial, and Ceremonial Law, notwithstanding they were given at the same time.  at the same time with the Moral Law, yet there is a difference between them. And this is to be taken notice of, lest any should think, what will this discourse make for the honour of the Moral Law, more than the other laws? It's true, these three kinds of laws agree in the common efficient cause, which was God; and in the minister, or mediator, which was Moses; in the subject, which was the people of Israel; and all and every one of them; as also in the common effects, of binding and obliging them to obedience, and to punish the bold offenders against them. But herein the Moral Law is preheminent: 1. In that it 
The Moral Law more excellent them the Judicial and Ceremonial in three respects.  is a foundation of the other laws, and they are reduceable to it. 2. This was to abide always, not the other. 3. This was immediately written by God, and commanded to be kept in the Ark, which the other were not.  
Lastly observe, these two things in the general, about the 
God humbled the Israelites before he gave them his Law.  time of the delivery of the Law: First, God did not give them his Law, till he had deeply humbled them; and it may be now, Christ will not settle his ordinances with us, till he hath brought us low: And secondly, Before they come unto the Land of promise, God 
God settled his worship before he gave them Canaan.  settleth his worship and laws. When he hath done this, than he bids them, Deut. 2. 1. Go towards Canaan. This showeth, A people cannot have Canaan, till the things of God be settled.  
But we come to the remarkable parts of the history of the promulgation of this Law; and, first, you may consider the great and diligent preparation of the people to hear it, Exod. 1. 9 for, 
Preparation required before the hearing of the Law.  first, They were to sanctify themselves, and to wash their clothes. This, indeed, was peculiar unto those times, yet God did thereby require the cleansing and sanctification of their hearts. The superstitious 
1. The people must sanctify themselves.  imitating of this was among the Gentiles, who used to wash, that they may go to sacrifice, Plaut. in Aulul. Act. 3. scen. 6. yea, this superstition was brought into the Church, Chrysost. Hom. 52. in Mat. We see (saith he) this custom confirmed in many Churches, that many study diligently how they may come to Church with their hands washed, and white garments: And, Tert. cap. 11. de Orat. Hae sunt vera mundiciae, non quas plerique superstitiosè curant, ad omnem orationem etiam cum lavacro totius corporis aquam sumentes: but this by the way, God did hereby signify what purity and holiness of heart should be in them to receive his Law.  
The second thing requisite was, to set bounds, so that none 
2. They must not touch the Mount.  might touch the Mount. It's a violent perverting of Scripture which the popish Canons have, applying this allegorically to a layman, if he read, or meddle with the Scripture; whereas not only a beast, but not the Priests themselves should touch this mountain: and hereby God would have men keep within their bounds, and not to be too curious. The Doctrine of the Trinity, of Predestination, are such a mountain, that a man must keep at the bottom of it, and not climb up.  
The third thing was, not to come at their wives. Some do refer 
3. Nor come at their wives.  this to those women that were legally polluted; but it may be well understood of their conjugal abstinence, not as a thing sinful, but that hereby God would have them put off not only affections to all sins, but all lawful things: so that this preparation for three days, doth make much for the excellency of the Law, and showeth how spiritual we should be in the receiving of it.  
2. The Declaration of Majesty and greatness upon the delivery 
2. The Law was given with great Majesty, that so the people might be raised up to reverence the Lawgiver.  of it: For, although it must be granted, that this was an accommodated way to the Law, that did convince of sin, and terrify, (hence the Apostle, Heb. 12. 18, 19, etc. preferreth the ministration of the Gospel above it) yet this also was a true cause, why thunderings and terrors did accompany the promulgation of it, that so the people might be raised up to fear, and reverence of the Lawgiver. Hence Rev. 4. 5. God is described in his Majesty sitting upon his throne, and lightnings with thunders proceeding from him. Now it's very probable, that these were raised by God in an extraordinary manner, to overcome the heart of the stoutest. And in this nature we are still to suppose the Law preached to us; for, howsoever all that terror be past, yet the effect of it ought to abide upon every man, so fare forth as corruption abideth in him: for, what man is there, whose pride, lukewarmness, or any sinful corruption needs not this awakening?  
It's said Exod. 19 18. God descended upon the mount Sinai in a smoke of fire, and a cloud: all was to show the incomprehensible Majesty of God, as also his terror to wicked men; and in this respect the dispensation of the Gospel was of greater sweetness. Hence Gal. 4. 24. the Apostle makes this mount Sinai to be Agar, generating to bondage. This, I say, must be granted, if you speak comparatively with Gospel-dispensations; but yet the Psalmist speaks of this resolutely in itself, as a great mercy, Psal. 50. 2. Out of Zion, the perfection of beauty, God hath shined; and the fire about him did signify his glorious splendour, as also his power to overthrow his enemies, and consume them: so Psal. 96. All the earth is bid to rejoice at the Lords reigning, which is described by his solemn giving of the Law, which the Church is to rejoice at; yea, ver. 7. it is applied to Christ, Heb. 7. though the Apostle follows the Septuagint: so that if you take these things absolutely, they are looked upon as mercies; yea, and applied to Christ. And it is made a wonderful mercy to them, that God did thus familiarly reveal himself to them, Deut. 4. 7. and Deut. 5. 4, yea, learned men think, that Christ, the Son of God, did in the shape of a man deliver this Law to Moses, and spoke familiarly with him; but especially see Deut. 33. 3. where the word loving signifies embracing by way of protection in the bosom. The gifts of the holy Ghost were given with fiery tongues, and a mighty rushing wind, so that the Gospel is fire, as well as the Law.  
3. God's immediate writing of these with his own fingers in tables 
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.  of stone, Exod. 31. 18. Which honour was not vouchsafed to the other Laws.  
Now by the Finger of God, howsoever some of the Fathers have understood the holy Ghost, and, because the Finger is of the same essence with the body, infer the holy Ghost to be of the same nature with God; yet this conceit is not solid: yet Luke 11. 20. that which is called the finger of God, is Matth. 12. 28. called the Spirit of God: We must therefore understand it of the power and operation of God, who caused those words to be written there. The matter upon which this is written, is said to be tables of stone. The Rabbins conceit, saying, that because it is said of stone in the singular number, that therefore it was but one table, which sometimes did appear as one, sometimes as two, is not worthy the confuting. That which is here to be considered, and makes much to the dignity of the Law, is, that it was written by God, upon tables of stone, to show the perpetuity, and stability of it.  
And howsoever this of itself be not a demonstrative argument to establish the perpetuity of the Law against any Antinomian, yet it may prevail with any reasonable man. Hence Lawgivers, that have laboured the stability of their laws, caused them to be engraven in Brass, or a Marble: so Pliny, lib. 39 ca 9 
Job 19 14.  speaks of brassy tables ad perpetuitatem monimentorum: and Plato as Rhodoginus reports, lib. 25. cap. 2. thought that Laws should be written in tabulis cupressinis, quod futuras putabat aterniores, quàm aereas. It is true, there is also a mystical signification, which is not to be rejected, because the Apostle alludes to it, that hereby was signified the hardness of the Jews heart, which could not easily receive that impression of the Law. Hence the excellency of the Gospel doth appear, in that it is by grace wrought in the hearts of men. But yet this is not so to be understood, as if God did not in the old Testament, even then write his Law in the hearts of men. Therefore that Promise of the Gospel mentioned by Jeremiah is not to be understood exclusively, as if God did not at all write his Law in their hearts, but comparatively.  
4. The sad breaking of this Law by the people of Israel. As the 
4. The Israelites, notwithstanding the delivery of this Law was with power and Majesty, quickly broke it.  Law given by God to Adam was immediately broken; so this Law given in such a powerful manner to keep the Israelites in an holy fear, and reverence; yet how soon was it forgotten by them: For, upon Moses his delay, they presently fell into idolatry. Some think, they thought Moses was dead, and therefore they desired some visible god among them, as the Egyptians had: and because they worshipped Apis, an Ox, hence they made a Calf, wherein their wickedness was exceeding great (though, against the truth, some Rabbins excuse them from idolatry) because they did immediately upon the promulgation of the Law, when they had so solemnly promised obedience, fall into this sin; and not only so, but worshipped it, and gave the glory of all the benefits they enjoyed unto this: not as if they were so simple, as to think this a god, but to worship the true God by this. And this confuteth all those distinctions that Idolaters use, especially Papists, about their false worship. We are not to follow our own hearts, but the Word. As the child in the womb liveth by fetching nourishment by the navel only from the mother, so doth the Church by fetching instruction and direction from Christ.  
5. The time of Moses his abode on the Mount. This also is observable 
5. Moses his abode in the Mount, procured authority both to himself and the Law.  in the story; for hereby God did not only procure great ground of Authority for Moses among the people, but also unto the Law: And therefore, as some compare the time of giving the Law, with the effusion of the gifts of the holy Ghost in the Gospel, making the former to be the fiftieth day of their egress out of Egypt, called Pentecost; so at the same time the holy Ghost was given to the Church: Thus also they compare Moses forty days upon the Mount, with our Saviour's forty days in the wilderness, when he was tempted. It was certainly a miraculous preservation of Moses, that he should be there so long, and neither eat, nor drink. But this example of Moses, with that of our Saviour's, is very vainly, and unwarrantably brought for fasting in Lent.  
6. Moses his zeal against this their idolatry, and breaking of the 
6. Moses his breaking of the Tables intimates, that justification is not to be had by them.  Tables. When Moses came down, he saw how the people had transgressed the Law of God, which so moved him, that, in his zeal, he broke the Tables that were first made. This certainly was by the immediate ordering of God, to signify, that this could not be a way of justification for them: and, indeed, to hold that the Law can justify, is so great an error, that we are all Antinomians in this sense. One hath said, that the Law was like the tree of knowledge of good and evil, but the Gospel that is like the tree of life: yet this must be rightly understood; for God useth the Law, as he doth his whole Word, to beget and increase the life of grace in us, only this life is not that which can justify us: and in this effect of the Law, to increase life, David doth often commend it.  
Now some have attributed this to Moses, as a sin, accounting 
Moses his zeal in breaking the Tables, vindicated from rashness, and sinful perturbation of mind.  it his impatiency and rashness to break the Tables. They acknowledge it to be a good zeal for the main, only they think here was some strange fire, as well as the fire of the Sanctuary. But although this excandescency of Moses was sudden, yet I see not why it should be attributed as rashness in him to break the Tables; for he had brought those Tables as a sign of their Covenant stricken with God: but now, they having broken it by their Idolatry, it was very just to have the Tables broken in the eyes of the people, that so they might see how God was alienated from them: so that we think, he did it not with any sinful perturbation of mind, but an holy zeal: God hereby also ordering, that they should understand God would enter into a new Covenant with them; which made Austin cry out, O ira prophetica, & animus non perturbatus, sed illuminatus!  
7. Moses his petition unto God for his presence, and the manifestation 
7. God's manifestation of his glory unto Moses, makes for his honour.  of God's glory unto him, with God's answer. Howsoever this doth not immediately concern the promulgation of the Law, yet, because it's inserted before the reparation of the Tables again, and maketh for the honour which God put upon Moses, while he was settling the laws of Israel, we will give a touch at it. Cap. 33. ver. 12. Moses desireth God's presence to be with him in conducting of the people of Israel; and, as a sign, whereby he might be confirmed of his presence, he desireth to see God's glory. It is hard to say, what was Moses his petition in this thing. I cannot be of their mind, who make this only a vision, and nothing really acted: nor of theirs, who think that Moses desired to see the essence of God. I will not dispute that Question, Whether the bodily eyes of a man may be lifted up to that perfection, as to see God, who is a spirit.  
Nor can I think that they attain to the truth, who think by the glory of God, to be meant the reasons and grounds of God's mercies, and, in particular, his providence to the Israelites; and by the backparts, which Moses was allowed to see, the effects themselves of his mercy and providence, as if God intended to show Moses his wonderful effects, but not the reasons of them.  
Nor last, That Moses desired to see the humanity of Christ in glory, like that vision of transfiguration; therefore I judge this most literal, that although it's said, ver. 11. that Moses spoke with God face to face, which argueth familiarity, yet for all that, even than God was clothed as it were in a cloud, interposing itself. Now Moses he desireth, that God would manifest himself in a more sensible, visible, and glorious way of an outward shape; even as before he would have known God's Name. Now God in part answereth him, and in part denieth him, showing such a glorious object, that yet he was not able to see, but where the light was less intense.  
8. The reparation of the Tables again. And here is some difference 
8. Though the writing of the second Tables was God's work, yet the forming and polishing them was the work of Moses.  between the former and the later Tables: The former God provided both for the shape and the writing, as you heard; but here the forming or polishing of the Table is Moses his work, and the writing is Gods. The first is said expressly, Exod. 34. 1. Go, hue thee two Tables of stone like the former, and I will write upon these Tables. Here is the second expressly. So Deut. 10. 1, 2, 3. so that the writing of the Law on the second Tables, was as immediately Gods work, as the former; but not the polishing or preparing of the Tables. Only there is one place of Scripture, which troubleth the Learned much, that seemeth to oppose this, and to make the writing upon the second Table to be immediately the act of Moses, and mediately only of God, because he commanded and directed Moses to do so.  
The place that seemeth to oppose this, is Exod. 34. 27, 28. I confess, if we look into the coherence of these Texts, we shall find some things difficult. But two things will help to clear it: first, that the things which Moses did write, were not the ten Commandments, but the several precepts, that were by way of explication; and then the second thing is, that whereas the 28. verse seemeth to speak of the same subject, Moses; yet the two former predicates are to be attributed to him, viz. his staying with God forty days and nights, and his neither eating nor drinking all that while: Then the third predicate is to be given to God, viz. writing upon the ten Commandments; for it's ordinary with the Hebrews, to refer the relative to some remote subject, and not the nearest: and this may untie that knot. There is this remarkable, that though the former Tables were broken, yet now God enters into a Covenant of grace with them, as appeareth by proclaiming himself long-suffering, and gracious; but yet God causeth the ten Commandments to be written again for them, implying, that these may very well stand with a Covenant of grace, which opposeth the Antinomian.  
9 The extraordinary glory that was upon Moses. This is a considerable 
9 The extraordinary glory that was upon Moses, argues the administration of the Law to be glorious.  passage; for the Apostle speaking of this 2 Cor. 3. doth acknowledge the ministration of the Law to have a great deal of glory; but yet such as was to vanish. Where, by the way, take notice against the Antinomian, that the Apostle doth not there speak of the Law absolutely in itself, as if that were to be done away; but, the particular administration and dispensation of it, that was no more to continue, who all grant. Now the Antinomian confounds the Law, with the administration of it. This glory and shining that was upon Moses, was (as it may seem probable) communicated unto him, when he beheld the glory of God. How long it continued, is not certain: that hath no probability of the Rabbins, who hold, it did continue all his life time. The Vulgar Translation makes it horned, Cornuta; hence the Painters pictured Moses with horns: but the word that signifieth an horn, is also for to glitter, and shine: as also those rays of light might be cast forth from Moses his face like horns. This was so glorious, that he was forced to put a veil upon his face, when he spoke to the people. Now the Text saith, Moses did not know his face shone. It's an excellent thing, when God puts a great deal of glory upon a man, and he doth not know it. Gregory applieth this of Moses to Ministers, that, as Moses, because the people could not endure the glorious light of his face, put a veil 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 veil, by condescending to the people. But the Apostle maketh another mystical meaning, wherein the hard things shall in time (God willing) be opened.  
10. The custody and preservation of the Law in the Ark. And 
10. The preservation of the Law in the Ark makes much for the glory of it.  this shall be the last Observation, that will tend to the excellency of the Law. As this one was written 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 its expressly said, that in the Ark there was nothing save the tables of stone; but Hebr. 9 4. there is joined Aaron's 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, only 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, than 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 immediately 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 historical observations.  
Use 1. Of Instruction. How willing God was to put marks 
Seeing God hath put such marks of glory upon the Law, let us take heed of disparaging it.  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 find the power of the Law, and be afraid to reject it. Certainly, as the Physician 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 Pharisaical 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 believer, because of justification, as with one Dionysius a Stoic (as I take it) who held, that pain was nothing; but, being once sick, and tortured with the stone in the kidneys, cried out, that all which 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 seethe 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 finds 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 blind; 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 eyesight, 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.   

LECTURE XVII.  EXOD. 20. 1. And God spoke all these words, saying, etc. 
WE have already considered those historical Observations, which are in the delivery of the Law, and improved them to the dignity and excellency thereof. I now come to the handling of those Questions which make much to the clearing of the truths about it, that are now doubted of: And, first of all, it may be demanded, To what purpose is this discourse about the Law given by Moses? Are we Jews? Doth that belong to us? Hath not Christ abolished the Law? Is not Moses, with his Ministry, now at an end? It is therefore worth the inquiry, Whether the ten Commandments, as given by Moses, do belong to us Christians, or no?  
And in the answering of this Question, I will lay down some Propositions by way of Preface, and then bring arguments for the affirmative. 
The doctrine of the Antinomians heterodoxe, though the Law, as given by Moses, did not bind Christians.   
First therefore, Though it should be granted, that the Moral Law, as given by Moses, doth not belong to us Christians; yet the doctrine of the Antinomians would not hold: for there are some learned and solid Divines, as Zanchy and Rivet; and many Papists, as Suarez and Medina, which hold the Law, as delivered by Moses, not to belong to us, and yet are expressly against Antinomists: for they say, that howsoever the Law doth not bind under that notion, as Mosaical; yet it binds, because it is confirmed by Christ: so that although the first obligation ceaseth, and we have nothing to do with Moses now; yet the second obligation, which cometh by Christ, is still upon us. And this is enough to overthrow the Antinomian, who pleadeth for the total abrogation of the Law.  
Thus, you see, that if this should be granted, yet the Law should be kept up in its full vigour and force as much as if it were continued by Moses. But I conceive that this position goeth upon a false ground, as if our Saviour, Matth. 5. did there take away the obligation by Moses, and put a new sanction upon it, by his own authority; as if he should have said, The Law shall no longer bind you as it is Moses his Law, but as it is mine. Now this seemeth to overthrow the whole scope of our Saviour, which is to show, that he did not come to destroy the Law: And therefore he doth not take upon him to be a new Lawgiver, but an Interpreter of the old Law by Moses. This I intent to handle, God willing, in that Question, Whether Christ hath appointed any new duties, that were not in the Law before. Only this seemeth to be very clear, that our Saviour there doth but interpret the old Law, and vindicate it from corrupt glosses, and not either make a new Law, or intent a new confirmation of the old Law.  
Secondly, Consider in what sense we say, that the Law doth bind us in regard of Moses; And,  
First, this may be understood reduplicatively, as if it did 
The Law given by Moses doth not bind us in regard of Moses.  bind because of Moses; so that whatsoever is of Moses his ministry doth belong to us: and this is very false, and contrary to the whole current of Scripture; for then the Ceremonial Law would also bind us, because, à quatenus ad omne valet consequentia; 
The Law given by Moses, as written for the Church of God, and intended for good to Christians in the N. Testament, is binding.  so that you must not understand it in this sense.  
Secondly, you may understand it thus, that Moses as a Penman of the Scripture, writing this down for the Church of God, did by this intent good to Christians in the New Testament: and this cannot be well denied by any, that do hold the Old Testament doth belong to Christians; for why should not the books of Moses belong to us, as well as the books of the Prophets. Though indeed this be denied by all those that are for the negative.  
Thirdly, therefore we may understand it thus, that God, 
Though the people of Israel were the present subject to whom the Moral Law was given, yet the observation thereof was intended for the Church of God perpetually.  when he gave the ten Commandments by Moses to the people of Israel, though they were the present subject to whom he spoke; yet he did intent an obligation by these Laws, not only upon the Jews, but also all other Nations that should be converted, and come to embrace their Religion: And this is indeed the very proper state of the Question, not, Whether Moses was a Minister, or a Mediator to the Christians as well as the Jews? (for that is clearly false) but, Whether, when he delivered the ten Commandments, he intended only the Jews, 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 Moral Law for the Church of God perpetually; but the other Laws in a peculiar and more appropriated way to the Jews: For the Church of the Jews may be considered in their proper peculiar way, as wherein most of their ordinances were typical, and so Moses, a typical Mediator: or, Secondly, as an Academy, or School, 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 Jews. And, that this may be the more cleared to you, you may consider the Moral Law to bind two ways: 
The Moral Law is binding   
1. In regard of the matter, and so whatsoever in it is the Law of Nature, doth oblige all: and thus, as the Law of Nature, it 
1. In regard of the matter of it.  did bind the Jews before the promulgation of it upon Mount Sinai.  
2. Or you may consider it secondly, to bind in regard of the 
2. In regard of the preceptive authority put upon it.  preceptive authority, and command, which is put upon it; for when a Law is promulged by a Messenger, than there cometh a new obligation upon it: and therefore Moses, a Minister, and Servant of God delivering this Law to them, did bring an obligation upon the people.  
Now the Question is, Whether this obligation was temporary or 
The obligation of the Moral Law perpetual, proved by several Arguments.  perpetual? I incline to that opinion, which Pareus also doth, that it is perpetual, 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 thinks it a Logomachy, and of no great consequence; yet certainly it is: For, although they profess themselves against the Antinomists, and do say, The Law still obligeth, because of Christ's confirmation of it; yet the Antinomians do profess 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 speak 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 Commandments (for I speak of the Moral Law only) by Moses, did intent an obligation perpetual of the Jews, and all others converted to him, then will the Antinomian error 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 Ministry of Moses.  
And, in the first place, I bring this Argument, (which much Argum. 1 prevaileth with me:) If so be the Ceremonial 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 Moral Law given by Moses must still oblige, though it did not bind in respect of the matter, unless we can show 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 Ceremonial Law? Whether they were bound to circumcise, and to use all those legal purifications? Now how are these Questions decided, but thus? That they were but the shadows, and Christ the fullness was come, and therefore they were to cease.  
And thus for the Judicial Laws, because they were given to them as a politic body, that polity ceasing, which was the principal, the accessary falls with it; so that the Ceremonial Law, in the judgement of all, had still bound Christians, were there not special 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 Moral Law; for the matter of that is perpetual, 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 Moral, as well as Ceremonial, I answer it thus: The question which was first started up, and troubled the Church, was merely about Ceremonies, as appeareth Act. 15. and their opinion was, that by the usage of this Ceremonial worship they were justified; either wholly excluding Christ, or joining him together with the Ceremonial Law. Now it's true, the Apostles, in demolishing this error, do ex abundanti show, that not only the works of the Ceremonial Law, but neither of the Moral Law do justify; but that benefit we have by Christ only: Therefore the Apostles, when they bring in the Moral Law in the dispute, they do it in respect of justification, not obligation; for the main Question was, Whether the Ceremonial Law did still oblige: and their additional error was, that if it did oblige, we should still be justified by the performance of those acts; so that the Apostles do not join the Moral and Ceremonial Law in the issue of obligation (for, though the Jews 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 Moral Argum. 2 Law upon Gentiles converted, as obliging of them, with the ground and reason of it; which is, that they were our fathers: so that the Jews and Christians believing are looked upon as one people. Now, that the Scripture urgeth the Moral 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 Jew's, cap. 6. 2. he urgeth children to honour their father and mother, because it's the first Commandment with Promise. Now this was wholly from Moses, and could be no other way: And this is further evident by James, chap. 2. 8, 10. in his Epistle, which is general, and so to Gentiles converted, as well as to the Jews. Now mark those two expressions, v. 8. If you fulfil the royal Law, according to the Scriptures; that is, of Moses, where the second Table containeth our love to our neighbour: and then v. 10. He that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill; where, you see, he makes the Argument not in the matter, but in the Author, who was God by Moses to the people of Israel. And if you say, Why should these Commandments reach to them? I answer, because (as it is to be showed in answering the objections against this truth) the Jews and we are looked upon as one people. Observe that place 1 Cor. 10. The Apostle, writing to the Corinthians, saith, Our fathers were all baptised unto Moses in the cloud and the sea, etc. Now how could this be true of the Corinthians, but only because since they believed, they were looked upon as one?  
The third Argument is from the obligation upon us to keep the Argum. 3 Sabbath day: This is a full Argument to me, that the Moral Law given by Moses doth bind us Christians; for, supposing that opinion (which is abundantly proved by the Orthodox) that the Sabbath day is perpetual, and that by virtue of the fourth Commandment, we cannot then but gather, that the Commandments, as given by Moses, do bind us: For here their distinction will not hold of binding ratione materia, by reason of the matter; and ratione ministerii, by reason of the ministry: for the seventh day cannot bind from the matter of it, there being nothing in nature, why the seventh, rather then the fifth, should oblige; but only from the mere Command of God for that day: and yet it will not follow, that we are bound to keep the Jewish seventh day, as the Learned show in that controversy.  
Now then, those that deny the Law as given by Moses, must needs conclude, that we keep the Sabbath day at the best, but from the grounds of the New Testament, and not from the fourth Command at all: And, howsoever it be no argument to build upon, yet all Churches have kept the moral Law with the Preface to it, and have it in their Catechisms, as supposing it to belong unto us.  
And when those profane opinions, and licentious doctrines came up against the Sabbath Day; did not all learned and sound men look upon it as taking away one of the Commandments? Therefore that distinction of theirs, The Moral Law binds as the Law of Nature, but not as the Law of Moses, doth no ways hold: for the Sabbath day cannot be from the Law of Nature, in regard of the determinate time, but hath its morality and perpetuity from the mere positive Commandment of God.  
The fourth Argument from Reason, that it is very incongruous Argum. 4 to have a temporary obligation upon a perpetual duty. How probable can it be, that God, delivering the Law by Moses, should intent a temporary obligation only, when the matter is perpetual. As if it had been thus ordered, You shall have no other gods but till Moses his time: You shall not murder or commit adultery but till his ministry lasteth, and then that obligation must cease, and a new obligation come upon you. Why should we conceive that, when the matter is necessary and perpetual, God would alter and change the obligations? None can give a probable reason for any such alteration. Indeed, that they should circumcise, or offer sacrifices till Moses ministry lasted only, there is great reason to be given; and thus Austin well answered Porphyrius, that objected God was worshipped otherways in the old Testament then in the New: That is no matter, saith Austin, if that which be worshipped be the true object, though it be worshipped divers ways (when appointed by him) no more than when the same thing is pronounced in divers Languages.  
The fifth Argument, If the Law by Moses do not bind us; then Argum. 5 the explication of it by the other Prophets doth not also belong unto us: For this you must know, that Moses in other places doth explain this Law; and David's Psalms, and Solomon's Proverbs, as also the Prophecies of the Prophets, so fare as they are Moral, are nothing but explications of the Moral Law. Now what a wide door will here be open to overthrow the Old Testament, if I bring that place Deut. 32. 46. [Set your hearts upon these words which I testify to you this day, because it is your life, etc.] too urge Christians to keep the Commandments of the Lord? It may be replied, What is that to us? We have nothing to do with Moses: The matter, indeed, doth belong to us as it is in the New Testament, but as it is there written, so we have nothing to do with it. And by this means all our Texts, and proofs, which are brought in our Sermons may be rejected. And therefore Dominicus à Soto (who is among the Papists for the negative) expressly saith, lib. 2. the Just. & jure, quaest. 5. Art. 4. that no place can be brought out of the books of the Old Testament, unto Christians, as in respect of the obliging force of it. This is plainly to overthrow the Old Testament.  
Now let us consider what are the chiefest Arguments which 
Arguments of the Antinomians, whereby they would prove, that the Law, as given by Moses, does not bind Christians, examined and answered.  they bring for the support of this opinion, that the Law, as given by Moses, doth not bind Christians. And, first, they urge the Preface [I am the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of Egypt.] This doth not belong to us, because we nor our fathers ever were in Egypt: and, say they further, The temporal Promise to keep the Law, doth not belong to us: therefore Ephes. chap. 6. 2. when Paul urgeth that Commandment with Promise, he Argum. 1 doth not keep to the Promise particularly, that thy life may be long in the land the Lord thy God shall give thee; but speaks generally, first by adding something, that it may be well with thee, which was not in the first Promise; and then secondly, by detracting, saying only, that thou mayest live long upon the earth in general.  
Now to the Preface some answer thus, That we may be said Answer 1 literally to be in Egypt: and they go upon this ground, that we are made one with the people of the Jews; and they bring the eleventh of the Romans to prove this, where the Gentiles are said to be graffed in, so that they become of the same stock. And it is plain, that the Believers are Abraham's seed; and then, by this interpretation, whatsoever mercy was vouchsafed unto them, we are to account it as ours. This cannot well be rejected, but yet I shall not pitch upon this. Others therefore they say, That this bondage was typical, of our spiritual bondage; and Answ. 2 the deliverance out of it was typical, of our deliverance from Hell. But this is not so literal an interpretation as I desire, though I think it true. Therefore, in the third place, I shall answer, That there may be peculiar arguments that do belong to the Jews, why they should keep the Commandments, Answ. 3 and there are general ones that belong to all. The general arguments are, I am the Lord thy God, this belongs to us; and then that peculiar argument may belong to them. And this is no new thing to have a perpetual duty pressed upon a people, by some occasional, or peculiar motive. Hence Jerem. 16. 14. 15. God saith there by the Prophet, that they shall no more say, The Lord that brought up out of the land of Egypt, but that brought up out of the land of the North. Where you see a special new argument may be brought for the general duty. And as for the particular temporal Promise, I grant that did only belong to them; but I deny the consequence, that therefore the precept doth not: for the Scripture useth divers arguments to the obedience of the same Command. David's Psalms for the most part, and some of Paul's Epistles, as Philemon, etc. were written upon particular occasions, yet the matter of them doth still belong to us.  
The second Argument is, that, If the Law did oblige us as Argum. 2 given by Moses, than it did the Gentiles, and Heathens also, and so the Heathens were bound to those Commandments, as well as the Jews: but that is not so; therefore Paul, Rom. 2. speaketh of the Gentiles without this Law, and as those that shall be judged without it.  
Now this may be answered: It doth not follow that the Answ. Law by Moses must presently bind the Gentiles, but when promulged and made known to them; as at this time, Infidels and Pagans are not bound to believe in Jesus Christ: but if the doctrine of Christ were promulged to them, they were then bound. And I make no question but other Nations were then bound in the time of Moses his ministry, to inquire after the true God, and to worship him in the Jewish way, so far as they could. Thus we read of the Eunuch coming up to Jerusalem to worship. And certainly, if a whole Nation had then been converted, either they must have worshipped God according to their own institution, or God would have revealed unto them some different way of worshipping him from the Jews, or else they were bound so far as they could (for the Ceremonial worship bound them not otherways) to worship God in the Jewish way, then appointed by him. The Law then given by Moses did bind Gentiles, as it was made known to them: Thus the stranger in the gates was to keep the Sabbath, though that be meant of a stranger that had received their religion; yea, Nehem. 13. 19 Nehemiah would not suffer the Tyrians that were strangers, who did not submit to the Jewish Law, to pollute the Sabbath.  
Now to all this that hath been said, you must take this limitation, 
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.  That the Law given by Moses doth not belong to us in all the particulars of the administration of it. The giving of the Law in that terrible manner might be a peculiar thing belonging to the Jews, as becoming the despensation of the Old Testament; but yet the giving of the Law itself, in the obliging power of it, doth belong to us. We all acknowledge that the Old Testament had a peculiar administration from the New; it was fuller of terror, and so did gender more to bondage then the New: Hence some say, that the Law was given on Mount Sinai; which it was so called from Seneh, a bramble bush (the bush God appeared in,) the Mountain being full of bramble bushes, representing unto us the terrible and pricking power of the Law.  
Use. To take heed of rejecting the Law, as given by Moses, 
Take heed of rejecting the Law, as given by Moses.  lest at the same time we reject the whole Old Testament: for it is said of the Prophets, as well as of the Law, that they are till John; and then why should they limit the Law to Moses his hands, more than others? Why should they not say, The Law, as by David, as by Isaiah, and Jeremiah, doth not bind? And if you say, they in other places speak of Christ; so doth Moses also, as our Saviour expressly saith. So that I see not how an Antinomian can follow his principle, but he must needs cast off the Old Testament, except it be in what it is prophetical of Christ.   

