First Epistle of John Applied Part 1

many indeed are the Topics whence this Commandment of Love might justly be commended; and among others this is not the least that it is grayheaded and of ancient institution. There are some things to which oldness is a disparagement, an old Garment past mending, an old house past repairing, an old ship past rigging: but then there are other things of which oldness is a praise, old Coynes, Manuscripts, Monuments, Buildings have a face of honor upon them; it is a great dignity for a man to be descended of an ancient house, no wonder if this command of love be therefore honorable, because it is an old Commandment.

The truth of this which is here attributed to Love will best appear by the proof which is annexed and is next to be handled. For the present we will take it for granted, and let the improvement of it be to render this command of Love the more amiable and acceptable to us.

Indeed were it a new Precept, and the imposition of it but of Yesterday, we might have some reluctancy against it, Haud facile insuetum jugum suscipimus saith Calvin well: men do not easily undertake a yoke to which they are not accustomed, but this yoke is no other then what was of old imposed. It is well observed by an Historian, the Laws which at first were exceeding harsh and heavy, by force of custom become not only tolerable but light and easy. Hereupon one compareth customs to a King, and Edicts to a Tyrant; because we are subject voluntarily to the one, but upon necessity to the other. To this purpose Herodotus reporteth that Darius having under his dominion, certain Grecians of Asia, who had a custom of burning their dead friends, and certain Indians who used to eat them, he called the Grecians and would have them to conform to the Indians, afterward he called the Indians and would have them to conform to the Grecians, but found both very unwilling to leave the usage of their country, so tenacious are men of old customs. Oh then my Brethren, since this command is such as hath always been a custom among the Saints, and hath upon it the stamp of antiquity, let it be embraced and practiced by us with the more readiness and alacrity. And so much for the Point it self; It remaineth, I now proceed to the proof it is from the beginning. But the time being past, commands me to end, and reserve that to the next opportunity.

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF S ^t JOHN.

E Very Scribe instructed for the Kingdom of Heaven (saith our blessed Savior) is like unto a man that is an Housholder which bringeth forth out of his treasury things new and old; an excellent similitude representing to us the properties of a good Preacher. The Housholder hath his Treasury where provision is laid up: The Preacher his storehouse of divine knowledge. The Housholder doth not hoard up, but bring forth what he hath in his Treasury for the use of his Family: The Preacher being furnished with abilities employeth them for the Churches good. The things which the Housholder bringeth • orth out of his Treasury are both new and old, all sorts of provision both of the present and former years growth: The Doctrines which the Preacher delivereth are either (according to Brugensis ) the new and glorious mysteries of the Gospel, in old and common resemblances; or (according to S ^t Hilary, and the Ancients) Nova & vetera in Evangeliis & in lege, the Legal and Evangelical verities: according to this is that occasional note of S ^t Ambrose upon those words of the Spouse, At our gates are all manner of pleasant fruits new and old which I have laid up for thee, oh my Beloved, Teneo mandata omnia novi & veteri Testamenti, I keep the Commandments both of the old and New Testament: for whereas the Jewish Synagogue neither keep the new in the letter, nor the old in the Spirit: the Christian Church observeth both, and instructeth her Children in both. Suiteble hereunto it is that this great Apostle of the Christian Church and well instructed Scribe for the Kingdom of Heaven, brought forth in his Preaching, and here layeth up a writing both old and new, chiefly pressing upon us the observance of a command, both Legal and Evangelical, Brethren I wait no new but an old, &c. Again a new Commandment I write unto you.

2. Having dispatched the Compellation Brethren, we have entered upon the first branch of the commendation drawn from its divine authority, and therein the consideration of it as an old Commandment, which having been already handled in the Assertion; we are now to proceed to the Probation, as it is implicitly couched in these words, which we had from the beginning, and explicitly set forth in those, The old Commandment is the word which ye have heard from the beginning.

That you may see the strength of the Argument. I shall form it into a Syllogism thus;

• That which you heard and had from the beginning is the old Commandment. But
• This Commandment about which I write unto you, is that you heard and had from the beginning.
• Therefore. It is not a new but an old Commandment.

The Conclusion is the Assertion and hath been already handled, the Major and Minor contain the Probation, and remain now to be dispatched.

