The Law Is Good, If a Man Use It Lawfully

1 Tim. 1. 8, 9.

THis Epistle to Timothy may be called, Paul’s¹ Directory for the Church of God: and, in the first place, he enjoyneth Timothy, to preserve the Truth against all false teachers, as he himselfe 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: It is a signe of thy greater glory, that all heretiques hate thee. His injunction to Timothy begins, 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] doe 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, new things; no, nor yet novè, after a new manner. The rule is, Qui fingit nova verba, nova gignit dogmata: And it was Melancthons wish, that men did not onely teach the same things, but in iisdem verbis, in iisdem syllabis, in the same very words, and syllables.

The second part of injunction is higher then the former: Though they doe not teach other things, yet they must not spend their gifts in an uselesse way; as, to give heed to fables: This they apply to the Jewes, who had a world of fictions. So Tertullian of Valentinus, Multas introduxit fabulas; we see here the word fable in an ill sense: Therefore Grotius cannot be excused, who calleth our Saviours Parables fables, as that of the Prodigall who spent his portion, Haec sabula (saith he) nos decet, quod omnes ortu sunt filii Dei, where both his words and matter are very offensive to the truth. It is true, we finde the Fathers, Gregory Nazianzen, and others, use sometimes a fable in their Orations, to denote some morall matter; but such the Jewes did not use. As they must not give heed to fables, so neither to endlesse genealogies. We see a good use made of genealogies in the Scriptures, but here is reproved the sinfull use of them; as those Grammarians among the Heathens, that spent their time about Hecuba’s mother, or Achilles pedegree, and what it was that the Syren’s sung: and these he calls endlesse, because vaine curiosity is more unruly then the waves of the sea; it hath no limiting, Hitherto shalt thou goe, and no further. Although some referre genealogy not so much to persons as things, for that the Jewes called genealogy, when one thing was fained to flow from, and, as it were, to be begotten of another; therefore (saith one) Paul, ver. 5. gives a short, but profitable genealogy, when he makes a good conscience to flow from a faith unfained. Now mark, the Apostle condemneth all these, because they doe not edifie. The shell-fish among the Jewes was accounted uncleane, because it had but a little meat, and a great deal of labour to get it: and this is true of all doctrines, which have no profit in them. The Apostle therefore tells us, what is the true use of the Law, the end of the precept. Scultetus, who hath it out of Chrysostome, makes […], not to be the law, but the ministry, or preaching; and so the Apostle useth the word, v. 3. But grant it be so, yet they all agree, he speaks of the Law strictly taken afterwards. The Apostle therefore, reproving these false teachers, that did turn bread into stones, and fish into serpents, the good law into unprofitablenesse, lest this should be thought to traduce the law, he addeth, We know (as if that were without question to all.) So that there is a position, The Law is good, and a supposition, If a man use it lawfully; with a correction, The Law is not made to the righteous. As Austin said, It was hard to speak for free-will, and not to deny free-grace; or free-grace, and not to deny free-will: so it’s hard to give the Law its due, and not to seeme to prejudice the Gospel; or the Gospel, and not to prejudice the Law: For, take but these two Verses, Videtur Apostolus pugnantia dicere, The Apostle seemeth to speake contradictions, saith Martyr: For, seeing none can use the Law well, but a righteous man, how then is not the Law given to him? But this knot shall be untyed in its proper place. I shall at this time handle the first proposition, that is conditionall; only I might insist upon opening the word […], or Law: For, I conceive, the neglect of the different use of this, doth breed many errours; for there is a law that we are to be Antinomians, or contrary to; and there is a law, that we must submit to: But of this I will speak in one particular caution.

Observ. 1. The Law of God is good, if a man use it lawfully.

Observ. 2. (which is implyed) that the Law of God may be used unlawfully.