LECTURE XVIII.  MATTH. 5. 21, 22. Ye have heard, that it was said by them of old time, etc. But I say unto you, etc. 
THe Law, as you have heard, may be considered either absolutely, as a Rule; or relatively, as a Covenant: We are handling of it in the first consideration, and have proved, that, as it was delivered by Moses, it doth belong to us Christians. I shall now handle the Perfection of it, and labour to show, that Christ hath instituted no new duty which was not commanded before by the Law of Moses. And this Question will be very profitable, partly against the Antinomians, partly the Papists, and lastly the Socinians, as will appear in the handling of it. That therefore I may the better come to my matter intended, take notice in the general, that these words are part of Christ's Sermon upon the Mount; so that as the Law was first given upon a Mount, so also it is explained and interpreted by Christ upon a Mount. And in this Sermon is observable; first, that Christ gins with the end of actions, Blessedness; for so Moral Philosophy, which is practical, doth also begin. Secondly, he describes the Subjects who shall be made partakers of this, and they are described by several properties. In the next place, as some think, ver. 13. he instructs the Apostles about their peculiar Office, Ye are salt, (not honey, as one observeth) which is bitter to wounds: Ye are light, which is also offensive to sore eyes. In the next place he instructs the people (though some make this only spoken to the Disciples) and that first about the substance of the Precepts, what duties are to be done against the false interpretations of the Pharisees and Scribes: and in the next Chapter he showeth the end, Why we do the good things God requireth of us, and that is for the glory of God, which ought to consume all other ends, as the Sun puts out the light of the fire: and the first substantial duty of the Commandments which he instanceth in, is this in my text.  
Now, before I raise the Doctrine, I must answer some Questions: as, First, 
a What meant by, It hath been said by them of old.  What is meant by those words, [It hath been said by them of old] For here is some difference. It is understood by some in the dative case, (thus) It hath been said to them of old: and hereby our Saviour would comprehend the Auditors, or Hearers that have been heretofore. Others do understand it equivalent unto 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were in the ablative case; and so it seemeth our Interpreters take it, and thus others that are Orthodox: but, truly, the opposition that seemeth to be in those words, [It hath been said to them of old: but I say unto you] makes me incline to the former way, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is in the dative case. It is also demanded, who are meant 
b Who meant by those of old.  by those of old, to what age that doth extend? Some refer it to those times only, that were between Esdras and Christ: but I rather think it is to be extended even unto Moses his time, for we see our Saviour instanceth in commands delivered then, and thus the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 generally (except Act. 21. 16.) referreth to the times of Moses, or the Prophets.  
Secondly, Whether those Precepts which are said to be heard of old, 
Those precepts said to be of old, are the law and words of Moses.  be the Law and words of Moses, or the additions of corrupt glossers. And that most of them are the express words of Moses, it is plain; as, Thou shalt not kill, or, Commit adultery: but the doubt lieth upon two places; The first is ver. 21. Shall be in danger of judgement. Here is, say some, a twofold corruption: 1. By adding words, which are not in the Scripture; for they speak peremptorily, He shall die: whereas these words seem to be obscure and doubtful, He shall be brought before the Judges to be tried, 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 actual murder, but not murderous thoughts, affections, or intentions: And this last seemeth clearly to be the truth, as is to be showed afterwards; but for the former I do something doubt, because, though that addition be not expressed 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 tried by witnesses, which argueth there were Judges to determine the cause. The second particular, is that ver. 43. Thou shalt hate thy enemy: where some learned men observe a threefold depravation; 1. An employed one, as if a friend were only a neighbour. 2. A plain omission; for Levit. 19 it's added, as thyself, which is here omitted. 3. A plain addition of that which was not only not commanded or permitted, but expressly 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, than 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 forequoted places, that speak of relieving of our enemies, to be only meant of enemies that were Jews their Countrymen, 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, but contra omnes alios hostile odium: 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 errors; 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 spiritual duties than 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 Baptism and the Lords Supper, etc.) commanded no new duty, but all was a duty before, that is now.  
Now, that our Saviour doth only interpret, and not add new Laws, will appear,  
1. From that protestation and solemn affirmation he makes, 
Christ does only interpret the old, adds no new Laws.  before he cometh to instruct the hearers about their duties: Think not that I came to destroy the Law, but to fulfil it. Now, although it be true, that Christ may be said to fulfil the Law divers ways, yet I think he speaks here most principally, for his doctrinal fulfilling it; for he opposeth teaching the Law, to breaking of the Law: and if this be so, than our Saviour's intent was, that he came not to teach them any new duty, to which they were not obliged before; only he would better explicate the Law to them, that so they might be sensible of sin more than they were, and discover themselves to be fouler, and more abominable than ever they judged themselves. Thus Theophylact, As a painter doth not destroy the old lineaments, only makes them more glorious and beautiful, so did Christ about the Law.  
In the next place, Christ did not add new duties, which were not commanded in the Law, because the Law is perfect, and they were bound not to add 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 goodness; but if we speak of holy, and spiritual duties, there cannot be a more excellent way of holiness, 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 than this; and this command is not only indicative of an end which we are to aim at, but also preceptive of all the means which tend thereunto.  
And lastly, our Saviour saith not, Except your righteousness 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 formal and hypocritical ways 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 
The Pharisees were of opinion, that the Law did only reach the outward man, and forbidden outward acts.  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 general opinion received among the Jews about the sense of the Commandments; and that was, The Law did only reach to the outward man, did only forbid outward acts, and that there was no sin before God in our hearts, though we delighted in, and purposed the outward acts, if they were not outwardly committed. And this we may gather by Paul, that all the while he was bewitched with Pharisaical principles, he did not understand inward lust to be sin: and as famous, as it is false, is that exposition brought by the Learned of Kimchy upon that Psalm 66. 18. If I regard iniquity in my heart, he will not hear: he makes this strange meaning of it, If I regard iniquity only in my heart, so that it break not forth into outward act, the Lord will not hear, that is, hear, so as to impute it, or account it a sin. And thus it is observed of Josephus, that he derideth Polybius the noble historian, because he attributed the death of Antiochus to sacrilege only in his purpose and will, which he thought could not be; that a man, having a purpose only to sin, should be punished by God for it. But the Heathens did herein exceed the Pharisees, fecit quisque quantum voluit: its Seneca's saying. And, indeed, it's no wonder if the Pharisees did thus corrupt Scripture, for its a doctrine we all naturally incline unto, not to take notice, or ever be humbled for heart-sinnes; if so be they break not out into acts. Oh, what an hell may thy heart be, when thy outward man is not defiled? Good is that passage 2 Chron. 22. 26. Hezekiah humbled himself for the pride of his heart. Certainly, as God, who is a spirit, doth most love spirit-graces; so he doth most abhor spirit-sinnes. The Schools do well observe, that outward sins are majoris infamiae, but inward heart-sinnes are majoris reatûs, as we see in the devils. And from this corruption in our nature ariseth that poisonous principle in Popery, which is also in all formal Protestants, That the commands of God do only forbid the voluntary omssion of outward acts, whereas our Saviour's explication will find every man to be a murderer, an adulterer, etc. Now our Saviour's explications of the Law go upon those grounds which are observed by all sound Divines, viz. 1. That the Law is spiritual, and forbids not only the fruit and branches of sin, but even the root itself and fountain: And 2. that wheresoever any sin is forbidden, and in what latitude soever; the contrary good things are commanded, and in that proportionable latitude. This therefore considered, may make every man tremble and be afraid of his own heart, and with him to cry out, Gehenna sum Domine, I am a very hell itself. Let us not therefore be afraid of preaching the Law as we see Christ here doth, for this is the great engine to beat down the formality, and Pharisaisme that is in people.  
And thus I come to raise the Doctrine, which is, that The Law 
Doctr.  of God is such a perfect rule of life, that Christ added no new precept or duty unto it: But even as the Prophets before did only explicate the Law, when they pressed moral duties, so also Christ and the Apostles, when they urge men unto holy duties, they are the same commanded heretofore: I do not speak of Sacraments, or the outward positive worship, which is otherwise then was in the Old Testament (they had Circumcision, and we have Baptism) 
No specifical difference of the duties in the old Testament, from those of the New, but only gradual in their manifestation. The Law did not only command the outward duty, but required the worship of the heart.  but of the moral duties required of us.  
It is true, in the Old Testament many things were expressed more grossly and carnally, which the people for the most part understood carnally; yet the duties then commanded were as spiritual as now: There is only a gradual difference in the manifestation of the duties, no specifical difference of the duties themselves. And that this may appear the more to the dignity and excellency of the Law, I will instance in particulars:  
First, The Law of God required the heart-worship and service. That this may be understood, take this for a general rule, which is not denied by any; That when there are any moral duties pressed in the Old Testament, the Prophets do it, as explainers of the Law; they do but unfold and draw out that Arras which was folded together before. This being premised, then consider those places in the Old Testament that call for the heart: Thus Pro. 3. 1. Let thine heart keep my commandments; So Pro. 23. 26. My son, give me thine heart: So that all the duties then performed, which were without the heart and inward man, were not regarded: God required then heart-prayer, and heart-humiliation. It's true, the people for the most part understood all carnally and grossly, thinking the outward duty commanded only: and that is no marvel; for do not people, even in these times of the Gospel, look to the external duty, not examining whether they pray or humble themselves according as the Word speaks of such duties? Thus David was very sensible of his heart-neglect, when he prayed, Unite my heart to fear thy Name: and are not the people of God still under the same temptations? They would pray, they would humble themselves, but oh how they want an heart! That is so divided and distracted, that if after any duty we should put that question to it, as God did to Satan, From whence comest thou? it would return Satan's answer, From compassing the earth.  
2. It preferred duties of Mortification, and Sanctification, before 
2. The Law preferred inward graces before outward duties.  religious outward duties. This you shall see frequently pressed and inculcated by the Prophets. Isaiah 1. how doth God abhor there all their solemn duties, making them abominable even like carrion, and all because they did not wash them, and make them clean? So David saith, A broken and contrite heart, it was more than any  offering now under the times of the Gospel. This is an high duty, and few reach unto it. Doth not the Apostle reprove the Corinthians for desiring gifts, rather than graces; and abilities of parts, rather than holiness? So that this is an excellent duty prescribed by God's Law, that to be able to mortify our affections, to have sanctified natures, is more than to have Seraphical knowledge, and Cherubinicall affections in any duty. Who then can be against the preaching of the Law, when it's such an excellent and pure rule, holding forth such precious holiness?  
3. It required all our duties to be done, 
All the duties required by the Law, were to be done,   
1. In faith: for who can think, that when God required in the first Table, having him for their God, that hereby was not commanded faith and trusting in him, as a God in Covenant, who 
1. In Faith.  would pardon sin? How could the Jews love God, or pray unto him acceptably, if they had not faith in him? Therefore the Law is to be considered most strictly, as it containeth nothing but precepts of things to be done; in which sense, it's sometimes, though seldom, taken. And 2. more largely, as it had the Preface, and Promises added unto it: and so it did necessarily require justifying faith; for it cannot be conceived, that when God commanded the people of Israel, by Moses, to worship him, and to acknowledge him as their God, but that his will was, they should believe on him as a Father: But more of this when we speak of the Law as a Covenant.  
2. In love: and this is so much commanded by the Law, that 
2. In Love.  Christ makes the sum of the Law to be in these two things; love of God, and of our neighbour. Therefore I wonder at the Antinomian, who is so apt to oppose the doing of things in love, and doing of them by the Law together: for, doth not the Law of God command every duty to be in love, to pray in love to God, to bear afflictions in love to God? Yea, by the law we are to love God, because he hath given Christ for us; for the Law commands us to love God for whatsoever benefits he bestoweth upon us: now, if we are to love him for temporal benefits, much more for spiritual.  
It is true, the dispensation of the Law was in a terrible way, and did gender to bondage; but the doctrine of the Law, that was for love, and the more any Jew did any thing in love to God, the more conformable he was to Gods Law.  
4. It required such an heavenly heart, that we are to love God more 
Love to God in as great a measure commanded by the Law as by the Gospel.  than any thing else. It did not only require love to God, but also it commanded it in such a preeminency, as that none under the times of the Gospel can do an higher duty, or expression of love, than then was commanded; suppose a man be a Martyr, will lose his life for God's cause, this is an obedience to the first Commandment. When our Saviour saith, He that loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me; he commands no higher thing of any Christian, than every Jew was bound to do. Hence Levi was so commended, because, in executing of Justice, he knew not father or mother: and it must needs be so, for what can be more than all? and yet God requires all the mind, all the heart, all the strength; not that we were bound to love God in quantum est diligibilis, for so God only can love himself; but nihil supra, aequè, or contra.  
5. It required spiritual motives for all our solemn addresses unto 
In all our addresses to God, it required spiritual motives.  him. There are some men who look upon all the Jews under the Old Testament as so many bruit beasts, that did only mind earthly things: and that as children are alured by Apples and Nuts, rather than by a great Inheritance; so they were only invited to duties by carnal and temporal motives, not by any spiritual considerations. Now how false this is, appeareth by the Prophet's general complaints, that when they fasted, it was not to him, even to him; and so they howled, because of their miseries, but not because God was offended: And thus David, though he had received the pardon of his sin, yet how kindly, and spiritually doth he mourn, Against thee, thee only have I sinned? Thus Micah 7. I will bear the indignation of the Lord, because I have sinned against him. What can be more spiritual?  
6. It required joy and contentedness in him more than in any creature; 
It required joy in God above all things else.  yea, to the contempt of all creatures: And doth the Gospel rise higher in any command? We judge those very spiritual expressions, Rejoice in the Lord always; and, Set your affections on things above; and, Our Conversation is in Heaven: but doth not David go as high, when he saith, Whom have I in Heaven but thee, and none in earth in comparison of thee? Did not David prefer the Word of God above gold and honey? Did not his heart faint, and yern within him? What a sweet strain is that of him, when banished, he doth not wish for his kingdom, nor outward estate, but to see God in the beauties of holiness? Therefore, howsoever the dispensation was not so clear and manifest, yet those that were diligent and blessed by God, did arise to such excellent tempers. 
It required perfection of the subject, object, degrees, etc.   
7. Yea, it required all perfection. But what need I run further in perfection, seeing it commanded all perfection? Perfection of the subject, the man ought to be in mind and soul and affections all over holy; Perfection in the object, there was no duty, or performance but the Law requireth it; Perfection in degrees, it did require love without any defect, without any remissness at all: so that there cannot be a more excellent doctrinal way of holiness than the preaching of the Law.  
8. God did work grace in us by this, as well as by the Gospel. I 
The Law instrumental to work grace in us, as well as the Gospel.  add this particular, lest any should say, All this terrifieth the more, because it only commands, and doth not help: I answer, That God doth use the Law instrumentally, for to quicken up grace, and increase it in us, as David, Psal. 119. doth at large show. It is true, the Law of itself cannot work grace; no more can the Gospel of itself work grace: only here is the difference, we cannot be justified by any works of the Law that we are enabled to do, only we are justified by Faith; not as it is a work, for so it's commanded in the Law, but as an instrument applying Christ. Therefore God's Spirit doth graciously accompany us in the pressing of these duties; and hereby we become like a living Law: neither doth this exclude Christ, but advance him the more.  
Use. Of Instruction. How necessary a duty it is for a Minister 
It is the duty of Ministers to be diligent in preaching and expounding the Law.  of Jesus Christ to be diligent in preaching and explicating of the Law of God. We see Christ here, the first, and the longest Sermon that ever he preached, was to vindicate the Law, and to hold forth the excellency of it: and if we be legal Preachers in so doing, than Christ also is so to be accounted: And indeed some have not been afraid to speak so of Christ. But to speak the truth, the preaching of the Law is so necessary, that you can never be spiritual, heavenly, heart-Christians, unless these things be daily set before your eyes. Can the boy ever learn to write well, unless an exact Copy be laid before him? Therefore you can never advance the Law too much, or hear of it too much, if so be it still be propounded as a Rule, as a Doctrine. Indeed when it is made a ground for our Justification, than we turn the precious Manna into corrupt worms. Therefore be so fare from condemning, or disputing against the Law, as that you would earnestly desire to have more and more of this excellent Rule laid down before your eyes. How proud will be my best humility? How carnal will my best heavenly-mindedness be, if so be that I go to this Rule? Where will formality, and customary duties appear, if so be that we attend to this guide? Oh know, there is a great deal of unknown sinfulness in thy heart, because the Law is unknown to thee.   