1. Begin we with the Major, The old Commandment is the word which was heard from the beginning. To clear this, Be pleased to know, That a thing may be said to be old, either 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , in some respects only, or absolutely. That which is not from the beginning and therefore is new in respect of preceding times, may yet in respect of following ages be said to be old, but only what is from the beginning, is absolutely old. Antiquity properly referreth to time, so that what hath the priority carrieth it in point of antiquity, and Id prius quod ab initio (saith Tertullian) That is first which is from the beginning, principium, a beginning being Id quo nihill prius, that before which nothing is, else it could not be the beginning. In this sense it is we most justly say that which is true is old, for though error may be old, truth cannot be new: Yea, Since as that forementioned Father excellently argueth, Falsum est corruptio veri, Falsehood is nothing else but an adulteration of truth, Truth must needs be before Falsehood, and so the terms are convertible, that which is true is old, and that which is old is true, for no error but is new in respect of that which is from the beginning, though it be old in regard of that which followeth. Upon this account it is that the same Father disputing with Marcion put it to this issue, I say my Gospel is true, Marcion saith his is. I say Marcions Gospel is false; he saith mine is, Quis inter nos determinabit nisi temporis ratio ei praescribens authoritatem quod antiquius reperiretur? let antiquity end the controversy: that which can show largest prescription of time, and so the eldest let it be accounted truest. Indeed Christianity stands upon holy antiquity, and there is no better way of discovering what is false, and reforming what is amiss, then by looking back to the beginning.

Upon this ground it is, that we contest both with the Papists on the one, and all Sectaries on the other hand, as being ready to justify against both, that what we teach is truly old, because the word from the beginning.

1. As the Gibeonites cheated Joshua with their old Shooes clouted upon their feet, old Garments, dry and mouldy Bread. So do the Papists delude many poor souls with pretence of the old Commandment, and the old Religion. It is the calumny they cast upon us Where was your Religion before Luther? we are Novelists and but of Yesterday; yea that we daily broach new Doctrines. That some (who are among us, but not of us) do so we cannot deny; but still we are ready to justify the Doctrine of our Church to be the old Doctrine; nor do we desire a better Medium of proving it then this in the Text, The old Commandment is the word which was from the beginning. Take any or all of those opinions wherein we differ, and for which we separate from them, such as are Transubstantiation, half Communion, adoration of Images, invocation of Saints and Angels, the supremacy and infabillity of the Pope, and the like: And we shall find even by their own confessions that they were not from the beginning: Scotus acknowledgeth that till the Counsel of Laterrane (which was almost 1200 Years since Christ) Transubstantiation was no Article of Faith: Cassander confesseth that for a thousand years, the holy Sacrament was administered in both kinds; it were easy to instance in the rest, but that learned Prelate hath already done it to the full: and now let any rational man judge whether we or they are to be charged with Novelty, when as those things wherein they and we disagree, have no primitive antiquity to establish them.

2. As in this Particuler we vie with the Papists, so are we ready to put the differences between Us and the Sectaries upon this trial. Do we contend for a Liturgy in the Church? is it not because all Churches, Greek and Latin have had their Liturgies from the first Plantation of Christianity? Yea, Christ himself hath left a Prayer upon record, to be not only a Platform after which manner he would have his Disciples pray, but a Set form which they were to say when they did Pray. Do we contest for our Hierarchy in the Church, is it not because it was so from the beginning? S ^t Paul gave Timothy and Titus single persons, Episcopal power of ordaining, and governing Presbyters. Those Angels of the Seaven Churches manifestly appear by the Ecclesiastical History to be Bishops: Yea, No Church since the Apostles (till Calvin's time) hath been without Episcopal Government. Do we oppose the office of a Lay ruling Elder in the Church? is it not because it was not from the beginning? We can trace no footsteps of it in antiquity; nor yet any such Officer or Office described in holy writ. Finally, To name no more, do we plead for the Baptizing of Infants? Is it not because as ( Origen and Austin assure us) it is a practice which the Church received from the Apostles? and so an Apostolical tradition which the more plainly appeareth, because in S ^t Cyprians time though there was a Controversy about Baptizing Infants upon the Eight day, yet the thing itself is supposed as a practice then in use; and though we do not read ( totidem verbis ) in the Scripture that the Apostle Baptized Infants, yet it is very probable; when as S ^t Paul called the Children of a believing Parent holy, if he do not by the very phrase intend, (as the Learned D ^r Hammond not improbably conceiveth) yet that he did allow Baptism to those Children: and where we read that whole Families were Baptized, the Children might be among the number. In one word, It is the glory of the Church of England, that her Doctrines are exactly consonant to Universal and Primitive antiquity; nor do we desire any other rule to examine them by then this, which here is laid down by our Apostle, The old Commandment is the word which we have heard from the beginning.

