Sermons Preached on Romans 8

CHAP. IX. Of the Laws inability to justify & save.

OUr Apostle here (Eagle-like) soar's aloft and rises up in his discourse to the most sublime truths of the Gospel. These two Verses set things before us so high and glorious, as may fill Heaven and Earth, Angels and Men with amazement and astonishment. Here's the whole Gospel summed up in a few words, contracted and brought into a narrow compass: here's in one view Man undone and Man recovered; the depths of the Creatures misery and the heights of God's Mercy, in a short abridgement. Here's God's sending his Son: which surely was the greatest thing that ever he did (it being the highest contrivance of his infinite Wisdom, and the highest product of his infinite Love ). Here's this Son sent in our flesh; the first and the great Mystery of the Gospel (for it comes in the front of the Gospel-Mysteries 1 Tim. 3.16.). Here's sin condemned and the Sinner acquitted; the Law represented as impossible for us to keep, yet fulfilled for us in a most strange and wonderful manner, as Christ hath done and suffered that for us which we were utterly unable to do and suffer ourselves. O the bredths, lengths, depths, heights of the Wisdom, Mercy, Justice, Holiness of God! for all these several Attributes in what is here set forth, do concur and shine forth in their greatest luster. Who can hear or read these two Verses (with due consideration), and not be in a divine transport and ecstacy? for the truth is, whatever is short of the most raised workings in the Soul, is too low for the glorious things here spoken of.

We must first inquire into their Coherence or Connection with what goes before. They are a further proof or confirmation of the main Proposition laid down in the first Verse, [there is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus]. That which might endanger as to Condemnation, was Sin: and there are two things in Sin to endanger about it, its Power and Guilt: therefore the Apostle shows, how such who are in Christ are freed from both of these. As to the taking away its Power, that is spoken to in the second Verse: The Law of the Spirit of Life, in Christ Jesus, hath made me free from the Law of Sin, &c. As to the taking away its Guilt, that he speaks to in these two Verses; [What the Law could not do, &c.] As if the Apostle had said, If anything could condemn God's people, it would be Sin; but that cannot, for tis condemned itself: Christ (or God by him) hath condemned Sin, and so the Sinner himself shall not be condemned by it, or for it. The guilt of Sin being expiated, and the Sinner made righteous upon the imputation of Christ's Obedience and Satisfaction, (which are the two things here asserted); surely there is, there can be no condemnation to those who have an interest in this Grace. And this I judge to be the chief scope and proper reference of the Words; which I will endeavor to clear up a little further.

The Believers Non-condemnation (as you have heard) is brought about, partly by Sanctification (in which the strength and dominion of Sin is broken), and partly by Justification (in which the guilt of Sin is done away and not imputed). The First of these, is done by the Spirit in the heart within, in the putting forth of his mighty power in the work of Regeneration; [the Law of the Spirit of Life, &c.] The Second, is done by the Son for the person without, in that Propitiatory Sacrifice which he offered up to God; upon which God is atoned, reconciled, satisfied, and so doth acquit the Sinner. Now the Apostle having spoken to that act which is proper to the Spirit ( Vers. 2.), he here expressly speaks to that which was proper to, and to be effected by the Son; [God sending his Son in the, &c.] And he speaks of condemning sin for sin, (that is) for Christ 's being a Sacrifice for Sin; and therefore this must properly and strictly refer to Justification, rather than to Sanctification. Yet I would not be too nice, for as (in a large sense) the Law of sin in the foregoing Verse, may point to the guilt as well as to the power of sin; so here (in a large sense too), the condemning of sin may point to the abolishing of the power, as well as to the expiating of the guilt of sin. Expositors take in both, and I would not straighten the Words more than needs, (though yet I conceive, in their main and primary intendment they refer to what is done in Justification ). The Apostles Argument then stands thus, To them for whom God sent his Son (all other ways being impossible ), for sin to condemn sin, and in their stead to fulfil the righteousness of the Law, to them there is no Condemnation: But for Believers and such who are in Christ, God upon these terms sent his Son; therefore to them there is no Condemnation. I shall follow those Interpreters who make the main Scope and drift of the words to lie in this.

I know there are Several who go another way; they making the Words to be rather the further explication or continuation of that Matter which is laid down in the Second Verse. The Saints are made free from the law of sin and death, how is that brought about? why thus, God sent his Son into the World, by whom he is reconciled to them; being reconciled, upon this he hath taken away from Sin that commanding power that it had before, abolished its strength, devested it of its former dominion and regency; and this they make to be the condemning of sin in the Text. Well! I will not now object anything against this Interpetation; (hereafter I shall speak more to it, when I come to the more particular opening of the Clause, And for sin condemned sin ); only at present give me leave to prefer the former.

Let us now consider the Words in themselves. As to their general Sense and Meaning, 'tis plainly this (though somewhat more darkly expressed), What the Law (it standing in such circumstances) could not do, for the guilty, undone Sinner, that God through Christ hath fully done for him: this is that plain Truth which they resolve themselves into.

I find some considerable difference amongst Expositors in the Reading of them. Some, would have a Word inserted, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , fecit, praestitit; thus, What the Law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God [did], he sending his own Son &c. They conceive, with the addition of this one Word the sense would be more clear, and the words would run much more smooth: but Others will not admit of this addition.

Some again would have the Conjunctive particle [ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and ] and for sin, &c. to be expung'd; apprehending that it makes the Words to be more obscure. They would have us read them thus, [ what the Law, &c. God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, for sin condemned sin in the flesh ]. But this too is not approved of, for Calvin lays a great stress upon that particle, as heightening the matter spoken of: [and for sin] 'tis as much as Yea or Even for sin condemned sin, &c. 'It is not a Pleonasm or superfluous word, but 'tis particula intensiva, to show the greatness and strangeness of the thing spoken of. 'It is not omitted by any of the Greek Scholiasts; and I see no reason why we should put it out.

Tolet would solve all

• 1st. by adding some illative word, as ideo, igitur, &c.
• 2dly. by turning the Participle [sending] into the Verb [sent];

(of which hereafter).

Take the Words in the gross (as I am now considering of them), I think our Translators render them very well; and there will be no necessity either to add to them, or to take from them. Only 'tis necessary that you make this Variation or Addition; whereas 'tis said [and for sin condemned sin], read [and by a Sin-offering or Sacrifice for Sin, condemned Sin]. And so they will run thus, For what the Law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending (or sent) his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and [by a Sacrifice] for Sin condemned Sin in the flesh: That the righteousness, &c.

There are great difficulties in their several branches and parts; but they shall be opened as I go over them in their order.

If you take them in pieces, you have these Five things in them;

• 1. 'It is here implied, That something was to be done in order to the Recovery, Justification, Salvation of the lost Sinner
• 2. Here's an express assertion of the weakness, inability of the Law, to do what was to be done; with the true cause of that inability of the Law: [What the Law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh].
• 3. The Way and Method which the wise and gracious God took upon this, that He might effectually do that which the Law could not de: [He sent his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh].
• 4. The double Effect produced by this, or the double End and design of God in this sending of his Son: [for sin he condemned sin in the flesh; That the righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled].
• 5. The description of the persons who have an interest in all this Grace: [who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit].

We have in the whole, a Complication of the several Causes of the Sinner's Justification and Redemption. Here's the Deficient Cause [the Law ]; Here's the Principal Efficient Cause [God the Father]; here's the Subordinate Agent (I mean with respect to the Father ) or the Meritorious Cause, [Christ the Son]; the Formal and also the Material Cause, [for sin condemning sin in the flesh]; the Final Cause, the Finis 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 [that the Righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled], and the Finis 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 [in us, who walk not after the flesh, but &c.] Here I bring in the Words [for sin condemned sin] under another Head of Causes than that laid down but now in the division of the words; but that I may do well enough, because they will bear diverse causal respects.

I begin with the Causa deficiens; which comes in also as the Procatartick or impulsive Cause, as that which moved God to send his Son, (viz.) the weakness and impotency of the Law to help the lost Sinner.

For what the Law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh]. Here observe,

• 1. The thing spoken of, [the Law].
• 2. That which is asserted concerning this Law, [it could not do].
• 3. The ground or reason of this its inability to do, [in that it was weak].
• 4. The assignation of the true Cause of its weakness, (viz.) the flesh; [in that it was weak through the flesh]: it could not do because it was weak, and it was weak because of the Flesh.

I will a little insist upon the Literal Explication of this Branch, and then come to the matter contained in it.

[For what the Law could not do] : In the Greek 'tis 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; which, if you render word for word, runs thus, For the impossible of the Law, or the invalid of the Law, (so Tertullian renders it). The Sense and meaning of the expression is plain enough; our Translation gives us that very well, What the Law could not do: but the form and manner of it in the Original (especially when 'tis turned into our language), is somewhat harsh and unusual.

Interpreters, for the opening of the Phrase and the clearing up of the connection of the matter, do several ways Comment upon the Words. Some bring in this first Paragraph under a Parenthesis; but that signifies but little one way or another. Some, would read it absolutely, and change the Nominative Case into the Genitive, (the Greeks using that Case as the Latins do the Ablative in that form of expression); thus, for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , they turn it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Law being unable, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sent, &c. Some, take it in the Accusative Case, and put in the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; the impossible part of the Law God performed or made good by the sending of Christ. Some, change the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , putting in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ); what was the impossible of the Law (or to the Law) that God supplied by the sending of his Son: (this comes nearest to our Translation ). Some, make the impossible Legis to be taken Substantive, for impossibilitas implendae Legis; which impossibility of fulfilling the Law proceeded from hence, because the Law was weak through the flesh. Some tell us, the Words are an Atticism, and they make a double Atticism in them; 'tis first 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and then 'tis 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Then the sense of them runs thus; For the impotency and inability (or because of the impotency and inability of the Law), therefore God sent his Son. The Ancient Versions bring it in with a Since or Because; Since there was an utter impossibility or inability in the Law to justify or recover lost man, therefore God pitched upon another way, (viz.) the Incarnation, Obedience, Satisfaction of his own Son. I thought it not amiss, to put down these several Explications and Readings of the Words, for the satisfaction of more inquisitive persons concerning the Expression itself, and the Coherence of the Matter: but as to the plain Sense, that our Translators (as I said before) give us very well; For what the Law could not do, (or because of the Laws inability to do ), in that it was weak through the flesh, therefore God sent his Son, &c.

