The Covenant Sealed, Section 3
SEC. III. The Morall Law is a perfect rule of righteouſneſſe.
IN the next place, you take me up for ſaying, [I know no other Rule but the old Rule, the Rule of the Morall Law, that is with me a Rule, a perfect Rule, and the only Rule:] And make it your buſineſſe to Catechize me better: And thereupon you ſay, diſtinguendum eſt. And ſo we have a multitude of diſtinctions, (too many to write out) with this Elogy] upon them: I think the ſolidity and great neceſſity of all theſe diſtinctions is beyond diſpute. But I confeſſe, I cannot be induced to be of your mind.Mr. Brs. diſtinctions diſcuſs'd. I think the ſolidity of ſome of them may well be diſputed; and the neceſſity of moſt of them (as to our buſineſſe) wholy denyed. I am to ſeek, how the preceptive part of the Law of nature, delivered to Moſes, and the preceptive part of the Law of nature, now uſed by Chriſt, as his own Law, (which is one of your diſtinctions) do differ. Whether Chriſt and Moſes, in holding out a Law of nature, ſtand at any ſuch diſtance, may at leaſt be diſputed, though perhaps, when others ſee it not, you may be able to conclude it. I as yet neither know, any detraction from, or addition to, the preceptive part of the Law of nature by Chriſt. I think there was neither any abolition, addition, or diminution reſpective to the Law thus conſidered, made by our Saviour. I do not yet ſee reaſon ſo much as to recede from that opinion, that this Law, as delivered by Moſes, is binding to Chriſtians. If you be able to conclude the negative, yet I know, that as it hath been, ſo it may be ſtill diſputed. And when we are ſpeaking of the rule of Righteouſneſſe or obedience, which is the line and thread according to which our actions ſhould be ſquared, (under which you juſtly comprehend the prohibition as proeceptum de non agendis) I ſee no neceſſity of talking either of a rule of reward, or puniſhment, or a rule of the condition of the reward, or puniſhment; which is another of your diſtinctions. Theſe three laſt Rules, if they be true Rules, may here, as to this buſineſſe, be very well over-ruled. They are not at all eſſentiall to a Law, as comming neither within the direction for duty, nor obligation to duty, but only ſerve ad bene eſſe, to quicken our obedience, and to withold from tranſgreſſion. As to the [Promiſe] God might have commanded us to work, and never have told us of any pay, and, The [Puniſhment] is upon ſuppoſall of fayling in duty. And if you thus bring them in, as acceſſary parts of the Law, yet I ſee no imaginable reaſon to ſpeak of them as Rules, unleſſe it be ſuch as God hath propoſed to himſelf, in his way of diſtributive Juſtice. They can be no Rule to us, determining only, (as your ſelf obſerve) what ſhall be done to us, not what ſhall be done by us. The firſt branch then of your fourfold diſtinction of a Rule is here alone of uſeful conſideration, that is, the Rule of Obedience, or what ſhall be due from us. We have nothing to ſay here either of the Rule of Reward, or Puniſhment, nor of the Rule of the condition of the Reward, or Puniſhment, which are your other branches. And that only, I here intended; and I had thought, all I would have known that I only intended it. This you ſay, you ſuppoſe is my meaning, as well you might: but withall you ſay, It is ſtrange to your ears; and give your reaſons. 1. That is but part of that very Law of nature. Doth not the Law of nature (ſay you) as well as the Poſitive Law determine de debito poenae, as well as de debito officii? But ſure debitum officii, and not debitum poenae, is our Rule. 2. You ſay, If you took it for the whole of nature, is that the only Rule? And here comes in, it ſeems, that which is ſtrange to your ears; that I ſhould make the Moral Law, as determining de debito officii, our only Rule, perfect and compleat: Which aſſertion being ſo unanimouſly received, might well have delivered you from all wonder at the ſtrangeneſſe of it,With whom they joyn that oppoſe the perfection of the Morall Law. how erroneous