2. To let this go, That which is chiefly to be considered, is the Minor of the Syllogism; That the Commandment of love was from the beginning. Now that which would here be inquired into is, whence this beginning taketh its date? Indeed haec vox pro materiâ substratâ vary accipi potest; this word beginning may admit of a several reference, and I find no less then four several expositions of it here; all of which are not repugnant to, but consistent with each other, from the beginning of their conversion, of Christian Religion, of the Mosaical administration, and of the Creation.

1. Some Interpreters render the sense of the words thus; from the beginning, that is from the time you became Christians, and first gave up your names to Christ, and were called to the faith; according to which sense our Apostle seemeth to assert, that one of the first lessons of Christianity is love. S ^t Paul speaketh of milk for babes, and meat for strong men; intimating that there are some Commandments and Doctrines which are only fit for grown Christians; but this Commandment of love, as it is meat for the strongest, so it is milk for babes.

2. Others give this construction of the words; from the beginning: that is, From the beginning of the Gospels Publication, ever since the Faith of Christ was made known to the world. Soon after Christian Religion was revealed, there were many who endeavored to bring in other Gospels, but this Commandment which S ^t John wrote of, was as old as Christianity; and what he delivered to them, he received from Christ himself. In that Sermon of Christ which is first mentioned by the first of the Evangelists S ^t Matthew, this Precept of love is expressed; and in the last Sermon that ever he preached, this lesson of love is commended to them; and being taught by Christ himself, it must needs be from the beginning of Christianity.

3. Many take the date of this beginning a great deal higher, even as high as Moses: That which you Israelites had of old in the writings of Moses delivered to you. So that we now give no other Commandment in charge to you, then that which God cmmanded Moses and the Prophets to preach. It is the exposition which I most incline to. For since it is not improbable (as hath been already suggested ) that those to whom this Apostle wrote, were (if not only, yet principally ) the Jews; and the design of S ^t John by these words, being to prove that what he wrote was no new but an old Commandment, it is improbable that he would prove it by a date of not much above sixty years, nor would it (especially to the Jews ) have been any conviction of the antiquity of his Doctrine, that it was from the beginning of Christian Religion; when as in their opinion Christ's Religion was a new Doctrine. Upon this ground it seemeth a more rational construction to refer this beginning to Moses: and our Apostle could not use a more prevailing Argument to the Jews, then by letting them know that the command he gave them was as old as Moses, and before enjoined by him. There is only one Objection to be Answered, that if this from the beginning be taken so far of; how doth the Apostle say, not only which you had, but which you heard, whereas this beginning was many hundred years before they were. But the learned Grotius hath framed a fit Answer to my hand, interpreting vos by majores vestri, you, that is, your Ancestors, according as it is to be taken, where it is said whom you slew, and did not Moses give you the Law.

That then which according to this construction is here asserted is, that the Commandment of Love was from the beginning of Moses, and required in the Law as well as in the Gospel. This is that which in some sense is granted by all, even the Socinians, but so as that they assert something to be added to it by Christ: and that upon that account it is called in the next Verse, a new Comandment. In what sense this Epithet of new belongs to it, shall be by and by discovered: In the mean time that which the Orthodox assert, and I shall endeavor to make good is, That the Evangelical command of Love was from the beginning of the Law, and so nothing new enjoined by Christ which was not before by Moses.

To this end, Be pleased to know that the command of Love may be considered either Extensive or Intensive; Extensively in regare of the Object; or Intensively in respect of the Act. In both these respects say the Socinians, Christ hath added to the Law; for whereas say they, the Law requireth the Jews only to love their Countrymen, their Friends; the Gospel requireth us to love our enemies, and so the extent of the Object is larger. And whereas the Law required only of the Jews an Active Love; the Gospel requireth a Passive, so far as to lay down our lives for the Brethren. The chief ground on which they build the former is that of our Savior, You have heard that it hath been said, thou shalt love thy Neighbor, and hate thine Enemy; but I say to you, love your Enemies: and the foundation which they lay of the latter is, that the Law commanded only to love their Neighbors as themselves; but the Gospel, To love one another as Christ loved us, which is in effect, to love others better then ourselves by laying down our lives for them, which is more then the Law required.