LECTURE XIX.  MATTH. 5. 21, 22. Ye have heard, it was said of old, etc. 
BEcause my purpose is to set forth the dignity of the Moral Law, I shall therefore briefly demonstrate in this present Sermon, the falsehood of that opinion, maintained by Papists, Anabaptists, and Socinians, That Christ came to give us more exact precepts than Moses delivered to the Jews, and therefore that Christ was not here an Interpreter, but a Reformer. It cannot be denied, but this Sermon of our Saviour's hath bred many thoughts of heart: for, because of these precepts here, not rightly understood, the Heathens took occasion to calumniate the Christian Religion, as that which could not stand with a Commonwealth: And the Ancient Fathers were much troubled in answer to their objections; for when Julian and others did urge, that, seeing by Christ's commands we might not resist evil, but rather be prepared to receive more injuries, therefore no War, no Magistracy, no places of Judicature were lawful: the Fathers in their answer did seem to yield this, only they said, Here was a lawful way, and a better way: To war, or to take places of Justice were lawful ways; but yet to refuse these, and not to meddle with them at all, was a more sublime, Christian way. And from this mistake came that erroneous opinion of Precepts and Counsels. Besides, it's thought by the Learned, that some of the Ancient Fathers, being Philosophers before, did retain much of that stoical disposition in them, and so made Christ's Precepts comply with their affections: But this I shall endeavour to prove, that there is no lawful Moral way heretofore commanded by Moses to the Jews, which doth not at this time also belong to Christians. Only let me premise thus much, That, howsoever the things questioned by the Adversaries, are lawful to Christians, yet there are few that rise up to the practice of them as Christ commanded. Certainly these places; Of not resisting evil, Of giving our cloak to him that would take away our coat, etc. though they do not exclude the office of a Magistrate, or our desire of him to aid us in our defence; yet they do forbid the frequent and common practice of most Christians; so that we may say, there are few states, and Kingdoms which do rise up to the practice of that patience, and christian meekness, which we see here commanded. Insomuch that kingdoms are more the kingdoms of the world then of Christ, and the laws and practices of Commonwealths are such as suit more with humane states, then with the laws of Christ. But I come to the particulars.  
And first, whereas it's granted to be lawful by the Law of 
Swearing neither absolutely unlawful, not universally forbidden by our Saviour, with reasons why.  Moses to swear, now (say some) under the Gospel it's made absolutely unlawful, under any pretence whatsoever, and (say they) here our Saviour forbids it absolutely, Swear not at all; and James, following this of our Saviour, doth the like. Hence their opinion is, that it is not only unlawful to swear falsely and vainly, but at all in any respect. And this (say they) is a perfection required of Christians above those of the Law. Nor is it any wonder that men of late have doubted of this, seeing the Learned show, that some of the Fathers of old have thought it absolutely unlawful for a Christian to swear. In Eusebius one Basilides, a Christian, being commanded to swear, replied, It was not lawful for him, because he was a Christian: And Hierome saith, that to swear was permitted to the Jews, or infants, as to offer sacrifices unto God; yet I cannot see, but that they did swear also, although sometimes they speak as if they thought there were an absolute prohibition of it. Yet Athanasius made a solemn oath, to purge himself, when accused to the Emperor: and Tertullian saith, though the Christians refused to swear per genium Principis, because that they conceived it a devil, yet they did swear per salutem principis.  
Some again have thought, that it is lawful to swear, but then only in religious things, or in things that do concern the safety of the Public, but that it is not lawful to swear in any thing of our own, or about any money matter: and Basil doth object to the Christians of his time, the Example of one Clinius a Pythagorean, who being fined a great sum of money, and might have escaped it by an oath, yet chose rather to undergo that damage then to swear.  
Some have thought it better, if in humane affairs, where promissory oaths use to be, there were only a naked promise, yet with as great a punishment upon the breaking of it, as if it were perjury, because men are for the most part more awed with fear of punishment then breaking an oath. But, whatsoever the thoughts of men may be about limiting of swearing, yet it is lawful in some cases to swear: neither is our Saviour so to be understood as universally forbidding:  
First, because than he would have destroyed the Law, which yet he denyeth that he doth; for Deut. 6. to swear by God, is a command not indeed of a thing absolutely in itself, but occasionally, as opportunity shall be: Therefore the word that signifieth To swear in the Heb. is in the passive sense; implying that we are not voluntarily to choose to do so, but when necessity requireth it.  
Secondly, again, Christ doth not absolutely prohibit it, because the use and end of an oath is perpetual, which is to end controversies, Heb. 6. Therefore Aquinas saith well, that, what first principles are in speculatives, to determine all conclusions, the same an oath is in practicals, to end controversies.  
Thirdly, and lastly, we have the example of Paul swearing sometimes in his Epistle; so that our Saviour doth not altogether forbidden it, but he reproveth the Pharisees corrupt glosses, 
Corrupt glosses of the Pharisees, touching Swearing, reproved.  which were, 1. To think that if a man did not name God in his oath, though it were by other creatures, it was not perjury, if he did falsify that oath. And how many come near this, who think if they swear by the creatures, so that God is not named, it's not such an heinous thing. The second corrupt interpretation was, They thought that God's Name was not polluted, if so be they intended to make good their promise, though they did use the Name of God in their oaths, about unnecessary, and vain matters. Now this our Saviour forbids by his affirmative Direction, Let your yea, be yea, and nay, nay, whatsoever is more than this is of sin. He speaks there of our ordinary and familiar discourse as private persons; not concerning a public consideration: even as afterwards, when he mentioneth the duty of not resisting evil, he forbids private revenge, and not public justice. Although some understand this of our Saviour's, and that of James, not of assertory oaths (for it's spoken by our Saviour, in addition unto that, Thou shalt pay unto the Lord thy vows) but of promissory oaths; and so the meaning is, Although thou intent to perform or do such a thing, yet do not swear, because things are so uncertain, and many things may fall out: and this is very probable. Only if you understand it the former way, you must not take it so, as if an oath were such a lawful thing, as that it is propter se appetendum; but only as physic is, which is sometimes necessary for another thing. Thus therefore having cleared, that our Saviour intendeth no higher thing then that was lawful before, give me leave to reprove the common practice among men, who say they are Christians, about swearing. If you observe men in their discourse, in their trading, do they carry themselves so, as if Christ had said, Swear not at all; and not rather, as if he said, Swear always, and altogether? Oh therefore that this common customary way of swearing, which doth so directly oppose Christ, were wholly laid aside! The very Heathens will condemn us herein, and among the Heathens, ex animi sui sententiâ, was in stead of an oath. It seemeth this custom of swearing in discourse hath been of old; for chrysostom and Austin are very vehement against it in their Sermons. Now let us proceed.  
There are some, who from those words of our Saviour spoken ver. 38, 39, 40, 41. do gather, that now under the Gospel it's not lawful, 1. To put any man to death for any fault whatsoever. 2. That it's not lawful to war. 3. Not to go to law in any case. 4. Not to seek to a Magistrate for the defence of ourselves; Therefore in these opinions they think they hold forth much of Christian meekness and patience: but before we come to the particulars, let us consider in what sense it's said, An eye for an eye, A tooth for a tooth. This kind of 
In what sense the words, An eye for an eye, A tooth for a tooth, are to be taken.  Law was an ancient one among other Nations: Aristotle calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And we read of a double retaliation, one Pythagorical, which was wicked and ungodly, holding that if a man did thieve from one, the same might thieve from him again: The other Mosaical, which was good, and had justice in it. Only the Question is, Whether this be literally to be understood, that it was lawful for a man, who had his eye or teeth struck out by another, to desire of the Judge, that he, who did this violence, should also have his eye or tooth beaten out.  
You may read the Law Exod. 21. 23. and how it ought to be moderated by Judges, (private men not being left to revenge themselves) Deut. 19 19 This Law was not given (as one wickedly saith) to indulge the childish condition of the Jews, as being apt to revenge, and therefore makes it an imperfect Law, (saying that many laws of men were more perfect laws) but it was given against private revenge, and the end was that justice might be done. Now some have said, this Law was literally observed, and that a man who was wounded by another, he himself was wounded again. But I do rather think that the command in the letter of it was not observed, but that a recompense was made according to the judgement of the Judge for the loss: and▪ it would have been a very hard thing, if one man had wounded another, to inflict just such a wound, neither deeper nor broader, nor doing no more hurt upon the man who offered violence.  
We therefore come to the Questions: And first concerning 
Capital punishments, even death itself, may be inflicted upon offenders:  capital punishments to be inflicted upon some offenders. There are those that say, It doth not stand with the goodness and meaknesse of a Gospel-spirit to put any man to death for any crime whatsoever. But the falseness hereof doth appear, 1. In 
1. Because commanded by God.  that its a command of God from the beginning, with a perpetual reason added to it, that he who was guilty of murder, should be put to death; so that at least in this case there ought to be a capital punishment. Now the command that God gave is Gen. 9 6. Whosoever sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed, and there is the reason given of it, because the image of God, viz. in his soul, is in him. To elude this, they say, that this is not a command, but a mere prediction: God doth here foretell (say they) what will befall the murderer, not what a Magistrate is bound to do. But that is a mere evasion; for why should God foretell this, but because it was a duty to be done? Therefore it's not said indefinitely, He that sheddeth man's blood, his blood shall be shed, but he addeth, by man it shall be shed. Therefore, howsoever a great 
* Grotius.  Scholar saith, That those are deceived, who think capital punishments are appointed by the Law of Nature, or any perpetual Law of God; yet this place demonstrateth the contrary: neither is it any matter that Plato would have reduced into his commonwealth the abrogation of capital punishments; or that the Romans for a while did use no heavier punishment, than deportation, or banishment; we must live by commands, and not by examples, especially humane. Its instanced in Cain, who, though he killed his brother Abel, yet God did not destroy him. It must be granted, that God's indulgence to Cain was very great; for he doth not only spare his life, but sets a mark upon him to preserve him (what this was, they are most to be commended, who dare not determine it, because the Scripture is silent in it.) and not only so, but he addeth a more severe punishment to that man that shall kill Cain, then was due to the kill of any man. This hath made some wonder, but the answer is very easy, that where God, for some special reasons, doth prohibit such a fact, if that be notwithstanding committed, it is to be accounted more heinous. And God in suffering Cain to live, was not so much indulgent as severe, in suffering him to be an instance of his displeasure against him to all the world; As Psal. 59 11. Slay them not (saith the Psalmist) lest my people forget: so that it is one thing, what God may do for special reasons; and another, what the common Law of Nature, and the perpetual Law of God requireth.  
A seccond Argument for capital punishments under the Gospel, 
2. Because it is the Magistrates office.  is from the Magistrates office, who, Rom. 13. is said, not to bear the sword in vain: Now the sword, doth imply a power of 
3. Because practised under the Gospel, upon Ananias and Sapphira, and so not repugnant to it.  life and death, and therefore Paul said, If I have done any thing worthy of death, implying there were some things that did deserve it.  
Lastly, that to put to death men for faults, is not repugnant to the spirit of the Gospel, appeareth by the judgement upon Ananias and Sapphira. You cannot read of a more severe expression under the Law, then that was of the Gospel; so that as we are indeed to labour for the meekness and patience of a Christian, yet we are not to forget zeal for God's glory, and the public good, it being cruelty to the good to spare the bad: and if we would pity such a man offending, we must much more pity the commonwealth.  
That which is objected to this is, 1. The rebuke that our Saviour Object. 1 gave to his Disciples, when they would have had fire come down from heaven: They are reproved upon this ground, because they knew not what spirit they were of. Now, say they, this spirit is the spirit of the New Testament, which is opposed to the Spirit of Elias in the Old. The answer is obvious, that Christ doth Sol. not there oppose the Spirit of the New Testament & the Old together, but their spirit, and Elias his spirit. What Elias did, he was moved unto by the Spirit of God, not for any private revenge, but that the glory of God might be illustrated. Now this fire of theirs was rash and vindicative: It was not elementary fire, but culinary; nourished by low and unworthy considerations.  
In the next place they urge the fact of our Saviour, John 8. to Object. 2 the adulteress; where he doth not proceed to the stoning of her, but rather freeth her.  
The answer is, that Christ in his first coming was not as a Judge, and therefore did not take upon him to meddle in temporal Sol. punishments, only as a minister, he laboured to bring them unto repentance, both the woman, and the accusers.  
And whereas again it's objected, that this way of putting to Object. 3 death, is against charity and love of men's souls, because many are put to death without any seeming repentance, which is presently to send them to Hell.  
The answer is, that all Magistrates, they are to take care for the Sol. salvation of the malefactor's souls, as much as in them lieth; but if they do perish in their sins, this ariseth not from justice done, which is rather to bring them in mind of their sins, and to humble them, but it cometh from the frowardness, and obstinacy in their own hearts. And in that, we see a Magistracy confirmed in the Gospel, we need not require an express command in the New Testament for the putting of some malefactors to death.  
The third thing which they say was allowed in the Law, but 
War allowed by Christ under the Gospel.  forbidden by Christ in the Gospel, is War: And certainly we may read in Antiquity, that the Christians did refuse war, but not universally; for there were Christian soldiers, only there were some peculiar causes, why in those times, the Christians might decline it; As, first, because in their military oath, 
Two causes for which the Primitive Christians might decline War.  there was a calling upon an heathen god, and their banners lifted up were polluted with idolatry. And secondly, because they should be forced sometimes to be instruments in accomplishing the Emperor's Edicts against the Christians, which they would not do: Now if we bring places out of the Old Testament for the lawfulness of wars, they care not; for, say they, the laws of Nature, and of Moses are to be reform by the Laws of Christ, God indeed (say they) gave the Jews in the Old Testament leave to fight, because they had a temporal inheritance and possession given them, which they could not keep but by force of arms: now under the New Testament, God hath not done so to his people. Thus they say, but this is a shift, for we know Abraham, by a mere law of nature, went to war, and delivered his nephew Lot, being oppressed by enemies.  
But that War is allowed by Christ, appeareth plainly by comparing 1 Tim. 2. 3. and Rom. 13. where the Apostle would have us pray for Magistrates, and supposeth, that while they are Magistrates, they may be Christians, and come to the faith; so that thereby we may live a quiet and godly life under them; now how can this be, unless they draw their sword upon offenders? And if they cannot in an ordinary legal way be brought to judgement, then by force of Arms.  
The second known argument is from Luke 3. where John Baptist counselleth the soldiers not to lay down their office, but to look to such duties as was necessary to them in that place; and, which is to be observed, these were mercenary soldiers, as it is thought, they were at that time. As for the Objections, they are taken from such considerations as will be examined in the next particular; only the Orthodox that do hold war lawful, they do acknowledge many rules necessary for the godly and holy managing of it: and it's an hard thing to have an holy camp; and this made Austin say, in regard of the concomitant evils of it, that Omne bellum etiam justum esse detestandum; yet not but he thought it necessary to have it used, when it concerned the glory of God, and the good of the Public.   

LECTURE XX.  MATTH. 5. 21, 22. You have heard it hath been said by them of old, etc. 
THere remain two Questions more to be decided in this business, concerning Christ's interpretation of the Law of Moses: The one is about the lawfulness of repelling force by force: The other about applying ourselves to the Magistrate, to defend us against the injury, and violence of others. Now, that I may not be tedious in the discussing of these, I will lay down some few grounds that serve to the clearing of the truth herein, and so proceed to other matter, although (as you have heard) this tendeth much to the dignity and excellency of the Law.  
First therefore take notice, that there is in all a cursed proneness to do things by way of revenge: Insomuch that there is not 
All men naturally prone to revenge injuries.  one in a thousand that doth rise up in practice to this excellent way, and rule of patience. The Heathens, they thought to revenge ourselves was lawful: Thus Tully, It's the first office of Justice to hurt no body, unless first provoked by injury: O quam simplicem, veramque sententiam (saith Lanctantius) duorum verborum adjectione corrupit! But Seneca, he was against this, Immane verbum est ultio; and, Qui ulsciscitur, excusatiùs peccat. Now whatsoever the thoughts of men may be about the lawfulness, it's certain, the practices of men are much contaminated this way. In State and Civil matters, in Church matters, what a revengeful spirit breatheth in men? This certainly cometh much short of our Saviour's Directions. There is no injury or violence offered unto thee, but, in stead of revengeful affections, there may be holy mortifying thoughts in thee: As when Sheba cursed David, see how that brought him to the sense of sin, to look up unto God more than to the instrument. All defamations and reproaches may serve to make thy graces more splendent. As Plutarch observeth, the Gardener planteth his unsavoury herbs, Garlic and Onions near his sweetest Roses, that so the smell thereof may be the more prized. That was an excellent temper of Calvin, when reviled by Luther, he said, Etiamsi Lutherus millies me diabolum vocet, ego tamen illum insignem Domini servum agnosco. Why is it, that there are such suspicions, heart-burnings, defamations of one another, hard speeches and censures, but because this lesson of Christ is not learned by us?  
2. Consider this, that the primitive Christians have gone very 
The primitive Christians held it unlawful for a man in his own defence to kill the invader.  fare in this Question, holding it unlawful to defend a man's self from another who would kill us, by killing of the Invader. Austin saith; he cannot tell how to defend those that do kill the invader; and to this purpose others. It is maintained by some, that though indeed a man is not bound to be killed rather than to kill; yet if he do choose the former rather than the latter, he doth a work full of charity, and worthy of admiration. Another saith, these precepts of Christ were given to the Disciples, who were by their blood to increase the Church, and by their patience and humility to convert tyrants: but now modernis non congruit, nec locum habet hodie, esset enim ad detrimentum Ecclesiae; A foolish assertion. As these go too high, so the Jesuits in their cases, they go too low, and give too much room to the revenge of man; for so it's determined by them, That a noble man, though he may save his life by flying, when invaded suddenly, yet is not bound to fly, but may lawfully kill the invader, if he cannot otherwise preserve his life and honour together. But this is corrupt counsel, and opens a way to many murders upon a pretence of honour.  
3. Take notice of this, That the Law of God in the Old Testament 
Revenge as strictly forbidden in the Old Test. as in the New.  was as strict against revenge as any precept in the New Testament, and therefore nothing is now required of us, which was not then. Consider that place, Levit. 19 16. Thou shalt not avenge, or bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: What can be clearer than this, to subdue those waves and tempests that do rise in our hearts? So Prov. 24. 29. Say not, I will do to him, as he hath done to me: I will render to the man, according to his work: here also revengeful expressions and resolutions are forbidden; yea, the reason why we are forbidden to avenge ourselves 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 practice of the duty, and the rather because it's sweeter than honey itself to our corrupt hearts; and at this time, this sin doth much rage every where.  
Lastly, Our Saviour doth not here forbidden a lawful public revenge, 
Private revenge unlawful, and forbidden by our Saviour.  but a private one. This distinction of public and private revenge, being unknown to the Fathers in the Primitive times, made them run 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 Commonwealth; he answereth by comparing the Precept of Christ with that of Caesar's, That he used to forget nothing, but injuries. Now this doth not indeed speak according to the scope of our Saviour here, who is giving rules to private Christians, not to public 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 ourselves, but the Magistrate; yet the revenge that the Magistrate inflicteth may well be called the vengeance of God, because it's God's appointment he should do it. Thus Numb. 31. 3. Arm yourselves, 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 revengeful affections in them, even when they execute justice; and so people, when they implore the Magistrates aid, it may not be out of zeal to justice, and love to the public good, but because of private affections, and carnal dispositions. And oh the blessedness that would accrue to the Commonwealth, if all were carried in their several places upon this public ground!  
Having therefore dispatched briefly 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 Author maintaineth, that the Law is not an instrument of true sanctification, and that 
The preaching of the Law not only preparatively, but (being blessed by God) instrumentally works the conversion of men.  the promise or the Gospel is the seed and doctrine of our ●ew birth: and for this he bringeth many arguments, and the judgements of divers learned men, Assertion of grace, pag, 163. And it may not be denied, but that many speeches might fall from some men, which might seem to comply with that opinion. I shall now labour to maintain the positive part, viz. that the Law of God preached, may be blessed by him instrumentally to work the conversion of men: and it is necessary to make this good; for, were the contrary true, it would be a Minister's duty in great part, to lay aside the preaching of the Moral Law, as not instrumental, or subservient to that main end of the Ministry, which is the conversion of souls. Nor can I yield to that, that the preaching of the Law works only preparatorily, or some terrors about sin, and can go no further; but (I suppose) that Jesus Christ hath obtained of God by his death, that such efficacy and virtue should go forth in the Ministry, that whether it be by Law, or Gospel he preacheth, the souls of men may be healed, and converted thereupon: Only two things must be premised;  
First, that the Law could never work to regeneration, were it 
The Law with▪ out Christ cannot work to regeneration.  not for the Gospel-promise. Had not God graciously promised to give a new heart through Christ, there had been no way to make any thing effectual that we preach out of the Law; so that (for instance) while a Minister, preaching of any Commandment, 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 we preach may be advantageous to our souls, so that there never was in the Church of God mere pure Law, or mere 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 aga● Deo, & sciat se esse Theologum: but I shall not meddle with that now. This is that which I assert, That, as to the point of a man's conversion, God may make the opening of the Moral Law instrumentully to concur thereunto, only this cometh by Christ.  
The second thing which I premise is this, that howsoever the 
The Law may be blessed 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 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 assign) that one is the instrument of grace, and the other not; (for God useth both, as I shall show) but in this, that the holiness wrought in us by preaching of the Word of God, whether it be Law or Gospel, doth not justify us; but this favour is in an evangelical manner, by forgiving whatsoever is irregular in us, and communicating Christ his righteousness 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 general is a medium, or instrumental 
The Scripture in general is a medium, working by Christ to our conversion.  to our conversion. For, the clearing of this well, must needs discover, that the Law of God, being part of God's 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 turn to him when we cannot? Then we answer, that these commandments are not only informing of a duty, but they are practical 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.  
Therefore, for the clearing of this general, take notice, 1. That the word of God, as it is read, or preached, worketh no further 
The Word real or preached concurres objectively only to man's conversion.  than objectively to the conversion of a man, if considered in itself. Take it (I say) in itself, not animated by the Spirit of God, and the utmost effect it can reach unto, is to work only 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 Question in Divinity, Seeing regeneration is attributed both to the Word, and to Baptism, 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 work it could obtain. And this doth plainly appear, in that the word of God doth only convert those who are able to hear and understand. And the word of God being thus of itself only a directive and informative rule: hence it's compared to the Pilots Compass, to Theseus his thread, 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.  
Therefore in the next place consider this, Whatsoever good effects, 
All the benefits conveyed to the soul by the preaching of the Word, are efficiently from God's Spirit.  or benefit is conveyed to the soul by the preaching of the Law, or the Gospel, it's efficiently from God's 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 unequal. And by the same reason, I may prefer the Law sometimes before the Gospel; for I may suppose a Minister, opening the duties of the Law, as Christ doth here in this Chapter, and the Spirit of God accompanying this, to change the heart of a man: and on the other side, one preaching the Gospel, in the greatest glory of it, yet not accompanied with God's Spirit, there may not be the least degree of grace wrought in any hearer: Therefore I cannot well understand that, the Law indeed that showeth 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 hear these, that yet receive no benefit by them? And on the other side, if the Law, setting forth our duty, be accompanied with God's 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 souls; and so the Law worketh as a medium to our Conversion by Christ as the Gospel: If, I say, this be the meaning, then it's true; but the obscure, and unclear expressing of this, giveth an occasion to the Antinomian error.  
Now that the Scripture, as it is written, or preached; without 
The Word, without the Spirit, cannot convert us, and why.  the Spirit of God cannot convert us, is plain, partly because then the devils, and great men of parts, which do understand the letter of the Scripture better than others, would be sooner converted; partly because the Scripture, so fare as it's a word read, or preached, cannot reach to the heart, to alter and change that: Hence the Word of God, though it be compared to a sword, yet it's called a Sword of the Spirit, Ephes. 6. 17. Yet, although this be true, we must not fall into that extreme error 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 general, I bring these Arguments 
Six Arguments to prove the Law, and the preaching of it, means of Conversion.  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 God's Word, ought not to be denied 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 God's Word, To reprove, to correct, and to instruct in righteousness, that the man of God may be thoroughly 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 its partial ability, and fitness for these effects here mentioned. Thus Matth. 13. the Word of God in general is compared to seed sown, that bringeth forth fruit: see also Heb. 4. 12.  
2. The second Argument is taken from those places where the Law is expressly named to be instrumental in this great work. Not to name that place of Rom. 7. 14. where the Law is called spiritual, in this respect as well as in others, because it is that which works spiritually in us; as Paul was carnal, because he worked carnally: The places are clear 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 swoon 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 signify 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 signify such a commanding, terrifying and damning thing, but rather that which doth instruct and inform.  
But, in the next place, grant that the Word hath such an extensive and comprehensive sense, yet it doth not exclude the Moral Law, but doth always include. Can any man think, when David commends the Law of God, that he meaneth all the Word of God but the Moral Law, when indeed that was the greatest part of it at that time?  
3. That opinion, which would make Christ not take an instrumental 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 nearest way to convert his hearers; for if you consider that Sermon, it's principally spent in the opening of the Moral Law, and pressing the duties thereof: and how can we think, but that our Saviour judged this profitable and soulsaving matter? Nor can I see, why it should be said to be only the occasion, and not medium, if powerfully set home by God's Spirit.  
4. If the Law of God have that objectively in it, that may work exceedingly upon the heart, when set home by God's Spirit, than it may be used instrumentally as well as the Gospel; but it hath objectively such a nature in it: which doth appear by David's approving and delighting in God's 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 Virtue, that if it could be seen with corporal eyes, the beauty thereof would ravish men: how much more may this be true of the purity and holiness of the Law?  
5. If the Law of God may be blessed after a man is converted, to the increase of his grace, and holiness; why not then to the first beginning of it? That it is for the increase of godliness in persons already regenerated, is apparent by experience. And it is hard to think, that a Minister, having opened any Moral duty of the Law, may not pray to God for his Spirit, to  that word with power and efficacy to change the hearts of hearers.  
6. If the Ceremonial Law, the Sacraments and Sacrifices were blessed by God's Spirit, while they were commanded to be used for the strengthening and increase of grace, notwithstanding the deadly nature of them now; then the Moral Law may also be blessed by God for spiritual effects, seeing it standeth still in force.  
Let the Use then of this be, by way of admonition, that in Use. 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 fare 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 Moral 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 men's minds enlightening them, in their wills and affections inflaming, and kindling of them.   

LECTURE XXI.  ROM. 3. 31. Do we then make void the Law through faith? God forbidden: But we rather establish the Law. 
I Shall in the next place discuss that famous Question, about the abrogating of the Moral 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 man's 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 God's Spirit to be no more than 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 error.  
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 mere Law, nor mere Gospel, but they are to be composed and to be made helpful 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 holiness 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 instrumental to holiness, that is, not animated by God's 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 he saith, [The promise, or the Gospel, and not the Law, is the seed or doctrine of our new birth.] Assert of grace, page 163. Now here are ambiguities; as first, the promise, or Gospel, for by this he seemeth to decide a great Question, that whatsoever is a promise in the Scripture, that belongs to the Gospel; and whatsoever is not that, but a command or threatening, that belongs to the Law: whereas this needeth a great discussion.  
2. The state of the Question is not about the Gospel, or the Law, as they are both a doctrine in the Scripture: but about the Spirit of God, working by one or the other; and the not attending to this, makes the arguments so confounded.  
3. He saith, it's not the seed of the new birth; whereas conversion or regeneration is made the writing of the Law in the heart: and Mat. 13. The Word of God in general is compared to seed sown, that brings forth different fruit; as was said before: but to let this pass.  
The first instance that is brought, cometh from John 17. v. 17. Instance 1 Sanctify them through thy truth, thy Word is truth. Where, saith the Author, to sanctify, is to separate any thing from a common use, and to consecrate it to God: and, applied here to man, includeth two things; 1. Justification by the communication of Christ's perfect holiness, whereby the believer is presented holy, and without blame to God. 2. An inward renewing and changing, purifying the heart and life by degrees, etc. pag. 165.  
I answer, 1. The word sanctify, when applied to men, doth Answer. 1 not only signify justification, or renovation, but setting a part to some peculiar office and charge: and there are Learned men who take this to be the meaning of Christ's prayer here; That as the Priests and Levites, who were to enter into the sanctuary, did first wash their hands and feet, being also clothed with goodly garments: so the Apostles are here prayed for by our Saviour, that they may be fitted for their great charge. And thus chrysostom, you have a parallel place Jer. 1. 5. Before thou camest forth out of the womb, I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a Prophet unto the Nations. And this exposition is confirmed by the manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in truth (so they read it, and mention not the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is not in some copies) so that they take it as an expression opposing the sanctification of the Priests, which was by legal types and shadows. But that which doth especially confirm this exposition, seemeth to be the two verses following, As thou hast sent me into the world, so have I also sent them into the world, and for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also may be sanctified through the truth. Now sanctification, as it comprehends justification and renovation, cannot be applied to Christ: but it must signify the segregating and setting apart himself for the office of the Mediator. Besides, if sanctification do here include justification, how, by the Antinomian principle, can our Saviour pray for the justification of those, who are already justified?  
But in the next place, grant that interpretation, of sanctification Answer. 2 for renovation, how doth this prove that the Law is not used instrumentally? For our Saviour's argument is universal, thy word is truth. And may not this be affirmed of the Law, as well as the Gospel? Doth not David, speaking of the Law, call it pure, and clean, that is, true, having no falsehood in it? Yea, it is thought probable by a learned man, that this speech of our Saviour's is taken out of Psal. 119. 142. where are these words 
Gerbard.  expressly, Thy Law is the truth: Where the word Law cannot exclude the Moral Law, though it may include more.  
The next instance is Tit. 2. ver. 11, 12. For the grace of God that Instance 2 bringeth salvation, hath appeared to all men, teaching us, that denying ungodliness, and worldly lusts, etc.  
I answer, All this may be granted, and nothing makes against Answ. this opinion; for none deny the Gospel, to be the instrument of holiness: But is not here a contradiction? The Author before made the Gospel and a Promise all one, whereas here it doth command holiness and godliness. Is not this, with the Papists, to make the Gospel a new Law? Let him reconcile himself. In the next place, he doth ambiguously put into the argument, the word effectually, which is not in the Text; for, although God doth by his grace in the Gospel effectually move those that are elected to Godliness; yet Scripture, and experience showeth, that where the grace of the Gospel hath appeared, thus teaching men, yet all are not effectually turned unto holiness from their worldly lusts.  
Besides, the argument may be retorted upon him: What word teacheth to deny all ungodliness, that sanctifieth, instructeth, but the Law doth so, insomuch that the Psalmist saith, Psal. 119. A young man, whose lusts are strongest, and temptations most violent, may be cleansed by attending thereunto: only you must always take notice of the preeminency of the Gospel, above the Law; for the Law could never have any such good effect upon the heart of man, were it not for the gracious Promise by Christ: Therefore all the godly men in the Old Testament, that received benefit by the Moral Law, in studying of it, and meditating upon it, did depend upon the Gospel, or the grace of God in Christ, as appeareth by David, praying so often to be quickened by Gods Law. And here, by the way, let me take notice of a remarkable passage of Peter Martyr in his Comment on the seventh Chapter of the Epistle to the Rom. ver. 14. where, speaking of the great commendation the Psalmist gives the Law of God, that it converts the soul, (and we may add those places, of enlightening the mind, that they cleanse a man's way, etc.) he maketh this Question, Whether the Law doth ever obtain such effects or no? And he answereth affirmatively, that it doth: but then when it's written not in tables, but in the hearts and bowels of men: so that he conceiveth the Spirit of God doth use the Law instrumentally, so that he writeth it in our hearts. And this is all we so contend for.  
A third and last instance out of Scripture, in answering of Instance 3 which all is answered, is from Gal. 3. 2. Received ye the Spirit by Answ. the works of the Law; or by the hearing of faith? that is, of the 
Three Errors to be taken heed of in opening Gal. 3. 2.  Gospel, the doctrine of faith. In the opening of this text, we must take heed of three errors: First, of those, who hold we have faith first, before we have the Spirit; for how can we come Error 1 to have faith? by our own reason and will? This were to make it no work of God. The Apostle therefore certainly speaks of the increase of the graces of the Spirit; for it is well observed by Peter Martyr, that in causes and effects, there is a kind of circle, one increasing the other: As the clouds arise from the vapours, than these fall down again, and make vapours; only you must acknowledge one first cause, which had not its being from the other, and this is the Spirit of God, which at first did work faith.  
The second error is of the Papists, that maketh this difference Error 2 between the Law and the Gospel, That the same thing is called the Law, while it is without the Spirit; and when it hath the Spirit, it is called the Gospel; This is to confound the Law and Gospel, and bring in Justification by works.  
The third is of the Socinian mentioned afterwards. These rocks avoided, we come to consider the place: and first I Error 3 may demand, Whether any under the Old Testament were made partakers of God's Spirit, or no? If they were, how came they by it? There can be no other way said, but that God did give his Spirit in all those public Ordinances unto the believing Israelites; so that although they did in some measure obey the Law, yet they did it not by the power of the Law, but by the power of Grace.  
Again, in the next place, (which hath always much prevailed with me) did not the people of God receive the Grace of God offered in the Sacraments at that time? We constantly maintain against the Papists, that our Sacraments and theirs differ not for substance. Therefore in Circumcision, and the Paschall Lamb, they were made partakers of Christ as well as we: yet the Apostle doth as much exclude Circumcision, and those Jewish Ordinances from Grace, as any thing else. Therefore that there may be no contradiction in Scripture, some other way is to be thought upon, about the exposition of these words. Some there are therefore that do understand by the Spirit, the wonderful and miraculous works of God's Spirit: for this was reserved till the times of the Messiah, and by these miracles his doctrine was confirmed to be from Heaven; and to this sense the fifth verse speaketh very expressly: and Beza doth confess, that this is the principal scope of the Apostle, though he will not exclude the other gracious works of God's Spirit: And if this should be the meaning, it were nothing to our purpose.  
Again, thus it may be explained, as by faith is meant the doctrine of faith, so by the works of the Law, is to be understood the doctrine of the works of the Law, which the false Apostles taught, namely, that Christ was not enough to justification, unless the works of the Law were put in as a cause also. And if this should be the sense of the Text, than it was clear, that the Galathians were not made partakers of God's Spirit, by the corrupt doctrine that was taught them o'late by their seducers, but before, while they did receive the pure doctrine of Christ: and therefore it was their folly, having begun in the spirit, to end in the flesh. This may be a probable interpretation. But that which I shall stand upon is this, The Jews and false Apostles they looked upon the Law as sufficient to save them without Christ, consider Rom. 2. 17, 18, 19 or when they went furthest, they joined Christ, and the observance of the Moral Law equally together for justification and salvation: whereas the Law separated from Christ, did nothing but accuse and condemn, not being able to help the soul at all. Therefore it was a vain thing in them, to hope for any such grace, or benefit as they did by it. So that the Apostles scope is, not absolutely to argue against the benefit of the Law, which David and Moses did so much commend, but against it in the sense, as the Jews did commonly dote upon it, which was to have justification by it alone; or at the best, when they put the Law and Christ together. Now both these we disclaim, either that God doth use the Law for our justification; or that of itself, it is able to stir up the least godly affection in us.  
More places of Scripture are brought against this, but they will come in more fitly under the notion of the Law as a covenant. Thus therefore I shall conclude this point, acknowledging that many learned and orthodox men speak otherwise, and that there is a difficulty in clearing every particular about this Question: but as yet that which I have delivered, carrieth the more probability with me; and I will give one text more, which I have not yet mentioned, and that is Act. 7. 38. where the Moral Law that Moses is said to receive, that he might give the Israelites, is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the lively Oracles; that is, not verba vitae, but verba, viva & vivificantia, so that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is as much as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, giving life: not that we could have life by virtue of any obedience to them; but when we by grace are enabled to obey them, God, out of his mercy, bestoweth eternal life. Let me also add this, that I the rather incline to this opinion, because I see the Socinians, urging these places, or the like, where justification and faith is said to be by Christ, and the Gospel, that they wholly deny that any such thing as grace and justification was under the Law, and wonder how any should be so blind as not to see, that these privileges were revealed first by Christ in the Gospel under the new Covenant; whereas it is plain, that the Apostle instanceth in Abraham and David, (who lived under the Law as a schoolmaster,) for the same kind of justification as ours is.  
And thus I come to another Question, which is the proper and immediate ground of strife between the Antinomian and us, and from whence, they have their name; and that is, the abrogation of the Moral Law: And howsoever I have already delivered many things that do confirm the perpetual obligation of it; yet I did it not then so directly, and professedly, as now I shall; The Text (I have chosen) being a very fit foundation to build such a structure upon. I will therefore open 
The Text opened.  the words and proceed as time shall suffer. The Apostle Paul, having laid down, in verses preceding, the nature of justification, so exactly, that we may find all the causes, efficient, meritorious, formal, instrumental and final described; as also the consequent of this truth, which is the excluding of all selfconfidence, and boasting in what we do; he draweth a conclusion or inference, ver. 26. And this conclusion is laid down first affirmatively and positively, [A man is justified by faith,] the Phrases 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, are all equivalent with the Apostle: And then, to prevent all errors and cavils, he doth secondly lay it down exclusively without works. And this proposition he doth extend to the Jews and Gentiles also from the unity or oneness of God; which is not to be understood of the unity of his Essence, but Will and Promise. Now when all this is asserted, he maketh an objection (which is usual with him in this Epistle;) and he doth it for this end, to take away the calumny and reproach cast upon him by his adversaries, as one that would destroy the Law. The objection than is this, (propounded by way of interrogation, to affect the more,) Do we make voide the Law? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; The Apostle used this word in this Chapter, ver. 3. and it signifieth to make empty and void, so that, the Law shall be of no use, or operation.  
Now to this, the Apostle answereth negatively, by words of defiance and detestation, God forbidden: So that by this expression you see how intolerable that doctrine ought to be unto the people of God, that would take away the Law. And the Apostle doth not only defy this objection, but addeth, we establish the Law, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Metaphor from those that do corroborate and make firm a pillar, or any such thing that was falling. It hath much troubled Interpreters, how Paul could say, he established the Law, especially considering those many places in his Epistles, which seem to abrogate it. Some understand it thus, That the righteousness of faith, hath its witness from the Law and Prophets, as ver. 21. in this Chapter; so that in this sense they make the Law established, because that which was witnessed therein, doth now come to pass. Even as our Saviour said Moses did bear witness of him. But this interpretation doth not come up to the Apostles meaning. Those that limit this speech to the Ceremonial Law, do easily interpret it thus: That the ceremonies and types were fulfilled in Christ; who, being the substance and body, they are all now fulfilled in him. But the Apostle comprehends the Moral Law under the word [Law.]  
The Papists they make the Gospel a new Law, and they compare it with the old Law having the Spirit, as two things differing only gradually; so that they say, the old Law is established by the new, as the childhood is established by elder age: which is not by abolition, but perfection.  
That which I see the Orthodox pitch upon, is that the Law 
The Law established three ways by the Gospel.  is established three ways by the Gospel.  
First, whereas the Law did threaten death to every transgressor, this is established in Christ, who satisfied the justice of God.  
Secondly, in that the Law requireth perfect obedience, this is also fulfilled in Christ. Now this is a matter worth discussion, Whether the righteousness we are yet justified by, be the righteousness of the Law.  
For those learned men, that are against the imputation of Christ's active obedience, they urge this argument, which seemeth to carry much strength with it: That if Christ's active obedience be made ours, and we justified by that, then are we still justified by the works of the Law, and so the righteousness of faith and works is all one; faith in us, and works in Christ. If therefore active obedience be made ours, (as I conceive the truth to be in that doctrine) than we may easily see the Law is established.  
Thirdly, but lastly, which I take to be the truth, and Austin heretofore interpreteth it so, the Law is established, because by the Gospel we obtain grace in some measure, to fulfil the Law; so that we still keep the Law in the preceptive and informative part of it: and do obtain by faith in Christ, obedience in some degree to it; which obedience also, though it be not the Covenant of grace, yet is the way to Salvation.   