I pass from the Letter of the Words to the Matter contained in them; and that may be summed up in these Two Propositions:

• 1. There was something to be done by and for the Sinner, which the Law could not do: it was under an impossibility of doing it.
• 2. Therefore the Law could not thus do, because it was weak through the flesh.

For the better understanding of which Propositions, it will be necessary to resolve these Four Questions:

• 1. Of what Law doth the Apostle here speak?
• 2. What was the [ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ], that which the Law could not do?
• 3. How is the Law said to be weak?
• 4. What is meant by the [Flesh] from which the Laws weakness proceeds?

First, Of what Law doth the Apostle here speak, when he saith What the Law could not do?

I answer, Of God's own Law, and that too in its strict and proper acceptation. For the Word [Law] is taken sometimes in an improper, allusive, Metaphorical notion; as in the Verse foregoing, where you read of the Law of the Spirit and of the Law of Sin, (which is nothing but the power and commanding efficacy of the Spirit and of Sin ). But here in this Verse 'tis to be taken in the strict and proper notion of a Law; (viz.) as it notes that declaration or revelation which God (the great Law-giver) hath made of his Will, therein binding and obliging the reasonable creature to duty. I know Some understand the Law here of that Law of the Mind spoken of Chap. 7.23; which lies in strong propensions, efficacious and commanding impulsions to what is holy and good, springing from the Sanctifi'd nature in regenerate persons: But I conceive this interpretation is not so genuine, nor so well suiting with the Apostles Scope in the words; where he is treating not of the Law which is in some persons, but of the Law which is imposed upon all; of that Law the righteousness of which was to be fulfilled (as it follows Vers. 4.): and therefore it must be understood of God's own Law, that being it which Christ was to fulfil and satisfy, and not any other Law.

Since then the Words point to the Law of God, we must bring the Question into a narrower compass; and inquire What Law of God is here spoken of? For answer to which (that I may as much as I can avoid unnecessary excursions), I shall only say this; That 'tis either that Primitive Law which God imposed upon Adam (and in him upon all mankind ), upon the keeping of which he promised Life, upon the breaking of which he threatened death, (it being the Summary of the Covenant of Works ): Or else, 'tis that Law which God gave the people of Israel from Mount Sinai, namely the Decalogue or Moral Law. Which Law was but a new draught of the Law first made with Adam; for that being by his Fall much defaced, nay almost quite obliterated (as it was written in his heart ), it pleased the Lord to copy it out again and to write it afresh (in Tables of Stone ) in fair and legible Characters. And this too was a Scheme or Transcript and Summary of the Covenant of Works, first made with Adam, (though it was not given to the people of Israel purely and absolutely as the Covenant of Works, for in reference to its end and design there was much in it of the Covenant of Grace ). For Matter and Substance they were both but one and the same Law; the Terms and Conditions of both were the same, Do and Live: but there were certain appendixes of Grace to the Moral Law, which were not in that made with Adam in the state of innocence (as is fully made out by several Writers upon the Covenant); so that it was a mixed thing, there being something in it of the Covenant of Works, and something also of the Covenant of Grace. Now the Law considered as first given to Adam, and then as renewed to the people of Israel, so far as in both it was the Covenant of Works, is the Law here spoken of; as being concluded under an impossibility of doing what was requisite to be done. 'Twas not the Ceremonial Law which the Apostle here had in his eye, but the Moral Law itself: which (if it was necessary) might be evinced by several Considerations; but this one is enough, he speaks of that Law the righteousness of which was to be fulfilled in Believers, (For Law in the 3 verse must be expounded by Law in the 4 verse ); now 'tis the righteousness of the Moral Law which is fulfilled in us; Ergo. 'It is very true, Paul insisting upon the Laws weakness doth sometimes direct his discourse to the Ceremonial, and sometimes to the Moral Law; and it would be of great use to us to understand his Epistles, if we could exactly hit upon the true notion of that Law of which he occasionally speaks: but undoubtedly here 'twas the Moral Law (as the Covenant of Works ), of which he affirmeth that it could not do &c. Let this suffice for answer to the First Question.

The Second is, What doth this impossible of the Law refer to? or what is the thing in Special which the Law could not do?

To this 'tis answered several ways: You read ( verse. 1.) of exemption from condemnation, now this the Law could not do: the Law (in separation from Christ and especially in opposition to Christ) can condemn millions, but it cannot save one person from condemnation; (thus Some do open it). You read ( verse. 2.) of being made free from the Law of sin and death; herein too was the Law impotent, it might lay some restraints upon sin but it could never bring down the power of Sin: ( Some apply it to this). There is the blessed empire or regency of the Spirit over the Flesh, as also the full and perfect obeying of the Laws commands: neither of these could the Law effect; (so Cajetaine opens it). There is the amendment and reformation of the life and manners: this the Law could not do; (this explication Some six upon). The Text speaks of the condemning of sin: this the Law could not do, it can condemn the Sinner but it cannot (in a way of expiation ) condemn sin itself; (So De Dieu paraphraseth upon it). Musculus puts many things together; What is it (saith he) that was impossible to the Law? he answers, to abolish sin, to make righteous, to free from the Law of Sin and Death, to give that the righteousness which it taught and exacted, should be fulfilled in us.

All these several explications are very true; but further, there's the reconciling of God and the Sinner, the atoning and propitiating of an incensed God, the satisfying of infinite justice, the paying of vast debts contracted, the justifying of the guilty, the giving of a right and title to Heaven, (with many other such-like great things). Now the Law was under an impossibility of doing or effecting any of these; insomuch that God must send his Son, or no justification, no reconciliation, no atonement, no satisfaction, no payment, no pardon, no righteousness, no salvation: (which will be by and by particularly made out, in the two most eminent branches of the Laws impotency. )

I must mind you, that I am in all this speaking of the Moral Law: The inability of the Ceremonial Law (abstracted from Christ, who was the pith and marrow, and who put energy and efficacy into all the types, rites, shadows of that Law), I say, its inability to do anything (further than to point or direct and lead to Christ), is easily granted. 'It is the very thing which the Apostle largely insists upon the proof of, in his excellent Epistle to the Hebrews: Chap. 7.18, 19. For there is verily a disannulling of the Commandment going before, for [the weakness] and unprofitableness thereof; for the Law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did, by the which we draw nigh unto God. Heb. 9.9. Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that [could not] make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience. So Heb. 10.1. For the Law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, [can never] with those Sacrifices which they offered year by year continually, make the comers thereunto perfect: ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , here's a total negation of the power of the Ceremonial Law ). And that Law had its 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 also, for the Apostle adds ( verse. 4.), it is not possible [ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ] that the blood of Bulls and Goats should take away sins: thus it was with that Law (of which 'tis very clear Paul speaks in these places). And it was but little better with the Moral Law itself (though that was a far higher and better Law); even this was and is as weak as the former. This very Law which is so much for doing, which requires and commands the creature to be so much in doing, itself can do little or nothing. The lost Sinner hath great things to be done by him and for him; but in all these, the Moral Law (though God's own Law and an excellent Law ) cannot (without Christ) give the least help or assistance to him.

The Third Enquiry is, What is the weakness of the Law here spoken of?

The word is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which is used to set forth any debility or weakness whether it be natural or praeternatural, (as being occasioned by some bodily disease or distemper, (in which Sense 'tis often used in the New Testament ). 'It is applied here to the Law; and 'tis brought in as the ground of its 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 before mentioned. Else where the Apostle uses it, he speaks of the [ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ] the weakness of the Commandment, Heb. 7.18. And speaking of the ordinances, rites, injunctions of the Ceremonial Law, he calls them [ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ] weak and beggarly elements, Gal. 4.9. Here in the Text an higher Law was in his eye, and yet he attributes weakness to it also: it could not do because it was weak, and it was weak because it could not do, (for these two do reciprocally open and prove each the other).

And let me add, that this weakness of the Law is not gradual or partial but total: 'tis not the having of a lesser strength but 'tis the negation of all strength; 'tis so weak, that it hath no power at all to accomplish what is here intended. The Apostle carries it up to an impossibility: he doth not say, it was somewhat hard or difficult for the Law to do thus and thus, or that it could do something though but imperfectly; but he says this was impossible to it as being utterly above its power and ability. A man that is weak may do something, though he cannot do it vigorously, exactly, and thoroughly: but now (as to Justification and Salvation ) the Law (considered in its self) is so weak, that it can do nothing; it cannot have the least influence into these effects (further than as God is pleased to make use of it in a preparatory or directive manner). Its weakness as to the great things of the Gospel, is like the weakness of the body when 'tis dead; 1 Cor.15.43. It is sown in weakness [ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 'tis the same word with that in the Text concerning the Law ], it is raised in power: a dead body is so weak that it cannot put forth one vital act; it may be weak in part whilst it lives, but when 'tis dead it lies under a total weakness: Such is the weakness or impotency of the Law, in reference to the taking away of guilt and the making of a person righteous before God.

Fourthly, It will be query'd What the Flesh is here by which the Law is made thus weak?