To enervate both these Arguments, and establish the truth of the Orthodox Assertion: Be pleased to know,

1. That Neighbor which is set down as the Object of Love in Moses his Law, includeth Enemy as well as Friend.

To clear this, I shall propose a double demand,

1. Whither is not Neigbour to be taken in the same latitude, when it is said, Thou shalt love thy Neighbor, as when it is said, Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy Neighbor; and again, Thou shalt not covet thy Neighbors Wife, nor his Ox, nor his Ass, nor anything that is thy Neighbors. If this be denied, that will be enough to evince it, that the particular commands of the second Table are but several Explications of the general command, Thou shalt love thy Neighbor: and therefore it is the same Neighbor to whom we must express our Love, by not bearing false witness against him and the like; and if it be granted, then certainly Neighbor must include Stranger, nay, Enemy. Since the Jews were not to bear false witness against their Enimies, or to covet unjustly what belonged to them: To this purpose is the note of a Rabbin upon these words of the Psalmist, He that doth no evil to his Neighbor, nor taketh up a reproach against his Neighbor, understanding it of enemies as well as friends.

2. When our blessed Savior repeateth this Law of Moses, whither did not Christ understand it in the same sense with Moses? If he did no • , then he affixed another sense to Moses his words then what he intended, which is not to be imagined; if he did, then either Moses meant them universally, or else Christ did not; and so Christ hath added nothing in this particular to Moses.

As for that passage in our Savior's Sermon, Thou shalt love thy neighhour and hate thine enemy; it is doubtless to be understood, (as Abulensis hath well noted) only as a Tradition of the Scribes and Pharisees. Indeed S ^t Austin, and S ^t Hilary seem to be of opinion, that hatred was allowed in the Old Testament: Yea, Oecumenius in this place harpeth upon the same string: but (by the leave of those Reverend Fathers) upon what ground it doth not appear; since it is nowhere written in the whole Body of the Law, Thou shalt hate thy Enemies: and therefore it is well observed, that our blessed Savior doth not say, You have heard that it hath been said by Moses, or in the Law; but You have heard that it hath been said, to wit, by the Scribes and Pharisees, those corrupt Interpreters of the Law.

To all this for the further Confirmation, I may add, That Solomon expressly requireth in his Proverbs, and S ^t Paul from him enjoineth in his Epistle. If thine Enomy • e hungry give him Bread to Eat, And if he be thirsty give him water to drink, so shalt thou heap coals of fire on his head, and the Lord will reward thee. That God in the Law gave strict charge concerning the beast even of our Enemy. If thou meet thine Enemies Ox or his Ass going astray, thou shalt surely bring it back to him. Again, If thou see the Ass of him that hateth thee, lying under his burden, and wouldest forbear to help him, thou shalt surely help him. And certainly he that required them to assist their Enemy, in rescuing his beast, did not allow them hatred and malice to his Person: Nay, yet once more in the forementioned place where Moses saith, Thou shalt love thy Neighbor, is prefixed, Thou shalt not avenge nor bear grudge, which refers to an Enemy that hath done one an injury. As for that lex talionis, Law of retaliation (though (as appeareth by our Savior ) it was otherwise construed by the Pharisees ) yet doubtless it was only intended by God, as a rule for the public Magistrate in his Administrations of justice, and is no less in this sense allowable now: And though they were to exercise acts of Hostility towards the Nations about them in making no peace with the Ammonites, casting out the Canaanites, and cutting off the Amalekites; yet this was by a special command from God, which both then and now may dispence with a general Precept; and withal, their being the Instruments of God's vengeance upon the Heathen, did not hinder, but that they might be free from any private revenge, and so fulfill the general Precept, as well as any Headsman; who notwithstanding he is the Executor of Justice, may yet love that Person, whom he doth execute.

2. That Love which the Law requireth may very well in some cases be raised up to that heighth of suffering death. Briefly to clear which, know, That laying down our life in reference to our neighbor is only required in one of these two cases; the one when the public, the other when the spirtuall good of others necessitateth to it.