ſoever you had judged it. Undertaking the negative part, and impleading it of imperfection, you have indeed Arminians, Socinians, and Papiſts, on your part. But Proteſtants (for ought I know) unanimouſly your adverſaries. Papiſts have their Traditions added as well to the Law, as to the Goſpel, which is an accuſation of the written Law, as imperfect: They have alſo their Evangelicall Counſels, which though they are not commanded, yet (as Bellarmine ſpeaks) are commended, as raiſing Chriſtians to an higher perfection, then ever the Law required. Socinians (with whom many Arminians joyn) affirm, that Chriſt hath inſtituted new precepts of Obedience in the Goſpel; and added them to the Commands of the Law, ſuch as tranſcend and exceed all that were delivered in Old Teſtament-times. Gerrard having diſputed for the perfection of the Law againſt Papiſts, cap. 14. De Evangelio, ſaith, The Popiſh opinion of New Laws promulgated by Chriſt, the Photinians (which is an other name of Socinians) greedily imbrace; making a fair way for Mahometiſm, ſeeing that in the Alcoran it is in like manner ſaid, That Moſes gave a Law, leſſe perfect, Chriſt more perfect, and Mahomet moſt perfect of all. Out of the Cracovian Catechiſm in the ſame Chapter, Gerrard quotes this paſſage, Chriſt came not only to fulfill the Law for us, but added new precepts to it. Theſe new precepts, (the ſame Author ſaith) they make twofold: Some of which do appertain to manners, Some to ceremonies, or outward rites in worſhip. He names three that appertain to manners: To deny a mans ſelf; take up his Croſſe; and follow Chriſt: Which three precepts my Author in way of oppoſition ſaith, belong to the firſt Commandement. Peltius in his Harmony of Arminians and Socinians, Chap. 4, 4, 6. ſheweth their combination againſt the Orthodox party, as in many other things, ſo in this propoſition now controverted. He there quotes from Socinians theſe poſitions: That Chriſt in the New Teſtament did not only abrogate the Ceremoniall and Judiciall Law, but did much increaſe and add unto the Morall Law: That he came not to deſtroy the Law, but to fulfil it; which fulfilling, (ſaith he) is nothing elſe but a perfecting of it, and addition of what was wanting: That we ought not only to obſerve thoſe things that are given to us of God, and not abrogated by Chrijſt, but thoſe precepts in like manner that are added by Chriſt. Much more from many Socinians, and Arminians, may be ſeen in that Author to that purpoſe. Dr. Hammond in his Practicall Catechiſme, ſpeaking of Chriſts Sermon in the Mount, agrees indeed with the Papiſts againſt the Proteſtants, That Chriſt doth not here expound Moſes, and vindicate the Law from falſe gloſſes, but that he addes to the Law, and names many additions to the 6. & 7. Commandement, & other Commandements, but diſſents from Papiſts that make theſe Evangelicall Counſels, and makes them precepts; not precepts of Moſes, but of Chriſt, added by him to the Law: but this with much Modeſty, as though he would not be peremptory in his opinion. So that*Authorities vouchſafed for the perfection of the Morall Law as a Rule. Mr. Burges, pag. 166. handling controverſies about the Law, ſaith, I ſhall now handle the perfection of it, and labour to ſhew that Chriſt hath inſtituted no new duty, which was not commanded before by the Law of Moſes. And this queſtion, (ſaith he) will be profitable, partly againſt the Arminians, partly the Papiſts, and laſtly, the Socinians. He further ſaith, pag. 169. That 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 conceive a more excellent way of duty, then that preſcribed. Further, if we ſpeak of holy and ſpirituall duties, there cannot be a more excellent way of holineſſe, this being an Idaea, and repreſentation of the glorious nature of God. Dr. Ames in his Sciagraphia, handling the Decalogue, makes this his firſt doctrine,(a)Lex iſta Dei quae in Decalogo continetur eſt perfectiſſima regula ad vitam hominis dirigendam. The Law of God contained in the Decalogue is a moſt perfect Rule of the