The word [Flesh] occurs thrice in this Verse, &c. in that it was weak through the Flesh, God sent his Son in the likeness of sinful Flesh, and for sin condemned sin in the Flesh: As 'tis used in the first place, it carries in it a very different sense from what it doth in the two following places; (and tis not unusual in holy Writ, for one and the same Word in one and the same Verse to be taken in different senses; as you may see Matth. 26.29. Matth. 8.22.) When 'tis said the Law was weak through the Flesh, here Flesh is taken Morally for the corrupt nature in man: but when 'tis said, God sent his Son in the likeness of sinful Flesh (and so on), there Flesh is taken Physically for the human nature of Christ. But to come to the business in hand! The Law was weak [through the Flesh]: By this Flesh the Manichees of old understood the very being and substance of Flesh; that which constitutes the body in man: but this interpretation is rejected by all. Origen (with some others) expounds it of the Ceremonial Law, with respect to the gross and literal sense and meaning of that Law: Now 'tis true (as hath been already observed), that that Law may be styled Flesh because it lay very much in fleshly things; 'tis called the Law of a carnal commandment, Heb. 7.16; it stood only in meats, and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed till the time of reformation, Heb. 9.10. And 'tis also most true, that they who looked no further than the fleshly part the letter of that Law, who did haerere in cortice and only rodere literarum ossa (as the Jews did); to them it must needs be weak, and unable to bring about any Evangelical and saving good. But this is not the Law (as you have heard) which the Apostle here doth mainly intend: Beza is very sharp against Origen for this his exposition of the flesh. Cajetaine interprets it of the Carnal state of the Jews under the Law; they being in that state by means thereof to them the Law was weak: But (as to this explication) our learned Annotator well observes, that Flesh here is not so properly the State of men under the Law, as that which is the means by which occasionally the Law became weak and unable to restrain men, (viz.) the carnal or fleshly appetite which is so contrary to the proposals of the Law; therefore he expounds it by that: (and Grotius before him went the same way). The fullest and best interpretation of this Flesh and that which is most generally followed, is this; 'tis the corrupt, sinful depraved nature that is in fallen man: O this is that which puts such a weakness and inability upon the Law, to help and recover the undone Sinner! 'tis by this that the Law is so enfeebled and debilitated as to its production of any spiritual or saving effects. The Apostle lays it upon this, the Law could not do [in that] it was weak through the flesh, (that is) because it was weak through the Flesh: For the [ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ] is Causal; therefore 'tis usually rendered here by quia, quoniam, quandoquidem, eo quod &c. And so it is in other places, as Heb. 2.18. For [in that] he himself hath suffered [ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , because he hath suffered ], being tempted he is able to succor them that are tempted: 'tis as much as the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Rom. 5.12. Sometimes indeed 'tis only expressive of such a time or state or condition; as Mar. 2.19. Can the children of the Bride-chamber fast while the Bridegroom is with them? ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ): Sometimes again 'tis rendered by [whereas], as 1 Pet. 2.12. 1 Pet. 3.16; but here in the Text 'tis taken causally.

Let it then be observed, that the weakness. of the Law is not properly inherent or from the Law itself, only 'tis adventitious, accidental, and from the state and condition of the Subject with whom it hath to do. 'It is the wickedness. of man's Nature which is the sole cause of the Law's weakness. If Man was the same now that at first he was, the Law would be the same too now that at first it was; and have the same power and ability that then it had; but he being fallen now the Law is weak'ned. 'It is not (I say) from any intrinsic defect or weakness in the Law, but only because it meets with a Subject in which there is Flesh, a depraved nature; and so it cannot do that which before it did when the Nature was holy and good. When Man was in the state of innocence, the Law ( Sampson like) was in its full strength and could do whatever was proper to it; yea, (as to itself ) it is able yet to do the same; but the case with us is altered: we cannot now fulfil this Law nor come up to what it requires of us, and therefore 'tis weak. True, the Apostle lays it upon the weakness of the Law, he saith it was weak; but then he tells you what was the ground of that weakness, namely our Fesh. The Law is only weak to us because we are weak to it: the strongest Sword in a weak hand can do but little execution; the brightest Sun cannot give light to a blind eye, (not from any impotency in itself; but merely from the incapacity of the Subject ): and that's the case in the Law's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 with respect to the Sinner. Pray observe, the Law strengthens Sin and Sin weakens the Law: 1 Cor. 15.56. The strength of Sin is the Law; (viz.) as the Law gives it a killing and condemning power, and as (through man's corruption) it makes Sin to be more active, impetuous and boisterous; thus Sin is strengthened by the Law: But then the weakness of the Law is Sin, for because of that it cannot now do what formerly it could.

Thus I have answered the Four Questions propounded; under which I have cleared up the Words, and also (in part) the Matter contained in them. Which being done, I might from the whole raise this Observation, That the Law, yea the Moral Law itself, though it was an excellent Law, the Law of God's own making, and designed by him for high and excellent ends; yet it having now to do with fallen man, with Sinners that have Flesh (a corrupt nature) in them, it is become weak and altogether unable to justify and save.

I must not enter upon any large prosecution of this Point; yet let me speak something to it, both to fill up what I have hitherto but just touched upon, and also to supply what as yet I have said nothing to. There are but Two Things which I would further open:

• 1. The Special Matter of the Laws weakness.
• 2. The Grounds or Demonstrations of the Laws weakness.

For the First the Special Matter of the Laws weakness, that will be cleared up

1. With respect to Justification.

2. With respect to Salvation and Eternal Life. What the Law could not do in that it was weak: what was the thing particularly which the Law could not do? what did its weakness especially refer to? Answ. The Scripture mainly fixes it upon these Two things, it could not justify, it could not eternally save. There are indeed many other things (some of which have been already hinted) which the Law could not do; but these two are most usually instanced in in the Word when it speaks of or would set forth the Laws weakness.

1. The Law (upon its terms of doing and working ) ever since man's Fall always was, and yet is, unable to justify: it may possibly attempt such a thing (or rather the Sinner may look for such a thing from it), but it cannot carry it on to any good issue. This (I conceive) Paul's thoughts were in special upon, when he says what the Law could not do: For 'tis the Sinners justification which he in this place is discoursing of; and he first begins with the Law as being impotent and insufficient to accomplish this justification. God by Christ condemned sin (i. e. he abolished and cut off Sins Guilt ), and by him he brought about a righteousness for the Sinner; but the doing of this by the Law was a thing altogether impossible: that could not make the Creature to cease to be guilty or to become righteous. The proving of this truth was elsewhere his main business: as namely in the 3d, 4th, 5th Chapters of this Epistle, where he doth professedly and largely insist upon it. That one place is a sufficient proof of it, Chapt. 3.20. Therefore by the deeds of the Law, there shall no flesh be justified in his sight; for by the Law is the knowledge of Sin. He pursues the same Argument in his Epistle to the Galatians, where he goes over it again and again. Gal. 2.16, 21. Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the Law: for by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified. I do not frustrate the Grace of God: for if righteousness come by the Law, then Christ is dead in vain. Gal. 3.11, 21, 22. But that no man is justified by the Law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.—Is the Law then against the promises of God? God forbid.! for if there had been a Law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the Law. But the Scripture hath concluded all under Sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ, might be given to them that believe. So also in his Sermon at Antioch, Acts 13.39. By him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the Law of Moses. How full and positive are the Scriptures in the denial of any power to the Law to justify! It can discover Sin, accuse and judge for Sin, but it cannot expiate Sin or make a man righteous before God. There is indeed the righteousness of the Law, and (upon that) righteousness by the Law; but that now is altogether unattainable further than as 'tis brought about and accomplished in the hands of Christ; the Law in Christ's hands can do great things, but in ours it can do nothing.

So also the Law is weak in reference to Eternal life. It could not do (i. e.) it could not save; it never yet (as separated from Christ) carried one Sinner to Heaven: 'tis above the ability of the Law to save one. Soul. Consider it as the Covenant of works so its language is Do and Live, Rom. 10.5. For Moses describeth the righteousness of the Law, that the man which doth these things shall live by them: Now man in his lapsed state cannot do according to the Laws demands, therefore by it there's no Life for him. Had he continued in the state of innocence: he had been able to have done all which the Law required, and so would have attained Life by it in the way of doing; but now the case is altered. If Salvation depended upon the Creatures perfect and personal obedience not a man would be saved. There must indeed be Obedience to the Law or no Salvation; but should it be that very Obedience which the Law calls for, and as the Law calls for it (viz.) as the condition of the first Covenant, this would make salvation absolutely impossible. You know, Moses brought Israel to the borders of the Holy Land but Joshua must lead them into it: so the Law (as God uses it in subserviency to the Gospel ), may do something toward the saving of a poor creature; but 'tis the alone Merit and Obedience of the Lord Jesus (applied by Faith), which must put the Sinner into the possession of the Heavenly Rest. That which now saves, is Christ not Moses, the Gospel not the Law, believing not doing, (I mean only in the old Covenant sense ). So much for the Matter of the Laws impotency.

Secondly: Let me give you the Grounds, or (if you will) the Demonstrations of the Laws impotency and weakness to justify and save: He instance in Three.

1. It requires that which the Creature cannot perform. Before the Law do any great thing for a person it must first be exactly fulfilled; for that's its way, the terms and condition which it stands upon: and 'tis as high in these terms now as ever it was, for though man hath lost his power, the Law hath not lost its rigor; it doth not sink or fall in its demands because of man's inability to answer them. Though the Sinner be as the poor broken debtor, utterly undone, yet the Law will not compound with him or abate him anything, but 'twill have full payment of the whole debt. Now this in statu lapso (as I shall show when I come to the 4th verse ) is impossible: None (but such an one as Christ) could thus answer the Laws demands. For nothing will serve it below perfection: inherent righteousness, actual obedience, all must be perfect or else the Law despises them. The Gospel accepts of Sincerity but the Law will 'bate nothing of perfection; if there be but the least failure, all is spoiled. Gal. 3.10. For as many as are of the works of the Law, are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is everyone that continueth not [in all things] which are written in the book of the Law to do them. Jam. 2.1 • . For who, soever shall keep the whole Law, and yet offend [in one point] he is guilty of all. —And is it thus? are these the terms and demands of the Law? what then can it do? (or rather what can we do )? it must needs be weak to us Because (in these rigors ) we are so weak to it; it cannot do much for us because we can do but little to it; it cannot do what we desire because we cannot do what it demands. O how exceeding short do the best come of the high measures of the Law! Who can say, I have made my heart clean, I am pure from my sin? In many things we offend all. There is not a just man upon earth that doth good, and sinneth not: Our very righteousness is as a polluted rag: How should man be just with God? If he will contend with him, he cannot answer him one of a thousand: If I justify myself, mine own mouth shall condemn me, if I say I am perfect, it shall also prove me perverse. (See Job 15.14, 15, 16. Job 25.4, 5, 6.) If thou Lord shouldst mark iniquities, O Lord, who shall stand? Enter not into judgment with thy servant; for in thy sight shall no man living be justified.