The Law is good, 1. In respect of the matter of it therein contained;² for, if you take the spirituall interpretation of it, you will finde all the matter exceeding good: to love God, to trust in him, &c. how good are they? Yea, there is no duty now required of us, but is contained there: Therefore Peter Martyr did well resemble the Decalogue to the ten Predicaments, that, as there is nothing hath a being in nature, but what may be reduced to one of those ten; so neither is there any Christian duty, but what is comprehended in one of these, that is, consequentially, or reductively. And, if Tully durst say, that the law of the twelve Tables did exceed all the libraries of Philosophers, both in weight of authority, and fruitfulnesse of matter, how much rather is this true of Gods Law? It’s disputed, Whether justifying faith be commanded in the Law: here are different opinions; but when I handle this Question, Whether the Law of Moses, and that which was ingraffed in Adams heart in innocency, be all one, it will be proper to speak of that. Peter Martyr, handling the division of the ten Commandements, how the number should be made up, makes that, which is commonly called the Preface [I am the Lord thy God, which are words of a Covenant] to be the first Commandment: and if so, then must justifying faith be enjoyned there. And thus did some of the Fathers, though those words are only enunciative, and not preceptive. But more determinatively of this in its place.

2. In respect of the authority stamped upon it by God, whereby it becomes³ a rule unto us. The former is agreed on by all: and I see few that dare openly deny the other; for, seeing the matter is intrinsecally and eternally good, it cannot but be commanded by God, though not to justifie, for that is separable from it. There are some things that are justa, because Deus vult; as in all positive things: and then there are other things just, and therefore God wills them, though even they are also just, because they are consonant to that eternall justice and goodnesse in himself: so that, indeed, it is so farre from being true, that the Law, which hath Gods authority stampt on it for a rule, and so is mandatum, should be abrogated, that it is impossible, nè per Deum quidem; for then God should deny his own justice and goodnesse: therefore we doe justly abhorre those blasphemous Questions among the School-men, An Deus possit mandare edium sui, &c. for it’s impossible. Therefore we see, Matth. 5. that our Saviour is so farre from abrogating it, that he sheweth the spirituall extent of the mandatory power of the Law, farre beyond Pharisees expectation; and thus James urgeth the authority of the Law-giver. The obligation by the Law is eternall and immutable, insomuch that it doth absolutely imply a contradiction, that there should be in mans nature an holinesse or righteousnesse without a law or subjection to the command of God. Hence it is a dangerous opinion of some, who say, the holinesse of our natures is not commanded by the Law, but of our actions, and so not originall sinne but onely actuall sinne shall be forbidden by the Decalogue.

3. It’s good instrumentally, as used by Gods Spirit for good. It’s⁴ 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 it self; only thus much at this time. The Spirit of God doth use the Law, to quicken up the heart of a beleever unto his duty, Psal. 119. Thou hast quickened me by thy precepts. And so Psal. 19. The Law of the Lord enlightneth the simple, and by them thy servant is fore-warn’d of sinne. 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 morall Law; for they were the chiefest; and indeed, the whole Word of God is an organ and instrument of Gods 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 doe 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, Let the soul be put into the body, and it’s a living reasonable man: But now, as when we say, A man discourses, A man understands, this is ratione animae, in respect of his soul, not corporis, of the body; 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 accompanied⁵ with Promises, and that not only temporall, as Command. 5. but also spirituall, 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 shewed. It’s true, the righteousnesse 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 speakes to that effect: and it’s one of the hardest taskes in all divinity, to give them their bounds, and then to cleare how the Apostle doth oppose them, and how not. We know it was the cursed errour of the Manichees and Marcionites, that the Law was only carnall, and had only carnall 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 doe, 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; the Law commands, and Grace helps; and, Lex imperat, the Law commands, and Fides impetrat, Faith obtaineth; then the Law can have no sanction by Promise: But where can this be shewed in Scripture? When we speake of the sanction of the Law by Promise, we take it as in the administration of it by Moses, which was Evangelicall; not as it was given to Adam, with a Promise of Eternall life upon perfect obedience: for the Apostle Paul’s propositions, To him that worketh, the reward is reckoned of debt; and, the doers of the Law are justified, were never verificable, but in the state of innocency.

