The Covenant of God Entered with Mankind, Chapter 10
CHAP. X.
God in the dayes of the Goſpel keeps up the power and authority of his Law, The obligation of it is ſtill in force to binde the conſciences of beleevers.
THe laſt Poſition that I ſhall premiſe, is, That God in his entry of covenant with man in ſinne, doth ſo manifeſt his free grace, that he ſtill keeps up his Sovereignty; ſo exalts mercy, that he loſeth nothing of his rule and authority; His chief aime is to exalt the glory of his free grace, and to ſet out the riches of his great mercy, that ſo noble a ſpecies, as that of mankinde might not for ever periſh, yet he quits not man of his ſubjection and obedience. When the Angels fell, ſome ſtood, (whether the fallen or perſevering number be greater, cannot be determined) but when man fell, mankinde wholly was loſt, and unleſſe grace ſave, muſt everlaſtingly periſh. As ſome, with the loſt Angels muſt be objects on whom God will glorifie his juſtice, Matth. 25. 41. So others, muſt be veſſels of mercy, on whom his free grace ſhall be ſeen, to make them as the Angels of heaven. Therefore love is aſſigned as the alone impulſory motive; God ſo loved the world, that he gave his only begotten ſonne, John 3. 16. God who is rich in mercy, according to the great love, wherewith he loved us, when we were dead in ſinne, Eph. 2. 5. Of this,Mans fall by ſin was no diſobligation to obedience. all that expect to be ſaved by grace, muſt be tender, that it be not obſcured; Gods deſigne being to advance it, our care muſt be that it be not leſſened. In this exerciſe of free grace, God yet keeps up authority and rule, power and dominion ſtill is his. Man was made of God ſubject to a Law and under dominion, having the law written in his heart from the Creation, and he was not diveſted of it by Adams fall, nor yet delivered from it by Chriſts Redemption. Corvinus indeed in his Reply to Moulin (cap. 8. ſect. 7.) ſaith,aCùm itaque homo jaceret ſub maledictione, ad obedientiam amplius non obligabatur quia coli ab eo Deus ampliù… non volebat. That men under an obligation to puniſhment are not under any obligation to obedience. God will not be ſerved by that man that hath violated his Covenant, giving his reaſon of this aſſertion, To bNam quòd coli à creature ſua De… vult fav…r…is eſt.be admitted to ſerve is a to token of favour, which is not vouchſafed (as he ſayes) to menunder guilt and wrath. But this is a manifeſt errour, Mans guilt can never rob God of his Sovereignty, nor yet diſingage man from his duty, Standing right with God, he is bound to homage; Under guilt, he is bound both to homage and puniſhment; and to be admitted to ſerve is not meerly of favour, but of dominion and power. It was no great favour, that Iſrael in Egypt found, in the ſervice of Pharaoh; to ſerve with acceptance is indeed a favour; but neceſſity, and duty ties all that are under Sovereignty. As man fallen, in right is a ſubject, though in his demeanour a rebel; So in his regenerate eſtate ſtill he ows ſubjection. When God became a Saviour to the Elect of mankind, he did not ceaſe to be a Sovereigne. The children of a King and Emperour know their father to be their Sovereign, as by one is well obſerved. The child of God knows God in Chriſt to be his Lord; We are redeemed not to licentiouſneſſe, not to a ſtate of manumiſſion from the command of God, but to ſerve in righteouſneſſe and true holineſſe all the dayes of our life, Luke 1. 74. It can be no part of our Chriſtian freedome to be from under the Sovereignty of heaven.The Sovereignty of God is held up. This Sovereignty of God is two wayes held forth unto us. Firſt, in keeping up his commandments, the power and vigour of his precepts. Secondly,1. In keeping up his commandments. in his exerciſe of diſcipline in chaſtiſement, and correction. Here I ſhall aſſert three things; Firſt, God in the days of the Goſpel, keeps up the power and authority of his Law; the Obligation of it is still in force to binde the conſciences of beleevers. Secondly, That this Law which God thus keeps up in force, is a perfect and compleat rule to thoſe to whom it is given. Thirdly, That this Law binds, as given by the hand of Moſes. As to the firſt, when I ſpeak thus, of the Obligation of the Law, I hope I ſcarce need to tell in what ſenſe; I do take the Law, Not in the largeſt ſenſe, for any doctrine, inſtruction, or Ordinance of any kinde whatſoever, Men have their Laws and Directories: but I have to deal with the Law of God: Neither do I take it for the whole of the Word of God, all his will revealed in his Word, as it is taken, Iſa. 2. 