2. The Law doth not give what the Creature needs: it asks above his strength and gives below his want. He must have Grace, Sanctification, Holiness, &c. but will the Law help him to these? no! 'tis high in the commanding of them but that's all, it doth not work them in the soul; it asks very high but gives very low. 'It is holy itself but it cannot make others holy; it can discover sin but it cannot mortify sin (as the glass discovers the spots and blemishes in the face; but doth not remove them). The Law is a killing thing, but 'tis of the Sinner not of the Sin: it hath by accident, by reason of the Flesh here spoken of a quite other effect; for it doth rather enliven, increase, and irritate sin, (as Water meeting with opposition grows the more fierce and violent; and the Disease the more 'tis checked by the medicine the more it rages ). Paul found in himself this sad effect of the Law, Rom. 7.8. But sin taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence: for without the Law sin was dead. Moreover, the Law calls for duty but it gives no strength for the performance of it, ( Pharaoh -like who exacted brick but allowed no straw ). The Gospel helps where it commands, the Law commands but helps not: Lex jubet, Evangelium juvat; (remember I still speak of the Law as it stands in opposition to the Gospel, and as 'tis the matter and transcript of the first Covenant ). It neither pardons what it forbids, for doth it enable to do what it enjoins; and much of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 impotency of the Law lies in these two things. Take a particular instance, great is the Sinners need of Faith; for without this, no justification, no peace with God, no heaven; 'tis the Gospel-condition on which all depends. Now the Law knows nothing of this Faith; nay, 'tis diametrically opposite to it, 'tis so far from working it that it hinders it to its utmost. 'It is all for working, for doing; Gal. 3.12. And the Law is not of Faith: but the man that doth them shall live in them. Believing belongs only to the Gospel; therefore that is styled the Law of Works, and this the Law of Faith, Rom. 3.27. If Faith come under the Law, 'tis only that Faith which is a General Faith, or as 'tis a part of Obedience, not as the Condition of Gospel-grace. The Law therefore not helping as to these things (so indispensably necessary for Grace here and hereafter), what can it do for the lost Sinner?

3dly. The Law could not do, because it could not heal that breach which Sin had made betwixt God and the Sinner. It still looks forwards, and is always calling for perfect Obedience; but what if Sin hath been committed for the time past? O there the Law is weak! It can make no reparation for what is past; as to that, all it says to the guilty person is (as they to Judas ) what is that to me? see thou to that. Suppose the Sinner could for the future come up to a full conformity to the Law and in everything answer its highest commands, Suppose him now to arrive at such a pitch of perfection that he should do nothing which this Law forbids, and do everything which this Law commands: yet (supposing the Fall from God and the Guilt thereby contracted, or any one sin committed), the Law would be weak and the creature could not thereby be justified; the reason is, because here is now reparation and satisfaction to be made for what is past, which to make is impossible to the Law. This perfect Obedience (present and future) might do the work was it not for what is past; but guilt hath been contracted, God hath been offended, his first Covenant violated; therefore there must be reparation made to him for this. Now this the Law cannot do nor the Creature upon the terms of the Law; for all that he can arrive at is but perfect obedience and that is his duty; he's under an obligation to it and therefore by it he can make no satisfaction for what is past: this is but the paying of the present debt which can quit nothing of the former score. This is very well if we look forward but what becomes of us when we look backward? So that the Apostle did very deservedly thus speak of the Law, what the Law could not do, &c. So much for the opening of the matter held forth in these Words; let me close this Head with some Application.

First, Here's matter of deep humiliation to us. How should we lament that sinful Nature, that Flesh which is in all of us! we all come into the world under a sad and woeful depravation of nature: Well! suppose we do, what of this? O this should bitterly be bewailed by us because by reason of this the Law is weak; that it cannot do that for us which otherwise it could and would have done. As we were created at the first before our Nature was corrupted, we were strong to the Law and the Law strong to us; we could fulfil its highest demands and it could fulfil our highest desires; we were able to keep it and it was able to save us; its perfect righteousness was not above us and we had been righteous in that righteousness. But now 'tis far otherwise; Sin hath got into us, our Natures are now depraved and vitiated, insomuch that even from this Law itself we can look for nothing: 'tis upon our degeneracy weak'ned to us to all intents and purposes; and is not this sad? O that there should be such Natures in us as even to debilitate and weaken God's own blessed Law! And would to God the sad effects of the Flesh in us staid here! but it goes further: it doth not only bring a weakness upon the Law but upon the Gospel too. The Gospel itself (the new and remedial Law ) though it be the power of God, yet it would be altogether ineffectual to our justification and salvation, if God did not accompany it with a mighty power. It tenders and holds forth that in Christ which is every way sufficient for these great things; yet we should be never the better for it, this too could not do, if God (in spite of all opposition from our cursed Natures) did not over-pour us to believe, to close with Christ, to accept of restoring Grace in the way of the Gospel. Truly if God should leave us to ourselves, and should not rescue us from the power of Natural corruption, neither Law nor Gospel could do our work; notwithstanding both we should perish forever. Should not this be greatly bewailed and lamented by us? that Sin should be sor rooted in our Nature and have such a strength in us, as that it should be too hard both for Law and Gospel, and bring both under an inability to do us good?

And is it so? I might then from hence infer, that certainly in the fallen Creature the power of Nature is very low, nay, that (with respect to the keeping and fulfilling of the Law ) 'tis quite lost. Pelagius of old (with whom Some in latter ages do almost concur, only they put a better varnish upon their Opinions) held, that though Nature by the Fall is somewhat weakened and impaired in its strength, yet still it can do great things; yea, (especially with some ordinary assistance) it may enable a man to fulfil the Law of God. Now against this the Argument in the Text is considerable: is the Law weak and yet is the Sinner strong? is that under an impossibility and yet is (this and that) possible to the creature? The Flesh is but extraneous to the Law and yet by reason of that it cannot do; but 'tis inherent in the Sinner and yet he can do, what more absurd! Especially it being considered, that the Laws weakness is not attributed to it in respect of itself, but only in respect of us; so that if we now could perfectly obey, perform, keep the Law, its 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 would then cease; and if so, why was Christ sent? (but no more of this).

Secondly, 'It is necessary that I should vindicate the honor of the Law, and obviate those mistakes and bad inferences which some possibly may run upon from what hath been spoken. Three things therefore let me say to you:

1: Notwithstanding this weakness of the Law, yet keep up high thoughts of it and give it that honor and reverence which is due to it.

'It is weak indeed, but yet remember whose Law it is; as also what an excellent Law it is in itself: 'tis a perfect draught or model and delineation of Original righteousness, 'tis the measure, standard, test of that purity and perfection which man would have had in the state of innocence; yea, 'tis the copy, transcript, exemplar of God's own holiness, (for God framed and modelled this Law according to his own purity and sanctity). And let us be what we will, still the Law (in itself) is all this and the same that ever it was (though we be not so). And therefore we should adore and reverence and magnify it, though now to us accidentally it be thus weak.

But doth not this weakness reflect disparagement and dishonor upon the Law? Answ. No, not in the least. Two things will sufficiently vindicate it as to any such reflections: 1. The Apostle only says of it that 'twas weak: he chargeth nothing upon it but only weakness. He doth not say that 'twas any way impure or unholy or unrighteous, (he affirms the contrary The Law is holy, and just and good ); only he saith 'twas weak. This the Greek Expositors take notice of and from it apologize for the Law.

2. 'It is weak, but how comes it to be so? why, through our Flesh: 'tis not so in and from itself but only through our depraved nature; 'tis merely by accident et aliunde that it lies under this impotency. The Law is not to be blamed but we: had not we finn'd, the Law would have been still as able and mighty in its operations as ever it was; did it but meet with the same subject, it would soon appear that it hath the same power which it had before Adam fell: So that (I say) the Law is not at all in the fault, but only we because of the Flesh. Observe here the wisdom and care of our Apostle, where-ever he seems to tax the Law there he will be sure to vindicate it: As where he speaks of its irritating of corruption, he there lays the blame upon his own wicked nature, not at all upon the holy Law: Rom. 7.8, 9, 10, 11. Sin taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence: for without the Law sin was dead. For I was alive without the Law once, but when the commandment came Sin revived, and I died. And the commandment which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. For Sin taking occasion by the commandment deceived me, and by it slew me. Yet verse. 12, 13, 14. The Law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good: Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid! But Sin that it might appear Sin, working death in me by that which is good, that Sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful. For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am carnal sold under sin. And thus we should carry it with respect to the Laws weakness: O in itself 'tis mighty and powerful, but there is sin in us by which only the Law is made weak, there therefore the blame must lie. Could we but get rid of this Sin we should soon find what a mighty thing the Law is; so mighty that nothing would be too high or too hard for it.

2: Secondly, Take heed that you do not cast off the Law upon this pretence. 'It is indeed weak (as to such ends ), but yet 'tis a Law and that which is obligatory to all (even to Believers themselves under the Gospel State and Covenant ). Shall we because of this weakness (especially it being occasioned by ourselves) cast off the Law? and pretend that we are not under the obligation of it? we must not so argue. Observe it in the Apostle, even when he was proving the weakness of the Law as to Justification and showing that God had found out another way for that (viz.) the way of Faith, yet foreseeing that some might run themselves upon this rock, and infer from hence that they had nothing to do with the Law; he therefore adds, Do we then make void the Law through Faith? God forbid! yea we establish the Law (in its proper place and Sphere ). The Creature as a creature is under a natural (and therefore indispensable ) obligation to this Law; so as that nothing can exempt him from that obligation. It commands to love, fear, serve, honor, obey God; wherein it obliges so strongly, that God himself (with reverence be it spoken) cannot free the creature from its obligation to these duties. True indeed, Believers are not under the curse, rigor, or bondage of this Law, or under it as it is the condition of life: but they are (and it cannot be otherwise) under the obligation of its commands as to an holy life. There may be (and blessed be God there is) a great change as to circumstances, a great relaxation as to the Laws rigors, severitys and penaltys; but for the main duties of Obedience and Holiness, it is eternally obligatory and never to be abrogated. O therefore do not look upon yourselves as made free from this Law, though it be weak and unable to justify and save you! it can damn (upon the breaking of it) though it cannot save (by the keeping of it).