5. In respect of the acts of it. You may call them either acts⁶ 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 compell by threatnings: 4. To condemne the transgressors: and this use the Law is acknowledged by all to have against ungodly and wicked men, and some of these cannot be denyed even to the godly. I wonder much at an Antinomian authour, that saith,⁷ It cannot be a law, unlesse it also be a cursing law; for, besides that the same authour doth acknowledge the morall Law to be a rule to the beleever, (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? so the Angels were under a law, else they could not have sinned, yet it was not a cursing law. It’s true, if we take cursing or condemning potentially, so a law is alwayes condemning: but for actuall cursing, that is not necessary, no not to a transgressour of the Law, that hath a surety in his roome.

6. In respect of the end of it. Rom. 16. 4. Christ is the end of the⁸ Law. By reason of the different use of the word […], there are different conjectures; some make it no more then extremitas, or terminus; because the ceremoniall Law ended in Christ: Others make it finis complementi, the fulness of the Law is Christ: Others adde, finis intentionis, or scopi to it; so that by these the meaning is, The Law did intend Christ in all its ceremonialls and moralls, that, as there was not the least ceremony, which did not lead to Christ; so not the least iota or apex in the morall Law, but it did also aime at him. Therefore saith Calvin upon this place, Habemus insignem locum, quòd Lex omnibus suis partibus in Christum respiciat; Imò quicquid Lex docet, quicquid praecipit, quicquid promittit, Christum pro scopo habet: We have a noble place, proving, that the Law in all its parts did look to Christ; yea whatsoever the Law teacheth, commandeth, or promiseth, it hath Christ for its scope. 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 Law and Gospel, as is between direction and exhibition, between a school-master and a father: he is an unwise childe, that will make a school-master 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 attributeth⁹ to it: And it’s observable, that even where the Apostle doth most urge against the Law, as if it were so farre from bettering men, that it makes them the worse; yet there he praiseth it, calling it good and spirituall. Now I see it called spirituall in a two-fold sense: 1. Effectivè, because it did, by Gods Spirit, quicken to spirituall life; even as the Apostle in the opposition calls himself carnall, because the power of corruption within, did work carnall and sinfull motions in him. But I shall expound it spirituall. 2. Formaliter, formally, because the nature and extent of it is spirituall: for it forbids the sins of the spirit, not only externall sins; it forbids thy spirit pride, thy spirit envie: Even as God is the father of spirits, so is the Law, the law of spirits. Hence it’s compared by James to a glasse, which will shew 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 Pharisaicall and Morall men out of love with themselves, as to set this glasse before them.

8. In respect of the use of it: and that to the ungodly, and to the¹⁰ beleever.

9. To the ungodly, it hath this use:

10. To restrain and limit sin: And, certainly, though it should¹¹ not reach to renovation and changing of mens hearts, yet here is a great deale 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 wildernesse, 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 heavie chaines and fetters, that they may doe no hurt; so the Lord laid the Law upon the people of Israel, to keep them in from impietie. The Apostle useth a word, shut up as in a dungeon, but that is to another sense. It was Chrysostomes comparison: As a great man, suspecting his wife, appoints Eunuchs to look to her and keep her; so did God, being jealous over the Jewes, appoint these lawes.

11. To curse, and condemne: and in this respect, it poureth all¹² its fury upon the ungodly. The Law to the godly by Christ, is like a Serpent with a sting pulled out; but now to the wicked, the sting of sinne is the Law, and therefore the condition of that man, who is thus under it, is unspeakably miserable. The curse of it is the sore displeasure of God, and that for every breach of it; and, if men, that have broken onely mens lawes, be yet so much afraid, that they hide themselves, and keep close, when yet no man or Judge can damne them, or throw them into hell; what cause is there to feare that Law-giver, who is able to destroy soul and body? Therefore consider, thou prophane man, are not thy oaths, are not thy lusts against Gods Law? You had better have all the men in the world your enemy, then the Law of God. It’s a spirituall enemy; and therefore the terrours of it are spirituall, as well as the duties. Let not your lives be Antinomians, no more then opinions. Oh that I could confute this Antinomianisme also; such a mans life and conversation was against Gods Law, but now it’s not.