3. The Law ſhall go forth of Zion, and the Word of the Lord from Jeruſalem. Nor yet as it is taken for all the Scripture of the Old Teſtament, as in that Text of the Apoſtle, In the Law it is written by men of other tongues, and by other languages I will ſpeak to this people, 1 Cor. 14. 21. Nor yet for the five books of Moſes, as it is taken in the words of Chriſt, All must be fulfilled that was written in the Law of Moſes, Luke 24. 44. Neither do I here underſtand the Ceremonial Law, which ſtood up as a partition between Jew and Gentile, Epheſ. 2. 14. All that did binde the Jews, and was not of force from God with the Gentiles, is taken off from Chriſtians; There was a confeſſion of guilt; a beaſt needed not to have been ſlain, if they had been innocent; this held them under hopes that there was ſacrifice to take away ſinne, impoſed on the Jewes till the time of reformation, Heb. 9. 10. as an Appendix to the firſt Table; fitted to the Jewes ſtate and condition, as a ſhadow of good things to come, Heb. 10. 1. Nor yet the judicial Law, given to order the Common-wealth or State of that people, farther then ſo much of it, as was of nature, and then did bind the Gentiles. It is the Moral-Law that I meane, that Law which was obligatory, not only to the Jews, but Gentiles, for breach of which they ſuffered, Levit. 18. 27, 28. Neither do I underſtand the Moral Law, as a covenant, upon obſervation of which life was expected and might be claimed. This is utterly inconſiſtent with the Goſpel. If there had been a Law that could have given life, verily righteouſneſſe had been by the Law, Gal. 3. 21. And this righteouſneſſe giving life, utterly overthrows the Goſpel. If righteouſneſſe come by the Law, then Chriſt is dead in vain, Gal. 2. 21. In which ſenſe I deny that the Jewes were ever under the Law. The Law was not given as ſuch a covenant as ſhall God willing be ſhewn. So the Moral Law and Ceremonial Law ſhould militate one againſt another. The Moral Law holding them in themſelves, looking for a righteouſneſſe of works, and the Ceremonial Law leading them out of themſelves, unto a ſacrifice for remiſſion of ſinne.The Law hath a commanding power over beleeevers. Abraham was under no ſuch covenant, he had the Goſpel preached to him, Gal. 3. 8. and ſo had the ſeed of Abraham. But it ſtill hath the nature of a Law binding to obedience, it is for ever a rule, for the guide of our wayes. That it was once of force, is without queſtion; and above all contradiction, and therefore I need not to multiply Old Teſtament… Scriptures for it; There is no repeale of it, it was never antiquated and aboliſhed; therefore it is of force; Though a Law be urged, yet if a repeal may be pleaded, there is a diſcharge. That it is not repealed, I ſhall ſhew, and further that it is not capable of any repeal. If it be repealed, then either by Chriſt, at his coming in the fleſh; or elſe by his Apoſtles, by commiſſion from him, after the Spirit was given; But neither Chriſt in perſon, nor the Apoſtles by any commiſſion from him did repeal it; but inſtead of a repeale, did put a new ſanction upon it; Chriſt indeed as ſoon as he publickly appeared in the work of redemption, was charged that he came to deſtroy the Law; But this he did utterly diſavow, and men of faith in Chriſt ſhould believe him, profeſſing that he came not to deſtroy the Law, but to fulfil it. Yea, that there is a greater ſtability in the Law in every tittle of it in regard of the permanency, then is in heaven and earth, then is in the whole frabrick of the world; And whereas the Scribes and Phariſees were then thought to be the only ſtrict obſervers of the rule of the Law, and the alone men that kept up the honour of it, Chriſt aſſerts a neceſſity of a higher degree of obedience then the Scribes and Phariſees ever taught or practiſed, Except your righteouſneſſe exceed the righteouſneſſe of the Scribes and Phariſees, &c. which muſt be underſtood of righteouſneſſe inherent, in conformity to the Law, as appeares in the precedent words, where Chriſt holds diſcourſe about the Law, and is more fully confirmed in the words that follow; Chriſt on this occaſion openeth the commandments of the Law, ſhewing how farre Scribes and Phariſees went in their righteouſneſſe, how farre we muſt tranſcend them if ever we come to the Kingdome of heaven. Neither did the Apoſtles by any Commiſſion from Chriſt repeal it, but they add the ſame ſanction to it. Paul foreſeeing that this very thing would be charged upon him, as it was upon Chriſt, ſaith, Do we make void the Law through faith? yea, we eſtabliſh (ſaith he) the Law, Rom 3. 