3: Thirdly, Neither must you upon this look upon the Law as altogether weak, or useless. I say, not as altogether weak; for though as to some things it be under a total impotency, yet as to other things it still retains its pristine power. It cannot take away sin, or make righteous, or give life (which it promised at first and for which it was appointed, for the commandment was ordained to life Rom. 7.10); here's the weak side of the Law, as to these 'tis 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : But as to the commanding of duty, the directing and regulating of the life, the threatening of punishment upon the violation of it; here it can do whatever it did before. The Laws preceptive and punitive part (where 'tis not taken off by Christ) are yet in their full strength; only as to the promissory part of it (viz. its promising life upon the condition of perfect Obedience ), there 'tis at a loss. In a word, its authority to oblige to duty or punishment is the same that ever it was, but its ability to give righteousness or life (in which respects only the Apostle here speaks of it) is not the same. If God open this Law to you and set it home upon your Consciences, you will find it hath yet a very great strength and efficacy in it: let it not therefore be altogether weak in your eye.

Nor altogether useless. For Some will be ready to say, if the Law be thus weak then what use is there of it? to what end doth it serve? what is to be looked for from that which can do so little for us? But do not you thus reason! For though the Law be not of use to you as to Justification, I mean in a way of immediate influence upon the Act or State, (a remoter influence it may have); yet in other respects 'tis of great and admirable use: (viz.) as a Monitor to excite to duty, as a Rule to direct and guide you in your course, as a Glass to discover sin, as a Bridle to restrain sin, as an Hatchet to break the hard heart, as a School-master to whip you to Christ. The Lord Jesus indeed hath taken Sin-pardoning, God-atoning, Justice-satisfying, Soul-saving work into his own hands, (he would not trust this in the hands of the Law any longer, because he knew the weakness of it); but for other work, the awakening and convincing of a Sinner, the terrifying of the secure, the humbling of the proud, the preparing of the Soul to close with Christ, (though this last act be only eventual and accidental as to the Law), all this work (I say) yet lies upon the Law. Be you who you will, Believers or unbelievers, regenerate or unregenerate, the Law is of marvelous use to you. 'It is a rule to all whether they be good or bad, and (as so) none are exempted from it, (as is by several Divines sufficiently proved against the Antinomists ); and it hath too, very good and useful effects upon all, whether called or uncalled, Saints or Sinners. Our Apostle who here doth so much depress the Law in respect of Justification, doth elsewhere in other respects speak much of its usefulness: Rom. 3.19. Now we know that what things soever the Law saith, it saith to them who are under the Law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Rom. 7.7. What shall we say then? is the Law sin? God forbid! Nay, I had not known sin, but by the Law: for I had not known lust, except the Law had said, Thou shalt not covet. Gal. 3.19, 24. Wherefore then serveth the Law? it was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the Promise was made, and it was ordained by Angels in the hand of a Mediator: Wherefore the Law was our School-master to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. I must not launch out into this vast Ocean; you have variety of Treatises upon this Argument, (namely) to prove that the Law is still a Rule, and still very useful in those great effects which have been mentioned: (I refer you to them for further satisfaction). This I only touch upon as it lies in my way, both that I may prevent dangerous mistakes, and also show you how you are to carry it towards the Law. O let it be highly esteemed, reverenced, honored by you! yea, bless God for it, for though indeed 'tis weak and unprofitable (as the Covenant of Works ), yet as 'tis a Rule, and as it produces such effects upon the Conscience, so 'tis of great use and highly beneficial. (So much for the 2d Use ).

Thirdly, Was the Law thus unable to do for the Sinner what was necessary to be done? then never look for Righteousness and Life from and by the Law. For as to these, it cannot do your work unless you could do its work, it cannot justify or save you unless you could perfectly obey and fulfil it. O pray expect little from it (nay, nothing at all in this way)! you cannot answer its expectations and it cannot answer yours. It highly concerns every man in the world to make sure of righteousness and life; but where are these to be had? only in Christ in the way of believing, not in the Law in the way of doing. We would fain make the Law stronger than indeed it is; and 'tis natural to us to look for a righteousness from it because there was our righteousness at first, and that suits best with the pride of our hearts. Man is not so averse to the Law in point of obedience, but he is as apt to rest upon the Law for Heaven and Happiness; if he can but do something which the Law requires, O this he looks upon as a sufficient Righteousness and as a good Plea for Heaven. Especially when Conscience is a little awakened then the poor Creature betakes himself to his doing, to his obedience to the Law; and this he thinks will do his work (till God lets him see his great mistake). As 'tis said When Ephraim saw his sickness, and Judab saw his wound, then went Ephraim to the Assyrian, and sent to King Jareb, yet could he not heal you, nor cure you of your wound: just so 'tis with the convinced Sinner in reference to the Law, both as to his practice and also as to his success.

I would not be mistaken (in what I have said or shall further say), as if I did design to take off any from Obedience to the Law, God forbid! all that I aim at, is only to take men off from trusting in that obedience, and from leaning upon that as their Righteousness. We should be doers of the Law (for, not the hearers of the Law are just before God, but the doers of the Law shall be justified ); yea, we should go as far as ever we can in our endeavors after a Law-righteousness; for though that be not sufficient to justify us before God, yet that must make us righteous in his eye as to qualitative and inherent righteousness: and so we are to understand that Text (with many others of the same import), It shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments before the Lord our God, as he hath commanded us. But yet when we have gone the furthest, the Righteousness which we are to rely upon is only the Gospel Righteousness or the imputed Righteousness of the Lord Jesus; if we take up with anything short of that, we are miserable and lost forever. As to the Law, is it thus weak (or rather are you thus weak ) and yet will you bottom your expectation and confidence there? can you fulfil or satisfy it in its demands of perfect, personal, universal, constant Obedience? If you cannot (then which nothing more certain), it can never then do your business; nay, upon the least failure it will be your enemy, to plead against you for the non-performance of its Conditions: and so, though it cannot as a Friend do you much good yet as an Enemy it can and will do you much hurt. What a sad case is the legalist in? the Law condemns him because he doth no more obey, and the Gospel condemns him because he doth no more believe; he's lost on every hand, O this is woeful! And yet how many precious Souls split themselves upon this rock! millions of men look no higher than the Law, that is the foundation upon which they build their confidence for Life and Salvation. Could we but get into them and be privy to the Grounds of their Hope, we should find that 'tis not Christ and Faith in him but the Law and some imperfect Obedience thereunto upon which they bottom: they deal honestly, wrong nobody, live unblameably, make some external Profession, perform such duties, are thus and thus charitable to the poor, &c. and hereupon they are confident of their Salvation. Now I deny not but that these are very good things (I wish there was more of them); yet when any rest in them or upon them for Righteousness and Life, they set them much too high; as good as they are, in reference to these great concerns they are no better than so many fig-leaves, which will not cover a Sinners nakedness when God shall come to reckon with him; whosoever bottoms his trust and confidence upon these, he builds upon the sand and sooner or later there will be a sad downfall of all his Hopes: these are things which glitter in our eye but they are but course and mean things (without Christ) in God's eye.

Sirs! I am upon a Point of as great importance as any that can be spoken to; and therefore give me leave to stay upon it a little, and to deal plainly and faithfully with you about it. I would feign leave everyone of you upon a good bottom, built upon the Rock, that sure Foundation which will stand firm and steady in all winds and weather, having that anchor-hold which will abide under all storms. And therefore let me prevail with you, to cast off all Legal Confidence, and to rely, trust, rest upon nothing short of Christ and his Righteousness. Duties, Graces, Holiness, Obedience, Good Works, all (in their proper places) are excellent things; but 'tis the alone Merit, Righteousness, Satisfaction of Christ that must justify and save you. Would you have that righteousness which will bear the test at the great day? that righteousness in which you may be able to stand before the disquisition of the righteous God? O then fly to Christ, to his imputed righteousness, and there let all your trust and reliance be placed! What is that One thing which the New-Testament-revelation mainly drives at? 'tis this, to carry Sinners from Moses to Christ, from the way of the Law to the way of the Gospel, from doing (as the Old-Covenant Condition and Ground of Life) to believing. The not understanding, receiving, embracing of this grand Truth, was the sin and ruin of the Jews; all that Christ and the Apostles could say or do, would not prevail with them to shake off their depending upon the Law; but still they rested in the Law, followed after the Law of Righteousness, and sought righteousness not by Faith but as it were by the works of the Law; they being ignorant of God's righteousness and going about to establish their own righteousness, would not submit to the Righteousness of God. O therefore how full, how earnest was Paul in his dealings with them (and with others too), to undeceive and convince them about this! He saith, the whole matter of Righteousness was now taken out of the Laws hands and put into the hands of Christ; Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness to everyone that believeth: Therefore by the deeds of the Law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight, &c. But now the Righteousness of God without the Law is manifested, being witnessed by the Law and Prophets: Even the Righteousness of God which is by Faith of Jesus Christ unto all, and upon all them that believe. He sets down the miserable state of those who would be resting upon the Law, such as were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (as he describes them); For as many as are of the works of the Law are under the Curse, for it is written, Cursed is everyone that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the Law to do them. He tells them, by this they made the sending, dying of Christ to be to no purpose; I do not frustrate the Grace of God, for if Righteousness come by the Law, then Christ is dead in vain: (see too Gal. 5.3, 4.) He tells them further, that God had such a respect for his own Law that if righteousness and Life had been possible by it, he would have taken no other way; If there had been a Law given which could have given Life, verily righteousness should have been by the Law: (But why do I give you a few gleanings when you yourselves may go into the full field? ) Now was all this spoken only to the Jews and Gentiles who lived at that time? doth it not concern us also? have not these several Considerations their strength to us as well as to them?

To come nearer home! the Text tells us the Law could not do: will you not be convinced of the Laws inability to help you? so as to betake yourselves to that better and effectual way of Justification and Salvation which God hath so graciously provided for you? The Law is weak (as weak now as ever.), but Christ is strong (as strong now as ever;) the Law can do nothing but Christ can do all. 'Till it pleases God to convince you of the Laws impossibility to make you righteous and happy, you will never seek out after help in Christ or close with him: for as Christ had never come to you, had it not been because it was impossible for the Law to save you; so you will never come to him, till you see that 'tis impossible for the Law to save you: this is that which moved God to send Christ, and this is that which moves the Sinner to embrace Christ, and his way of Salvation. If this work of Conviction was but once passed upon you, O you would soon quit the Law and all your Confidence would be bottomed upon Christ. Well! shall I bring it to an head? here are two ways set before you for Righteousness and Life, the way of the Law and the way of the Gospel, the way of Doing and the way of Believing; now which of these two will you choose? if the former, so as to venture your Souls upon what you can do, your case is desperate; by this you plainly put yourselves under the Covenant of Works, and there's nothing but perishing (as things now stand with us) under that Covenant: if the latter, there is hope, nay certainty (supposing you close with the Gospel-way in a right Gospel-manner ) that it shall be well with you. Who would not now say with David I will make mention of thy righteousness even of thine only? who would not with Paul count all but dross and dung, that he may win Christ, and be found in him, not having his own Righteousness which is of the Law, but that which through the Faith of Christ, the Righteousness which is of God by Faith.