12. To Beleevers it hath this use: 1. To excite and quicken them¹³ against all sinne and corruption: for, howsoever the Scripture saith, Against such there is no law, and, The Law is not made to the righteous; yet, because none of the godly are perfectly righteous, and there is none but may 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 beleevers now, crookednesse, hypocrisie, luke-warmnesse? 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, doe yet need a bridle, Lest they should cast off the Spirit of God, that would govern them, Nè Spiritum sessorem excutiant. And, if men should be so peremptorie, as to say, they doe not need this; it’s not because they doe not need it, (for they need it most) but because they do not feele it.

13. To enlighten and discover unto them daily more and more heart-sinne,¹⁴ and soul-sinne. This use the Apostle speaketh of, Rom. 7. per totum: for, how should a man come to know the depth of originall sinne, all the sinfull motions flowing from it, but by the Law? and therefore that is observed by Divines, the Apostle saith, he had not knowne sinne, but by the Law; intimating thereby, that the Law of nature was so obliterated and darkened, that it could not shew a man the least part of his wickednesse. Seneca, who had more light then others, yet he saith, It is thy errour, to think sins were born with thee, no, they afterwards came upon thee, Erras, si tecum vitia nasci putas; supervenerunt, ingesta sunt. And so Pelagius his assertion was, that, We are born as well without vice, as virtue, 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 wickednesse, which others take no notice of. This will satisfie man, but not Gods Law.

14. To drive them out of all their own power and righteousnesse.¹⁵ And this is another good consequence: for, when they see all to come short of the Law; that the earth is not more distant from heaven, then they from that righteousnesse, this makes them to goe out of all their prayers, and all their duties, as you see Paul, Rom. 7. he consented to the Law, and he delighted in it, but he could not reach to the righteousnesse of it; and therefore crieth out, Oh wretched man that I am! How apt are the holiest to be proud and secure, as David, and Peter? even as the 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 righteousnesse? for, there is no such way to see a mans beggery and guilt, as by shewing the strictnesse of the Law: For, what makes a Papist so self-confident, that his hope is partly in grace, and partly in merits, but because they hold they are able to keep the Law? God forbid, saith a Papist, that we should enjoy heaven as of meere almes to us; no, we have it by conquest: Whence is all this, but because they give not the Law its due?

15. Hereby to quicken them to an higher price and esteem of Christ,¹⁶ and the benefits by him: So Paul, in that great agony of his, striving with his corruption (being like a living man tyed to a dead carkasse, his living faith to dead unbelief, his humility to loathsome pride) see what a conclusion he makes, I thank God, through Jesus Christ. It’s true, many times the people of God, out of the sense of their sinne, are driven off from Christ; but this is not the Scriptures direction: That holds out riches in Christ for thy poverty, righteousnesse in Christ for thy guilt, peace in Christ for thy terrour. And in this consideration it is, that many times Luther hath such hyperbolicall speeches about the Law, and about sinne. All is spoken against a Christians opposing the Law to the Gospel, so, as if the discovering of the one, did quite drive from the other. And this is the reason, why Papists and formall Christians never heartily and vehemently prize Christ, taking up every crumb that falls from his table: they are Christs to themselves, and self-saviours. I deny not, but the preaching of Christ, and about grace, may also make us prize grace and Christ; but such is our corruption, that all is little enough. Let me adde these cautions:

16. It’s of great consequence in what sense we use the Word [Law.]¹⁷

He that distinguisheth well, teacheth well. Now I observe a great neglect of this in the books written about these points; and, indeed, the reason why some can so hardly endure the word [Law] is, because they attend to the use of the word in English; or the Greek word […], and Lex, as it is defined by Tully and Aristotle, which understand it a strict rule only of things to be done, and that by way of meere command. But now the Hebrew word […] doth comprehend more; for that doth not only signifie strictly what is to be done, but it denoteth largely any heavenly doctrine, whether it be promise, or precept: and hence it is, that the Apostle calleth it, The law of faith (which in some sense would be a contradiction, and in some places, where the word Law is used absolutely, it’s much questioned, whether he mean the Law or the Gospel) and the reason why he calls it a law of faith, is not (as Chrysostome would have it) because hereby he would sweeten the Gospel, and, for the words sake, make it more pleasing to them; but happily, in a meere Hebraisme, as signifying that in generall, which doth declare and teach the will of God.