To lay down a man's life for the public good, is so far from being purely Christian; that even Heathens have done it: and therefore is no doubt included in the Mosaical Precept; which we may the rather believe, because we find himself willing to be blotted out of the Book of Life for the preservation of the People: and if it be said that this is to love our Neighbor more then ourselves. I answer, It is not, if we take Neighbor Distributively; and if we take it Collectively, for the Generality, even nature teacheth us: and surely then Moses his Law did require to prefer the puhlique, before the private Wellfare, a General before a Particular good.

3. But that dying which is especially an act of Love, is when we are willing to lose our own temporal life for the eternal good of others. An example of this we have in the Old Testament. What else meant David's wish in regard of his Son Absalom when he said, Would God I had died for thee? Desiring no doubt to prevent that eternal death, into which he had reason to think his Son dying in Rebellion against his King, his Father; was now plunged by the loss of his temporary life. And in truth, though this be to love our Neighbors Souls better then our Body, yet it is not to love our Neighbor better then our selves, and therefore exceeds not the Mosaical Precept. Cae • eris paribus, let there be an equality every way, and a Christian is as much bound now to prefer himself before his Neighbor as a Jew was, and in way of inequality a Jew was bound to damage himself for his Neghbours good as well as a Christian. I am not to love my Neighbors Soul more then my own Soul, nor his Body more then my Body, nor his Estate more then my own. Christian charity in this respect, as well as Jewish, begins at home; only when it is my Estate, or Body, and my Neighbors Soul, which come in Competicion, this must be valued above those; and this is required by Moses, as well as Christ. In one word, That addition (as thyself ) was certainly intended, not as a Limitation or Restriction, but rather as an Amplification and Inlargment of this duty of love: that look how dear and entire, and cordial that love is, which men bear to themselves, the same they ought to have towards their Neighbors. And therefore I shut up this with that of Cassian, Quid diutius Evangelicis at{que} Apostolicis praeceptis immoramur, cum etiam vetus lex haec eadem praecepit? This Precept of Love is not only Apostolical but Prophetical; Evangelical, but Legal: and in that respect, truly said to be from the beginning.

4. Lastly, There is one Interpretation more which looketh backward as far as Adam; and so this command of Love is from the beginning, not only because commanded by Mos • s, but Imprinted in nature. The Law of Love was written at first in the mind of man; and though it be much obliterated, yet some Characters still remain: and as by ruinous walls we guess how stately the buildings once were; so by these remaining Impressions we may easily gather what goodly Characters of it were once stamped upon us. Thus as before Christ made it Gospel, Moses gave it as a written Law; so before Moses made it a written Law, God made it a branch, or rather the root of the Law of nature.

To wind it up therefore, Tell me I beseech you how inexcusable shall we be if having so manifold obligations we shall be negligent in the practice of this duty, Even the Gentiles that have only the remainders of natures Law are obliged to love, and not observing it will be found justly blameable; much more the Jews, who besides nature, had the Law of Moses to guide them, but most of all we Christians who have nature, and Moses Law, and the Law of Christ, to direct us. A threefold cord (saith Solomon) is not easily broken: behold a threefold obligation lieth on us Christians; Christ, Moses, Adam, all Preaching this Doctrine to us; upon which account St John calls it, the old Commandment which was from the beginning.

2. There is yet another branch of this first particular in the commendation remaining, which we find in the beginning of the eighth verse, Again a new Commandment I write unto you. That our Apostle by this new Commandment intends the same which before he calls, not a new, but an old Commandment, is most probable, partly because the conjunction 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 properly signifieth, and is here rendered again, which therefore seems to look back on what precedes, and intimateth that he continueth his discourse upon the same subject; chiefly because this very command of love is called by our blessed Savior in the Gospel a new Commandment; nor is this phrase used anywhere concerning any other, then this command; and therefore it is most rational so to understand it here, though Socinus most ab-, surdly contends, that those words, the darkness is past and the true light now shineth, are a command, and that which here is called a new Commandment.