LECTURE XXII.  ROM. 3. 31. Do we then make void the Law? 
THis Text is already explained; and there are two Observations do naturally arise from it, as first, That it is an 
'Tis hard to set up Christ and grace, and not be thought to destroy the Law.  hard thing so to set up Christ and grace, as not thereby be thought to destroy the Law. Thus was Paul misunderstood by some; and so the Antinomians, not rightly understanding in what latitude the Orthodox in their disputations against Popery did oppose the Law to the Gospel, were thereby plunged into a dangerous error. But on this point I will not insist. The second doctrine is that which I intent, namely, That the doctrine 
The doctrine of Christ and grace doth establish the Law.  of Christ and grace in the highest and fullest manner, doth not overthrow, but establish the Law. And this doctrine will directly lead us to lay our hands on the chief pillars of that house, which the Antinomians have built. The Question then at this time to be discussed is, Whether the Law be abrogated or no by Christ, to the believers under the Gospel. And this Question I will answer by several propositions, that may conduce to the clearing of the truth: for it would seem, as if the Scripture held out contradictions in this point. In my Text it's denied, that the Apostles do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 make void the Law; yet 2 Cor. 3. 11. The Apostle speaking of the Law hath this passage, [If that which be done away, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] where the word is expressly used, that yet here is denied: so Ephes. 2. 14. Christ is described [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] that maketh voide the hand-writing against us. And in that place the Apostle useth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, when yet Mat. 5. he denied that he came 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to dissolve the Law. Grave therefore and serious is, Ghimnitius his admonition, In all other things general words beget confusion, and obscurity; but in the doctrine of the abrogation of the Law they are very dangerous, unless it be distinctly explained, how it is abrogated.  
In the first place therefore consider, That about a Law there 
Interpretation, dispensation, etc. affections of a Law.  are these affections (if I may call them so;) There is an Interpretation, a dispensation, or relaxation: and these differ from an abrogation; for the former do suppose the Law still standing in force, though mitigated; but abrogation is then properly, when a Law is totally taken away. And this abrogation ariseth sometimes from the express constitution at first, which did limit and prescribe the time of the law's continuance: sometimes by an express revoking and repealing of it by that authority which made it: sometimes by adding to that repeal an express law commanding the contrary. Now it may be easily proved, that the Ceremonial, and Judicial laws they are abrogated by express repeal. The Judicial 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 Lawgiver shall be taken from Judah. The Ceremonial Law that is also expressly repealed Act. 15. and in other places: not that these were ill, or that they did come from an ill author; but because the fullness 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, and God did dispense grace in the use of them; only they were beggarly and empty to such who trusted in them and neglected Christ. Nor doth this assertion contradict that of the Apostle, Ephes. 2. 15. where he calls those ordinances, enmity, and decrees against us: for those ceremonies may be considered two ways; first, as they were signs of God's grace and favour: and secondly, as they were demonstrative of a duty, which we were tied unto, but could not perform, and in this sense all those purifications and cleansings were against us. Thus we see these laws 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 sinful. Hence I cannot see how that of Luther is true upon Gal. 2. who saith, He believeth that, if the Jews believing 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 speak exactly and properly, 
We may say that the Moral Law is mitigated, as to our persons, but 'tis not abrogated.  We cannot say, in any good sense, that the Moral Law is abrogated at all. It is true indeed, our learned Writers show, that the Law is abrogated in respect of justification, condemnation, and rigour of obedience; all which I shall instance in afterwards: but if a man would speak rigidly, he cannot say, it is abrogated. We may say, it's mitigated, as to our persons, though Christ our surety did fully undergo it: 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, than had it been properly abrogated: whereas now, seeing our surety was bound to satisfy it, and perfectly to obey it, and we still obliged to conform unto it, we cannot so properly in the general 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 voide the Law, yet he useth this expression Rom. 7. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, we are freed or abrogated from the Law, rather than that is abrogated. Thus it is, if we would speak 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 speak 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. 
Three parts in the Law.  Secondly, the Promises of life to him that doth them; and thirdly, the threaten of eternal wrath to him that faileth in the least. Now the Moral Law, though it be abrogated in respect of the two later to a believer, yet in respect of the former it doth still abide; yea, and will continue in Heaven itself. And we have already proved against the Antinomians, that one part of the Law may abide, when the other doth not. 
The Law is abolished as it is a Covenant, but not as it is a Rule.   
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 lustre and splendour upon grace: Others call it a mixed covenant of works and grace; but that is hardly to be understood as possible, much less as true. I therefore think that opinion true, as shall be hereafter showed, that the 
The Law given by Moses a Covenant of grace.  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 break out more clearly, in succession of ages, according to the wise dispensation of God's 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 works are the works of grace, and wrought by Christ's 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 do desire to lift up our voices, as vehemently as any Antinomian, against self-Justiciaries, against pharisaical, popish, formal men, that say unto the good works they do, These are thy Christ, These are thy Jesus, oh my soul. In matter of Justification, we would have all of Paul's Spirit, to know nothing but Christ crucified, to account all things dung and dross. We desire to bewail, and abundantly to bewail 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 plead 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 
It is an absurd contradiction to say the matter of a Law bindeth, but not as a Law.  still abiding in respect of the matter of it, is a contradiction. This is a rock, that the adversary hath daily refuge unto. The Law (saith the Antinomian) in the matter of it, so fare as I know, was never denied to be the rule, according to which a believer is to walk and live: Therefore I take the contrary imputation to be an impudent slander. Asser. of grace, pag. 170.  
But to reply, if they hold the matter of the Law to be a rule, how can they shelter themselves from their own argument; for, if the matter oblige, then, when a believer walketh not according to his duty, he sinneth, and, to sinne the curse is due: so that this evasion will no ways help them; for still an obligation or bond lieth upon them, which, if broken, they are made obnoxious unto the Law of God. Again, to say the matter of the Law bindeth, but yet not as a Law, is a mere contradiction; for, what is a Law, but such an object held forth by the command and will of a superior? Then I demand, whether [love to God] being the object, or matter held forth, have not also Gods will passing upon it that it should bind. According to the Antinomian asserttion, it should be true, that love to God should bind us, because the matter itself is good; but not because God willeth us to love him: Nay, they must necessarily deny the will of God obliging us in the Law to love him; for a law is nothing but the will of the Lawgiver, that such things should be obeyed, or avoided. And if there were any colour for that distinction between the matter of the Law binding, and not the Law, it would only hold in that matter which is perpetually and necessarily good; as, To love God, To honour parents: but in that matter which is only good by some positive divine institution; as, Keeping of the Lords Day, there we must say, that the Law binds vi, as a Law, and not merely from the matter of the Law.  
5. The Law is no more abrogated to a believer under the Old Testament 
The Law equally abrogated to believers under the Old and New Testament.  then to one under the New. This assertion will much discover the falseness of the adversaries opinion: for they carry it, as if the Law were abrogated only to the believers under the Gospel. Now how can this ever be made good? for either they must deny that there were any believers under the Old Testament; or, if they were, than they are freed from the Law as much as any now. Indeed if you take the Law for the whole administration of the Covenant in the Old Testament, we grant that it was pedagoricall, and more servile; so that a believer under the Old Testament, did not meet with such clear and evident dispensations of love, as a believer under the Gospel: yet in respect of justification and salvation, the Law was the same to them as to us, and to us as to them.  
We do not deny, but that the administration of the later covenant is fare more glorious than that of the former, and that we enjoy many privileges which they did not then: but whatsoever is necessary and essential to justification or salvation, they were made partakers of them, as well as we. The ordinary resemblance of theirs, and our happiness, is by those two, spoken of Numb. 13. 23. that bare upon the staff the cluster of grapes from the land of Canaan; If then we speak of the Law in regard of the essential parts of it, which are directing, commanding, threatening, promising life upon perfect obedience: These are either still equally in power, or else equally abrogated unto all believers, whether under the Old or New Testament. Let them therefore consider whether the arguments against believers subjection under the New Testament, be not also equally as strong against those that are under the Old. Therefore it is wild Divinity of an Antinomian (in Chap. 6. of the Honeycomb of free justification:) who makes three different estates of the Church: one under the Law, and another under John Baptist. and a third under the Gospel. Now he compareth these together, and sheweth how we under the Gospel exceed those of the Law that were godly: and, among other things, there are two notorious falsehoods; as first, That God indeed saw sin in the believers of the Old Testament, but not in those of the New. But how absurd and contradictory to the Author himself is this assertion? For was not that place which they so much urge [God seethe not iniquity in Jacob] spoken of the Church in the Old Testament? And besides, if the godly were then in Christ, doth it not necessarily follow by his principles, that God must see no sin in them? This I bring, not as if there were any truth in that opinion of God his seeing no sin in believers, whether of the Old, or New Testament; but only to manifest their absurd contradictions.  
The second difference he makes is, That God seeing sin in those of the Old Testament did therefore punish them and afflict them for sin; but he doth not this under the Gospel. Hereupon he showeth, how Moses for a word was strucken with death, and so Jonah, Vzzah, Eli: these had sudden punishments upon them. Hence also (saith he) came there terrible famines upon them. Now who seethe not how weak and absurd these arguments are? For, doth not the Apostle 1 Cor. 11. speaking of those under the New Testament, that some were sick, and some did sleep, and that they were judged of the Lord? were not Ananias and Sapphira stricken dead immediately? Are there not famines, pestilence, and the bloody war upon men under the Gospel? Besides, these assertions are contradictions to themselves: for if their arguments from God's Law, and from Christ prove the quite taking away of sin, and the punishments of it; than it holdeth as firmly for all believers as for some.  
6. The arguments of the Antinomian for the greater part, which 
Antinomian Arguments mostly overthrow the use of the Law both to believers and unbelievers.  they urge, do not only overthrow the use of it to believers, but also unbelievers. This also is good to be attended unto; for the Apostle in many places, where he speaks of the Law as a Schoolmaster, and the continuance of it for a time doth not speak comparatively of a believer with an unbeliever, but of the state of the Gospel, and the state of the Old Testament: so that, as a wicked man may not circumcise, or take up the sacrifices, so neither may he use the Moral Law, as commonly the Jew's did, which was as distinct from Christ, and as if that of itself were able alone to save. Therefore I wonder why the Antinomians bring many of their arguments to prove that a believer is freed from the Law; for, certainly, most of those places will infer, that unbelievers also under the New Testament are; for, the Apostle for the most part doth argue against that state of the Church, and administrations that were used formerly; as in the 1 Cor. 3. when the Apostle makes the administration of the Law to be death, and of the Gospel life. Here he speaketh not of particular persons, but of the general state under the Gospel: So in Gal. 2. and 3. Chapters, he argueth against the whole dispensation of the Law, and makes it equally abrogated unto all. And it may probably be thought, that that famous expression of the Apostle [ye are not under the Law but under grace] is not only to be understood of every particular believer; but generally of the whole dispensation of the Gospel under the New Testament.  
7. We will grant, that to a believer the Law is as it were abrogated, 
The Law to a believer is abrogated:  in these particulars:  
1. In respect of Justification. Though, I say, mitigation might 
1. In respect of justification.  be properly here used, yet we will call it abrogation (with the Orthodox) because to the godly it is in some sense so. And that which is most remarkable, and most comfortable, is, in respect of justification; for now a believer is not to expect acceptation at the throne of grace in himself, or any thing that he doth, but by relying on Christ. The Papists they say, this is the way to make men idle and lazy; doing in this matter, as Saul did, who made a Law that none should eat of any thing, and so Jonathan must not taste of the honey. Saul indeed thought hereby to have the more enemies killed; but Jonathan told him, that if they had been suffered to eat more honey, they should have been more revived and enabled to destroy their adversaries. Thus the Papists, they forbidden us to eat of this honey, this precious comfort in Christ, as if thereby we should be hindered in our pursuit against sin, whereas indeed it is the only strength and power against them.  
2. Condemnation and a curse. Thus still the condition of a believer 
2. In respect of condemnation.  is made unspeakably happy, Rom. 1. There is no condemnation: And, Christ became a curse for us: so that by this means the gracious soul hath daily matter of encouragement, arguing in prayer thus: O Lord, though my sins deserve a curse, yet Christ his obedience doth not: Though I might be better, yet Christ needeth not to be better: O Lord, though I have sinned away my own power to do good, yet not Christ's power to save. Heb. 6. 18. you have a phrase there [flying for a refuge] doth excellently show forth the nature of a godly man, who is pursued by sin as a malefactor was for his murder, and he runneth to Christ for refuge: and so Beza understands that expression of the Apostle, Phil. 3. 9 [And be found in him,] which implieth the justice of God searching out for him, but he is in Christ. Now when we say, he is freed from condemnation, that is to be understood actually, not potentially: There is matter of condemnation, though not condemnation itself.  
3. Rigid obedience. This is another particular, wherein the 
3. In respect of rigid obedience.  Orthodox declare the abrogation of the Law: but this must warily be understood; for Christ hath not obtained at God's hands by his death, that the Law should not oblige and tie us unto a perfect obedience: for this we maintain against Papists, that it's a sin in believers, they do not obey the Law of God to the utmost perfection of it: And therefore hold it impossible for a believer to fulfil the Law: But yet we say, this mercy is obtained by Christ, that our obedience unto the Law, which is but inchoate and imperfect, is yet accepted of, in, and through Christ: for, if there were only the Law, and no Christ, or grace: It is not any obedience, though sincere, unless perfect, would be entertained by God: Neither would any repentance or sorrow be accepted of, but the Law strictly so taken, would deal as the Judge to the malefactor, who being condemned by the Law, though he cry out in the anguish of his spirit, that he is grieved for what he hath done, yet the Law doth not pardon him.  
4. It is not a terror to the godly; nor are they slavishly compelled 
4. In respect of terror and slavish obedience.  to the obedience of it. And in this sense they are denied to be under the Law: But this also must be rightly understood; for there is in the godly an unregenerate or carnal part, as well as a regenerate and spiritual; See Rom. 7. 22, 25. with my minds I serve the Law of God, but with my flesh the Law of sin. Now although it be true, that the Law, in the terrible compelling part of it, be not necessary to him so fare as he is regenerate; yet, in regard that he hath much flesh and corruption in him, therefore it is that the Scripture doth use threaten as so many sharp goads to provoke them in the ways of piety. But what godly man is there, whose spirit is so willing always, that he doth not find his flesh untoward and backward unto any holy duty? How many times do they need that Christ should draw them, and also that the Law should draw them? So that there is great use of preaching the Law even to believers still, as that which may instrumentally quicken and excite them to their duty. Qui dicit se amare legem, mentitur; & nescit quid dicat: Tam enim amamus legem, quam homicida carcerem, said Luther: and this is true of us, so fare as we are corrupt.  
5. It doth not work, or increase sin in them as in the wicked. The 
5. In respect of the increase of sin.  Apostle, Rom. 7. 8. complaineth of this bitter effect of the Law of God, that it made him the worse. The more spiritual and supernatural that was, the more did his carnal and corrupt heart rage against it: so that the more the Law would dam up the torrent of sinful lusts, the higher did they swell. Now, this sad issue was not to be ascribed to the Law, but to Paul's corruption: As in the Dropsy, it is not the water or beer, if frequently drunk, that is to be blamed for the increase of the disease; but the ill distemper in the body. Now in the godly, because there is a new nature, and a principle of love and delight in the Law of God wrought in him, his corruption doth not increase and biggen by the Law, but is rather subdued and quelled: although sometimes, even in the godly, it may work such woeful effects: And this also take notice of, that as the commandment of the Law, so also the Promises of the Gospel, do only stir up evil in the heart totally unsanctified.  
6. It is abrogated in many accessaries, and circumstantials. Even 
6. In respect of many Circumstantials.  the Moral Law, considered in some particulars, is abrogated totally: as in the manner of writing, which was in tables of stone. We know the first tables were broken; and what became of the last, or how long they continued, none can tell: and this makes Paul use that opposition, 2 Cor. 3. 3. Not in tables of stone, but in the fleshly tables of the heart: Although this you must know, that the doctrine of the Gospel, as written with ink and paper, doth no more avail for any spiritual working, than the Law written in tables. Therefore the Apostle useth in that verse this phrase, [Not written with ink] as well as [Not in tables of stone.] And this is to be observed against the Antinomians, who, to disparage the Law, may say, that was written in stones, what good can that do? May we not also say, The doctrine of the Gospel that is written in paper, and what can that do?  
7. But Christ doth perpetually continue as a rule and law to them. 
7. Yet that it continues to them as a rule, appears,  Which may thus appear:  
1. From the different phrases that the Apostle useth concerning the Ceremonial Law, which are not where applied to the Moral Law. 
1. From the different Phrases used concerning the ceremonial Law.  And these Chemnitius doth diligently reckon up, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Ephes. 2. 14. So again, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Heb. 7. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, antiquare, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, senescere, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, evanescere. Heb. 8. ult. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, abrogatio. Heb. 7. 18. Now, saith he, these words are not used of the Moral Law, that it is changed, or, waxeth old, or, is abrogated; which do denote a mutation in the Law; but when it speaks of the Moral Law, it saith, We are dead to it, We are redeemed from the curse of it: Which phrases do imply the change to be made in us, and not in the Law. If therefore the Antinomians could bring such places that would prove it were as unlawful for us to love the Lord, because the Moral Law commands it, as we can prove it unlawful to circumcise, or to offer sacrifices; then they would do something for their purpose.  
2. From the sanctification and holiness that is required of the 
2. From that holiness that it requires of the believer.  believer, which is nothing but conformity to the Law: so that, when we read the Apostle speaking against the Law, yet that he did not mean this of the Law as a rule, and as obliging us to the obedience thereof, will easily appear: For when the Apostle, Gal. 5. 4. had vehemently informed them of their woeful condition who would be justified by the Law, yet ver. 13. and 14. pressing them not to use their liberty as an occasion to the flesh, he giveth this reason, For all the Law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. What doth the Apostle use contradictions in the same Chapter? Press them to obey the Law, and yet reprove them for desiring to be under it? No, certainly, but when they would seek justification by the Law, than he reproveth them: and when, on the other side, they would refuse obedience to the Law, than he admonisheth them to the contrary. As for their distinguishing between the matter of the Law, and the Law, we have already proved it to be a contradiction.  
3. In that disobedience to it is still a sin in the believer: For 
3 In that disobedience is still a sin.  there can be no sin, unless it be a transgression of a Law, as the Apostle John defineth sin. Now then, when David commits adultery, when Peter denyeth Christ, are not these sins in them? If so, is not David's sin a sin, because it is against such and such a Commandment? As for their evasion, it is a sin against the Law as in the hand of Christ, and so against the love of Christ, and no otherways, this cannot hold; for then there should be no sins, but sins of unkindness, or unthankfulness. As this Law is in the hand of Christ; so murder is a sin of unkindness: but as it is against the Law simply in itself, so it is a sin of such kind as murder, and not of another kind; so that the consideration of Christ's love may indeed be a great motive to obey the commands of God, yet that doth not hinder the command itself from obliging and binding of us, as it is the will of the Lawgiver. But of this distinction more in its place.  
4. From the difference of the Moral Law, and the other laws, 
4. Because it differs from other Laws in respect of causes of abrogation. Three reasons why the Ceremonial Law should be abrogated.  in respect of the causes of abrogation. There can be very good reasons given, why the Ceremonial Law should be abrogated, which can no ways agree to the Moral: as,  
First, The Ceremonial Law had not for its object that which is perpetual, and in itself holiness: To circumcise, and to offer sacrifice, these things were not in themselves holy and good, nor is the leaving of them a sin; whereas the matter of the Moral Law is perpetually good, and the not doing of it, is necessarily a sin. I speak of that matter, which Divines call moral natural.  
Again, The Ceremonial Law was typical, and did shadow forth Christ to come. Now when he was come, there was no use of these ceremonies.  
And, lastly, The Jews and the Gentiles were to consociate into one body, and no difference be made between them. Now to effect this, it was necessary that partition-wall should be pulled down, for as long as that stood, they could not join in one.   