The Hebrewes have a more strict word for precept, and that is […], yet some say this also sometimes signifieth a Promise, Psal. 133. 3. There the Lord commanded a blessing, i. e. promised; so John 12. 50. his commandement, i. e. his promise, is life everlasting: So then, if we would attend to the Hebrew words, it would not so trouble us, to heare that it is good. But yet the use of the word [Law] is very generall: sometimes it signifieth any part of¹⁸ the Old Testament, John 10. It is said in the Law, Ye are gods. And that is in the Psalmes: Sometimes the Law and the Prophets are made all the books of the Old Testament; sometimes the Law and the Psalmes are distinguished; sometimes it is used for the ceremoniall law only, Hebr. 10. 1. The Law having a shadow of things to come; sometimes it is used synecdochically, for some acts of the Law only; as Galat. 5. Against such there is no law: sometimes it is used for that whole oiconomy, and peculiar dispensation of Gods worship unto the Jewes; in which sense it is said to be untill John, but grace and truth by Jesus Christ: sometimes it is used in the sense of the Jewes, as without Christ: And thus the Apostle generally in the Epistle to the Romans and Galatians. Indeed, this is a dispute between Papists and us, In what sense the Law is taken: for, the Papists would have it understood onely of the ceremoniall law. But we answer, that the beginning of the dispute, was about the observation of those legall ceremonies, as necessary to salvation: But the Apostle goeth from the hypothesis to the thesis; and sheweth, that not only those ordinances, but no other works may be put in Christs roome: Therefore the Antinomian, before he speaks any thing against, or about the Law, he must shew in what sense the Apostle useth it: Sometimes it is taken strictly, for the five books of Moses; yea, it is thought of many, that book of the Law, so often mentioned in Scripture, which was kept with so much diligence, was onely that book called Deuteronomy: and commonly it is taken most strictly for the ten Commandements. Now, the different use of this word breeds all this obscurity, and the Apostle argueth against it in one sense, and pleadeth for it in another.

2. The Law must not be separated from the Spirit of God. The¹⁹ Law is only light to the understanding, the Spirit of God must circumcise the heart to love it, and delight in it, otherwise that is true of Gods Law, which Aristotle, 2. Polit. cap. 2. said of all humane Lawes, […], it’s not able of it self to make good and honest Citizens. This is a principle alwayes to be carried along with you: for, the whole Word of God is the instrument and organ of spirituall life, and the Law is part of this Word of God: This I proved before; nay, should the Morall Law be quite abolished, yet it would not be for this end, because the Spirit of God did not use it as an instrument of life; for, we see all sides grant, that circumcision and the sacraments are argued against by the Apostle, as being against our Salvation, and damnable in their own use now; yet in the old Testament, those sacraments of Circumcision, and the Paschall Lamb, were spirituall meanes of faith, as truly as Baptisme, and the Lords Supper are. It is true, there is a difference in the degree of Gods grace by them; but not in the truth: and therefore our Divines do well confute the Papists, who hold those sacraments onely typicall of ours, and not to be really exhibitive of grace, as these are in the New Testament. Therefore, if the Apostles, arguing against the Morall Law, would prove it no instrument of Gods Spirit for our good, the same would hold also in Circumcision, and all those sacraments; and therefore at least for that time they must grant it a help to Christ and grace, as well as Circumcision was. If you say, Why then doth the Apostle argue against the works of the Morall Law? I answer, Because the Jewes rested in them without Christ: and, it is the fault of our people, they turn the Gospel into the Law; and we may say, Whosoever seeks to be saved by his Baptisme, he falls off from Christ.

3. To doe a thing out of obedience to the Law, and yet by love and²⁰ delight, doe not oppose one another. About this I see a perpetuall mistake. To lead a man by the Law is slavish, it’s servile, say they; a Beleever is carried by love, he needs no law: and I shall shew you, Chrysostome hath some such hyperbolicall expressions upon the words following, [The Law is not put for the righteous.] But this is very weak, to oppose the efficient cause and the rule together; for, the Spirit of God worketh the heart to love and delight in that which he commandeth: Take an instance in Adam; While he stood, he did obey out of love, and yet because of the command also: so the Angels are ministring spirits, and do obey the commandments of God, (otherwise the Apostate Angels could not have sinned) and yet they are under a law, though doing all things in love. We may illustrate it by Moses his mother; You know, she was hired, and commanded by Pharaoh’s daughter to nurse Moses, which was her own childe: now she did this out of love to Moses, her childe; yet did obey Pharaeh’s daughters commandement upon her also: so concerning Christ, there was a commandement laid upon Christ, to fulfill the Law for us, yet he did it out of love.