31. Our doctrine is a confirmation, and no abolition of it. And both he, and other Apoſtles frequently in their Epiſtles, urge precepts of the Moral Law, as in force, and having power and command over men in covenant. Paul laying a charge upon children to obey their parents, Epheſ. 6. 1. urges it from the fifth Commandment; which he there ſets out with a mark of honour, as the firſt Commandment with promiſe, and paraphraſeth upon the promiſe, annexed to it, againſt which children might enter their challenge, if in Goſpel-times the Law had loſt its commanding power. And requiring obedience from wives to husbands, the Law is quoted for it, 1 Cor. 14. 34. Having proved the equity of Miniſters maintenance by an argument drawn from civil right, and common rules of equity in three particulars, he adds, Say I theſe things, or ſaith not the Law, alſo the ſame? And ſo quotes a Text of the Law, the Law as delivered by Moſes, for it is written in the Law of Moſes, Thou ſhalt not muzzle the Oxe that treadeth out the corn, 1 Cor. 9. 9. and then cleareth it from an exception that might be taken againſt it. So James 2. 8. If ye fulfil the royal Law, Thou ſhalt love thy neighbour as thy ſelf, ye do well. The Law is of force in that grand duty, ſo in other precepts there mentioned, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, verſe 11. yea, it is of force in the leaſt duties, ver. 10. He that ſhall keep the whole Law, and yet offend in one point, is guilty of all, 1 Theſ. 47, 8. We have the ſeventh and eighth Commandment quoted as of force with Chriſtians. As alſo, Rom. 12. 19. Avenge not your ſelves, but rather give place unto wrath; for it is written, Vengeance is mine, I will repay, ſaith the Lord, quoting the Law, Deut. 32. 35.
Neither is it capable of any repeal, being the Law of nature written in the hearts of heathens, Rom. 2. 15. more clearly therefore in the heart of Adam. Theſe are of thoſe things that are prohibita, quia mala; The tranſgreſſion of them was forbidden, becauſe evil of their own nature, The Creation ſtanding, the Law could be no other: If no Law had ever been promulged, or given of God to man, yet murder and adultery had been ſinne, Chriſt not changing the Law of Creation, but taking to himſelf the nature of man, (the ſame as it was firſt created) when he came to ſave man, muſt of neceſſity keep on foot that law that was from the beginning ſtampt upon him; So that we ſee it is not aboliſhed, but ratified, neither is it in a capacity of abolition. It is confeſt by a great party, of thoſe, that in this appeare as adverſaries, that there is no liberty to ſinne in the dayes of the Goſpel. There be not many that will avouch the contrary, if they do, they muſt know that they have the Goſpel againſt them, that hath in a readineſſe to avenge all diſobedience, 2 Cor. 6. 10. The Apoſtle writes to beleevers, that they ſinne not, 1 John 2. 1. And this is the definition of ſinne, 1 John 3. 4. Sinne is a tranſgreſſion of the Law. As for thoſe that … beleevers have no ſinne, cannot ſinne, it is to little purpoſe to ſpeak to them, or having any thing to deale with them. If they believe not John, they will not beleeve me telling them that that there is no truth in them, 1 John 1. 8. He that pleaſeth may ſee a large confirmation of this truth in Mr. Burg, Vindiciae Legis, and Maſter Boltons Treatiſe of the true bounds of Chriſtian freedome, page 77. to 88. Therefore one much forgets himſelfe, who in a Treatiſe of the two covenants, beſpeaks his Reader in theſe words: Conſider this ſeriouſly, that if you be beleevers, and married to Chriſt, the Law hath no more power over you then a dead husband hath over his relict and living wife, which he preſently interprets of a commanding power, and denies, that the Law hath any commanding power over a beleever. Which aſſertion of his, that it may be the more obſerved, he puts into his Index: The Law hath no commanding power over a beleever.