LECTURE XXIII.  ROM. 3. 31. Do we then make void the Law? yea, we establish it. 
I Shall not stand upon any more arguments to prove the perpetual obligation of the Moral Law, because this is abundantly maintained in that assertion already proved, that the Moral Law, as given by Moses, doth still oblige us.  
I come therefore to those places of Scripture which seem to 
Places of Scripture, seeming to hold forth the duration of the Moral Law for a time only, answered.  hold forth the duration of the Moral Law for a prefixed time only; even as the ceremonial Law doth. I shall select the most remarkable places, and, in answering of them, we shall see the other fully cleared. And I will begin with that, Luke 16. 16. The Law and the Prophets were until John. It should therefore seem, that the Law was to continue but until John's time. I will not here stand to dispute whether John Baptist was to be reckoned under the Old Testament, or the New; 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 kingdom of heaven is greater than he 
* Minimum maximi, est maju● maximo minimi.  Although in this respect he was greater than any of the Prophets that went before him, that he did not prophesy of a Messiah to come, but pointed with his hand to him who was already come. And, as for the text itself, none can prove that the Law was to be abrogated when John Baptist came; for, lest any should by that expression think so, our Saviour addeth, Heaven and earth shall sooner pass away, than that one title should fall to the ground. Therefore the meaning is, that the Law, in respect of the typical 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 typify 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 clear, that he speaks of the typical part of the Law; yet not so, as if the Ceremonies were then immediately to cease, only from that time they began to vanish.  
The next place of Scripture, is that famous instance, so much vexed in this controversy Rom. 6. 15. [For you are not under the Law, but under grace] Now to open this, consider these things:  
1. In what sense the Apostle argueth against the Law; and what 
The Apostle argueth against the Law, in comparison of Christ.  was the proper state of the Question in those days. And that appeareth Act. 15. where you have a relation made of some believing Jews, that were of the sect of the Pharisees, who pressed the necessity of Circumcision: and so would join the ministry of Moses and Christ together. Now it seemeth, though the Apostles in this Council had condemned that opinion, yet there were many that would still revive this error; 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 controversy was only about the Ceremonial 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 Ceremonial Law were the occasion of that great difference, and the most principal thing in question; yet the Apostle, to set forth the fullness of grace and Christ, doth extend his arguments and instances even to the Moral Law: for, the Jews did generally think, that the knowledge and observation of the Moral Law without Christ, was enough for their peace and comfort. And if they could persuade themselves, that the external performing of the Ceremonial Law was enough to make them acceptable with God, though they lived in gross disobedience to the Moral Law, (as Isai. 1. & alibi, it many times appeareth they did) how much more, when they lived a life externally conformable to the Moral 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 beggarly elements, when yet we know, they were signs of an Evangelicall grace.  
2. That the Apostle useth the word [Law] in divers senses, which hath been the occasion of so much difficulty in this point. Now in most of those places, where the Law seemeth to be abolished, it is taken in one of these two senses: Either, first, synecdochically, 
The word Law taken in a twofold sense.  the Law put for part of the Law, to wit, for that part which actually condemneth, and accuseth; as when the Apostle saith, [Against such there is no Law:] here he speaketh as if there were nothing in a Law but condemnation; whereas we may say, A Law is for a thing by way of direction and prescription, as well as against a thing by accusation. Or, secondly, the word [Law] is put for the ministry of Moses, which dispensation was fare inferior unto the ministry 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 Hebrews. So that here is a continual 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, 
These Phrases, Of the Law, Without the Law, Under the Law, and, In the Law, explained.  Under the Law, and, In the Law. Without the Law is two ways: 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 Moral Law were no more obliging believers now, than it was Heathens or Gentiles before they ever heard of it, both in respect of knowledge and observation of it, than might believers 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 sin 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 Ministry of Moses: but in other places it signifieth as much as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the opposite to it is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as in this 4. of the Rom. and ver. 14. where the Apostle declaring that the promise made to Abraham was not of the Law, he cannot mean the Law of Moses, for all know, that was long after; but he means what's done in obedience to the Moral Law so fare 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 righteousness, or the promise, are not by the Law: But all the difficulty in this controversy is about the phrase, Under the Law: Therefore take notice,  
4. There is a voluntary being under the Law, as Christ's was; and 
A twofold being under the Law.  there is to be under it in an ill sense. A voluntary and willing obedience unto the Law, is acceptable: And thus the Apostle 1 Cor. 9 20. The Apostle saith, he was made to some as under the Law, though there indeed he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but that is added because of the ceremonial part of the Law. Therefore he calleth himself 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 ceremonial part of it which was abolished by Christ; so that a godly man, in a well explained sense, may be said to be under the Law: but yet, because the Apostle useth it for the most part in an ill sense, as here in the text, and in that place, tell me, ye that desire to be under the Law, (though Law there be used for the whole Ministry of Moses, and not of the Moral Law) let us consider in what sense this is denied to the godly.  
5. That interpretation of some, though of solid judgement, 
The commonly received sense of that Phrase, Not to be under the Law, rejected.  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 prefer Beza's interpretation, which makes the being under the 
Beza's interpretation of the phrase approved▪  Law, to be the same in sense with under sin; for the Apostle, speaking of himself as carnal, Chap. 7. saith, that the Law wrought in him all manner of evil: and this indeed is the work of the Law in every unregenerate man; so that the more the Law is applied to him, the more doth his corruption break forth. Now than 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 control 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 clear 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, than Christ becomes the husband of the godly soul: so that they are deceived who make the Moral Law the husband, but sin is properly the husband: And if you will say, the Moral 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, and 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 legens, and these commit sin without knowledge of it: Sub lege, and these commit it with some fight, but are overcome: Sub gratia, and these do fight, and shall overcome: and Sub pace, these we may make to be those in heaven.   

LECTURE XXIIII.  DEUT. 4. 13. And he declared unto you his Covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten Commandments, etc. 
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 Giants, and great Objections in the way. I will rather handle it positively, then controversally; for I do not find in any point of Divinity, learned men so confused and perplexed (being like Abraham's Ram, hung in a bush of briers and brambles by the head) as here. That I may methodically proceed, observe the context of this verse, and the scope, Moses being to persuade the people of Israel to obedience 
Arguments used by Moses to persuade obedience to the Law.  of the Law, useth several forcible arguments:  
As, ver. 1. The good and profitable issue thereof, which is to live and possess the land, not as if this mercy were only temporal, but by this was represented eternal 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 wisdom and understanding they shall hold forth hereby to all other Nations, there being no people under the sun, that had such holy and perfect laws as they had, and if that be true of Bernard, Sapiens est cui res sapiunt prout sunt, he is a wise man to whom things do taste and relish as they are divine and holy things; as holy, earthy things, as earthly and fading; then certainly, by this Law of God, there was true wisdom prescribed. Other arguments Moses doth bring, as, The great authority God put upon the Law, The great mercy in giving it to them rather than another Nation. And the verse I have read belongs to that argument which proveth the dignity, and glorious authority of the Law, from the manner of delivering it: Which Law he declareth to us by the name and title of a Covenant. Now this take notice of, that the word Covenant (to omit other significations) is taken sometimes synecdochically, for part of the Covenant, as it is here in these words.  
The Doctrine I will insist upon, is, That the Law was delivered 
That the Law God delivered to Israel was a Covenant, appears,  by God on Mount Sinai in a Covenant-way: Or, The Law was a Covenant that God made with the people of Israel. This will appear in that it hath the name of a Covenant, and the real properties of a Covenant.  
1. The name of a Covenant. 2 King. 18. 12. Because they obeyed 
1. In that it hath the name of a Covenant  not the voice of the Lord their God, but transgressed his Covenant, and all that Moses, the servant of God, commanded.  
Deut. 17. 2. If there be found any— that hath worught wickedness— in transgressing the Covenant, which was the ten Commandments, as appeareth, ver. 3. And more expressly, 2 Chro. 6. 11. In it have I put the Ark wherein is the Covenant of the Lord, that he made with the children of Israel. Yea, if we would speak exactly and strictly, the books of Moses and the Prophets cannot be so well called the Old Covenant, or Testament; as this doctrine that was then delivered on Mount Sinai, with all the administrations thereof; as appeareth Heb. 7. & chap. 8. Even as when the Apostle saith, 2 Cor. 3. 6. God hath made us able ministers of the New Testament, he doth not mean the writings, or books, but the Gospel, or Covenant of grace. Take but one place more, where the Law is called a Covenant, and that is Jer. 11. 2, 3, 4.  
2. In the next place, you may see the real properties of a Covenant, 
2. In that it hath the real properties of a Covenant.  which are a mutual consent consent and stipulation on both sides: See a full relation of this Exod. 3. 24. from the 3 d. ver. to the 9 th'. The Apostle relateth this history, Heb. 9 wherein learned Interpreters observe many difficulties: but I shall not meddle with them.  
In the words quoted out of Exodus, you see these things which belong to a Covenant: First, there is God himself expressing his consent and willingness to be their God, if they will keep such Commandments there and then delivered to them ver. 3. Secondly, you have the people's full consent, and ready willingness to obey them, ver. 3. & ver. 7. Thirdly, because Covenants used to be written down for a memorial unto posterity, therefore we see Moses writing the precepts down in a book. Fourthly, because Covenants used to be confirmed by some outward visible signs, especially by killing of beasts, and offering them in sacrifice, therefore we have this also done, and half of the blood was sprinkled on the Altar, to denote Gods entering into Covenant; and the people also were sprinkled with blood, to show their voluntary covenanting. Thus we have real covenanting when the Law is given.  
So also you may see this in effect, Deut. 29. 10, 11, 12, 13. where its expressly said, that they stood to enter into Covenant with God; that he may establish them to be a people unto himself, and that he may be a God unto them. Again, you have this clearly in Deut. 26. 17, 18. where it is said, Thou hast avouched the Lord this day to be thy God, and to walk in his ways— And the Lord hath avouched thee this day to be his peculiar people. So, that it's very plain, the Law was given as a Covenant; yea, the Apostle calls it a Testament: for howsoever some have disliked that distinction of the Old and New Testament, especially as applied to the books and writings of the holy Penmen of Scripture (thinking as Austin, they may be better called the Old and New Instruments, because they are authentical, and confirmed by sufficient witnesses: As Tertullian calls the Bible, Nostra digesta, from the Lawyers; and others called it, Our Pandects, from them also) yet 1 Cor. 3. doth warrant such a distinction. Only the question is, how this Covenant can be called properly a Testament, because Christ died not twice, and there cannot be a Testament, without the death of a Testator. But the answer is, that there was a typical death of Christ in the sacrifices, and that was ground enough to make the Covenant to be called a Testament.  
Having proved it is a Covenant, all the difficulty remaineth 
The judgements of the Learned different in declaring what Covenant is here meant.  in declaring what Covenant it is; for here is much difference of judgements, even with the Learned and Orthodox: and this doth arise from the different places of Scripture, which, although they be not contrary one to another, yet the weakness of our understandings is many times overmastered by some places: Some (as you have heard) make it a Covenant of works, others a mixed Covenant, some a subservient Covenant; but I am persuaded to go with those who hold it to be a Covenant of grace: and, indeed, it is very easy to bring strong arguments for the affirmative; but then there will be some difficulty to answer such places as are brought for the negative; and if the affirmative prove true, the dignity and excellency of the Law will appear the more. Now, before I come to the arguments, which induce me hereunto, consider in what sense it 
In what sense it may be a Covenant of grace explained.  may be explained that it is a Covenant of grace.  
Some explain it thus, That it was indeed a Covenant of grace, but the Jews, by their corrupt understanding, made it a Covenant of works, and so opposed it unto Christ: and therefore, say they, the Apostle argueth against the Law, as making it to oppose the promises and grace: not that it did so, but only in regard of the Jews corrupt minds, who made an opposition where there was none. This hath some truth in it, but it is not full.  
Some make the Law to be a Covenant of grace, but very obscurely; and therefore they hold the Gospel and the Law to be the same, differing only as the acorn while it is in the husk, and the oak when it's branched out into a tall tree. Now if this should be understood in a popish sense, as if the righteousness of the Law and the Gospel were all one; in which sense the Papists speak of the old Law and the new, it would be very dangerous and directly thwarting the Scripture.  
Some explain it thus: God (say they) had a primary or antecedent will in giving of the Law, or a secundary and consequent: His primary will was to hold out perfect and exact righteousness, against which the Apostle argueth, and proveth no man can be justified thereby: but then God knowing man's impotency and inability, did secondarily command repentance, and promiseth a gracious acceptance through Christ; and this may be very well received, if it be not vexed with ill interpretations.  
But, lastly, this way I shall go: The Law (as to this purpose) may be considered more largely, as that whole doctrine delivered on Mount Sinai, with the preface and promises adjoined, and all things that may be reduced to it; or more strictly, as it is an abstracted rule of righteousness, holding forth life upon no terms, but perfect obedience. Now take it in the former sense, it was a Covenant of grace; take it in the later sense, as abstracted from Moses his administration of it, and so it was not of grace, but works.  
This distinction will overthrow all the Objections against the negative. Nor may it be any wonder that the Apostle should consider the Law so differently, seeing there is nothing more ordinary with Paul in his Epistles, and that in these very controversies, then to do so: as for example, take this instance, Rom. 10. ver. 5, 6. where Paul describeth the righteousness of the Law from those words, Do this, and live, which is said to have reference to Levit. 18. 5. but we find this in effect, Deut. 30. v. 16. yet from this very Chapter the Apostle describeth the righteousness which is by faith: And Beza doth acknowledge, that that which Moses speaks of the law, Paul doth apply to the Gospel: Now how can this be reconciled, unless we distinguish between the general doctrine of Moses, which was delivered unto the people in all the circumstantial administrations of it, and the particular doctrine about the Law, taken in a limited and abstracted consideration? Only this take notice of, that although the Law were a Covenant of grace, yet the righteousness of works and faith differ as much as heaven and earth. But the Papists, they make this difference: The righteousness of the Law (saith Stapleton, Antid in hunc locum) is that which we of our own power have and doc by the knowledge and understanding of the Law; but the righteousness of faith, they make the righteousness of the Law, to which we are enabled by grace through Christ: So that they compare not these two together, as two contraries, (in which sense Paul doth) but as an imperfect righteousness with a perfect. But we know, that the Apostle excludeth the works of David and Abraham, that they did in obedience to the Law, to which they were enabled by grace; so necessary is it in matter of justification and pardon to exclude all works, any thing that is ours; Tolle te à te, impedis te, said Austin well. Nor doth it avail us, that this grace in us is from God, because the Apostle makes the opposition wholly between any thing that is ours, howsoever we come by it, and that of faith in Christ. Having thus explained the state of the Question, I come to the arguments to prove the affirmative: And thus I shall order them;  
The first shall be taken from the relation of the Covenanters; 
Arguments proving the Law a Covenant of grace.  God on one part, and the Israelites on the other: God did not deal at this time, as absolutely considered, but as their God and Father. Hence God saith, he is their God; and when Christ quoteth the commanders, Argum. 1 he brings the preface, Hear O Israel, the Lord thy God is one. And, Rom. 9 4. To the Israelites belong adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the Law, and the promises. Now, unless this were a Covenant of grace, how could God be their God, who were sinners? Thus also if you consider the people of Israel into what relation they are taken, this will much confirm the point. Exod. 19 5, 6. If ye will obey my voice, you shall be a peculiar treasure unto me, and ye shall be unto me a kingdom of Priests, and an holy Nation; which is applied by Peter to the people of God under the Gospel. If therefore the Law had been a Covenant of works, how could such an agreement come between them?  
2. If we consider the good things annexed unto this Covenant, it must needs be a Covenant of grace: for there we have remission Argum. 2 and pardon of sin, whereas in the Covenant of works, there is no way for repentance or pardon. In the second Commandment, God is described to be one showing mercy unto thousands: and by showing mercy, is meant pardon, as appeareth by the contrary, visiting iniquity. Now doth the Law, strictly taken, receive any humbling and debasing of themselves? no, but curseth every one that doth not continue in all the things commanded, and that with a full and perfect obedience. Hence Exod. 34. ver. 6, 7. God proclaimeth himself in manifold attributes of being gracious, and long-suffering, keeping mercy for thousands, and forgiving iniquity; and this he doth upon the renewing of the two Tables: whereas, if the people of Israel had been strictly held up to the Law, as it required universal perfect obedience, without any failing, they must also necessarily have despaired and perished without any hope at all.  
3. If we consider the duties commanded in the Law so generally taken, Argum. 3 it must needs be a Covenant of grace: for what is the meaning of the first Commandment, but to have one God in Christ our God by faith? For if faith had not been on such terms commanded, it had been impossible for them to love God, or to pray unto God. Must not the meaning then be, to love, and delight in God, and to trust in him? But how can this be without faith through Christ? Hence some urge, that the end of the commandment is love from faith unfeigned; but because Scultetus doth very probably, by commandment, understand there, The Apostles preaching and exhortation, (it being in the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and the Apostle using the word in that Epistle in the same sense) I leave it. It's true, there is no mention made of Christ, or faith in the first Commandment, but that is nothing, for love also is not mentioned; yet our Saviour discovers it there, and so must faith and Christ be supposed there by necessary consequence. And can we think, that the people of Israel, though indeed they were too confident in themselves, yet when they took upon themselves to keep and observe the Law, that the meaning was, they would do it without any spot or blemish by sin, or without the grace of God for pardon, if they should at any time break the Law.  
4. From the Ceremonial Law. All Divines say, that this is reduced Argum. 4 to the Moral Law, so that Sacrifices were commanded by virtue of the second Commandment. Now we all know, that the Sacrifices were evangelical, and did hold forth remission of sins through the blood of Christ: If therefore these were commanded by the Moral Law, there 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 Ceremonial Law, as the Moral; yea the first rise of the controversy was from that. Now all must confess, that circumcision and the sacrifices did not oppose Christ, or grace, but rather included them. And this hath been always a very strong argument to persuade me for the affirmative. It is true, the Jews 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 seal to ratify this Covenant, Argum. 5 which, you heard, was by sacrifices, and sprinkling the people with blood: And this did signify Christ; for Christ he also was the Mediator of this Covenant, seeing that reconciliation cannot possibly be made with a sinner through the Mediation of any mortal man. When therefore Moses is called the Mediator, 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 Mediator, either typical, or real; some think Christ likewise was the Angel spoke of Act. 7. with whom Moses was in the wilderness; and it is probable. Now if Christ was the Mediator of the Law as a Covenant, the Antinomian distinction must fall to the ground, that makes the Law as in the hand of Moses, and not in the hand of Christ: whereas on Mount Sinai, the Law was in the hand of Christ.  
6. If the Law were the same Covenant with that oath, which Argum. 6 God made to Isaac, than it must needs be a Covenant of grace: But we shall find 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 pass, if ye harken to these judgements, and do them, that the Lord thy God shall keep unto thee the Covenant, and the mercy which he swore 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, and not the other; it is to be understood according to the distinction before mentioned of the Law taken in a most strict and limited sense: for it is plain, that Moses in the administration of this Law had regard to the Covenant and Promise, yea, made it the same with it.  
Now to all this, there are strong Objections made from those 
Objections impugning the former Arguments answered.  places of Scripture, where the Law and faith, or the Promise, are so directly opposed, as Rom. 10. before quoted, so Gal. 3. 18. Rom. 4. 14. so likewise from those places, where the Law is said to be the ministry of death, and to work wrath. Now to these places, I answer these things:  
First, that if they should be rigidly, and universally true, than that doctrine of the Socinians would plainly prevail, who from these places of Scripture do urge, that there was no grace, or faith, nor nothing of Christ, vouchsafed unto the Jews; whereas we read 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, than those that despised the Law of Moses: so that this effect of the Law was merely accidental through our corruption: only here is the difference, God doth not vouchsafe any such grace, as whereby we can have justification in a strict legal 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 Ceremonial 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 kill 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 kill letter, and the ministry of death, would he not have been judged a blasphemer against the Law of Moses? The Apostle therefore must understand it, as separated, yea and opposed to Christ and his grace.  
And lastly, we are still to retain that distinction of the Law in a more large sense, as delivered by Moses; and a more strict sense, as it consisteth in precepts, threaten, and promises upon a condition impossible to us, which is, the fulfilling of the Law in a perfect manner.   