It is disputed, Whether Christ had a command laid upon him by the Father strictly so called: and howsoever the Arrians, from the grant of this, did inferre Christs absolute inferiority to the Father; yet our Orthodox Divines doe conclude it, because of the many places of Scripture which prove it, Act. 7. 37. John 14. 31. As my Father hath commanded me, so I you. John 15. 10. (If you keep my commandements, and abide in love, &c.) And, indeed, if it were not a commandement, it could not be called an obedience of Christ; for, that doth relate to a command: Now this I inferre hence, that, to doe a thing out of obedience to a command, because a command, doth not inferre want of love; although I grant, that the commandement was not laid upon Christ, as on us, either to direct him, or quicken him. Besides, all the people of God have divers relations, upon which their obedience lyeth; they are Gods servants, and that doth imply obedientiam servi, though not obedientiam servilem, the obedience of a servant, but not servile obedience.

Again, a Beleever may look to the reward, and yet have a spirit of love; how much rather look to the command of God? A godly man may have amorem mercedis, though not amorem mercenarium. If God in his Covenant make a Promise of reward, the eie unto that is suteable and agreeable unto the Covenant, and therefore cannot be blame-worthy. 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 exempt²¹ us from our obedience to it, for other ends then he did it. And, I think, that if the Antinomian did fully inform himself in this thing, there were an agreement: for, we all ought to be zealous against those Pharisaicall and Popish practices of setting up any thing in us, though wrought by the grace of God, as the matter of our justification. But herein they do not distinguish, or well argue: The works of the Law do not justifie, therefore they are needlesse, or not requisite: for (say they) if Christ hath fully obeyed the righteousnesse of the Law, and that is made ours; therefore it is not what ours is, but what Christs is. This would be a good consequence, if we were to obey the Law for the same end Christ did, but that is farre for us. I have heard indeed some doubt, whether the maintaining of Christs active obedience imputed to us, doth not necessarily imply Antinomianisme: but of that more hereafter; onely let them lay a parallel with Christs passive obedience. He satisfied the curse and threatning of the Law, and thereby hath freed us from all punishment; yet the Beleevers have afflictions for other ends: so do we the works of Gods Law, for other ends then Christ did them.

A fifth caution or limitation shall be this, to distinguish between²² a Beleever, and his personall acts: For, howsoever the Law doth not curse or condemne him, in regard of his state; yet those particular sins he commits, it condemnes them, and they are guilty of Gods wrath, though this guilt doth not redound upon the person: Therefore it is a very wilde comparison of²³ one, that a man under grace hath no more to doe with the Law, then an English-man hath with the lawes of Spain or Turkie: For, howsoever every Beleever be in a state of grace, so that his person is justified; yet, being but in part regenerated, so farre as his sins are committed, they are threatned and condemned in him, as well as in another: for there is a simple guilt of sin, and a guilt redundant upon the person.

6. That the Law is not therefore to be decryed, because we have no²⁴ power to keep the Law: For, so we have no power to obey the Gospel. It is an expression an Antinomian²⁵ useth, The Law (saith he) speaketh to thee, if troubled for sin, Doe this, and live; Now this is, as if a Judge should bid a malefactor, If you will not be hanged, take all England, and carry it upon your shoulders into the West Indies. What comfort were this? Now, doth not the Gospel, when it bids a man beleeve, speak as impossible a thing to a mans power? It’s true, God doth not give such a measure of grace as is able to fulfill the Law, but we have faith enough evangelically to justifie us: But that is extraneous to this matter in hand. It followes therefore, that the Law, taken most strictly, and the Gospel, differ in other considerations then in this.