This being premised, the chief work is to reconcile S ^t John to himself; for if he speak of the same Commandment, how is it that he calls it in one verse not new, and in the next a new? is it not a contradiction to affirm and deny the same thing of the same subject? That of S ^t Ambrose concerning the Cherubims, Si stabant, quomodo movebant? si movebant, quomodo stabant? If they did move, how did they stand? and if stand, how move, may be here alluded to? If it is old, how is it new? if new, how is it old? But surely it is not to be imagined that this holy Apostle should, as it were with one breath, give himself the lie. Had it been at a great distance, though an human Author might forget himself; yet surely this divinely inspired Apostle could not; and much less being so near as the next verse. And therefore we must necessarily conclude, that though he speaks of the same subject, yet not in the same respect. Now it is a known maxim in Philosophy, That contraryes and contradictions may be attributed to the same subject in divers respects; the same snow may be called white as it falleth, and black in its melting; the same person may be in one part hot, and cold in another. Not to multiply instances, the same Commandment may be old, and yet in some respect not unfitly be called new.

To illustrate this, give me leave briefly to set before you those several notions, in which this term new may fit this old Commandment of love.

1. Appellant Haebrei novum quod praestantissimum; it is usual with the Hebrews to call those things new which are excellent. He hath put into my mouth (saith David) a new Psalm: and again, Oh sing unto the Lord a new song, that is, say interpreters, an excellent song. In this sense it is true here; the command of love is an excellent command: our Savior calls the love of God the first and great Commandment, and the love of our neighbor the second, which is like to it. S ^t Paul speaking of this grace of charity, and comparing it with, prefers it before faith and hope. That Apologue is very fit to this purpose, of a consultation among the virtues, which should have the preeminence, whilst one was for chastity, sister to the Angels; another for justice, which giveth every man his due; a third for prudence, Solomon's choice: not agreeing among themselves, they made Reason the Umpire, who passing by all the rest, set the Crown upon the head of Love. But this interpretation though in itself true, is not so congruous to our Apostles meaning.

2. That exposition is doubtless more suitable, which expounds new in opposition to the long received tradition of the Pharisees concerning this command; for whereas this command had been corruptly taught for many years by those Doctors of the Law; it was now refined from the dr • s • e, and purely taught by Christ and his Apostles; and so this Commandment though old in itself, yea older then their false glosses; yet being but newly freed from them, is fitly said to be new. It is well observed by Heinsius, that those things are said to be new, which though they were long before, yet are denuó restituta, newly restored to their pristine purity. Look as an old house repaired, may be called a new house, and a rusty sword furbished, a new sword; look as an old book new bound up, is as it were a new book, and a defaced picture refreshed with colors a new pic • ure; so is this command a new Commandment. For whereas they who sat in Moses his chair, had perverted this doctrine; Christ was pleased by himself and his Apostles a new to revive and restore it to its primitive integrity. Indeed it was at this time with Moses law, as it was in the beginning of our Reformation with Christian Religion. The primitive doctrine and worship had for some hundred of years been buried under the ashes of Romish superstition; whereby it is, that the Reformed Religion though far older then Popery, might be accounted, and was, as it were, a new Religion. The Moral law in Christ's time as to the both intensive and extensive meaning of it, had been long hid under the corrupt opinion of the Jewish Doctors; and in that respect the command of love, as delivered by Christ, seemed no doubt to the Jews, and was as it were, a new Commandment.

But there are two other interpretations which seem more genuine then the former. And therefore know,

3. That this Commandment of love is a new Commandment, not substantially, but circumstantially; not in the essence of the doctrine, but the manner of patefaction; not in respect of the thing delivered, but the way of delivering it. It is the same command of love which is now, and was in the law enjoined; but the example is different; in the law our love to ourselves; in the Gospel, Christ's love to us, is made the pattern of this duty, Indeed this variety of example maketh no difference at all in the matter of the precept; when Moses saith, thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, he requireth as much, as when Christ saith, love one another as I have loved you: That of S ^t Paul concerning the love which ought to be between man and wife, sully illustrateth this truth; for whereas he useth both these examples, exhorting husbands to love their wives, as Christ loved his Church, and everyone to love his wife as himself; yet he commands no more by the one then the other, only presseth it hereby with the greater energy. Not are we to conceive any new addition to the general precept of love; but only a fuller enforcement of the same precept from this new example. Look as the Jewish and the Christian Sabbath are both days to be kept holy, but on a different account, the one of the creation of the world, and the other of Christ's resurrection; so the Jewish and the Christian command of love are of the same nature, but the one urged by the example of self-love, and the other of Christ's, and because the Gospel command is enforced with a new argument, and so delivered in a new manner; it may therefore be styled a new Commandment. Nor is it unlikely that S ^t John, having before in general exhorted to walk, as Christ walked, here particularizing in this walk of love, might call it a new Commandment in this respect, as it is an imitation of Christ's pattern.