LECTURE XXV.  ROM. 3. 27. Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay, but by the law of faith. 
THe Apostle delivered in the words before most compendiously 
The words opened.  and fully the whole doctrine of justification in the several causes of it, from whence in this verse, he inferreth a conclusion against all boasting in a man's self; which he manageth by short interrogations, that so he might the more subdue that self confidence in us: Where is boasting? saith he. This is to be applied universally both to Jew and Gentile; but especially to the Jew, who gloried most herein. And chrysostom makes this the reason, why Christ deferred so long, and put off his coming in the flesh, viz. that our humane pride might be debased: for if at first he had come unto us, men would not have found such an absolute necessity of a Saviour. The second Question is, by what Law boasting is excluded; and this is answered, first negatively, not by the Law of works. Secondly positively, by the law of faith.  
The Apostle, by the law of works, meaneth the doctrine of works, prescribing them as the condition of our justification and salvation; and he saith works, in the plural number; because one or two good works, though perfectly done (if that were possible) would not satisfy the Law for our acceptation, unless there were a continual and universal practice of them, both for parts and degrees: And he calls the doctrine of faith, the law of faith, either because (as chrysostom saith) he would sweeten and endear the Gospel to the Jews, by giving it a name which they loved; or, as Beza, he speaks here mimetically, according to the sense of the Jews, as when John 6. he calleth Faith a work, because the Jews 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 himself 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 
The Papists corruptly gloss upon this Text.  which go before faith, and they quote a good rule out of Gregory, though to a foul error, 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 gloss of theirs corrupts the text, because the Apostle in this controversy instanceth in Abraham, showing how he had not wherewith to glory in himself, and therefore by believing 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 all Doctr. though 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 error, saith Calvin, lib. 2. Instit. cap. 9 in those who do never otherwise compare the Gospel with the Law, than 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, giving us no ground of hope, unless 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 show the exact opposition, take 
The Law and the Gospel may be compared one with another in a double respect.  notice of two things as a foundation: first, that the Law and the Gospel may be compared one with another, either in respect of the grace God gave under the Old Testament, and the New, and then they differ only gradually; for they under the Law did enjoy grace and the Spirit of God, (though Socinians deny it) although indeed in respect of the Gospel, it may comparatively be said, no spirit, and, no grace; as when it is said, The holy Ghost was not yet given, because it was not so plentifully given: Or, secondly, the doctrine of the Law in the mere 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 unequal 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 spiritual good was vouchsafed to the Jews, 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 equal, and to take them so oppositely, that we may not give the one more advantage, or less, than the nature of it doth crave and desire.  
In the second place therefore, in this controversy, still remember 
The different use of the word [Law] carefully to be observed.  to carry along with you the different use of the word [Law] as to this point; for if you take Law strictly, and yet make it a Covenant of grace, you confound the righteousness 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 
What meant by Law taken largely, and what strictly.  [Law] so the word [Gospel] may be taken largely, or strictly. We will not trouble you with the many significations of the word (or whether it be used any where of a sorrowful message, as well as glad news, as some say in two places it is used, 1 Sam. 4. 17. 2 Sam. 1. 10. according to that rule of Mercers, Non infrequens esse, specialia verba interdum generaliter sumi.) It is enough to our purpose, that in the Scripture it is sometimes taken more largely, and sometimes more strictly: when it's taken largely, it signifieth the whole doctrine, that the Apostles were to preach, Mar. 16. 15. Preach the Gospel to every creature: and so Mar. 1. 1. The beginning of the Gospel, i. e. the doctrine and preaching of Christ. Or else it is taken most strictly, as when Luke 2. 10. Behold, I bring you glad tidings, etc. In which strict sense it's called the Gospel of peace, and of the grace of God: So that, as you see, the word [Law] is taken differently, largely, and strictly; thus also is the word [Gospel] Now it's a great dispute, Whether the command of repentance belong unto the Gospel, or no? I find 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 threaten in it, lib. 4. the 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 showed) he there doth mistake the state of the controversy, taking the word [Gospel] in a larger sense than they intended. Thus on the other side, Islebius, the father of the Antinomians, he taught that repentance was not to be pressed from the Decalogue, but from the Gospel; and that, to preserve the purity of doctrine, we ought to resist all those who teach, the Gospel must not be preached but to those who were made contrite by the Law: whereas the right unfolding of the word [Gospel] would make up quickly those breaches.  
The Law therefore and the Gospel admitting of such a different acception, I shall first show the opposition between the Law and Gospel taken in their large sense, and then in the limited sense. And this is worth the while, because this is the foundation of all our comfort, if rightly understood. Now the Question in this larger sense is the same with the difference between the Old and New Testament, or Covenant; wherein the Learned speak very differently, and, as to my apprehension, much confusedly. I shall not examine whether that be the reason of calling it Old and New, which Austin, Chemnitius, and others urge, because it presseth the old man, and condemneth that; whereas the new encourageth and comforteth new: I rather take it to be so called, because the old was to cease and vanish away, being before the other in time. Now in my method I will lay down the false differences, and then name the true.  
The false differences are first of the Anabaptists and Socinians, 
False differences between the Law and the Gospel:  who make all that lived under the Law to have nothing but temporal earthly blessings in their knowledge and affections. And for this they are very resolute, granting indeed that 
1. Of Anabaptists, and Socinians, affirming, That they under the Law in the Old Testament enjoyed only temporal blessings.  Christ and eternal things were promised in the Old Testament, but they were not enjoyed by any till the New Testament: whereupon they say, that grace and salvation was not till Christ came. And the places which the Antinomians bring for believers under the New Testament, they take rigidly and universally, as if there had been no eternal life, nor nothing of the Spirit of God, till Christ came. Hence they say, the Gospel began with Christ, and deny that the promise of a Christ, or Messiah to come is ever called the Gospel, but the real exhibition of him only. This is false; for, although this promise be sometimes called Act. 7. 17. Act. 13. 32. the promise made to the fathers, yet it is sometimes also called the Gospel, Rom. 1. 2. Rom. 10. 14, 15. And there are clear places to confute this wicked error, as the Apostle instancing in Abraham and David, for justification, and remission of sins, which were spiritual mercies; and that eternal life was not unknown to them, appeareth by our Saviour's injunction, commanding them to search the Scriptures, for in them they hope for eternal life, John 11. 39 Thus also they had hope and knowledge of a resurrection, as appeareth, Act. 24. 14. therefore our Saviour proved the resurrection out of a speech of Gods to Moses. And howsoever Mercer (as I take it) think that exposition probable about Jobs profession of his knowledge [that his Redeemer liveth, and that he shall see him at the last day] which make his meaning to be of Jobs persuasion of his restitution unto outward peace and health again; yet there are some passages, in his expression, that seem plainly to hold out the contrary. Though therefore we grant that that state was the state of children, and so carried by sensible objects very much; yet there was under these temporal good things, spiritual held forth. Hence the Apostle, 1 Cor. 10. maketh the Jews to have the same spiritual matter and benefit in their Sacraments which we partake of.  
In the next place, let us consider the false difference of the Papists; 
2. Of Papists.  and they have the Socinians also agreeing with them in some things.  
First, they make this a great difference, that Christ, under the 
1. That Christ hath added more perfect Laws under the New Testament.  New Testament, hath added more perfect Laws, and sound counsels than were before, as, Wilful poverty, Vowed chastity: and the Socinians, they labour to show how Christ hath added to every precept of the Decalogue; and they begin with the first, that he hath added to it these things: 1. A command to prayer, whereas in the Old Testament, though godly men did pray, yet (say they impudently) there was no command: and then Christ (say they) did not only command to pray, but gave a prescript form of prayer. The second thing added (say they) is to call upon Christ, as a Mediator in our prayers, which they in the Old Testament did not. And thus they go on over all the Commandments, showing what new things Christ hath added, Smal. refut. Thes. pag. 228. But I have already shown that Christ never added any moral duty which was not commanded before.  
The second difference of the Papists, is, to make the Law and 
2. That the Law and Gospel are capable of no opposite consideration.  the Gospel capable of no opposite consideration, no not in any strict sense, but to hold both a Covenant of works, and that the Fathers under the Old Testament, and those under the New, were both justified by fulfilling the Law of God. And herein lieth that gross error, whereby Christ and grace are evacuated: But the falsehood of this shall be evinced (God willing) when we speak of the Law and Gospel strictly, which the Papists, upon a dangerous error, call the Old Law, and the New.  
Lastly, the Papists make a third difference, that under the 
3. That the Fathers that died under the Old Testament, went not immediately to heaven.  Old Testament, the Fathers that died went not immediately to heaven; therefore (say they) we do not say, Saint Jeremiah, or, Saint Isaiah, but after Christ's death, than a way was opened for them and us: Hence is that saying, Sanguis Christi, est clavis Paradisi: but this is sufficiently confuted in the Popish controversies.  
I come therefore to the Antinomian difference, and there I 
3. Of Antinomians, That God saw sin in the believers of the Old Testament, not of the New.  find such an one, that I am confident was never heard of before in the world; It is in the Honeycomb of Justification, pag. 117. God. (saith he) saw sin in the believers of the Old Testament, but not in these of the New; And his Reason is, because the glory of free Justification was not so much revealed, the veil was not removed. What a weak reason is this? Did the less, or more revelation of free Justification make God justify the less freely? It had been a good argument to prove that the people of God in the Old Testament did not know this doctrine so clearly as those in the New, but that God should see the more or less, because of this, is a strange Consequence. The places of Scripture which he brings, Zech. 13. 1. Dan. 9 14. would make more to the purpose of a Socinian, (that there is no pardon of sin, and eternal life, but under the Gospel) rather then for the Antinomian: and one of his places he brings, Jer. 50. ver. 20. maketh the contrary true; for there God promiseth pardon of sin, not to the believers under the Gospel, but to that residue of the Jews which God would bring bacl from captivity, as the context evidently showeth: so the place, Heb. 10. 17. how grossly is it applied unto the believers of the Gospel only? for, had not the godly under the Old Testament the Law written in their hearts? and had they not the same cause to take away their sins (viz, Christ's blood) as well as we under the Gospel?  
His second reason is, God saw sin in them, because they were children, that had need of a rod; but he sees none in us, because full grown heirs. What a strange reason is this? for parents' commonly see less sin in their children, while young, then when grown up; and their childishness doth more excuse them. And although children only have a rod for their faults, yet men grown up they have more terrible punishments. Hence the Apostle threatens believers that despise Christ, with punishment above those that despised Moses.  
His third Reason is, because they under the Law, were under a Schoolmaster, therefore he seethe sin in them, but none in us, being no longer under a Schoolmaster. But here is no solidity in this Reason: for first, the chiefest work of a Schoolmaster is to teach and guide; and so they are said to be under the Law as a Schoolmaster, that so they may be prepared for Christ: and thus it is a good argument to Christians under the Gospel, that their lives should be fuller of wisdom and grown graces, than the Jews; because they are not under a Schoolmaster as children: As if one should say to a young man, that is taken from the Grammar-schoole, and transplanted in the University, that he should take heed he doth not speak false Latin now, for he is not in a Grammar-schoole now, but in an University. Thus you see, the chief notion of a Schoolmaster is to prepare and guide, his correcting is accidental; yea, if we may believe Quintilian, a master in this kind, he is against the Schoolmasters beating of boys, as that which would make them of a servile disposition. But Solomon giveth better rules. Grant therefore that this is to be understood of knocks and blows which they had, what can we say under the Gospel, that we are children freed from the rod? though we have not a Schoolmaster, yet we have a father to correct us. Heb. 12. 5, 6, 7, 8. Do we not in that place find a plain contradiction of this doctrine? For the Apostle doth there allege a place of the Old Testament, to us now under the Gospel: And, certainly, afflictions are as necessary to the godly now, as fire to the drossy vessel, and filing to the rusty iron. As the scourging and beating of the garment with a stick, beateth out the moths and the dust; so do troubles and adversities corruptions from the children of God.  
The fourth reason why God saw sin in them, was, Because they were not made perfect according to the conscience, Hebr. 9 13, 14. Who would not think that the Author were some Papist, or Socinian? for if the Text prove any thing to his purpose, it will evince that the godly than were made partakers of no more than a legal bodily cleansing. But as for the place that is miserably arrested; for the Apostle his intent is to show, that the godly then could not obtain righteousness by any of those sacrifices, and therefore the good they enjoyed was from Christ the true sacrifice: so that unless he will deny Christ's blood to be effectual and operative in the Old Testament, this reason must fall to the ground. Other reasons he brings, which are to the same purpose, and therefore may easily be overthrown; as, That God saw no sin in them, because their Preachers did not open the kingdom of heaven, but he seethe none in us, because the least of our Ministers do bring us into this kingdom. Every one may see the weakness here; for it supposeth that God did not so fully pardon and forgive, because the doctrine of these things was not so clearly preached. If the Authors arguments had been, that Christ died not so fully for them, or that Christ his righteousness was not so fully imputed unto them, than there had been some probability. Thus you see this false difference also. I do not meddle with that opinion, Of seeing sin in the believers, because it is not the proper place.  
I find other differences between the Law and the Gospel, made by another Antinomian, and they are in a Sermon upon the two Covenants of grace, where the Author, having truly asserted, that God did transact with the Jews in a Covenant of grace; yet he makes that Covenant, and this under the Gospel, 
2. That the Covenant God made with the Jews, and this under the Gospel are two distinct Covenants.  to be two distinct Covenants: They are not (saith he, pag. 45.) one and the same Covenant diversely administered, but they are two distinct Covenants: His arguments are, because they are called Old and New: But those names enforce no essential difference. The Commandment of love is called an old Commandment, and a new; yet it is the same for essence: so likewise the terms of a good, and better, do imply no more than a gradual difference in their excellency. But that which I shall especially animadvert upon, is, the differences he giveth between these two Covenants of grace so really distinguished, as he supposeth, and in this matter, the Author speaketh much error in a few lines.  
The first difference assigned by him is in respect of remission 
3. That Plenary remission of sins under the Gospel, not so under the Law, because no sacrifice, save for sins of ignorance.  of sins; but he goeth on other grounds than the Honeycomb doth. They had not (saith he) a plenary remission of all sorts of sins: There were sacrifices for sins of ignorance; but not for other sins that were done presumptuously: and if no sacrifices were admitted, then consequently not pardon obtained: but under the Gospel, Christ's blood cleanseth from all sin, pag. 54. Now here is an heap of falsehoods:  
First, that all the legal sacrifices were only for sins of mere 
Confut. 1. All Sacrifices were not only for sins of ignorance.  ignorance; (This is also an error among Sociniaus) but Levit. 6. 2, 3. there is a sacrifice appointed for him that shall lie, and swear falsely in detaining of his neighbour's goods, and this could not be but a sin of knowledge. This is also abundantly confirmed in Levit. 16. where the feast of expiation and atonement is made for all the sins of the people, ver. 16. He shall make an atonement, because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions in all their sins. So ver. 21. He shall confess over the live goat all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins. Thus ver. 30. That ye may be clean from all your sins before the Lord: and ver. 34. This shall be an atonement for the children of Israel, once a year for all their sins. Thus you see the Scripture speaks plainly for all their sins; yet the Antinomian speaks as boldly, as if nothing were truer; that there were sacrifices for some sorts of sins only. So that you are wisely to judge of such books, and not believe every confident expression. It's true, the Apostle calls these sins 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Heb. 9 7. we translate it errors; for the Apostle doth not mean sins committed out of mere ignorance, but all kind of sins, as appeareth by Levit. 16. but therefore are all sins called so, because omnis malus ignorat: There being no sin which doth not proceed from some error in the practical judgement? for although a man sin wilfully and advisedly, so that there is Nulla alia causa malitiae nisi malitia, (as Austin speaks of some of his sins) yet there is even then an error in that man's conscience.  
But in the second place, grant, that there were no legal sacrifices 
2. No legal sacrifice, therefore no remission of sin, inconsequent.  appointed for some sins, (as indeed particular sacrifices were commonly for sins either of ignorance, or, if wilful, not of such an high and moral guilt; particular (I say) for that feast of expiation was general) yet there is no consequence in the world, that therefore there was no pardon to be sued out. How foolish then were David and Manasses, in suing out pardon for their blood-guiltiness, if there were no such thing allowed by God? How gross is this error? If this doctrine were true, than most of those that are reckoned as godly in the Old Testament could have no pardon, because many of them did fall into such gross sins, for which there was no particular sacrifice appointed.  
3. Again, under the New Testament, is there not the sin 
3. The sin against the holy Ghost under the Gospel not cleansed by Christ's blood.  against the holy Ghost, for which no pardon is promised? Not indeed but that Christ's blood is sufficient to take away the guilt of it; and God's mercy is able to pardon it, and to give repentance to those that have committed it; but he hath declared he will not.  
But, saith the Author, under the Gospel it is said, The blood of Christ cleanseth us from all sin. Now, if the Jews would have brought all their estates to have been admitted, to bring a sacrifice for such or such a sin, they could not have done it. I reply: What if they could bring no sacrifice, could they not therefore have pardon? Why then doth God proclaim himself to them, a God gracious, forgiving iniquity, transgression and sin? Why doth he, Isai. 1. call upon Jerusalem to repent of her whoredoms, murders, saying, If their sins were as scarlet, they should be made as white as snow. This error is such a dead fly, that it is enough to spoil the Author's whole box of ointment. Besides, was not that true ever since Adam's fall, as well as under the Gospel [Christ's blood cleansing from all sin] I cannot see how any but a Socinian will deny it.  
4. Another difference that the Author makes about remission 
4. That under the old Covenant, God gave not remission of sins to any, but upon antecedent conditions; not so under the Gospel.  of sins to them, and us under the Gospel, is as strange, and false as the former: It is this, God did not give the grace of remission of sins to any under the old Covenant, but upon antecedent conditions; they were to be at cost for sacrifices. (How doth this agree with his former reason, if he mean it universally?) They were to confess their sins to the Priests, yea, in some cases to fast: but now under the Gospel there is no antecedent doing of any thing to the participation of the Covenant. But in this difference also there is much absurd falsehood, and contradiction to himself: Contradiction (I say) for he bringeth Ezek. 16. where God speaks to the Church, that while she was in her blood, he said to her, Live; therefore there was no antecedent condition. But what man of reason doth not see that God speaks there of the Church of the Jews, as appeareth through the whole Chapter? Therefore it makes strongly against the Author, that she had no preparations; so that other place Isai. 65. 1. I am found of them that sought not for me; grant that it be a prophecy of the Gentiles, yet was it not also true of the Jews, before God called them? Did the Jews first seek God, or God them? How often doth God tell them, that the good he did to them, was for his own names sake, and not any thing in them?  
Again, if these things were required as antecedent qualifications in them for the remission of sins, than all those arguments will hold true upon them, which they would fasten, as injuries to Christ and grace, upon us. If (say they) we must repent, and humble ourselves, and so have pardon, this is to cast off Christ, this is to make an idol of our own righteousness, etc. It seemeth the Jews under the Old Testament might do all these things without blame: A Jew might say, My services, my sacrifices, my prayers will do something to the remission of my sins: but a Christian may not. The Author urgeth also that place, While we are enemies, we were reconciled to God: but doth not this hold true of the Jews? Did they first make themselves friends with God? What is this but to hold the doctrine of freewill and works in the time of the Law; and the doctrine of grace under the new only? As for faith, whether that be a condition or not, I shall not here meddle: only this is plain, it was required of them under the old Covenant, in the same manner as it is of us now.  
A third difference made as to remission of sins, is this: Their 
5. That remission of sins under the Law was successively and imperfect, under the Gospel at once and perfect.  remission of sins was gradatim, successively, drops by drops. If a man had sinned, and offered sacrifice, than that sin was pardoned; but this did not extend to future ignorance, that was not pardoned till a new sacrifice. Therefore the Apostle saith, there was a remembrance of sin; but Christ by one sacrifice once offered, hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. To this I answer, 1. That this difference grew upon this supposition, as if the sacrifice offered did by its own virtue take away sin. For, if we suppose (as we must) that Christ the true sacrifice was represented in every sacrifice, and all the virtue and benefit to come from Christ's blood, and not the blood of the sacrifices, than could that take away all sins as well as some sins: unless the Author were a Socinian, denying the efficacy of Christ's blood at all under the Old Testament, he can never expedite himself from this.  
Again, this contradicts themselves; for the reason why they say, faith doth not justify, but evidence and declare it only, is, because God's love and free grace to justify, is from all eternity, and therefore no sins past, or future, can hinder this. Now I ask, whether God did not justify David, and the godly in those days from all eternity, (as they speak) and if he did, why should not all their sins be remitted fully once, as well as the sins of believers under the Gospel? Certainly, the Apostle brings David for an instance of justification and remission of sins, as well under the New Testament, which doth suppose that we are justified, and have our sins pardoned in the like manner.  
In the mean while, let me set one Antinomian to overthrow another: for one of that way brings many arguments to prove that we are justified, and so have all our sins done away before we believe. Now, if all sins are done away, then there is no successive remission. Well then, you shall observe most of the arguments hold for the believers under the Old Testament, as well as New; for they are elected as well as we, God laid their sins upon Christ as well as ours: If God love us to day, and hate us to morrow, let Arminians hear and wonder why they should be blamed that say, We may love God to day, and hate him to morrow. Now all these reasons will fall foul upon this Antinomian, whose error I confute, and he must necessarily hold, that the godly had but half pardons, yea, that they were loved one day, and hated the next.  
Again, consider that the place of the Apostle urged by him for his error, viz. Christ offering himself once for all, to perfect those that are sanctified, is of a perpetual truth ever since Adam's fall: and it was as efficacious to those before his death, as after; therefore he is called a Lamb slain 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 sins are forgiven to the justified person at once. He is indeed put into a state of justification, whereby no condemnation will fall upon him, yet his sins are not forgiven, before they are committed, and repent of. And for this purpose we pray for the daily pardon of them, which is not to be understood of the mere declaration or assurance of the pardon, but for the pardon itself. But this shall be on purpose spoken to in the matter of Justification. The forenamed Author 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 works? Nay, but by the law of faith. 
We have confuted the false differences, and now come to lay down the true, between the Law and the Gospel, taken in a larger sense.  
And, first, you must know that the difference is not essential, or 
The difference between the Law and the Gospel is not essential, but accidental only.  substantial, but accidental: 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 several accidental administrations, both on God's part, and on man's. It is true, the Lutheran Divines, they do expressly oppose the Calvinists herein, maintaining the Covenant given by Moses, to be a Covenant of works, and so directly contrary to the Covenant of grace. Indeed, they acknowledge that the Fathers were justified by Christ, and had the same way of salvation with us; only they make that Covenant of Moses to be a superadded thing to the Promise, holding forth a condition of perfect righteousness unto the Jews, that they might be convinced of their own folly in their self-righteousness. But, I think, it is already cleared, that Moses his Covenant, was a Covenant of grace: 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 Jews did not rest in the Sacrifices, or Sacraments, but by faith did really enjoy Christ in them, as well as we in ours. Christ was figured by the Mercy-seat: Now, as both the Cherubims looked to that, so both the people of the Jews and Gentiles did eye and look to Christ. For although Christ had not assumed our flesh then, yet the fruit and benefit of his incarnation was then communicated, because of the decree and promise of God, 1 Pet. 1. 20.  
2. This difference is more particularly seen, in respect of the degrees 
Heavenly objects more clearly revealed in the N. Testament, then in the Old.  of perspicuity and clearness in the revelation of heavenly objects. Hence, 2 Pet. 1. 19 the light in the Old Testament is compared to the light in the nighttime; and that in the New, to the light of the sun in the day. The sum 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 believed, 
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 believe those things: so that as Moses had a veil 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 believed, 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, only to hope in temporal 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 Jews, called always synagoge, but never ecclesia, doth suppose that the Jews were gathered together as so many beasts, rather than called together as men. But this notion is judged false; and they instance Heb. 10. and James 2. where the Church of the Christians is called synagoge; although Cameron, Praelect. de eccles. pag. 66. doth industriously labour to prove that the Apostles did purposely abstain from the word synagoge in reference to Christians: but his reason is not that the Papists urge; for howsoever the good things promised were for the most part temporal, and carnal, yet these figured spiritual and heavenly. It's Augustine's observation, showing that the Jews should first be alured by temporal mercies, and afterwards the Christians by spiritual: As, saith he, first that which is animal, and then that which is spiritual: The first man was of the earth, earthly; the second man was of heaven, heavenly: Thus we may say of the Jew and the Christian, That which was animal was first, and then that which is spiritual. Hence Heb. 11. 16. Abraham and others are said to seek an heavenly country; so that although it be true which Austin (as I remember) said, though you look over the whole book of the Old Testament, yet you shall never find the kingdom of heaven mentioned there: yet we see David making God his portion, and professing that he hath nothing in heaven but him; which argueth, that they looked farther than mere outward mercies. These good things promised to the Jews were figurative; so that as a man consisteth of a soul and body, thus also doth the promises; there is the kernel, and the shell: but the Jews, for the most part, looked only to the outward. Hence Christ, when he opened those things to his Disciples, did like a kind father, that breaketh the shell, and giveth the kernel to his children.  
In the third place, there are facienda, things to be done. Now, 
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 moral things, was also then; yet the doctrine of these things was not so full, penetrating, and clear, as now under the Gospel. There is a dangerous book, called, The Practical Catechism, that venteth much Socinian poison, and in this particular, among other things, that Christ added to the Law, and perfected it, filled up some vacuities in it. Certainly, the Law of God being perfect, and to which nothing must be added, cannot be said to have vacuities in it; and Christ is said to fill the Law, in respect of the Pharisees, who by their corrupt glosses had evacuated it. And one of his reasons, which he brings to prove his assertion, makes most against him, viz. Except your righteousness exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, etc. This maketh against him, because our Saviour doth not say, Except your righteousness exceed the righteousness of the Law, and the Prophets; (which he must have said, if his opinion were true) but, of the Scribes and Pharisees, who had corrupted the text with their false glosses. I will not consider his other reasons; for they are so weak, that he seemeth to be afraid of them: And, certainly, it would be strange Divinity, to say, that a Jew might have lusted after a woman in his heart, and not have sinned; but now it would be sin in a Christian.  
The second particular difference is in respect of the measure of grace. 
The measure of grace ordinarily greater in the Gospel, then under the Law.  Hence the Scripture speaks, as if they had under the Old Testament none at all, merely because there was not such a plentiful effusion of his Spirit upon them: not but that if we consider some particular persons, they might have such degrees of grace, that few under the Gospel can be compared unto them, as Abraham and David; but this was not according to the ordinary dispensation of his graces then: So that as one star differeth from another in glory, thus did the Church of the Jews, from that of Christians. They had drops, but we have the fountain; they had glimmerings, but we have the sun itself. Now, as these are privileges, so they are also great engagements for more eminent knowledge, and holiness than was in those days. But all that the Prophets reproved in their people, ignorance, selfconfidence, resting upon external duties, etc. the same may we in our hearers.  
3. Their condition was more servile. All things did press 
The Jews under the Law were in a more servile condition, than Christians under the Gospel.  more to fear, and bondage, than now among us. Hence the Apostle, Gal. 4. 30. compareth their condition to the sons of the bondwoman. Hence Austin makes Timor, and Amor, the difference of the two Testaments; God met man sinning in the Law, as he did Adam, with terror, charging sin upon him; but under the Gospel, as the father did the prodigal son, coming home to him. See Hebr. 12. this difference considered by Paul, Ye are not come to Mount. Sinai, etc. Only you must rightly understand this. The Jews had a twofold consideration; one, as being servile, and another of them, as sons, but under age: so that they were not wholly excluded from the spirit of Adoption: yea, the Apostle saith, That the Promises, and Adoption did belong unto them; and David doth appropriate God unto himself, as his God, in his prayer, which argued he had the Spirit of Adoption, enabling him to call, Abba, Father. Now, as they were more obnoxious to an inward bondage, so they were under an outward bondage also, opposite unto which is that Christian liberty Paul speaks of, whereby the yoke of all those ceremonious burdens is taken off them; and Paul doth vehemently and fervidly dispute against those that would introduce them.  
In the asserting of this difference, one scruple is to be removed, which is this, How could the Jews be said to be in more servitude than the Christians; merely because of those ceremonies and sacrifices? for, seeing they were commanded by God, and had spiritual significations, they did thereby become helps unto their faith, and were exercises of their piety. As under the Gospel none can say that the Sacraments are a burden, and tend to bondage, because they are visible signs: But rather God doth hereby condescend in his great love unto us; for, as chrysostom observeth, if we had been incorporeal, God would not then have appointed visible Sacraments, (no more than he doth to Angels) but now consisting of soul and body, he doth institute some things in an accommodated way to help us, and to promote our faith.  
But this may be answered, that although they were spiritual in signification, yet, they being many, and requiring much bodily labour, they could not be observed without much difficulty: and therefore no Priest, or Levite, that was spiritually minded, in those days, but would rather choose to exercise the ministry under the Gospel, then to busy himself in the kill of beasts, and flaying of them, which was their duty to do. Therefore well did Austin observe the love of God in appointing for us Sacraments, fewer in number, easier in observation, and more clear in signification. Again, those bodily exercises did rather fit those that were children, and were more convenient to that low condition, then unto the full age of the Church: and Sacraments, though they be an help, yet they suppose some imbecility in the subject: therefore in heaven there shall be none at all. Only take notice, that Popery, having introduced so many ceremonious observations, and such a multitude of Church-precepts, hath made the times of the Gospel to be the times of nonage again. This also discovereth that such are not spiritual, that delight in ceremonial ways: and the more men fix their heart upon sensible observations, the less they partake of spiritual.  
I will instance but in a fourth (because these differences are 
The continuation of the Law was last, but till the coming of Christ.  given by most that treat on this subject) and that shall be the continuance and abode of it. The Law, in that Mosaical administration, was to endure but till Christ the fullness came; and then, as the scaffolds are pulled down when the house is built, so were all those external ordinances to be abolished, when Christ himself came. A candle is superfluous when the sun appeareth. A Schoolmaster is not necessary to those that have obtained perfect knowledge. Milk is not comely for those who live on  meat. The chaff preserves the corn, but when the corn is gathered, the chaff is thrown away. And when the fruit cometh, the flower falleth to the ground. And in this sense the Apostle, Heb. 7. doth argue against it, saying, it could bring nothing to perfection. Neither could any of those purifications work any good and spiritual effect. It behoved therefore that a Christ should be exhibited, which would work all those spiritual mercies for us. Hence had there been no farther proceeding, but we must always have stayed in such offerings, and sacrifices, it had been impossible for ever that God should have been pleased with us. It is therefore in this respect that it was to be antiquated, and a better covenant to come in the room of it. The Apostle calleth those things, Heb. 10. a shadow: Now a shadow that doth show a man, but yet the shadow that doth not live, or eat, or speak: so those sacrifices they shadowed out Christ, but yet they could not exhibit the real benefits by Christ. As Elisha sent his servant with a staff to raise up the Shunamites son, but he could do nothing; then cometh the Prophet himself, and raiseth him up: so it's here, Moses was like the Prophet's servant, he went with a staff to raise up those dead in sin, but could not do it without Christ.  
Here may be one Question made upon these things, and that is, Why God appointed such various and different administrations? This providence of God became a rock to the Marcionites, and Manichees, insomuch that they denied the same God to be Author of both the Testaments. To answer this; certainly God, if he pleased, could have as clearly revealed Christ, and poured out his Spirit, giving eternal life as plentifully under the Law as under the Gospel. But to ask why he did thus, would be as presumptuous and arrogant, as to ask, why he created the world no sooner. If the Schoolmaster teach the new beginner in another way, than he doth the proficient in study, no man doth blame his wisdom. As in the Paschall Lamb, they were to eat the flesh, but to throw away the bones; so in all matters of religion, those things that are revealed and profitable we may feed upon, and whatsoever is abstruse and difficult, we may let go. Praestat per Deum nescire, quia ipse non revelaverit; quàm 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 eternal life upon no other terms: and the Gospel strictly taken, as a solemn 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.  known by natural light, and so agreeable to a natural conscience. I say in some measure; for there is much of the duty of the Law that is unknown to natural consciences, yet the most external and outward duties are known, and accordingly as the truth of them is discerned by natural light, so the will doth join 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 natural acumen in the world, could ever have excogitated this wonderful 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 believe, why the people of God are so hardly persuaded, when loaden with guilt, to roll their souls upon Christ. The reason is, there is nothing in his natural conscience to further him in this duty. Press a man against murder, theft, adultery, here is natural conscience joining for this duty: but urge him to believe, this is altogether above nature. Hence it is also, that naturally we seek to be justified by the works we do; so that to be justified by faith is another way, than 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 unbelief: Let them know, that a little degree of faith is of great consequence. And if he said, that Christianity was perpetua naturae violentia, a perpetual violence offered to nature, this is most sure in matter of faith. We are as froward in rejecting of a promise, as stubborn 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 righteousness, and will not admit of any other; but the Gospel that condescends, and brings pardon through Christ. And this is the main difference, and in which they can never be made one. Now the Papist, Arminian, Socinian, and others, do overthrow this grand and main difference, holding justification by works under some notion, or other: whereas the Apostle maketh an immediate opposition, If of faith, than 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 subtle opinion, of making faith to justify 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 Jews, Turks, Papists, and many heretics.  
The third difference is from the manner of obtaining the good thing 
3. If righteousness were by the Law, eternal life were a debt, but the Gospel holds it forth as God's mere indulgence.  promised: He that shall obtain eternal 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 God's 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: eternal life being the reward of those holy works, which he should have done, but now all is of grace, through Christ; our righteousness is merely God's indulgence: not the holiness that is in us, but the sin pardoned makes us acceptable. So that the broken contrite heart can never sufficiently admire the grace and goodness of God in the Gospel-way: And no marvel if so be that Paul is so frequently ravished with the considerations thereof. This may well be called good news, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And if our hearts were spiritually affected, we should say, How beautiful are the feet of those that bring these glad tidings?  
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 only 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 Mediator. Indeed, there is good use of urging it to proud Pharisaical men, to bring them out of love with themselves; to gross sinners, that their hearts might be broken, seeing the curses belong to them; yea, to the godly also, to teach them the fair copy they are to write after: but, in respect of justification by it, and eternal 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 heal; so it is not the Law, but Christ that can comfort broken hearts stung with sin. The Priest, and the Levite, they pass by, not pitying of him. But now the Subject to whom the Gospel is given, is a broken hearted sinner, one that feeleth himself ready to be covered over with all confusion, one that lieth wounded in conscience, crying for some oil to be poured into his wounds. Oh! what miserable comforters than must all Popish and Socinian Doctors be, who will advise the sinful tempted man to seek out works for the Law; which is as uncomfortable, as to bid a sick diseased man get some of the Philosopher's stone, or to eat a piece of a Phoenix, and then, and not till then, he shall be in ease?  
Lastly, The Law differeth in the form of it from the Gospel: The 
5. The Law conditional, the Gospel absolute.  Law is conditional, 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 works? Whether it hath precepts, or threaten? 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 holiness; he is an infant in Scripture that thinketh so: But, Whether the Gospel doth promise eternal 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, threatening those that do not so: but if you take the Gospel strictly, than it holdeth forth nothing but remission of sins through Christ, not requiring any other duty as a condition, or using any threatening words thereunto. But than 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 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 Antinomianism, 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 only 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 Orthodox and Antinomians. I shall dispatch 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 sin, and so distinguished from faith. Thus they repent not, that they might believe, 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 despair; when a man seethe 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 merely and solely administered, 
The Law and the Gospel are inseparably united in the Word and Ministry.  nor yet the Gospel, but they are twins, that are inseparably united in the Word and Ministry. Howsoever strictly taken, there is a  gulf of opposition between each other; yet in their use they become exceeding subservient, and helpful 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 useful subserviency they had to one another. The Law directeth, commandeth, and humbleth: The Gospel, that comforteth, refresheth, and supporteth. And it is a great wisdom 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 in ability thereunto: On the other side, some grow secure and lose, 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 near link between both these 
Faith and Repentance are wrought both by the Law and the Gospel.  in their practical use, we need not, with some Learned men, make two Commandments of the Gospel only; to wit, the Command to believe, 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 threaten, and the terrors 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 ask, 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, unbelief is a sin against the Law, as well as against 
Unbelief 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 believe in him: Therefore Moses and the Law is said to bear witness of Christ, and to accuse the Jews for refusing the Messiah. The Law, that requireth belief in whatsoever God shall reveal: 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 believe 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, than faith in Christ was immediately commanded there, though obscurely, because (as is proved) it was a Covenant of grace. You see then, that as in the transfiguration, there was Christ, and Moses together in glory; so likewise may the Law, and the Gospel be together in their glory; and it is through our folly, when we make them practically to hinder one another.  
Though all this be true, yet if the Gospel be taken strictly, it 
The Gospel taken strictly, comprehends no more than the glad tidings of a Saviour.  is not a doctrine of repentance, or holy works; but a mere gracious promise of Christ to the broken heart for sin; and doth comprehend no more than the glad tidings 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 it's only a promise of Christ, and his benefits: And in this sense we may say, the Gospel doth not terrify, or accuse. Indeed there are woeful threaten to him that rejecteth Christ; yea, more severe then to him that refused Moses: but this ariseth from the Law joined in practical 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 believing in Christ, he needeth not to be condemned again by the Gospel.  
If you say, May not the sufferings of Christ make us to repent of sin, and all the love he shown 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 show ourselves 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 God's 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 practical improvement of Law and Gospel, without hindering 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 fearful, throw thyself into the arms 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.   