4. Fourthly, See here the admirable love of God, and be greatly affected with it. The Law was weak, utterly unable to relieve us in our forlorn condition; as to that conclamatum est the case is desperate: and now the merciful God finds out another way, pitches upon another course, he'll see what that will do (the former failing); what's that? he sent his own Son in the likeness, &c. O the infinite Love, Mercy, Compassion of God! The weaker was God's Law, the stronger and higher was God's love. O that he should not let us all perish under the Laws impotency! that he should employ One for our recovery who was every way able to do what the Law could not! how should we adore his mercy in this? But this leads me to the following words in the Text, God sent &c. where I shall have occasion more fully to press this duty upon you. So much therefore for this First Branch of the Words, What the Law could not do, in that it was weak through the Flesh.

CHAP. X. Of Christ's Mission and of God's sending him.

THe Laws impotency and weakness, nay, utter inability to recover, justify, and save the lost Sinner, hath been spoken to: I go on to that which thereupon the Wise and Gracious God was pleased to do. And what was that? why (to the praise of his glorious grace) he sent his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh. The Great God is never at a loss; if one Means fails he hath another, if all Means fail which fall within the view of the Creature, yet God hath his secret reserves and that under the deck which shall no the work. Upon Adams Sin all Mankind was lost, plunged into a woeful abyss of misery, obnoxious to eternal wrath; and accordingly God might have dealt with them in the utmost severity of his Justice. What is there now to prevent this? to give any relief to man in this deplorable State? Alas! the Sinner cannot help himself, the Law stands with a withered arm and can do nothing, there's no Creature in heaven or earth to interpose; as to all of these the case was desperate. Therefore God himself engages to let the world see what He could do; He looked and there was none to help, therefore his own arm brought Salvation. Here indeed was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a God helping at a dead lift, in the greatest straits and in the most admirable manner. If ever (with reverence be it spoken) infinite Wisdom was put to it, now was the time; yet (even in this intricate and perplexed State of things) That found out a Way which would do the business: a Way, which none could have thought of but God alone, [ he sent his own Son &c]: None could cry 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to this but God himself, this was his alone invention and contrivance. The restoring of fallen man was impossible to the Law, yet it shall be done; God will take another (strange and wonderful) Course, which shall do it effectually: what his own Law cannot do his own Son can, therefore him he'll send. A very high and costly Way! yet rather than all mankind shall perish, God will make use of it: here's the very mirror of the Wisdom, Love, Grace, Pity of the blessed God.

[God sending his own Son] &c. To make the Sense run more smoothly, Some turn the Participle [ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ] into the Verb [ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ], reading the Words thus [ God sent his &c]: if the following Conjunctive particle [And] be kept in, this Reading is not much amiss. Some render it in the Passive form, Deus misso Filio suo &c. Some would put in the word [Ideo, therefore]; Since the Law was weak through the flesh, [therefore] God sent his own Son, and for sin, &c. (but as to these things there's no great difficulty).

In the whole Paragraph you have,

• 1. The Act or the Thing done: namely the [Sending] of Christ.
• 2. The Person whose Act this was, or the Person sending: (viz.) God the Father; [God] sent &c.

'It is a known Rule, when the Name or Title of God is set in contradistinction to the Son, 'tis then taken not Essentially but Personally, for the First Person God the Father, (instances of which are very common). 'It is here said God sent his own Son, therefore it must be understood of God the Father, Christ being his Son and upon that consideration he being styled the Father. And this Person is called God, not because he partakes more of the Godhead than the Other Persons ( Son and holy Ghost ) do, but because he is the first in the Order of the Three Divine Persons; and because he is the beginning of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, but hath no beginning of his own Person; for he doth not receive the Godhead (in the Personal consideration of it) by communication from any other: in which respect he is in Scripture more frequently styled God than either the Son or the Holy Ghost.

3. You have the Person sent, our Lord Jesus Christ: And he is set forth 1. by his near Relation to God; God sending [his Son]. In order to the Sinners Redemption God did not employ an ordinary Person, a mere Servant, a Creature that stood at a great distance from him; but (so great was his Love) he employ'd a Son. 2. by the speciality and peculiarity of this Relation, God sending [his own Son]. In the Greek 'tis [ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ] the Son of himself; In Vers. 32. 'tis [ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ] his proper Son, or his own Son. There is that in this expression which very much heightens Christ's Sonship; he was not barely a Son but God's own Son, a Son in a special, extraordinary, incommunicable manner.

4. Here's the further explication of this Sending with respect to the way and manner of it; how did God send his Son? why [in the likeness of sinful flesh]. If you go further into the Words than that Branch of them which I have now read, there are two Generals more to be observed in them; but they will be taken notice of in their proper place.

There are three great Doctrinal Truths here to be handled:

• 1. That Christ was sent, and sent by God the Father.
• 2. That Christ (thus sent) was God's own Son.
• 3. That Christ (God's own Son) was sent in the likeness of sinful flesh.

I begin with the first, That Christ was sent, and sent by God the Father. Here are two things to be spoken to, Christ's being sent, and his being sent by the Father; but they may very well be put together.

Before I fall upon the close handling of this Sending of Christ, there are three things which it presents to our Consideration; his Pra • xistence, his Personality, his Personal Distinction from the Father; let me therefore a little touch upon each of these.

1. This Sending of Christ strongly imply's his Praeecistence before his Incarnation. For if he had not had a Being before, how could the Father send him? that which is not cannot be sent. 'It is not said here that God now created him or made him (as if he did not exist before ), but he sent him; which must (as I said) strongly imply that he did exist before this Sending. This the † Socinians fiercely oppose: and therefore in this matter they are worse than the Arians. For these though they denied that Christ was from all Eternity, and made him to be only first created by God, (upon the misunderstanding and perverting of his being called the first born of every Creature Col. 1.13. the beginning of the creation of God Rev. 3.14); yet they asserted Christ's existence long before his Incarnation. But the Socinians (following Photinus ) deny that he had any Being or Existence before he was con ••• ed and brought forth by the Virgin Mary: So that their Opinion about the Person of Christ is somewhat worse than that of the Old Arians, (for which they are admonished and dealt with a little sharply by a late Arian Writer himself). The Orthodox fully prove the Eternity of Christ against the One, and consequently the Praexistence of Christ before his Incarnation against the Other.

And One would think the Scriptures are so clear in this, that there should not be the least Controversy about it: For they tell us, that Christ was in Jacob's time, Gen. 48.16. The Angel which redeemed me from all evil &c. (it might easily be proved that this Angel was Christ ): That he was in Job's time, for he said Job 19.25. I know that my Redeemer liveth (meaning Christ ): That he was in the Prophets time under the Old Testament, for the Spirit of Christ was in them 1 Pet. 1.11. That he was in Abraham's time, yea, long before it; Joh. 8.56. &c. Your Father Abraham rejoiced to see my day, and was glad: Then said the Jews unto him, thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, before Abraham was, I am. That he was in the Israelites time, for 1 Cor. 10.9. 'tis said, Neither let us tempt Christ as some of them also tempted; (him is added in some Translations, however the Sense will so carry it): That he was in the Prophet Isaih's time, for Joh. 12.41. you read, These things said Isaiah when he saw his glory and spake of him, (that is, of Christ ). Now were not these Periods of time before (long before) Christ's being born of the Virgin? therefore he had an existence before that. How fully and plainly is this asserted in the Gospel! Joh. 1.1, 2, 3, 10. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God: The same was in the beginning with God: All things were made by him, and without him was not anything made that was made: He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. Eph. 3.9. &c. Who created all things by Jesus Christ; (by him, not as an instrument but as a social or coordinate cause). Col. 1.16, 17, By him were all things created, that are in heaven and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be Thrones, or Dominions, or Principalities, or Powers: All things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. Heb. 1.2. By whom also he made the worlds. Now could Christ have thus cooperated with the Father in the Creation, and yet not have a being before his incarnation which was so long after the Creation? Joh. 1.15. John bare witness of him and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me, for he was before me: how was Christ before John the Baptist if he did then only exist when he was born? for in reference to that John the Baptist was before Christ, he being born before him. Joh. 17.5. And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self, with the glory which I had with thee before the world was: mark the latter words [with the glory which I had with thee before the world was]. Phil. 2.6. Who being [ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , subsisting, existing] in the form of God &c. Joh. 16.28. I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father. Joh. 6.62. What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before, (in respect of his Divine Nature or as he was the Son of God)? Do not these Scriptures sufficiently evince that Christ had a Being before he was Incarnate? the drawing forth of their full strength, and the answering of the several Cavils and Evasions of the Adversaries about them, would fill up a Volume, the Learned know where and by Whom both of these are fully done.

This Sending of Christ therefore speaks his existence before he assumed flesh; he must have an antecedent Being, otherwise he would not have been capable of being sent. And he was first sent and then incarnate, his Mission being antecedent to his incarnation (though this be dony'd by the Enemies with whom we have to do); for God sent him, that is, appointed that he should assume the bumane nature, and this is his being sent in the likeness of sinful flesh, (as a judicious Expositor descants upon the words).

2. Secondly, this Sending of Christ speaks his Personality. He did not only exist before he took flesh, but he existed as a Person; he had his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (wherein the notion of a Divine Person consists), his manner of subsistence distinct from the subsistence of the Father and of the Holy Ghost: (but this explication of Christ's being a Person more properly belongs to the next head ). Here I say Christ was a Person; by which I mean, he was not a thing, quality, dispensation, or manifestation (as some fondly and dangerously speak), but he was (and is) a Person, having a proper, personal subsistence: And he must be so, or else he could not be the Subject of this Sending. 'It is very true, God may be said to send or give that which is but manifestative; as he sends his Gospel, which yet is not a person but only a manifestation of his Will, Grace, Love, Wisdom, &c. But now in Christ there is something more than bare sending, even that which will amount to the proving of him to be nothing less than a Person. For he is sent to be incarnate, to take the likeness of sinful flesh upon him: now a bare Quality or Manifestation are under an utter incapacity of being thus or doing thus: who will be so absurd as to assert such a thing? If Christ be sent by God the Father, and upon that doth assume flesh, then certainly he was a Person, for none but a Person could do this: had the Apostle only said that God sent Christ, the Truth in hand had not been so evident (at leastwise from this Text ); but when he adds he sent him in the likeness of sinful flesh, this undeniably proves his personality.