guide for the life of man. He gives four reaſons, with an uſe of information,(b)Ʋt legem iſtam Dei eo loco habeamus quo debemus i. e. ut non aliter de eadem cogitemus quam ut de vitae noſtrae unica forma & tanquam de illa norma quae nullum habet defectum ſed perfecta eſt in ſeſe & perfectionem omnem à nobis requirit. That we eſteem this Law as it ought to be eſteemed, & that, as the only Rule of our lives, and ſuch a Rule that hath no defect, but is perfect in it ſelf, and requires all perfection in it. Davenant de Juſtit. actual. cap. 40. pag. 463. ſaith,(c)Ipſa le… Chriſti eſt exactiſſima & pefectiſſima regula Sanctitatis et juſtitae The Law of God it ſelf is a moſt exact and perfect Rule of Holineſs and Righteouſneſs: And in the proof of it ſaith,(d)Paſſim in Scripturis confirmatur quae perfectionem legis divinae mirificè extollunt. This is every where confirmed in Scripture, which wonderfully extols the perfection of the divine Law. Downham in the preface of his Tables of the Commandements ſaith, that, The Law of God is perfect, requiring perfect obedience both inward and outward, not only in reſpect of the parts but of the degrees. The Leyden Profeſſors ſay,(e)Tam perfecta eſt haec lex ut nihil ei in praeceptis moralibus aut à Chriſto aut ab Apoſtolis ipſius additum fuerit quoad exactiorem bonorum operum normam ſub novo Teſtamento ſit adducta. The Law is ſo perfect, that nothing in Moral precepts, either by Chriſt or his Apoſtles, as any more exact rule of good works hath been added under the New Teſtament. Diſp. 18. §. 39. Ʋrſinus in his definition of the Morall Law inſerts this,(f)Obligans omnes creaturas rationalies ad perfectam obedientiam internam & externam. binding all reaſonable creatures to perfect obedience both inward and outward, Pag. 681. Chemnitius entitles his third Chapter de Lege, (g)De perfectâ obedientiâ quam Lex requirit.Of the perfect obedience which the law requires, and preſently laies down theſe words,(h)Variis autem corruptelis omnibus temporibus, & olim, & nunc depravata eſt doctrina de perfectâ obedientia, quam Lex Dei requirit. This doctrine of the perfect obedience which the Law requires, in all ages paſt hath been, and is now depraved. Bucan in his Common places, Pag. 188. thus defines the Morall Law;(i)Eſt praeceptio divina continens piè juſté que coram Deo vivendi regulam, requirens ab omni homine perfectam & perpetuam obedientiam. A divine injunction containing a rule to live piouſly and juſtly before God, requiring of all men perfect and perpetuall obedience towards God. I ſhall conclude with the Confeſſion preſented to both houſes of Parliament, by the Aſſembly of Divines, Chap. 19. 2. The Law after his (i. e. Adams) fall, continued to be a perfect Rule of Righteouſnes, and as ſuch was delivered by God on mount Sinai in ten Commandements; To theſe, more might be addded, but theſe are ſufficient to take you out of that wonder that I ſhould aſſert the perfection of it.
But I ſhall not reſt barely upon the authority of theſe teſtimonies, but offer to your conſideration theſe following reaſons.Arguments evincing the pefection of the Morall Law.
1. If the Law be not a fully perfect and compleat Rule of our lives, then there is ſome ſin againſt God which is not condemned in the Law, this is clear; Deviation from any rule given of God is a ſin; Deviation from that ſuppoſed additionall rule is a ſin: But there is no ſin which the Law doth not condemn; Sin is a Tranſgreſſion of the Law, 1 John 3, 4. He that ſins, tranſgreſſeth the Law.
2. If the Law alone diſcovers and makes ſin known, then it is a perfect, full, and compleat Rule; this is plain: Omne rectum index eſt obliqui. But the Law alone diſcovers ſin, Rom. 3.20. This office is aſcribed there to the Law, and is no other but the Morall Law. Had not the light of that Rule guided him in this work, he had never made any ſuch diſcovery. And it is the moral Law written in the decalogue that he means, as appears in the quotation; I had not known luſt, except the Law had ſaid, Thou ſhalt not covet.