LECTURE XXVIII.  ROM. 10. 4. For Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness to every one that believeth. 
AS the Physician, (saith Peter Martyr) who intends to give strong physic which may expel 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 self-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 heart's desire and prayer.] The occasion of this his affection is the zeal that they have for God, but in a wrong way: As the skilful husbandman, that seethe a piece of ground full of weeds, and brambles, wisheth he had that ground, which by culture and tillage would be made very fruitful. Amo unde amputem, said the Orator, I love the wit that needs some pruning. The luxuriancy is a sign of fertility.  
This zeal was not a good zeal, partly because it wanted 
Zeal that either wants knowledge, or puffs up, no good zeal.  knowledge, and therefore was like Samson without his eyes; partly because it made them proud, which the Apostle fully expresseth in two particulars: 1. They sought to establish their own righteousness. They sought, this did imply their wilful pride and arrogancy, and to establish, which supposeth their righteousness was weak and infirm, 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 down before the Ark. 2. The Apostle expresseth it signally, when he saith, They submitted not themselves to the righteousness of God: In the original, 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 own righteousness, and to take Christ for all. This being so, take notice by the way of a foul error of the Antinomian, who denying assurance and comfort by signs of grace, laboureth to prove, that an unregenerate man may have universal obedience, and sincere obedience, bringing this instance of the Jews for sincere obedience.  
But sincerity may be taken two wales: First, as it opposeth 
Sincerity taken two ways.  gross hypocrisy, and so indeed the Jews zeal was not hypocritical, because they did not go against their conscience: or, Secondly, it may be taken for the truth of grace, and so the Jews zeal was not a true gracious zeal, for the reasons above named. Now my Text, that is given as a reason, why the Jews did look to their own righteousness, and not that of Gods, because they neglected Christ, who is here said to be the end of the Law for righteousness. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth sometimes signify, 
The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what it signifieth.  the extreme and last end of a thing: Thus Mark. 13. 7. The end is not yet; so those who are against the calling of the nation of the Jews, bring that place, 1 Thes. 2. ver. 16. Weath is come upon them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: as if there were no mercy to be expected. But this may admit of another exposition. Sometimes the word is used for perfection and fullfilling of a thing, according to the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 2. 27. Shall not uncircumcision, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, if it fulfil the Law? So James 2. 8. If you fulfil the royal Law. In this sense Aristotle called the soul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as that which did perfect: And the sacrifices before marriage, which was the consummation of that near 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 confirm this sense; for, certainly, that phrase is no more than that in another place, Love is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the fullfilling of the Law. Therefore, I think, this is a great part of the meaning here, Christ is the end, that is, the perfection, the fullness of the Law. Yet, I shall take in also the end of intention, or a scope, unto which the Lawgiver aimed, when he gave the Law: and this will be showed in the particulars; The doctrine is, That Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness to every believer.  
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 Austin called it. Now, in the former sense, Christ was the end of the Ceremonial Law, the end abolishing; although that was also an end of perfection to them: and so some understand it of the Ceremonial Law, and the Prophecies: They all shadowed out Christ, and ended in him. And this indeed is a truth, but it is not pertinent to the scope of the Apostle, who speaketh of such a Law, that the Jews expected righteousness by in the performing of it; which must be the Moral Law only.  
Now, when we speak of the Moral Law, having Christ for the end of it, then in the second place, that may be considered two ways:  
1. Either rigidly, and in an abstracted consideration from the administration 
The Law, as it is considered rigidly, and in the abstract, so Christ is not the end thereof, unless it be by accident.  of it, as it doth require perfect obedience, and condemning those that have it not: now in this sense Christ cannot be the scope, or end of the Law, but it is merely by accident, and occasional, that a soul abased and condemned by the Law doth seek out for a Christ: only you must know, that the Law, even so taken, doth not exclude a Christ, It requireth indeed a perfect righteousness of our own; yet if we bring the righteousness of a surety, though this be not commanded by the Law, yet it is not against the Law, or excluded by it; otherwise it would have been unjustice in God to have accepted of Christ our surety for us.  
2. Or else the Law may be taken in a more large way for the administration 
As the Law is taken largely for the administration of it by Moses, so Christ was intended directly.  of it by Moses, in all the particulars of it; and thus Christ was intended directly, and not by accident; that is, God when he gave the Law to the people of Israel, did intent that the sense of their impossibility to keep it, and infinite danger accrueing thereby to them, should make them desire and seek out for Christ: which the Jews generally not understanding, or neglecting, did thereby, like Adam, go to make fig-leaves for their covering of their nakedness, their empty, external obedience.  
According to this purpose Aquinas hath a good distinction about an end; That an End is twofold: Either such, to which a thing doth naturally incline of itself: Or secondly, That which becometh an end, by the mere appointment and ordination of some Agent. Now the end of the Law, to which naturally it inclineth, is eternal life to be obtained by a perfect righteousness in us; but the instituted and appointed end, which God the Lawgiver made in the promulgation of it, was the Lord Christ: So that, whatsoever the Law commanded, promised, or threatened, it was to stir up the Israelites unto Christ. They were not to rest in those precepts or duties, but to go on to Christ; so that a believer was not to take joy with any thing in the Law till he came to Christ, and when he had found him, he was to seek no further, but to abide there. Now this indeed was a very difficult duty, because every man naturally would be his own Christ and Saviour. And what is the reason, that under the Gospel believers are still so hardly persuaded to rest only on Christ for righteousness, but because of that secret self dependence within them.  
Having premised these things, I come to show how Christ is 
Christ is the end of intention in the dispensation of the Law.  the end of the Law, taken largely in the ministry of Moses. And in the first place, Christ was the scope and end of intention, God by giving so holy a Law requiring such perfect obedience, would thereby humble and debase the Israelites; so that thereby they should the more earnestly fly unto Christ, even as the Israelite, stung by a serpent, would presently cast his eyes upon the brazen Serpent. It is true, Christ was more obscurely and darkly held forth there; yet not so, but that it was a duty to search out for Christ in all those administrations. And this you have fully set forth in that Allegory which Paul maketh 2 Corinth. 3. 7. I shall explain that place, because it may be wrested 
2 Cer. 3. 7. opened.  by the Antinomian; as if, because that kind of ministry which was by Moses, was to be done away and evacuated, therefore the preaching of the Law were also to be abrogated: but that is 
The ministry of the Gospel more excellent than that of the Law in three respects.  far from the Apostles scope; for the Apostle his intent there is to show the excellency of the ministry of the Gospel above that of the Law, and that in three respects.  
1. In regard one is the ministry of death and condemnation, the 
1. Because it is the ministry of life and righteousness, the Law of death and condemnation.  other of life and righteousness: Therefore the one is called Letter, and the other Spirit. Now this you must understand warily, taking the Law nakedly, and in itself, without the Spirit of God, and the Gospel with the Spirit; for, as Beza well observeth, if you take the Gospel without God's Spirit, that also is the ministration of death, because it is as impossible for us to believe, as it is to obey the Law by our own power: only life and spirit is attributed to the Gospel, and not to the Law; because Christ, who is the author of the Gospel, is the fountain of life; and when any good is wrought by the Law, it cometh from the spirit of Christ.  
The second excellency is in regard of continuance and duration. The 
2. Because of its duration, it being to abide always, but the ministry of Moses to be abolished.  ministry of Moses was to be made void and abolished; which is to be understood of that Jewish pedagogy, not of every part of it; for the Moral, as given by Moses, doth still oblige us Christians, as hath been already proved: but the ministry of the Gospel is to abide always; that is, there is no new ministry to succeed that of the Gospel, although in heaven all shall cease.  
The third difference is in regard of glory: God caused some material 
3. Because the glory that cometh by the Gospel is spiritual, that which shone upon Moses but material.  glory to shine upon Moses, while he gave the Law, hereby to procure the greater authority and majesty to the Law; but that glory which cometh by the Gospel is spiritual, and fare more transcendent, bringing us at last into eternal glory. So that the former glory seemeth to be nothing in comparison of this: Even as the light of a candle or torch seemeth to be nothing (saith Theophylact) when the light of the Sun ariseth. Now the Apostle, handling these things, doth occasionally open an allegory, which had not Paul by the Spirit of God found out, we neither could, or aught to have done it. And the consideration of that, will serve much for my present matter. I know divers men have divers thoughts about exposition of this place; so that there seemeth to be a veil upon the Text, as well as upon Moses his face: But I shall plainly understand it thus; Moses his face 
What signified by the shining of Moses his face.  shining when he was with God, and coming from him, doth signify the glory and excellency of the Law, as in respect of God's counsels and intentions; for although the Law did seem to hold out nothing but temporal mercies, devoid of Christ and heaven, yet, as in respect of God's intention, it was fare otherwise. Now saith the Apostle, The Jews were not able to fix their eyes upon this glory; that is, the carnal Israelites did not behold Christ in the ministry of Moses, because a veil is upon their hearts. The Apostle makes the veil upon Moses to be a type of the blindness and hardness of heart in the Israelite: so that, as the veil upon Moses covered the glory of his face, so the veil of blindness and stupidity upon the heart of the Jews doth hinder them from the glory of the Law, which was Christ. And that this is so, doth appear, viz. where the Israelite is denied to look steadfastly, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (the word in my Text) to the end of that ministry, which was to be abolished, and that end was Christ: so that this Text doth fully prove my intent, which is, that Christ was in some measure a glorious object in the administration of the Law, but the veil upon the Israelites heart hindered the sight of it. Now (saith Paul) when it shall turn (as we translate, or rather, when they shall turn, for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is observed to be used always of persons, (and though the word be in the singular number in the original, yet, according to the custom of Scripture, it may be understood plurally, because he speaks of a collective body:) When, saith the Text, this turning shall be, the veil shall be taken away: or rather, as Camero well observeth, in the present tense, It is taken away: for you cannot conceive that the Jews shall be first turned unto God, and the veil afterwards to be taken away; but they both are together. I will give another instance, that Christ was the end of intention or aim in the dispensation of the Law, from Galat. 3. 23, 24. We were kept under the Law, till Faith came: Wherefore the Law was our Schoolmaster, to bring us unto Christ. In which words, not the Moral Law simply taken, but the whole dispensation of the Jews, is compared to the instruction of a Schoolmaster. Now, as a Schoolmaster doth not only beat or correct, but teach also and direct: Thus the Law did not only severely curb and keep from sin, but did also teach Christ. Hence we are said to be kept under the Law; which although some make an expression from the strict keeping and watching which soldiers in a garrison use to make, yet a learned man makes it to denote the duty of a Schoolmaster, as one who is to give an account of such committed to his charge: In which sense Cain said, Am I my brother's keeper? The Law then as a Schoolmaster did not only threaten and curse, or, like the Egyptian taskmasters, beat and strike, because the work was not done, but did show where power and help was to be had, viz. from Christ only.  
In the second place, Christ is the end of perfection to the Law: for, 
2. Christ is the end of perfection to the Law.  the end of the Law being to justify, and to bring to eternal life, this could not be attained by our own power and industry; not by any defect of the Law, but by reason of our infirmity. Therefore Christ he hath brought about this intent of the Law, that we should be justified, and have life. If the end of humane laws be to make good and honest men, much rather is the end of the Moral Law appointed by God himself: But the Law is so far from making us good, as that it worketh in us all evil, which effect of the Law in himself the Apostle acknowledgeth: so that as good food and nourishment received by a diseased stomach, doth increase the disease more, according to that rule, Corpora impura, quantò magis nutrias, deteriora reddis; thus it is in every man by nature: The Law, which is for holiness and life, becometh to cause sin and death. Christ therefore, that the Law may have its end, he taketh our nature upon him, that the righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in us.  
3. Christ is the end of perfection of the Law, in that the mere 
3. Christ is the end of perfection of the Law, in vouchsafing as his Spirit, that we may obey it.  knowledge of the Law, with the external obedience only to it, was not available to any benefit. Therefore Christ vouchsafeth his holy Spirit unto us, regenerating of us, whereby we come in part to obey the Law of God: So that the people of God have a righteousness or holiness of works, but it is imperfect, and so not enabling us to justification; and in this sense it is, that the people of God are said to keep God's commandments. So then, whereas our condition was so by sin, that we were neither able nor willing to obey the Law of God in the least degree, Christ doth give us grace, and cureth us so far, that we are said to walk in his Law. Now herein was the great mistake of the Jews, they gloried and boasted of the Law, but how? of the knowledge of it, and external observation, without looking to Christ; and this was to glory in the shadow without the substance.  
4. Christ is the end of perfection of the Law, in that his righteousness 
4. Christ is the end of perfection of the Law, in that his obedience to it is made ours.  and obedience unto the Law, is made ours, and so in him, as our surety, we fulfil the Law. I know this assertion hath many learned and godly adversaries, but as farae as I can see yet, the Scripture seemeth to hold it forth, Rom. 5. There is a parallel made of the first Adam and his offspring, with Christ the second Adam and his seed; and the Apostle proveth, that we are made righteous by Christ, as sinners in him, which was partly by imputation, so 2 Corinth. 5. ult. as Christ is made our sin by imputation, so we his righteousness. So Rom. 8. 3, 4. That which was impossible to the Law— Christ sent his Son, that the righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. I know there are answers made to these places, but the proper discussion of them will be in the handling of justification: only here is an obvious Objection, If the righteousness Object. of Christ be made ours, so that we may be said to fulfil the Law, than we are still justified by a covenant of works, and so there is no new covenant of grace. I answer, Learned men, as Beza and Perkins, Answ. have affirmed, that we obtain eternal life according to that rule, Do this and live, because of Christ's fulfilling the Law as our surety; for the imputation of it doth not make it cease to be our real righteousness, though it be not our inherent righteousness. But I see not why we need grant the consequence, [viz. Because Christ's fulfilling of the Law is made ours, therefore we have eternal life by the Law:] and the reason is, because this righteousness of Christ's is not ours by working, but by believing. Now the Law in that command, Do this and live, did require our personal working and righteousness; so that we cannot be said to have salvation by that rule, because it is not the righteousness which we in person have wrought: and this will fully appear, if you consider in the next place the subject to whom Christ is made righteousness, and that is to him that 
The believer is the subject to whom Christ is made righteousness.  believeth: he doth not say, to him that worketh, so that we have not eternal life by our do this, but by believing, or resting upon Christ his do this. And this phrase doth plainly exclude Stapletons, and other Papists observations on this place, as if the righteousness by faith, or of Christ, were the same in kind with the righteousness of works, differing only gradually, as an infant, and a grown man; for, if so, the Apostle would have said working, and not believing. It is a great skill in Divinity to amplify this righteousness of faith without works, so as neither the Papist, or the Antinomian may encourage themselves thereby: but of that in some other place. As you take notice of the subject [Believer] so the universality, every one, which doth take in both Jew and Gentile: Therefore the Jew could not, or ought not to think that those external rites and observations could bring them to a true righteousness.  
Lastly, consider in the Text, for what end Christ is thus the 
Righteousness is the end for which Christ is thus the perfection of the Law.  perfection of the Law; and that is for righteousness. The proper seat of handling this is in the doctrine of Justification, only let me briefly answer a Question made by some, Whether the righteousness of faith, or that we have by Christ, be the same in nature with the righteousness of works, and of the Law? Stapleton saith, They must needs be one, because the Law will direct to no other righteousness then that of its own. It is true, the Law strictly taken, will not properly and pierce direct to any righteousness, but that which the Law requireth; yet by accident, and indirectly it may: yea, as it was given by Moses, it did directly and properly intent Christ, though not primarily, as some think; but finding us unable to attain to its own righteousness, did then lead us unto Christ: Yet these two righteousnesses are divers, rather than contrary, (unless in respect of justification, and so indeed its impossible to be justified by both those ways) otherwise they are both together in the same subject, yea a righteousness of faith doth necessarily draw along with it in the same subject a righteousness of works, though it be imperfect, and so insufficient to justify.  
Use. Is Christ the end of the Law for righteousness? then 
The believer hath great cause to bless God, for providing such a righteousness for him.  let the believer bless and praise God for providing a righteousness, and such a righteousness for him. How destitute and naked was thy condition? Had justice taken thee by the throat, and bid thee pay what thou owest, thou couldst not have returned that answer, Let me alone, and I will pay thee all. Neither Angels nor men could provide this righteousness for thee. Dost thou thank God for providing clothes for thy body, food for thy belly, an house for habitation? Oh, above all thank him that he hath provided a righteousness for thy soul. Thou troubled soul because of sin, thou thinkest with thyself, Oh if I had no sin, if I were guilty of no corruption, how well were it! O ye glorious Angels and Saints, ye are happy, because ye have a righteousness! Why dost thou not consider, that God hath found out for thee, even for thee, in this world, a righteousness, whereby thou art accepted of him?  
Again, consider it is such a righteousness that satisfieth and pleaseth God. Thy holiness cannot content him for justification, but that of Christ can. As the light of the Stars and Moon cannot dispel totally the darkness of the night, only the light of the Sun can do that.   

LECTURE XXIX.  MAT. 5. 17. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called the least in the Kingdom of heaven. 
OUr Saviour being to vindicate the Law from all corrupt 
The Text opened.  glosses of the Pharisees, he doth in the first place (as chrysostom thinketh) remove the odium that might be cast upon him, as if he did indeed destroy the Law; for it was then generally received, that only was Law, which the Pharisees declared to be so. And this he doth, ver. 17. Think not that I am come to destroy the Law. The reason he giveth, is from the perpetual nature of the Law: heaven and earth, the whole world shall sooner fall into pieces, than any tittle of that. And the Prophets are here joined to the Law, not so much in regard of their predictions, as because they were Interpreters of the Law. The second reason is from that evil which shall befall him, that doth break it, and here he nameth a twofold Antinomianism; one in life and practice, the other in doctrine: That in practice is aggravated, though it be one of the least commandments. They are called least, either because the Pharisees thought them so, or else indeed, because all the commands of God were not concerning duties of the same consequence. The other in doctrine is expressed in those words, And teach men so. I cannot consent to Beza's interpretation, making this teaching to be by example and life, or else 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to be put for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, although, as if the meaning were, He that doth break in his practice my commandment, although he do teach them in doctrine. There is no necessity of offering such violence to the Text. But if we interpret it of doctrinal breaking, it will very well agree with the Pharisees, who made void the commandments of God by the doctrines of men. The evil that shall befall such, is in those words, [He shall be called the least in the Kingdom of heaven.] Called is put for is, or be; He shall be the least. By Kingdom of heaven, 
What meant by Kingdom of heaven.  some understand that Kingdom of glory in heaven; and by least, mean nullus, none: he shall not at all enter into the Kingdom of heaven.  
Others by Kingdom of heaven do understand the Church of God, and so they express it, when there shall be a reformation in the Church, and truth should break forth, which was presently to come to pass, than those corrupt teachers, who would poison men, should be discovered, and then they should be least, that is, of no account; even as it fell out to the Pharisees, though for a while they were highly esteemed among men. I forbear to touch upon that Question hotly disputed with some, Whether our Saviour do in this discourse mean only the Moral Law, or the Ceremonial also, as being not to my purpose. That it is meant chief of the Moral Law, appeareth by the instances which Christ giveth. From the Text thus opened, I observe, That any doctrine, which teacheth the abrogation or dissolution Doctr. of the Law, is highly offensive unto God. 
The doctrines of men may either directly or covertly overthrow the Law. Covertly, three ways.   
For the opening of this consider, that the doctrines of men may either directly, and with an open face overthrow the Law, as the Marcionites and Manichees did: or else interpretatively, and more covertly; and that is done three ways.  
1. When they make not the Law of God to be so full and extensive 
1. When they make it not so extensive in its obligation as it is.  in its obligation, as indeed it is; and thus the Pharisees they made void the Law, when they affirmed outward acts to be only sins: and thus the Papists do in part, when they make the Law no further to oblige, than it is possible for us to keep it. These doctrines do in tantum, though not in totum destroy the Law.  
2. When men hold such principles, that will necessarily by way of 
2. When they hold principles by necessary consequence enforcing the abrogation of it.  consequence enforce the abrogation of the Law. And thus, though some Antinomians do expressly and boldly assert the abolishing of it, at least to believers; yet those that have more learning and wariness, do disclaim it, and account it a calumny: but even at the same time, while they do disclaim it (as it is to be showed presently) they hold such assertions, as do necessarily infer the abrogation of it.  
3. The Law may be doctrinally dissolved, by pressing such duties 
3. When they press such duties upon men, as will necessaitate them to break the commandments of God.  upon men, whereby they will be necessitated to break the commandments of God. Thus when the Pharisees taught, that whatsoever vow was made concerning any gift, they were bound to do it, though thereby they were disenabled to honour their parents. And this is most remarkably seen in the Church of Rome, who, by the multitude and necessity of observation of their Church precepts and constitutions, make men to break the plain commandments of God. Now I shall briefly instance generally about those errors that dissolve God's Law, and then more particularly about the Antinomian doctrine.  
The first Heretics that opposed it, were the Marcionites and 
The Marcionites and Manichees the first oppugners of the Law.  Manichees. Martion (whom Tertullian calls Must ponticus, because of his arroding and gnawing the Scripture, to make it serviceable to his errors; he, among other errors, broacheth this, That the old Law (as he calls it) was evil, and that it came from an evil god. To him in this opinion succeeded Manes, (who truly might be so called, because of his madness, although his followers, to take away that reproach, called him Mannichaus, as much as one that poured forth Manna, as some affirm.) This man's errors, though they were very gross, yet so propagated, that it was two hundred years ere they were quieted. These and their followers all agreed in this, to reject this Law of God. There were also Heretics called Anomis, (as it were sine lege) but their error was, to think that they could by their knowledge comprehend the divine nature: And they gave so much to this their faith, that they held, Whosoever should embrace it, though he committed heinous and atrocious sins, yet they should do him no hurt, Epiphan. lib. 3. Haeres. 36. But to let pass these, we may say, Popery is in a great part Antinomianisme. And Antichrist he is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that lawless One: for, is not their doctrine, that the Pope may dispense with the Laws of God, and that the Pope and Christ have the same Consistory, Antinomianism? And in particular, we may instance in their taking away the second Commandment out of some Catechisms, because it forbiddeth the worshipping of Images. Hence Vasquez, one of their Goliahs, doth expressly maintain, that the second Commandment did belong only to the Jews, and so not obliging us Christians, thinking it impossible to answer our arguments against their Image-worship, if that be acknowledged still in force.  
Is there not also a generation of men, who do by doctrine deny the fourth Commandment? How many late books and practices have been for that opinion? but hath it not fallen out according to the later exposition of my Text, that they are the least in the Kingdom of heaven; men of little account now in the Church while reforming?  
I might likewise speak of some Anabaptists, (for there are of that sect that disclaim the opinion) who overthrow the fifth Commandment, by denying Magistracy lawful for Christians.  
But I will range no further: The Antinomians do more fall against this Text than any, in that they do not only by doctrine teach the dis-obligation of the least commandment, but of all, even of the whole Law. This doth appear true in the first Antinomians in Luther's time, of whom Islebius was the captain: he was a Schoolmaster, and also Professor of Divinity at Islebia. It seemeth he was a man like a reed shaken with every wind: for first he defended, with the Orthodox, the Saxon Confession of Faith; but afterwards was one of those that compiled the Book called the Interim. When Luther admonished him of his error, he promised amendment, but for all that secretly scattered his error; which made Luther set forth publicly six solemn disputations against the Antinomians, that are to be seen in his works: which argueth the impudence of those that would make Luther on their side. By these disputations of Luther's he was convinced, and revoked his error, publishing his recantation in print: yet when Luther was dead, this Euripus did fall into his old error, and publicly defended it. Now how justly they might be called Antinomists, or, as Luther sometimes, Nomomachists, appeareth by these Propositions, which they publicly scattered about in their papers: as,  

1. That the Law is not worthy to be called the word of God. 
Positions of Antinomians.   
2. To hear the word of God, and so to live, is a consequence of the Law.  
3. Repentance is not to be taught out of the Decalogue, or any Law of Moses, but from the violation of the Son of God in the Gospel.  
4. We are with all our might to resist those, who teach the Gospel is not to be preached but to those whose hearts are first made contrite by the Law.   
These are Propositions of theirs set down by Luther, against which he had his disputations, Vol. 1. Thusselberge, lib. contra Antin. pag. 38. relateth more: as,  