3. Thirdly, it notes the distinction that is betwixt the Father and Christ. Which appears not only as One is the Father and the Other is the Son, (though that evidently infers a distinction, for the same Person in the same respects cannot be Father and Son too, cannot beget and be begotten too); but also as the One sends and the Other is sent. The Father and the Son are One in Nature and Essence (with respect to which he saith I and my Father are One); yet they are distinct Persons. The number and distinction of the Persons in the Trinity, is usually taken notice of by Divi •• s from this Scripture. The Apostle (faith Theophylact ) had spoken of the Spirit in the former Verse, in this he speaks of the Father and of the Son, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 tenching the Trinity: And saith Pet. Martyr, from these words the number and distinction of the Persons in the holy Trinity doth appear. Which great Truth is also frequently held forth in Other places: Isa. 48.16. Come ye near unto me (Christ is the Person here speaking) hear ye this, I have not spoken in secret from the beginning, from the time that it was there am I, and now the Lord God, and his Spirit hath sent me: (a full Old-Testament proof of the distinction of the Persons ). But 'tis most plainly held forth in the New-Testament: At the Baptism of Christ there was a manifestation of God in the Father, Son, and Spirit; the Spirit descended in the form of a Dove, the Father gave the Testimony This is my beloved Son &c. Christ was the object of it. Christ directed his Apostles to baptize in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, (which surely he would not have done had there not been a personal distinction betwixt them). Joh. 14.16. I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter &c. (here's all the Persons as distinct ). Joh. 14.1. Ye believe in God, believe also in me. Joh. 12.44. He that believeth on me, believeth not on me (i. e. on me only ), but on him that sent me. Joh. 5.32. There is [another] that beareth witness of me, and I know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true: (many such places might be cited but these may suffice). Here's enough in the Text; the same Person (considered in the same respects ) cannot both send and be sent too, therefore the Father and the Son are distinct Persons. True (as Augustine observes) in some sense Christ might be said to send himself; that is, consider him Essentially, so he did what the Father did, so he sent himself; but if you consider him Personally, so he did not send but was sent: upon which He and his Father are distinct. So much for these three things which are but implied in Christ's Mission.

I come more closely to the Thing itself, and to the Point which lies before us; namely That Christ was sent; and sent by God the Father. The Redemption of lost Man was a blessed work, a most glorious-undertaking, never was there any like to it or to be parallel'd with it; yet our Lord Jesus would not of his own head engage in it or thrust himself upon it, no, he must first be sent, then (and not till then) did he undertake it. And who sent him? surely He who only had Authority to employ and commissionate him about such a work, (viz.) God the Father; God sent his own Són▪ &c. where (as hath been already hinted) God is to be taken in the Personal Notion, and as relating to the first Person.

This sending of Christ, and that by the Father, are two Points of such unquestionable verity to all who pass under the denomination os Christians, that as to them (and with Jews and Heathens I will not meddle) 'tis not necessary to spend the least time in the proving of them: Yet (even as to them ) 'tis needful that these Truths should be a little opened and explained.

In order to which, I will endeavor

• 1. To clear up the nature of the Act.
• 2. To remove a difficulty or answer an Objection about it.
• 3. To give the Grounds and Reasons of it.

As to the first, the Question is What was the Fathers sending of Christ? in what respects is he said to be sent, and sent by the Father (for I shall open both together)?

To which I answer 1. Negatively, in Two things:

• 1. This Sending of Christ was not his ineffable and eternal Generation, or Sonship grounded upon that. He was sent who was the Son of God, but he was not the Son of God as he was sent, nor said to be sent as he was the Son of God: his Sonship was the result of his Generation, not of his Mission. These two are very different things, for Christ was begotten of the Father from everlasting, but he was sent by the Father (the sending being taken in its strict and most proper notion) in time; When the fullness of time was come God sent forth his Son &c. He was a Son long before he was sent; and he was not a Son because he was sent, but he was sent because he was a Son.
• 2. Christ's Sending was not any local Secession from his Father, or any local motion from the place where he was, to some other place where he was not. You must not so conceive of it, nor fetch your measures concerning it from your own sending of Persons; for there when you send one upon your errand or business, he leaves the place where he was and goes to the place where he was not; but so it was not with Christ. The Father sent him to this lower world yet here he was before; the Father sent him from heaven yet (as to his Godhead ) he remained in heaven still. He saith indeed I came forth from the Father (yet not so but that he was still with the Father), and am come into the world (yet not so but that he was there before, for he was in the world and the world was made by him Joh. 1.10.); again I leave the world and go to the Father (he speaks in respect of his bodily presence ). Look as when Christ ascended, he went from earth and yet he was on earth still (as to his Spiritual presence, for he saith Lo I am with you unto the end of the world; as Man he went from us, but as God he is as much with us as ever); so when Christ descended, he came from heaven and yet he was in heaven still, for he tells us No man hath ascended up into heaven but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of Man which is in heaven. So that in Christ's Sending there was no mutation of place, only upon that he assumed the human nature and so became visible, whereas before (as God) he was invisible: He was but where he was, only he was more than what he was for he was now God-man; and he was here in a different manner for now he was visible. You see what the sending of Christ was not.

2. Secondly to open it Affirmatively, this Sending of Christ lies in Five things:

• 1. In God's choosing, appointing, ordaining of Christ from everlasting to the Office and Work of the Mediator: (this I confess is somewhat remote from that strict notion of his sending, in which the Scripture usually speaks of it; however I take it in, it being the foundation of his being sent in time ). God the Father from all Eternity did choose, decree, ordain that his Son should take flesh, and in that flesh redeem man; therefore he calls him his Elect Isa. 42.1. Mine Elect in whom my Soul delighteth: And Rom. 3.25. 'tis said, Whom God hath [set forth] to be a propitiation through faith in his blood &c. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , it relates to God's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or purpose; and it notes not only God's setting forth and revealing of Christ in the Gospel which was done in time, but also (and chiefly) his decreeing, fore-ordaining of Christ in his secret purpose from all eternity to the work and office of a Redeemer; (so the Word is used Eph. 1.9): and therefore the marginal rendering of it [whom God fore-ordained] is better than that in the text itself [whom God hath set forth]. The Apostle Peter speaks expressly of it, Who verily was fore-ordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you. You read of a decree concerning Christ Psal. 2.7. I will declare the decree &c. (but that which I am upon, was not the matter of the decree there spoken of).
• 2dly. Christ's Sending (I take it passively ) lies in God's qualifying and fitting of him for his great Work: (this also is more remote from the close intendment of the sending, yet it also may be taken in). The wise God first fits and then sends; he never puts a person upon any special service but first he qualifies and fits him for that service; (you have it exemplified in Moses, and in several Others): Now the restauration of Man to God's image and favor, the redeeming and reconciling of the Sinner to God, was the greatest work that ever was undertaken; and therefore if God will employ Christ about such a work, his Wisdom engaged him first to fit him for it. Which accordingly he did, for in order thereunto whereas Christ must have a Body (to fit him for dying and suffering ), that God provided for him; Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and Offering thou wouldst not, but a body hast thou prepared (or fitted ) me. And whereas he must also have the Spirit, in a large proportion and plentiful effusion thereof, that too the Father doth furnish him with: Isa. 42.1. I have put my Spirit upon him: Joh. 3.34. God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him. Our blessed Savior could need nothing (more than a Body and the Spirit ) to qualify and fit him for his work, and both you see were given to him. Joh. 10.36. Say ye of him, whom the Father hath [Sanctified] and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest, because I said I am the Son of God? what was the Father's Sanctifying of Christ? I answer, 'twas partly his setting of Christ apart to, and partly his gifting and qualifying of Christ for, his Office and undertaking; the latter of which the Father did for him as well as the former; and so he sanctified him: And observe, 'twas first Sanctifying and then Sending, whom the Father hath sanctified and sent, &c.
• 3. Thirdly, It lies in God's authorizing and commissionating of Christ to what he was to be, and to do. The Father sent him (that is) gave him authority to engage as the Redeemer of the world: Christ had a Commission from God under hand and seal (as it were), before he meddled in his great negotiation; Joh. 6.27. Him hath God the Father sealed (or authorized by special commission ); for though that be not all which is intended in the sealing, yet that is a great part of it. As Princes when they send abroad their Ambassadors or appoint their Officers at home, they give them their Commissions sealed to be their warrant for what they shall do; so God the Father did with Christ. He did not intrude or thrust himself upon what he undertook; no, but though he had in himself a strong inclination thereunto, yet first his Father must call him to it: he did not run before he was sent (as those Prophets did Jer. 23.21.). So the Apostle tells us Heb. 5.4, 5. No man taketh this honor to himself, but he that was called of God as was Aaron: So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an High Priest, but he that said unto him, thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee. Joh. 8.42. I proceeded forth and came from God, neither came I of myself, but he sent me. You see how his Sending is opened by this; the due consideration of which doth administer matter of great support and encouragement to Faith, (as you will hear in the applying of the Truth in hand).
• 4. Fourthly, This Sending of Christ consists in the Fathers authoritative willing of him to take man's nature upon him, and in that nature so to do, and so to suffer. This is higher than the former; God did not only authorize Christ to engage, so as that he might if he so pleased undertake to redeem Sinners, without any intrusion or usurpation; but he made this known to him as his Will, and (to speak according to our conceptions) he laid his command upon him to act accordingly. So as that Christ was under an obligation (which yet did not in the least destroy or lessen his Liberty, or his Merit, or his Love ) to come and to do as he did. Sending is an authoritative act amongst men; 'twas so in God towards Christ: the Father did not proceed with him in a way of mere offer or bare proposal or entreaty, but in a way of authority; he laid his injunction upon him to assume flesh, and in that flesh to make satisfaction. Therefore when Christ entered upon this work, speaking to his Father he saith Lo I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me) to do thy will O God; And when he was discoursing of laying down his Life, he adds This commandment have I received of my Father; the Apostle also tells us that he became [obedient] unto death even the death of the cross, (which obedience necessarily supposes a command ). And Christ was under a command in reference to his incarnation as well as to his death and passion, for indeed without that there could have been none of this; therefore the Text saith God sent him in the likeness, &c. that is, God ordered him to take our flesh. This Sending then of Christ was the Father's authoritative calling of him to the Office and Work of a Redeemer, which Call was also backed with positive and peremptory commands as to the management of both; in respect of which God is said to send him, for mittere Deus dicitur ubi mandata dat (as Grotius glosses upon it). And the truth is, Christ in the management of the whole work of our Redemption was under, acted by, and according to his Fathers comuand: whereupon God calls him his Servant Isa. 42.1. Isa. 53.11. and Christ himself speaking to his Father says, Joh. 17.4. I have glorified thee on the earth, I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do; mark that [which thou gavest me to do] intimating that all his Work was cut out for him by the will of his Father. So Joh. 4.34. Jesus saith unto them, my meat is to do the will of him that sent me and to finish his work: Joh. 6.38. I came down from heaven not to do mine own will but the will of him that sent me: upon this account therefore Christ may well be said to be sent by the Father. In Scripture 'tis sometimes God gave him, and sometimes God sent him; Christ was given, in respect of the freeness of the Grace of God towards us, and he was sent, in respect of the Father's authority over himself.
• 5. Fifthly, take one thing more, God's Sending of Christ imports his trusting of him with his great designs: (this comes in too, if not directly, yet at leastwise collaterally or concomitantly ). In all sending there is trust; when we send a person about our affairs we repose a trust in him, that he will be faithful in the management of our concerns; God sent Christ (that is) he put a great trust into his hands. 'It is as if the Father had said,
  My Son! here's a great work to be done, a work upon which my glory doth infinitely depend, all now lies at the stake, as this is mannag'd it will be well or ill with Souls: Well, I will send thee, I will put all into thy hands, venture all with thee; I know thou wilt be faithful to secure my Glory and to promote the good of Souls; I will trust thee (and none but thee) with such great things as these are: this (I say) is implied in God's sending of Christ.