4. But there is yet another interpretation which wants not good authority and reason to back it, and would not be passed by; and that is, to take new not in opposition to antiquity, but antiquation; new, because it waxeth not old, is never out of date, but always in force. There are some commands which are new and not old, such are the Sacraments of the New Testament; others which are old but not new because abolished, such are the Ceremonial services of the Old Testament; and there are others which are old, and yet new, such are the Precepts of the Moral Law. S ^t Paul compareth Love to a Debt when he saith, Owe nothing to any man but Love: and indeed it is such a Debt that is ever paying, the Bond being never Cancelled. It is the usual cry of this age, when Preachers deliver these moral Doctrines, he Preacheth old, and common things; but (my Brethren ) they are so old, that they are new, and must continually be inculeated upon the people. And therefore let us all learn so to look upon this command, that taking it as new, we may the more carefully observe it. It is well noted by Arnoldus. Solent homines leges novas studio sius observare; paulatim verà lege inveterascente de studio remittunt, Men are wont to be very observant of a Law whilst it is fresh and new, but as it groweth old, their Obedience becometh remiss: and therefore it is Maldonates note upon the Gospel, that this newness is to be referred, Non tam ad mandatum ipsum quam ad studium obediendi, not so much to the command itself as to our endeavor of obeying it, and since as some trees are green all the year, so this is always in force, we should with all care and conscience perform it.

To draw to an end, There is one acception of novum for rarum, new for that which is rare and unusual, which I would to God might not be too true as to the practice of this Commandment, it is rare and unusual especially in this frozen age. But however let us remember the command is new that is excellent, and new that is renewed, and new that is refined, and new that is persuaded by a new and urgent example: and therefore let our desires and endeavor's be still new and vigorous in the observance of it: so much the rather considering that as some of the Ancients gloss, it is novum quasi innovans, this new Commandment by our obedience to it, will transform us into new Creatures, and new Men in Christ Jesus. And that we may be enabled to this obedience, what other course should we take then to pray for a new Spirit, for that is another reason given of this phrase, novum quia novo spiritu impletur, it is therefore called new, because it requireth the new grace of the New Testament, which is given by a new Spirit to fulfill it; for this new grace let us be daily Orators, so shall we be of this new Commandment daily practicers.

To end all, They say of wine it is best when old, of Honey it is best when new; behold this command of love is as wine, and to commend it, it is an old Commandment, as Honey, and to commend it, it is a new Commandment: some men are plodding antiquaries and delight in old things, old Evidences, old Monuments, old Gold, old Coines, old Proverbs, and the like: others curious novelists, and delight in new: here is that may allure both, and therefore which way soever we are bent, our Apostle hath as it were fitted our humor, God grant it may affect our hearts, so as we may all be in love with this Commandment of love, which is both an old and new Commandment.

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF S ^t JOHN.

A Mong the many observables in sacred writ, it would not be passed by what frequent use the Penmen make of those two Arts, Logic, and Rhetoric; by the one proving strongly, and by the other persuading sweetly. It were easy to discover in these Divine Books the several Topics of Argumentation, Tropes and Figures of Elocution, and Forms of Oratory. True it is, it had been enough for the divine Majesty whose Penmen these were, only to assert and enjoin without either proving or persuading. But such is his Mercy, that knowing our dullness and perverseness, he is pleased to convince us by undeniable reasons, and allure us by loving insinuations. A pregnant instance hereof we have in these words, the scope whereof is to make way for the command of love which our Apostle was about to give them, friendly bespeaking them with the title of Brethren, and sweetly preparing them to receive the command by various Arguments, which are aptly couched in this oratoricall Proaeme. I write not a new but an old Commandment. And Again a new Commandment I write to you which is true in him, &c.

Having dispatched the Compellation and the first branch of the Commendation, we are now to proceed to the second, which is drawn from that conformity this duty hath to Christ's pattern, intimated in those words, Which thing is true, or a thing which is true in him. I am not ignorant that some learned men refer all that followeth in this Verse, to those words in the beginning of it, A new Commandment I write to you, as if it were only a Confirmation of that part of the commendation, and so those words, Which thing is true, are thus to be Paraphrased; which thing, Namely, That this Commandment of Love is a new Commandment, is true both respec • u Christi & nostri, in regard of Christ who hath himself fulfilled it, and so given us a new pattern of it, and in respect of us Christians who by reason of the true light shinining have a new grace enabling us to perform it ourselves. But I rather incline to take these words as affording new Topics for the commendation of love, and so the laudatory Character we are now to handle is, that this grace which is enjoined to Christians is no other then what was true in Christ.