1. The Law doth not show good works, neither is it to be preached that we may do them.  
2. The Law is not given to Christians; therefore they are not to be reproved by the Law.  
3. The Preachers under the Gospel are only to preach the Gospel, not the Law; because Christ did not say, Preach the Law, but Gospel to every creature.  
4. The Legal Sermons of the Prophets do not at all belong to us.  
5. To say, that the Law is a rule of good works, is blasphemy in Divinity.   
Thus you see how directly these oppose the Law, and therefore come under our Saviour's condemnation in the Text: yet at other times, the proper state of the Question between the Orthodox and Antinomists, seemeth to be, not, Whether a godly man do not delight in the Law, and do the works of the Law; but, Whether he doth it, Lege docente, urgente, & mandante, the Law teaching, urging, and commanding: As for the later Antinomians, Doctor Taylor, and Mr. Burton, who preached, and wrote against them, do record the same opinions of them. Doctor Tailor in his Preface to his Book against them, saith, One preached, that the whole Law, since Christ's death, is wholly abrogated and abolished. Another, That to teach obedience to the Law, is Popery. Another, That to do any thing, because God commands us; or to forbear any sin, because God forbids us, is a sign of a moral man, and of a dead and unsound Christian. Others deliver, That the Law is not to be preached, and they that do so, are Legal Preachers.  
Master Burton also in his Book against them affirmeth, they divided all that made up the body of the Church of England into Hogs or Dogs: Hogs were such that despised justification, living in their swinish lusts; Dogs such, who sought to be justified by their works. He tells of one of their disciples, that said, Away with this scurvy sanctification; and that there is no difference between godly here, and in their state of glory, but only in sense and apprehension. Many other unsavoury assertions are named by those Authors, but these may suffice to give a taste of their opinions; for it is elegantly spoken by Irenaeus, in such falsehoods as these are, lib. 2. c. 34. adversus Haereses. We need not drink up the whole sea, to taste whether the water be salt; but, as a statue that is made of clay, yet outwardly so gilded, that it seemeth to be gold, if any man take a piece of it in his hand, and discover what it is, doth make every one know what the whole statue is: so it is in this case.  
For my part, I am acquainted with them no other ways but by their Books which they have written, and in those every error is more warily dressed then in secret. There I find, that sometimes they yield the Law to be a rule of life, yea, they judge it a calumny to be called Antinomists; and if so, their adversaries may be better called Antifidians. And it cannot be denied, but that in some parts of their Books there are wholesome and good passages; as in a wood or forest, full of shrubs and brambles, there may be some violets and primroses: yet for all this, in the very places where they deny this assertion as theirs, they must be forced to acknowledge it. The Author of the Assertion of Freegrace, who doth expressly touch upon these things, and disclaims the opinion against the Law, pag. 4. and pag. 6. yet he affirmeth there such principles, from whence this conclusion will necessarily follow.  
For first, he makes no real difference either in Scripture, or use of words, between the Law reigning and ruling; so that if the Law rule a man, it reigneth over him. Now then, they deny that the Law doth reign over a believer (and so do the Orthodox also) therefore they must needs hold, that it cannot be a rule unto him. And then, pag. 5. whereas Doctor Taylor had said, The Apostle doth not lose a Christian from the obedience to the Law, or rule thereof (he adds,) He dare not trust a believer without his keeper, as if he judged no otherwise of him, then of a malefactor of Newgate, who would rob and kill, if his Gaoler be not with him. Again, this is most clear by what he saith, pag. 31. he refuteth that distinction of being under the mandatory power of the Law, but not the damnatory: he makes these things inseparable, and as impossible for the Law to be a Law, and have not both these, as to take the brains and heart from a man, and yet leave him a man still. Now then, seeing he denieth (and so do all Protestant Writers) that a believer is under the damnatory power of the Law, he must also deny, he is under the mandatory, because (saith he) this is inseparable.  
I will in the next place give some Antidotes against this opinion, 
Antidotes against Antinomian errors.  and the Authors thereof. Luther calleth them, Hosts Legis, Organa Satanae: he saith, their doctrine is more to be taken heed of, then that of the Papists; for the Papists, they teach a false or imperfect repentance, but the Antinomians take all away from the Church. Rivet calls them, Furores Antinomorum.  
In the first place, awe thy heart with a fear against errors in 
1. Be afraid of entertaining errors in doctrine, as that which may damn thee.  doctrine, as that which may damn thee, as well as an open gross sin. Consider that place, Galat. 5. 20. where heresies are reckoned among those sins that are very gross, and do exclude from the Kingdom of Heaven: and that he takes heresies there in a religious consideration, is plain, because it's made to differ from seditions, strifes, and variances. Neither do thou please thyself in that Question, What is Heresy? Tu Haereticus mihi, & ego tibi; for, the Apostle makes it there a manifest work of the flesh, and 2 John 10. see how much afraid the people of God ought to be of any evil doctrine; and there the Apostle calls evil doctrine, evil deeds.  
2. Look to all the places of Scripture, as well as some only. That 
2. Look upon those places of Scripture, where duties are commanded, as well as those where Christ and grace are spoken of.  is a perpetual fault among the Antinomians, they only pitch upon those places, where Christ and his grace is spoken of; but not of those Texts, where duties are commanded, especially those places of Scripture, where the Law of God is wonderfully commended, for the many real benefits that come by it; where likewise the perpetuity and eternity of it is much celebrated. Lex Dei in aeternum manet; vel implenda in damnatis, vel impleta in beatis, said Luther. What a curb would it be unto this error, if they would consider, with what an holy passion and zeal the Apostle doth deny, that he destroyeth the Law, making this very objection to himself, Do we then make void the Law? God forbidden. Now can we think that the Apostle, who in the third Chapter to the Romans, doth so vehemently deny, that he destroyeth the Law, should so much forget himself, as in the fourth Chapter to abolish it? No ordinary man would fall into such a contradiction.  
3. Do not affect applause among people, as having found some 
3. Beware of affecting applause among the people.  new nigher way about Christ and grace, than others have. I have observed this itching humour in the Antinomian Sermons printed; where they will call upon their hearers to mark, it may be they shall hear that, which they have not heard before, when the thing is either false; or, if it be true, is no more than ordinarily is taught by others. But now, when men desire to be applauded in the world, they suggest to their inward disciples, as if they had found out some new unheard thing; and their followers broach it abroad, and so they come to be exalted. Thus they do like Psaphon the Libyan: It's reported of him, that he kept ten tame birds at home, and taught them to sing, Magnus deus Psaphon; and when he had done so, he let these birds fly into the woods and mountains, where all the other birds learned the same song of them: which the Libyans perceiving, and thinking it no plot, but a divine accident, decreed to sacrifice to Psaphon, and to put him in the number of their gods. 
4. Get to be well grounded in the principles of Religion.   
4. Do thou diligently study fundamentals, and the principles of Religion. As the child groweth crooked, for not being well looked to at first; and many errors do now spread themselves, because men are not well catechised. They build without a foundation. It was a grave complaint of Maximus an Ecclesiastical Writer, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. It is a great matter to have a sound and accurate knowledge in matters of Religion. It was a wise speech of Aristides, who being demanded by the Emperor to speak to something propounded ex tempore, answered, Propound to day, and I will answer to morrow, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, We are not of those who vomit or spit out things suddenly, but take time to be diligent, and considering.  
5. When thou dost begin to incline to an opinion, that differeth 
5. Be not rash in publishing any new opinion.  from the learned and godly, be not too rash and precipitate in publishing it. The Apostle giveth a good rule, Rom. 14. Hast thou faith? have it to thyself. He doth not there command a man to equivocate, or dissemble, and deny a truth; but not needlessly to profess it, when it will be to the offence of others. Cyprian reproving the rashness of those Christians that would go on their own accord to the Heathen Magistrates, professing themselves Christians, whereby they were put to death, hath a good and elegant speech, Confiteri nos magis voluit, quàm profiteri: he doth confess, that doth it, being asked and demanded; he doth profess, that doth it out of his own free accord.  
6. Consider, that Antinomianisme is the only way indeed to overthrow 
6. Antinomianisme overthrows Christ and grace.  grace and Christ. For he sets up free grace and Christ, not who names it often in his Book, or in the Pulpit, but whose heart is inwardly and deeply affected with it. Now, who will most hearty and experimentally set up Christ and grace of these two, i. Who urgeth no use of the Law, who takes away the sense or bitterness of sin, who denieth humiliation; or he, who discovers his defects by the perfect rule of the Law, whose soul is inbittered and humbled because of these defects? Certainly, this later will much more in heart, and real affections set up free grace.   
FINIS.   

THE TABLE.  


A.  
THe Law abolished as a Covenant, not as a Rule. Page 204▪  
The Law abrogated to believers in six particulars. p. 209. 210. 211  
Three causes of the abrogation of the ceremonial Law, which agree not to the moral. p. 213  
Six abuses of the Law. p. 16. 17. 18. 19  
Conversion and Repentance are our acts, as well as the effects of God's grace. p. 97  
Whether Adam was mortal before his eating of the forbidden fruit. p. 107  
Whether Adam in his innocency can be considered in his naturals or supernaturals, answered in two Positions. p. 129  
Whether Adam needed Christ's help. ibid.▪ & p. 130.  
Whether God required less of Adam then us. p. 135.  
Amorem mercedis a Godly man may have in his obedience, though not amorem mercenarium. p. 13  
What help the Angels had by Christ. p. 130  
Calvines two Reasons why Angels needed Christ's mediation. ibid.  
Some Antecedaneous works upon the heart before grace be bestowed. p. 86  
Four limitations concerning those antecedaneous works. ibid.  
The first Antinomian. p. 38  
Antinomian Differences betwixt the Law and Gospel confuted. p. 234. 236  
The Antinomian why most inexcusable. p. 43  
The Antinomian distinction of the Law being abolished as a Law, but still abiding in respect of the matter of it, a contradiction. p. 206  
The Antinomian Arguments overthrow the use of the Law to unbelievers as well as believers. p. 208  
The opinion of the old Antinomians. p. 267  
The word [As] taken variously. p. 157  
Antidotes against Antinomian errors. p. 269  
Antinomianism is the only way indeed to overthrow Christ and grace. p. 271    


B  
A Blaspheming Monk. p. 25  
Blaspheming Papists. p. 26  
The Layman's book is the whole universe. p. 75  
Master Burton his Report of Antinomians. p. 268    


C  
A Cordial for a broken heart. p. 21. 22  
Contradictions of the Antinomians. p. 30  
A Community of goods not taught by the law of Nature. p. 81  
Christ's Incarnation cannot be supposed but upon supposition of Adam's fall. p. 132  
It is an hard matter so to set up Christ and grace as not thereby to destroy the law. p. 202  
The doctrine of Christ and grace in the highest manner doth establish not overthrow the law. ibid.  
God entered into Covenant with Adam, in giving him a law. p. 119. 120  
What a Covenant implies. p. 121  
Why the Covenane of grace is not still a covenant of works, seeing works are necessary. p. 46  
A Covenant of Friendship. p. 121  
A Covenant of Reconciliation. p. 121  
No Covenant properly so called can be betwixt God and Man. p. 122  
How God can covenant with man. p. 123  
Five Reasons why God would deal with man in a covenant-way, rather than in an absolute way. p. 124. 125  
A vast difference betwixt the covenant in innocency and in grace. p. 126  
The moral law delivered as a covenant, proved. p. 220  
It hath the real properties of a covenant. p. 221  
In what sense the law may be a covenant of grace, explained. p. 222. 223  
Arguments proving the law a covenant of grace. p. 224, 225, 226  
Objections answered. p. 227  
Doctor Crisp confuted. p. 13. 14  
Cursing taken two ways: 1 Potentially, so a law is always condemning. 2. Actually, so a law is not ever condemning. p. 6    


D  
DEcalogue resembled to the ten Predicaments by Martyr, and why.  
The threatening of death to Adam if he did eat, etc. was fulfilled, in that he became then mortal, and in a state of death, not natural only, but spiritual and eternal also. p. 106. 107  
Determination to one, takes not away natural liberty, nor willingness or delight in sin, which we are inevitably carried unto. p. 88  
Three general ways of proving the Deity of Christ. p. 130  
Four differences (not substantial but accidental) betwixt the law and the Gospel. p. 241, etc.  
Five▪ Differences betwixt the Law and Gospel strictly taken. pag. 247. 248. 249, etc.  
All Doctrine reduced to three heads: credenda. speranda. facienda. p. 242    


E  
THe Papists notion concerning Ecclesia, and Synagoge confuted. p. 242  
If the Antinomians end were only to put men off from glorying in themselves, to deny the concurrence of works to Justification, it were more tolerable. p. 30. but then their books and end were not reconciliable. ibid.  
Other ends which might make the Antinomians more exousable. p. 30. 31  
How Christ is the end of the law for righteousness. p. 25. 257  
End taken two ways. p. 256  
Four ways Christ is the perfective end of the Law. p. 260. 261  
Aquinas distinction of end. p. 257  
End●xus said he was made to behold the sun. p. 75  
Exhortations, to what purpose given to them who have no power of themselves to do them. p. 69  
Errors in Doctrine damnable. p. 269    


F  
FAbles and fictions how used by the Fathers. p. 2  
How Faith justifies. p. 42  
Two acts of Faith. ibid.  
Faith and Repentance wrought both by the Law and Gospel. p. 252  
The same object may be known by the light of Faith and of Nature. p. 70  
Whether justifying Faith were in Adam at first. p. 117  
Faith of adherence and dependence in Adam in innocency, and shall be in heaven. p. 125  
Adam's faith considered as an act of the soul, not as an organ to lay hold on Christ. p. 125  
Finger of God. p. 149  
Finis indigentie & assimilationis. p. 44  
 by nature. p. 82  
Arguments for freewill answered. p. 92. 93    


G  
GEnealogies how useful, and how vain. page 2  
How the Gentiles are said to be without a Law. p. 57  
Who are meant by the word [Gentiles.] p. 56. 57  
The Gospel and Law may be compared in a double respect. p. 230  
The word [Gospel] taken two ways. ibid.  
Whether the Gospel be absolute or no. p. 249  
Gospel taken strictly is not a doctrine of Repentance or holy works. p. 252  
All Good morally is good theologically. p. 58  
Good works, how taken. p. 37. 38  
Four things required to the essence of good works, p. 37. 38  
The word [Grace] used sometimes for the effects of grace, but more commonly for the favour of God. p. 20  
Grace is more than love. ibid.  
Grace implieth indebitum and demeritum of the contrary, as Cameron observes. p. 21  
What grace the Pelagians acknowledge. ibid.  
Much may be ascribed to grace, and yet the total efficacy not given to it. p. 88    


H  
A Twofold writing of the law in the heart. p. 58  
The properties of holiness fixed at first in Adam's heart. p. 116  
Humiliation comes by the Gospel as an object, by the Law, as that which commands such affections to those objects. page 253    


I  
IMage and likeness signific one thing. p. 111  
An Image . p. 111. 112  
Wherein the Image of God in man consists. page 112. 113. 114. 115  
A Thing said to be immortal, four ways. p. 107.  
The Injudicionsnesse of the Antinomians. pa. 30  
Whether adam's immortality in innocency be not different from that which shall be in heaven. p. 136.  
Some things just because God wills them: other things are just and therefore God wills them. pag. 4  
The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere justifies no more in itself, than other acts of obedience. p. 15  
Expecting justification by the Law very dangerous. Fifteen evils which follow thereupon mentioned. pag. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26  
I siebius, Captain of the Antinomians in Luther's days. p. 266  
How the justification of the Gospel may stand with the good works of the Law done by grace. p. 37  
Paul and James reconciled in the point of justification. page 42    


K  
Kingdom of heaven] not mentioned in all the O. T. p. 243  
How [Kingdom of heaven] is taken in Mat. 5. 17. p. 264    


L  
HOw the Law is good in eight respects. p. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7▪  
Four acts of the Law. p. 5  
The twofold use of the Law to the ungodly. p. 7. A  use of the Law to the godly. p. 8. 9  
Cautions concerning the Law. p. 10  
1. The word Law diversely taken. ibid. & p. 139. 216  
2. The Law must not be separated from the spirit. p. 11  
3. To do a command out of obedience to the Law, and out of love, are not opposite. p. 12  
4. Christ's obedience to the Law exempts not us from obedience ourselves, unless it be in respect to those ends for which he obeyed. pag. 13  
5. The Law condemns a believers sin, though not his person. ibid.  
6. Inability to keep the Law, exempts not from obedience to it. p. 14  
7 Distinguish betwixt what is primarily, and what is occasionally in the Law. ibid.  
That the Law hath a directive, regulating, and informing power over a godly man. p. 53  
The derivation of the word [Lex.] p. 59  
Two things necessary to the essence of a Law. ibidem.  
How the Law becomes a Covenant. ib.  
The division of Laws in general, and why the moral Law is so called. p. 140  
The Law of Moses differs from the Law of Nature in three respects. p. 140. 141  
Why the Law was given in the wilderness. ibidem▪  
That the Law was in the Church before Moses. p. 142  
Three ends of the promulgation of the Law. p. 143  
The Law of Moses a perfect Rule. p. 144  
Three differences betwixt the Judicial, Ceremonial, and Moral Law. p. 147  
General observations about the Law, and the time of the delivery of the Law. pag. 147. 148. 149. etc.  
Three observations concerning the preparation to the delivery of the Law. p. 148  
Whether the law, as given by Moses, do belong to us Christians. p. 157. proved. p. 159. Objections answered. p. 163  
Though the Law, as given by Moses, did not belong to Christians, yet the doctrine of the Antinomians holds not. page 156  
Christ in the Gospel only interprets the old Law, and doth not add new: proved by four reasons. p. 169. 170  
The Law is spiritual in the Old Testament, as in the New: proved by eight instances. p. 171. 172. etc.  
The Law may be instrumental to work sanctification and conversion. page 187. 3. Cautions about it. ib. & 188. proved by six reasons. p. 191. & 192. Objections answered. p. 193  
The Law is established three ways by the Gospel. p. 201  
Three affections belonging to a Law. p. 203  
Three parts in the Law. p. 204  
Those phrases considered [of the Law.] and [without the Law.] and [under the Law.] and [in the Law]. p. 216  
A twofold being under the Law. p. 217  
False differences given by some betwixt the Law and the Gospel. p. 232  
Law and Gospel united in the Ministry. p. 251  
Law opposed and oppugned two ways: Directly. Interpretatively. page 264  
Law opposed interpretatively three ways. p. 265  
Law by men abrogated or made void three ways. ibid.  
A threefold liberty. p. 87  
A threefold light. p. 112    


M  
Ministry of the Gospel more excellent than that of the Law in three respects. p. 257  
Moses in his zeal breaking the Tables, vindicated from rashness and sinful perturbation. p. 151  
The opinion of souls-mortality confuted. p. 108. 109  
Adam was under the moral Law in innocency. p. 61  
What's meant by the word [moral]. p. 140  
Moral Law binds two ways. p. 158  
That the moral Law perpetually continues a rule and Law, proved by four Reasons. p. 212. 213  
Objections against the continuance of the moral Law, answered. p. 214  
Moral Law having Christ for the end of it, may be considered two ways. p. 256  
Marcionites, and Manichees the first Heretics that opposed the Law. p. 265    


N  
WHat is meant by the word [Nature] in Scripture. p. 58  
There is a law of Nature written in men's hearts. ibid.  
Wherein the law of Nature consists. p. 59  
Four bounds of the law of Nature. p. 62  
Light of Nature considered in a threefold respect. p. 65. 68 69  
A threefold use of the light of Nature. p. 66  
The light of Nature obscured three ways. p. 69  
The light of Nature is necessary (though insufficient) in religious and moral things. p. 69. It's necessary two ways. p. 70. See p. 83. 84. 89  
The light of Nature no Judge in matters of faith. p. 71  
It's no prescriber of divine worship. ibid.  
Nature's insufficiency described in three reasonings. p. 72  
Th● Mystery of the Trinity and Incarnation of Christ, cannot be found out by the light of Nature. p. 77  
How fare nature will reach in some other things. p. 79. 80. 81  
Man by the power of Nature wholly unable to perform good actions, proved by 3. arguments. p. 84  
Nature cannot dispose, or prepare a man's self for justification, or sanctification. p. 85. proved by four reasons. ibid.  
All works of mere Nature are sins before God, proved by four Reasons. p. 90  
The Etymology of the word [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉]. p. 59    


O  
COrrupt glosses of the Pharisees concerning oaths reproved. p. 178  
Promissory oaths dangerous. ibidem.  
The obedience of the Saints implies obedientiam servi, though not obedientiam servilem. p. 13  
Christ's active obedience to the Law imputed to believers. p. 261  
The obligation of the law of Nature is from God. p. 62  
Gods promises are obligations to himself, not to us. p. 123  
Why the old Covenant is called old. p. 231  
How an opinion may corrupt the life. p. 47  
Whether Original sin may be found out by the mere light of Nature. p. 79    


P  
PAlemon converted from his drunkenness by Plato's Lecture, which he came to deride. p. 67  
Papists make three false differences betwixt the Law and the Gospel. p. 233  
Paul and James reconciled in the point of justification p. 42  
The perpetuity of the obligation of the law of Nature. p. 63  
A distinction of a threefold piety confuted. p. 78  
The Law of God by Moses is so perfect a rule, that Christ added no new precept to it. p. 171  
Different phrases used concerning the Ceremonial law, which are never applied to the Moral law. p. 212  
The opinion of the Pharisees concerning the Law. p. 170  
Why, besides the Moral law, a Positive law was given to Adam in innocency. Two Reasons. p. 103. 104  
The Positive law did lay an obligation on Adam's posterity. p. 105  
The seven Precepts of Noah: What the Thalmudists speak concerning▪ them. p. 137  
It's a general Rule that the pressing of moral duties by the Prophets in the Old Testament is but as an explanation of the Law. p. 172  
The Primitive Christians held it unlawful to kill in defence. p. 185  
Capital punishments lawful in the New Testament. p. 181. 182  
To what purpose are exhortations to them who have no power to obey. p. 69  
Popery in a great part Antinomianisme. page 266    


R  
WHy a Reason is rendered by God for the fourth Commandment, rather than others. p. 59  
Remission of sins under the law plenary, as well as under the Gospel, proved against the Antinomian. p. 236. 237. 238  
Repentance how taken. p. 250. 251  
Resemblances of the Trinity confuted. p. 77  
Every Rule hath vim praecepti, as well as doctrinae. p. 5  
To do a duty because of reward promised, is not slavish and unlawful. p. 124  
Revenge forbidden in the Old Testament, as strictly as in the New. p. 185  
Righteousness of the Law and Gospel differ much. p. 5  
Whether we may be now said by Christ to be more righteous than Adam in innocency. p. 134  
The Law of Retaliation, Matth. 7. 12. opened. p. 80  
The properties of the righteousness at first fixed in Adam's heart. p. 116  
Whether righteousness were natural to Adam. p. 117    


S  
THe Sabbath in innocency not typical of Christ. p. 133  
Satan cannot work beyond a moral persuasion, as God doth in conversion. p. 127  
What the word [Sanctify] implies p. 194. 195  
How the Jews were in more servitude than Christians. p. 245  
Sins outward which be majoris infamiae. inward which be majoris reatus. page▪ 171  
Sincerity taken two ways. p. 255  
Socinians and Papists make additions in the Gospel, besides what was in the Law. p. 233  
Why the shellfish was unclean to the Jews. p. 2  
Law called spiritual in a twofold sense: 1. effecti●●. 2. formaliter. p. 6  
How the state of innocency excelled the state of reparation in rectitude, immortality, and outward felicity. p. 133. 134  
The state of reparation excels the state of innocency in certainty of perseverance. ibidem.  
Eudoxus said he was made to behold the sun. p. 75  
Sum of all heavenly doctrine reduced to three heads: credenda. speranda. facienda. pag. 242  
Symbolical precept. p. 101    


T  
TEaching nova & nouè. p. 2  
Tully said that the Law of the twelve Tables did exceed all the libraries of Philosophers, both in weight of authority, and fruitfulness of matter. p. 3  
The threaten of the Gospel against those who reject Christ, arise from the Law, joined in practical use with the Gospel. p. 252  
Tree of knowledge. 102. 103  
Whether the Tree of life was a Sacrament of Christ to Adam or no. p. 130  
No truth in Divinity doth cross the truth of nature. p. 70  
Doctor Tailor his Report of Antinomianisme. p. 268    


V  
THe reason of the variety of God's administrations in the two T. p. 246  
A twofold unbelief: Negative which damns none. Positive which damns many. p. 78  
Unbelief a sin against the Law, as well as against the Gospel.  
How God justifies the ungodly. p. 34. 35▪    


W  
Minister's ought to be wary, so to set out grace, as not to give just exceptions to the Papists, and so to defend holy works, as not to give the Antinomians cause of insultation. p. 28. 29  
War lawful under the Gospel. p. 183  
Will, serious, and efficacious: the distinction examined. p. 105  
How the Word in general is the instrument of conversion. p. 188. 189. Two Rules about it, proved. p. 190  
Word▪ how used. p. 138  
Works denied by the Antinomians to be away to hooven. p. 31  
There have been dangerous assertions concerning works, even by those who were no Antinomians, out of a great zeal for the grace of God against Papists. p. 29  
The presence of good works in the person justified, denied by the Antinomians. p. 32. They deny any gain or loss to come by them. No peace of conscience comes by doing good works, nor lost by omitting them. p. 33. which is confuted. ibid. They deny good works to be signs or testimonies of grace. ibid●●. Confuted. page▪ 34  
Upon what grounds are the people of God to be zealous of good works. p. 37  
The Antinomian erreth two contrary ways about good works. p. 38  
Distinction betwixt saying that good works are necessary to justifie● p●rsons, and that they are necessary to justification. p. 39  
Good works necessary upon 13. grounds. p. 39 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45▪     

A Table of divers Texts of Scripture, which are opened, or vindicated by this TREATISE.  

Genesis.  Chap. Ver. Page. 1 25 110. 111 2 17 119 Exodus. 21 1 138 34 ●7. 28 153 Leviticus. 6 2. 3 236 16 16 237 Numbers. 13 23 207 Deuteronomy. 4 13 ●19 30 11 94 32  32 33 3 149 1 Samuel. 4 17 230 2 Samuel. 1 10 230 1 Kings. ● 9 154 2 Kings. 20 3 44 Psalm. 1. & 19 & 119  8 68 18 36 50 2 49 Isaiah. 6● 1 238 Jeremiah. 16 14. 15 114 50 20 234 Ezekiel. 1●  234 Da●let. 9 14 234 Zechary. 13 1 234 Matthew. 5● 17 45. 263  21. 22 166 7 17 32  12 80 12 28 149 Mark. 13 7 255 16 15 231 Luke. 11 20 149 16 16 214 John. 1 9 76 8 7 182 14 31 12 15 10 17 19 194 Acts. 7 37 12  38 199 Romans. 1 18 66  19 74 2 14. 15 56  27 255 3 27 228  31 193. 199 4 5 34  14 227 5 1 22  6. 8. 10 35 6 1● 215 7 1. 2 218  6 205   8 per ●atum. 8 11 37  13 33  29. 30 35 13 12 42 12 1 43 14 22 271 1 Corinthians. 2 14 64 7 37 82 9 20 217 15 10 92 2 Corinthians. 3 7 257 3 11 202 6 16 37 Galat. 3 2 19●  18 214  23 14  23. 24 259 4 24 1●9 5 23 53 5 5. 4. 13. 14 212 5 20 269 Ephesians. 1 10 137. 131 2 14 202  15 203 3 12  6 2 163  14. 16 41 Philippians. 3 9 210 1 Thessalonians. 2 16 ●55 1 Timothy. 1 8. 9 9 1 9 47 4 8 40 7 5 255 2 Timothy. 4 8 40 Titus. 2 11. 12 196  14 39 Hebrews. 6 18 209 9 4 155  7 237  13. 14 235 10 17 234 11 16 243 12 5. 6. 7. 8 235  ult. 33 Jam. 2 8 255 1 Peter. 3 1 45 2 Peter. 1 10 41  19 242 ● 2. 15. 21 32  
FINIS.