7. They doe not distinguish between that which is primarily and per²⁶ se in the Law, and that which is occasionally. It cannot be denied, but the Decalogue requireth primarily a perfect holiness, as all lawes require exactnesse; but yet it doth not exclude a Mediatour. The Law saith, Doe this and live; and it doth not say, None else shall doe this for thee: For, if so, then it had been injustice in God, to have given us a Christ. I therefore much wonder at one, who, in his book, speaks thus, The Law doth not 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, Gal. 3. 23. But how short this is, appeareth, 1. Because what the Apostle calleth the Law here, he called the Scripture in generall before. 2. He speaketh it generally of all under that form of Moses his regiment, so that the Fathers should have no comfort by that means.

Use 1. Of instruction. How dangerous an errour it is, to deny²⁷ 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 it, and feed on it, as you do on meat? Take the precept of the Gospel; yea, take the Gospel acts, as, To beleeve: this, as it is a work, doth not justifie: (Therefore that opinion which makes […] credere, to justifie, may as well take in other acts of obedience) But, because faith, as it is a work, doth not justifie, do you therefore reject beleeving? A man may abuse all the ordinances of the Gospel, as well as the Law. The man that thinks the very outward work of Baptisme, the very outward work of receiving a Sacrament will justifie him, doth as much dishonour God, as a Jew, that thought circumcision, or the sacrifices did justifie him. You may quickly turn all the Gospel into the Law in that sense; you may as well say, What need I pray? what need I repent? it cannot justifie me, as to deny the Law, because it cannot.

Use 2. How vain a thing it is, to advance grace and Christ²⁸ oppositely to the Law: nay, they that destroy one, destroy also the other. Who prizeth the city of refuge so much, as the malefactour that is pursued by guilt? Who desireth the brasen Serpent, but 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 marvell if it hurt us, if it poyson us; as those that kept the Manna otherwise then they should, it turned to wormes. But, if you use it so, as Christ is the dearer, and grace the more welcome to thee, then thou dost well. The law bids thee love God with all thine heart and soul; doth not this bid thee goe to Christ? Hast thou any strength to doe it? And what thou dost, being enabled by grace, is that perfect? Vae etiam laudabili vitae ei, &c. 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 holdst free-grace as an opinion, it may be; but then all within thee will acknowledge it.

Footnotes

1. The Text opened. ↩

2. 1. The Law is good in respect of the matter.
   ↩
3. 2. In respect of the authority of it.
   ↩
4. 3. It’s instrumentally good.
   ↩
5. 4. The Law is good, in respect of its sanction.
   ↩
6. 5. In respect of the acts of it.
   ↩

7. Assert. of free grace, pag. 31. ↩

8. 6. In respect of the end.
   ↩
9. 7. In respect of the adjuncts.
   ↩
10. 8. In respect of the use of it.
    ↩
11. 1. Because it restrains and limits sin in the ungodly.
    ↩
12. 2. Because it condemnes them.
    ↩
13. 1. It quickens the godly against sin and corruption.
    ↩
14. 2. It discovers sin unto them.
    ↩
15. 3. It makes them disclaim all their own righteousnes.
    ↩
16. 4. It makes them set an higher value of Christ and his benefits.
    ↩
17. 1. The Law, according to the use of the word in the Scripture, is not onely a strict […] of things to be done by way of command; but denoteth any heavenly doctrine, whether it be promise, or precept.
    ↩

18. The acceptions of the word Law in Scripture, are divers. ↩

19. 2. The Law and the Spirit of God must not be separated.
    ↩
20. 3. Obedience and love oppose not one another.
    ↩
21. 4. Christs obedience exempts not us from ours.
    ↩
22. 5. Beleevers sins condemned, though not their persons.
    ↩

23. Dr Crisp. ↩

24. 6. Inability to keep the Law, exempts not from obedience to it.
    ↩

25. Dr Crisp. ↩

26. 7. The Law, though primarily it requireth perfect holinesse, yet it excludes not a Mediatour.
    ↩

27. The Law, though it cannot justifie us, is notwithstanding good, and not to be rejected. ↩

28. Grace and Christ not to be advanced oppositely to the Law. ↩