3. That which alone works wrath is the alone Rule and guide of our lives. This is clear, in what ſence ſoever it is, that we take working of wrath: whether we underſtand it of working of wrath in man againſt God, as ſome do; Mans heart being apt to riſe againſt him that will exerciſe Soveraignty over him. Or of the wrath of God kindled againſt man upon tranſgreſſion of the Law. But it is the Law that works wrath: it is aſcribed to it, and it alone, Rom. 4.15.
4. That which being removed will take away all poſſibility of ſinning, that is alone, the Rule of our obedience: This is plain; were there any Rule, the tranſgreſſion of it would be ſtill our ſin. But the Law being removed, all poſſibility of ſin is taken away: Where there is no Law, there is no tranſgreſſion, Rom. 4 15.
5. If the Law only adds ſtrength to ſin, viz. for condemnation, then the Law is the alone Rule of obedience: This is plain; Any other Rule whatſoever addes like ſtrength to ſin, and upon tranſgreſſion will condemne. But the Law only addes ſtrength to ſin, 1 Cor. 15.56. The ſtrength of ſin is the Law.
6. Either the epithite [morall] is not juſtly given to the Law, or elſe it is a perfect Rule of manners, that is, of obedience: This is plain; for morall denotes, as Ameſius obſerves, that uſe of it. But this epithite given to the Law, and appropriated to it, was never (as I think) upon any ſuch account challenged. Ergo.
7. Either this new Rule doth tranſcend the old Rule of the Morall Law, requiring a more exact degree of perfection (as Papiſts ſpeak of their Evangelicall counſels, & Socinians of their additionall Goſpell precepts) or elſe it falls ſhort and admits of obedience in a degree more low. If it require obedience more high, then even the doers of the Law, in the greateſt highth and poſſible ſuppoſed perfection; though equall to the Angels, are ſinners: The Law might be fulfilled, and yet diſobedience charged. If it fall ſhort of the old Rule (which it ſeems is your opinion, ſeeing you confeſſe an imperfection is our perſonall righteouſneſſe, as it refers to the old Rule; and aſſert a perfection, as it relates to the new Rule) then the new Rule allows that which the old Rule condemnes, and ſo you bring in a diſcrepency between them, and find an allowance for tranſgreſſion. So that I think, I have ſufficient authority, divine and humane, with reaſons that are cogent, to conclude that which I have aſſerted, That the old Rule, the Rule of the Moral Law, is a perfect Rule, and the only Rule.
You come in here with ſix ſeveral exceptions taken againſt the(a)Exceptions taken againſt the perfection of the Law. perfection of this Law, or ſingularity of it, as rule.
1. You demand, What ſay you for matter of duty to the poſitive (b)1. Exception.precepts for the Goſpel? of Baptiſm; the Lords day; the Officers and a government of the Church, &c? Is the Law of nature the only rule for theſe? And foreſeeing what I would anſwer, as well you might, you adde, If you ſay, they are reducible to the ſecond commandment, I demand, 1. What is the ſecond commandment, for the affirmative part, but a general precept to worſhip God, according to his poſitive inſtitution? 2. Do ye take the precept de genere to be equivalent to the precepts de ſpeciebus? &c. To this I think I may anſwer out of your own mouth. Aphor. pag. 149. The neglect of Sacraments is a breach of the ſecond commandment. In caſe we break the commandments in the neglect of them, then the commandment requires the obſervation of them. For which you may conſult alſo, Mr. Burges Vindiciae legis pag. 149. Balls Catechiſme, Ameſius his Sciographia, Dod on the Commandments, Downhams Tables, Zanchy, each of them on this Commandment; and Cawdry and Palmer on the Sabbath, Part. 2. Pag. 176. For further clearing of this point, we muſt conſider of the preceptive part of the Moral Law, which alone in this place, is our buſineſs to enquire after, 1. As it is epitomized in the Decalogue, thoſe ten words, as Moſes cals them, Exod. 34.28. or elſe, us commented upon, or more amply delivered in the whole Book of the Law, Prophets, and Scriptures of the New Teſtament. 