The ſame Authour yet ſays, that the Law is a diſcoverer of, and convincer of ſinne to beleevers, It is a curb to the pride and preſumption of beleevers as well as of unbeleevers; But if a husband cannot by reaſon of death command his wife, how can be convince her of her faults, or be a curb or reſtraint to her? Job was in right of command over his wife, as long as he had power of reproof, to tell her of her folly, and to endavour to put a ſtop to it. In his anſwer of an objection he yeelds, that though the Law ſhould be dead to a beleever, and a beleever dead to the Law, yet it doth not thence follow that they ſhould ſinne, muſt ſinne, or will ſinne; Upon this ſuppoſition I ſay, there is not in them a capacity of ſinne, or poſſibility of ſinning. He further ſayes, There would be no ſinne (were it not for a Law) for the Law gives (if I may ſo terme it) a being to ſinne, and therefore is called the ſtrength of ſinne, for if a man ſhould ſwear, covet, or kill, and there ſhould be no Law prohibiting the ſame, doubtleſſe it would not be evil, for the Law makes it evil. And if the Law hath loſt its commanding power, then it can give ſinne no more being, yea, it hath loſt its own being, power of command being of the eſſence of it. If the Law, Thou ſhalt not kill, have no power of command, then, I ſin not, if I kill. If that Law, Sweare not at all, have no power of commanding, then, our RANTERS high oaths, are no more ſinnes, then our eating of ſwines fleſh, or … not obſerving the Feaſt of the Paſſeover, Where there is …, there is no tranſgreſſion: and a Law antiquated and repealed, that the power of command is gone (as in the Laws before mentioned) is no Law. If he ſtill pr…ſſe that ſimilitude of the Apoſtle, that a dead huſband hath now power of command, But the Law to a beleever is a dead husband. Firſt, I ſay, if he will be pleaſed to informe me, how a dead husband rips up his wives faults, how he curbs and keeps her in, (which he confeſſes is the Laws office to a beleever) then I ſhall ſpeedily give an account, how this dead husband retaines power of command. The Argument is as well of force, The dead husband hath no power to diſcover his wives faults, to reſtraine, curb, or keep her in: But the Law is a dead husband to beleevers; Therefore the Law hath no ſuch power. It lies upon him to anſwer this argument to free himſelf from ſelf-contradiction. And I would faine ſee this anſwered, and the other maintained. Secondly, for more full ſatisfaction,Rom. 7. 1, &c. vindicated. I ſay that ſome learned Expoſitors make the huſband in that ſimilitude not to be the Law, but ſinne, which hath its power from the Law. So Diodati in his Notes upon the place. Man ſignifieth ſinne, which hath power from the Law, the woman is our humane nature, and of theſe two, are begotten the depraved errours of ſinne; So alſo Doctor Reynolds in his Treatiſe of Divorce, page 37. ſetting out the ſcope of this ſimilitude, thus expreſſeth it, As a wife her husband being dead, doth lawfully take another, and is not an adultereſſe; in having his company, to bring forth fruit of her body to him; ſo regenerate perſons, their natural corruption (provoked by the Law to ſin) and fleſh being mortified, and joyned to Chriſt as to a ſecond husband. Maſter Burges Vindiciae Degis, page 218. ſaith, Sinne which by the Law doth irritate and provoke our corruption, that is the former husband the ſoul had, and luſts they are the children thereof, and this the rather is to be received, becauſe the Apoſtle in his reddition doth not ſay the Law is dead, but we are dead. But if he will ſtill contend that the Law is the husband in that place; which by reaſon of corruption hath ſo much power for irritation and condemnation over an unregenerate man; I ſhall onelyonly give him that advice which Doctor Reynolds in the place quoted, gives Bellarmine, upon occaſion of his interpretation of this ſimilitude. Let Bellarmine acknowledge that ſimilitudes muſt … be ſet on the rack, nor the drift thereof be ſtreched in ſuch ſort … …f they ought, juſt in length, breadth, and depth, to match and ſit that whereunto they are …mbled And when he confeſſeth power in the Law notwithſtanding this death to performe diverſe offices in the ſouls of beleever… … cannot affirme that the law is wholly dead, nor deny but that it may have this office of command likewiſe. The power which the Law loſeth, is that which corruption gave it, which is irritation and condemnation; Corruption never gave command to the Law, and the death of corruption, through the Spirit, can never exempt the ſoul from obedience, or take the power of command from it. Let it be granted that the Law is the husband here mentioned, the ſimilitude is this. That as the Law through our corruption was fruitful in mans nature to the bringing forth of ſinne and condemnation, So Chriſt by the Spirit is to be fruitful in our nature to bring forth works of grace to ſalvation, and ſo the death of the Law is meerly in reſpect of irritation, or inflaming to ſinne; and binding over to