And now by all put together you see how or in what respects. Christ was sent, and sent by God the Father: you may (both to strengthen what hath been said, and also further to clear it up) take his own parallel; Joh. 20.21. As my Father hath sent me, even so I send you: So that look what Christ's sending of the Apostles was in reference to their Office, the same was God's sending of Christ in reference to his Office. How then did he send them? why

• 1. he designed, chose, selected them to and for the work of the Ministry:
• 2. He qualified and fitted them for that work:
• 3. He authorized them by his special Commissian to undertake it:
• 4. He sent them out authoritatively to preach the Gospel, and laid his commands upon them so to do:
• 5. He reposed a special Trust in them that they would be faithful.

Just thus (allowing for the preeminence of the Person and of his Office ) did God send Christ, (which fully agrees with the particulars that have been insisted upon). And as to the Apostles, Christ had said the same before to his Father, Joh. 17.18. As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world: (not that there was a parity or perfect equality betwixt the one and the other, only an harmony and great agreement ). So much for the first thing, the opening the nature of the Act.

I proceed to the Second; to answer an Objection, or to remove a difficulty which here lies before us. That which hath been spoken seems to derogate from the greatness and glory of Christ's Person: For did God thus send him? surely then (as some argue) he is a Person inferior to the Father, this sending seems to be inconsistent with his equality to his Father; if he was sent and thus sent doth not that speak his inferiority to that God who sent him? and by consequence that he is not God? (thus the Socinians argue from it; and this is One of those Heads from which they fetch their Arguments against Christ's Deity ).

For the explaining of the Thing, and the answering of the Adversary, Divines commonly lay down two things about it:

• 1. That Sending doth not always imply inferiority or inequality: For Persons who are equal upon mutual consent may send each the other, and if the Person sent doth freely concur and consent with the Person sending, there's no impeachment or intrenchment then upon the equality betwixt them. And thus it was between God the Father and Christ: had he been sent merely from the Will of the Father (whether he Himself would or no ), then indeed the Case had differed and the Objection would have carried strength in it; but it was quite otherwise. For Christ readily consented to and perfectly concurred with the Father, and he was as willing to be sent as the Father was to send him; Lo, I come to do thy Will, O God. When the Master sends the Servant he goes because he must, but when the Father sends the Son he goes readily, because his Will falls in with his Father's Will; he obeys not upon necessity but upon choice and consent: So it was with Christ in reference to his Father's sending of him; the Will of the Son was as much for the Work as the Will of the Father himself. You must not look upon Christ as merely passive in the Sending, for (in some respects) he sent himself; and his coming upon that great errand of man's Redemption was his own act as well as the Fathers. As the Father is said to Sanctify him, and yet he also is said to sanctify himself, and as the Father is said to give him, and yet he also is said to give himself; So here the Father is said to send him, yet he also (as he was One in Nature and in Will with the Father) may be said to send himself; (thus Augustine opens it). The expression in the Text [God sent his Son] doth not exclude the Son or the Spirit from the sending, or wholly appropriate it to the Father; it only notes the Order of the Persons in their working. The Father being the first in working therefore the sending of Christ is ascribed to him; but there being nothing more in it than so, that will not prove any inequality in the Persons, or any superiority that One hath over the Other. The Schoolmen give some nice and curious distinctions about Christ's being sent by himself, and by the Holy Ghost, as well as by the first Person; but 'tis not convenient to perplex the Reader with them: this is one Answer for the clearing up of the difficulty and the weakening of the Objection which we have to do with.
• 2. The Learned further distinguish of a twofold inferiority, One in respect of Nature, and One in respect of Office, Condition, or Dispensation. As to the First, Christ neither was nor is in the least inferior to the Father (both having the same Nature and Essence, in respect of which he thought it not robbery to be [equal] with God ). As to the Second, Christ being considered as Mediator, as having assumed flesh, put himself into the Sinners stead, and undertaken to make Satisfaction to God; so (without any derogation ) it may be said of him that he was inferior to the Father: In reference to which it follows in the forementioned place, He made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men; and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. And upon this he saith My Father is greater than I; He was in Nature every way as great as the Father, but he having submitted to be made Man, to be a Surety, having condescended to the Office and Work of a Redeemer in our Flesh, so in respect of economy and dispensation the Father was greater than he. And by virtue of his superiority over Christ (as considered in this his voluntary exinanition ) so he sent him, and laid his commands upon him and dealt with him as you have heard: but yet his natural and essential greatness or equality with the Father was not at all by this impaired or lessened, (which was the great Truth to be secured against the Adversary ).

The Third thing which I am to speak to is, to inquire (so far as the Word will warrant) into the Grounds and Reasons of Christ's mission; wherefore did God send him? He who is so Wise that he doth nothing (be it never so little or mean ) but he hath his Reasons for it, surely in so great a thing as the sending of his own Son he had very high and weighty reasons upon which he acted. And though 'tis most certain, that he neither had (nor could have) any Motives ab extra (in a way of Merit ) to move him to this, yet 'tis as certain that he had great and urgent Grounds for it, even such as might become a God in doing such a thing. He that in Other things is a God of judgment, undoubtedly in this (which was his Master-piece ) he would show himself to be a God of judgment. It will therefore be worthy of a modest enquiry, to find out the Reasons which the wise and gracious God went upon in the sending of his Son.

In the General, Some must be sent. When I say [must] I do not mean any simple or absolute necessity, as though it was simply and absolutely necessary that God should take some course, or employ some person from heaven for the redeeming and saving the world; (God forbid that I should assert a thing so utterly false, and so highly derogatory from the freeness of the grace of God in what he did!) I only mean therefore that which we call hypothetical or conditional necessity: and so the business stood thus. God designed to glorify and advance his mercy to Sinners, he had gracious purposes in himself towards Man; and whereas all mankind lay before him in an undone and ruined condition, he would not leave them to perish eternally in that condition: Then supposing this (which cannot be denied) God must send, something must be done; or else these gracious purposes of God will be lost, and all men must inevitably perish forever. For as to all Other Ways the Sinners Case was desperate, with respect to them there was no hope or help; some new and strange course must be taken, or else (as things stand on the Creatures part) there's nothing to be looked for but hell and damnation. Now things being brought to this pass, therefore God will send, yea, he will send his own Son; for he'l be sure to pitch upon a Way which shall infallibly and effectually do the work. Observe it in the Text, when (or because) it was impossible for the Law to do, then (or therefore) God sent his Son: since neither the Law (nor anything else ) could operate to any purpose towards the advancing of God's Honor, and the promoting of the Sinners good, it was necessary (in order to these great Ends ) that God himself should interpose in some extraordinary way; which thereupon he accordingly did in the sending of Christ.

But more particularly; let us take it for granted that there was a necessity of Sending, yet why did God pitch upon his Son and send him? might not some Other Person have been sent as well as he? or might not some Other Way have been found out as good as this?

I answer, No: Christ the Son must be the very Person whom God will send. And him he pitched upon (so far as we poor shallow mortals are able to judge of his deep and unsearchable actings, or to assign the reasons of them), for these Reasons:

• 1. First, because he was the Person with whom the Father had covenanted about this very thing. There was a Covenant (commonly called the Covenant of Redemption ) which had passed betwixt these two Persons; in which the Father engaged so and so to Christ, and Christ reciprocally engaged so and so to the Father, (a considerable part of the terms and matter of which Covenant is set down Isa. 53.10. When thou shalt make his Soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, &c. ). The Father Covenants to do thus and thus for Fallen Man; but first (in order thereunto) the Son must Covenant to take man's Nature, therein to satisfy offended Justice, to repair and vindicate his Father's Honor &c: well, he submits, assents to these demands, indents and covenants to make all good; and this was the Covenant of Redemption. Now upon this Covenant God sends his Son, (that being done in pursuance of, and agreeable to that admirable compact or stipulation that had passed betwixt them both). So that this Sending was not founded merely upon the Father's absolute Will or Sovereignty over Christ, but upon the foederal agreement made betwixt them as to this very matter. (Of which I will say no more here, having formerly had an opportunity to publish some thoughts about it).