2. We muſt diſtinguiſh of the manner how the Law preſcribes, or commands any thing as duty, which is either expreſly, or Synecdochically, either directly, or elſe interpretatively, virtually, and reductively; I very well know, that the Law is not in all particulars ſo explicitely, and expreſly delivered, but that, 1. The uſe and beſt improvement of Reaſon is required to know, what pro hic & nunc is called for at our hands for duty. The Law lays down rules in affirmative precepts, in an indefinite way, which we muſt bring home by particular application, diſcerning by general Scripture Rules, with the help of reaſon (which ſometimes is not ſo eaſie to be done) when it ſpeaks to us in a way of concernment, as to preſent practicall obſervation. 2. That hints of providence are to be obſerved, to know what in preſent is duty, as to the affirmative part of the commandments of God. If that man, that fell among theeves, between Jeruſalem and Jericho, had ſate by the way, on the green graſs, without an appearance of harm, or preſent need of help, the Samaritane that paſſed that way, had not offended, in caſe he had taken no more notice, then the Prieſt & Levite did: But diſcerning him in that caſe as he then was, the ſixt commandment called for that, which he then did, as a preſent office of love to his neighbour, according to the interpretation of this commandment given by our Saviour, Mark. 3.4. When the Phariſees watched him, whether he would heal the man with the withered hand on the Sabbath day, He demands of them, Is it lawful to do good on the Sabbath day, or to do evill, To ſave life, or to deſtroy? It was not their mind, that Chriſt ſhould kill the man, onelyonly they would not have had him then to have cur'd him: but not to cure, when it is in our power, according to Chriſt's interpretation, is to kill. If diligent obſervation be not then made, the commandment may be ſoon tranſgreſs'd. 3. Skill in Sciences, and profeſſions, is to be improved by men of skill, that the commandment may be kept. The Samaritane powred Wine and Oyl into the Samaritans wounds, knowing that to be of uſe, to ſupple and refreſh them: Had he known any other thing more ſoveraign, which might have been had, at hand, he was to have uſed it. As skill in Medicines is to be uſed for preſervation of mens lives, ſo alſo skill in the Laws, by thoſe that are vers'd in them, for the help of their neighbour, in exigents concerning his eſtate and livelihood. 4. We muſt liſten to Gods mouth, to learn when he ſhall be pleaſed at any time, further to manifeſt his mind, for the clearing of our way in any of his precepts. There was a command, concerning the place of publique, and ſolemn worſhip, Deut. 12.5. Ʋnto the place which the Lord your God ſhall chooſe out of all your tribes to put his name there, even to his habitation ſhall ye ſeek, and thither ſhalt thou come. Now they muſt depend on the mouth of God, to obſerve what place in any of the Tribes he would chooſe for his habitation. When God commands, that all inſtituted worſhip ſhall be according to his preſcript; this is a perfect Rule implicite, and virtual, tying us to heed the Lord at any time, more particularly diſcovering his will, and clearing this duty to us. Was not the Law of worſhip, perfect to Abraham, unleſs it explicitely told him that he muſt ſacrifice his Son? And if you take your ſelf to be ſo acute, as to ſet up a new Rule, as you are pleaſed to ſtile it, then you antiquate and aboliſh the old Rule, and ſingularly gratifie the Antinomian party. Two Rules will no more ſtand together then two Covenants: In that you ſay a new Rule, you make the firſt old: Now that which decayeth and waxeth old, is ready to vaniſh away, Heb. 8.13. You adde moreover, doth not the Scripture call Chriſt our Law-giver, and ſay, The Law ſhall go out of Zion, &c. Iſ. 2.3. And was not I pray you the old Law, (as you are pleaſed to call it) his? Saint Paul I am ſure quotes that which belongs to the preceptive part of the Moral Law, and calls it the Law of Chriſt, Gal. 6.2. His Laws were delivered in the wilderneſs, whom the people of Iſrael there tempted and provoked; This is plain, for they ſinn'd againſt their Law-giver, and from his hands they ſuffered. And who they tempted in the wilderneſs, ſee from the Apoſtles hand, 1 Cor. 10.9. And as to your Scripture, the words quoted are exegetically