condemnation, not in reſpect of command. That this is the full and clear ſcope of this ſimilitude, beyond which it muſt not be ſtretched, plainly appeares, verſe 5. For when we were in the fleſh, the motions of ſinnes which were by the Law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. So that here is nothing againſt the commanding power of the Law: God ſtill keeps up his Sovereignty, and by this Law he rules the regenerate. I wiſh our Authour would ſadly reflect upon that reaſon of his, The Law is not authorized by Chriſt to reigne and rule in the conſciences of his people, For his Fathers peace, his own righteouſneſſe, and his Spirits joy. There is none that ſpeaks of the reigne of the Law in the conſciences of the people of God, but God in Chriſt reigns, and by his Moral Law rules, for all theſe reaſons, So farre are theſe from excluding his rule, by his Law in his peoples hearts. If this rule of the Law be deſtructive to Chriſts righteouſneſſe, then Chriſts coming for righteouſneſſe muſt needs be to deſtroy the Law, which Chriſt diſclaimes. And the rule of the peace of God in our hearts, is ſo farre from excluding his rule by his Law, that without it, it can never be attained, Great peace have they that love thy Law, and nothing ſhall offend them, Pſalme 119. 165. This is the confidence that we have in God, that whatſoever we ask according to his will, we ſhall receive, becauſe we keep his commandments, 1 John 3. 22. A Commandment hath a command… power, and only they that keep them have this peace ruling in their hearts. The Spirits joy, and the power of the Law to command, are ſo farre from oppoſing one the other, that the Spirit gives teſtimony of Gods abode in no other but ſuch as confeſſe and yeeld to this power. He that keepeth his Commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him: and hereby we know that be abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us, 1 John 3. 24. And of like nature is that which he further hath, Though the Law (the former husband) be dead to a beleever, yet a beleever is no widow, much leſſe an harlot; for he is married to Chriſt, and is under the Law of Chriſt, which is love. If the moral Law reſpective to the power of command be dead, then love is dead with it. Jeſus Chriſt reduces the ten Commandments into two: Thou ſhalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and thou ſhalt love thy neighbour as thy ſelf. If then the Law be dead, this love from the heart is dead, and ſo a beleever is either a widow or an harlot. Maſter Burges, Vindiciae Legis, page 12. ſhews at large that to do a thing out of obedience to the Law, and yet by love and delight, do not oppoſe one another, which if the Reader conſult with his enlargement of it, he ſhall need to go no farther for refutation, nor his own ſatisfaction. Men are wont to expect in children and ſervants (much more in wives) both love and obedience: If this rule hold, they muſt quit the one, and cleave to the other; Either they muſt take to love, without obedience, or obedience without love. Theſe two which cannot be ſevered (if ye love and keep my Commandments) this Divinity makes inconſiſtent. God gave Laws (ſaith our Authour) to man to declare his own Sovereignty, and his creatures duty. And we muſt tell him, that to keep up his Sovereignty, and his creatures duty, he continues his Law. They that take power of command from it, diveſt him of his Sovereignty, and exempt the creature from duty. I know there are many evaſions, if it might be to ſhuffle off, and evade this doctrine; if not wholly denying the Law, yet weakening the power of it in Goſpel-time.
Some ſay, that it bindes us as creatures, but not as Chriſtians. And then it is to be feared, that they taking themſelves to be above creatures in that they are Chriſtians, being raiſed in a neerer relation to God, then meer creatures, they will take themſelves to be diſobliged▪ But if the creature be caſt into hell, for tranſgreſſion; as a drunkard, an adulterer, a covetous perſon, what will become of the Chriſtian? But it bindes both as creatures and Chriſtians, Chriſt having put his ſanction upon it.
Others ſay,The Law bindes the whole of man. that it bindes the unregenerate part of man, but not the regenerate part, that is free. Paul delighted in the Law of God after the inward man, Rom. 7. 22. That is, as Interpreters underſtand, ſo f…rre as regenerate; How could he delight in it as a Law, and not ſubject to it? It ſeems theſe think that only wicked ones are bound, or rather wickedneſſe to be alone obliged; It will ſhortly be a mark of unregeneration (as it ſeemes it is with ſome already) to be ſubject to it; They that urge it upon men, and preſſe it as their duty, have the name of legal Preachers, and ſtranger, from Goſpel-myſteries put upon them. It is a weariſome thing to rake further in this puddle; I hope it is plain in that which hath been ſaid, that God holds up this part of his Sovereignty in keeping up his commandment, the authority of his Moral Precepts in the hearts of his people.