ſet down in thoſe that follow them. The Law ſhall go out of Zion, and the word of the Lord out of Jeruſalem: Which is no more, but that the name of the Lord, which was then known in Judah, ſhal be great from the riſing of the ſun, to the going down thereof. You further demand, And is he not the anointed King of the Church, and therefore hath legiſlative power? For anſwer, I deſire to know what King the Church had when the old Law was, before Chriſt came in the fleſh? the Kingdome was one & the ſame, & the King one and the ſame then, and now, as I take it. Many ſhall come from the Eaſt, & Weſt, & ſhall ſit down with Abrah. Iſaac and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. The Gentiles comming in at the Goſpel-call, are under the ſame King, and in the ſame Kingdome. And if all this were granted you for which you here plead, it is no more then a change in ſome poſitive, circumſtantial Rites, and what is this to our queſtion, That our righteouſneſſe, which is imperfect according to the old Rule, can be perfect according to the new? when old and new in that which is naturally Moral, is ever one and the ſame. When the Law required heart-ſervice, and love with the whole heart, upon ſpiritual ends and motives, upon which account all fell ſhort in their obedience, and performance, ſhall we ſay that Chriſt did diſpenſe with any of this? ſo the Rule being lower, our obedience now may anſwer. Others that make Moſes and Chriſt two diſtinct Law-givers and agents for God, in holding out diſtinct precepts, give the pre-eminence to Chriſt, and account his Law to be of more eminent perfection. You on the contrary ſeem to make the Laws of Chriſt to ſtoop far beneath thoſe of Moſes.
2. Exception.2. For Juſtification of your accuſation of the Moral Law of imperfection, you ſay, I think the Moral Law, taken either for the Law given to Adam, or written in tables of ſtone, is not a ſufficient Rule for us now, for believing in Jeſus Chriſt, no nor the ſame Law of nature as ſtill in force under Chriſt. For a generall command (ſay you) of believing all that God revealeth, is not the only Rule of our faith, but the particular revelation and precept are part, &c. To this I ſay,
1. As before, I think I may anſwer out of your own mouth, where you ſay, Neglect of Sacraments is a breach of the ſecond Commandement, and unbelief is a breach of the firſt. If we break the Commandement in unbelief, then the Commandement binds us to believe.
2. Much of that which I have ſpoke by way of anſwer to your former, may be applyed to this likewiſe.
3. I have already ſpoke to this, that faith is a duty of the Moral Law, Treat of the Covenant, Chap. 3. pag. 18, 19. To which I refer the Reader.
4. If Adam had no command for faith, then he was not in any capacity to believe, and by his fall loſt not power of believing: And conſequently it will not ſtand with the Juſtice of God to exact it at our hands, having never had power for the performance of it.
5. I ſay, there was power in Adam, for that faith that juſtified, but not to act for juſtification. Adam had that habit, and the Law calls for it, from all that are under the Command of it: But the Goſpel diſcovers the object by which a ſinner through faith is Juſtified.
3. The ſame anſwer may ſerve to your third objection,3. Exception. which indeed is the ſame with the former, only a great deal of flouriſhing is beſtowed, in diſcourſe of the underſtanding and will, paralleling them with the Prefaces, grounds and occaſions of Laws. And at laſt bringing all to the Articles of the Creed, to which enough allready is ſpoken.
4. You ſay, But what if all this had been left out, 4. Exception.and you had proved the Morall Law the only Rule of duty? doth it follow the…efore that it is the only Rule? Anſw. I take righteouſneſſe to be matter of duty, and then the only R…le of duty, is the only Rule of righteouſneſſe. You ſay further, Sure it is not the only Rule of rewarding. And I ſay, Rewarding is none of our work, but Gods, and I look for a Rule of that work which is ours, and that we are to make our buſineſs, I confeſs an imperfection in it to give life, but aſſert a perfection as th… Rule of our lives, It juſtifies no man, but it orders and regulates every juſtified man.
5. You ſay, The ſame I may ſay of the Rule of Puniſhment. 5 Exception.To which I give the ſame anſwer: It is not our work, bu Gods, either to reward or puniſh. And here you ſpeak of a part of the penalty of the new Law: And I know no penalty properly diſtinct from the penalty of the old. You were wont to compare it to an Act of Oblivion, and Acts of Oblivion are not wont to have their penalties. You inſtance in that of the Parable, None of them that were bidden ſhall taſt of the ſupper; when th… ſin for which they there ſuffer is a breach of a Morall Command.
6. You ſay, The principall thing that I intend is, 6. Exception.that the Morall Law is not the only Rule, what ſhall be the condition of Life or Death, and therefore not the only Rule according to which we mu…t now be denominated, and hereafter ſentenced, Juſt or Ʋnjuſt. To this I have already given a ſufficient anſwer, and if I had not, you anſwer fully for me, Aphor. p. 144 Theſ. 28. Where you ſay, The precepts of the Covenant, as meer precepts, muſt be diſtinguiſhed from the ſame precepts conſidered as conditions: upon performance of which we muſt live, or die for non-performance. And I ſpeak of them as meer precepts, and ſo they are our Rule of righteouſneſs, and not as they are conditions either of the Covenant of works or grace: And a man may be denominated righteous by the Laws Rule, when he cannot ſtand before the ſentence of it as a Covenant, of which we have heard ſufficient. After a long diſcourſe againſt all poſſibilitie of Juſtification by the Law of works (as though I were therein your adverſarie, or that the Antinomian fancy were above all anſwer, that a man cannot make the Law his Rule, but he makes it withall his Juſtification) you go about to prevent an objection and ſay, If you ſhould ſay, this is the Covenant and not the Law, you then tell me that you will reply, 1. Then the Law is not the only Rule. To which I ſay, When my work is to make it good, that the Law is our only Rule, I marvaile that you will ſo much as imagine that I will ſay that which makes it not the only Rule. But perhaps, you think I do not ſee, how it cannot follow, as indeed I do not, neither can I ſee any colour for it. 2. You reply, It is the ſame thing in ſeverall reſpects, that we call a Law and a Covenant (except you mean it of our Covenant-act to God, of which we ſpeak not) who knowes not that praemiare and punire are Acts of a Law? And that an Act of Obliviom or generall pardon on certain terms is a Law, and that the promiſe is the principall part of the Law of Grace. To which I ſay, that praemiare and punire are not eſſentiall in a Law. Some have power of command, ſo that their words in juſt things is to be a Law, where moſt deny any power of puniſhment; as an Husband over the Wife. Some Parents have Authority to command Children, (Children remaining under the obligation of the fifth Commandment as long as the relation of a Child continueth) when they have neither power to reward or puniſh. Jacob took himſelf to be in power to command Joſeph (among the reſt of his Sons, as appears in the charge that he gives concerning his buriall, Gen. 47.29, 30. and Chap. 49.29. So compared) and yet he was not in power either to reward or puniſh him. And though they be acts of a law where he that gives the Law is in power; Yet they are no parts of a Rule, nor any directiory of life to him to whom they are propoſed. I know that an Act of Oblivion or generall pardon may be called a Law, as many other things are, catachreſticè and abuſivè but that it ſhould be a Law properly ſo called, I know not. The Romanes defined a Law, whilſt that a Democratie was in force among them, to be, Generale juſſum populi aut plebis rogante magiſtratu. Afterwards, when the State was changed, and the Legiſlative power was in other hands, they defined it to be, Juſſum Regis aut Imperatoris. And Tullye's definition of a Law is, that it is, Ratio ſumma inſita in natura, quae recta ſuadet, prohibetque contraria. Here juſſio, ſuaſio, and prohibitio are expreſs'd, which are not found in Acts of Oblivion. That every man, who is within the verge of ſuch an Act, may be ſaid to be acquit by Law, I willingly grant; ſeeing that Act takes off the form of the Law force condemning him: But that it is a Law, ſtrictly ſo taken, I know not. You conclude, that you have now given ſome of your reaſons, why you preſumed to call that [Ignorance.] And I muſt preſume to acquaint you, that till I hear more of your reaſons, I ſhall remain in this, as Ignorant as ever.