The Clause as it is set down in the Greek carrieth with it no small difficulty. Gagneius upon this place ingeniously professeth that he could not find out the true sense and meaning of it. Some Expositors render 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , in itself, as if the sense of these words were only to assert the verity of the thing concerning which he discourseth; but this to me seemeth jeiune and unbeseeming the fullness of Scripture Expressions; besides, if we observe the phrase of this holy Apostle, and that in this Epistle we shall find it very usual with him to speak of Christ under those phrases of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as we may observe in the latter end of this, and the beginning of the next Chapter: look as Mary Magdalene having her own thoughts so full of Christ, conceived there was no need of naming him, only to say, Tell me where thou hast laid him: so S ^t John burning with love to Christ, not doubting but that he was well known to them to whom he wrote, and therefore supposing they would easily guess of whom he wrote, thinketh it enough to say only him, so that we may very well expound this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as our Translators readit, in him, to wit, Christ.

But the greatest difficulty of construing this Clause lieth in the first particle • , since being of the neuter Gender it cannot agree with the feminine 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which is the Substantive immediately preceding; but it is no strange or unusual thing for an Adjective of the neuter gender to be taken Substantively, and so quod which is as much as quae res which thing. Thus it is rendered in our Translation, and is not unfitly expounded by Grotius to be that thing (namely Love, ) which is the matter of the old and new Commandment: and indeed though the phrase may seem somewhat harsh, yet the sense is most fitly thus expressed, since the Commandment itself refers to us, not Christ; but the thing or matter of the Commandment was true in Christ himself, and so layeth a greater obligation upon us to perform the Commandment; nor need we stick at this Construction, when we find the same in the former Chapter, where in the second and third Verses after the feminine substantive, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , is put a neuter Adjective • as that forementioned Author observes: And now according to this interpretation, the plain sense of the words appeareth to be this, A thing which is true in him, that is, This grace of love which I enjoin you is no other then what was verified in Christ himself. So that as before he lets them see it is a Commandment both old and new: so here he acquaints them further, it was such a Commandment as had Christ himself an Example of it. Ipse enim prius charitatem ostendit, saith Ferus, For he himself did practice Love, ratum ac reipsa invenitur primum quidem in illo ut capite, saith Beza; In him, as being the head of the Church, and having received the Spirit without measure was this primarily accomplished. And this interpretation I so much the rather assent to, because it so aptly suiteth with what our Apostle had before delivered when he calleth upon them to express the reality of their interest in Christ by keeping his Commandments, and walking as he walked; whilst he lets them see that the duty of Love which he was about presently, and did intend chiefly to inculcate upon them, was the only way to perform both these; By Love, they should keep the Commandments, for it is both the old and the new Commandment, and by Love they should walk as Christ walked, for it is a thing which was true in him.

And now, That this was true in Christ, is a truth so clear, that there will be no need to prove it. Indeed it is tanquam radio solis scripta, written as it were with a Sun beam: so that he which runs may read it. It is a Subject I might very well dilate upon, but that I shall have more full occasion to discuss both the Love of Christ and God to us in the following Chapters. That it is so cannot be denied, yea, should we be so ungrateful as to deny or doubt it, the Manger and the Cross would testify against us. If either confering benefits on us, or suffering injuries for us, can assure his love to us: our Apostle she weth it to be true in both when he saith, To him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his Blood, and made us Kings and Priests to God the Father. How legible are the Characters of his love in his Birth, Life, Death, Resurrection, Ascension, Intercession; and all those advantages of Redemption, Remission, Adoption, Justification, Salvation; which by those accrue to us? Which who so knowingly considers, must needs say with S ^t Paul, The love and kindness of God our Savior hath appeared: with S ^t Peter, The Lord is gracious: and with S ^t Bernard, his love to us was dignitatis nescius, dignatione dives, affectu potens suasu efficax, full of condescension and affection. Indeed that it should be so (though it cannot be gainsaid ) may well be admired, especially when we look upon ourselves. What were we the rebellious offspring of degenerate Parents, Slaves of Satan, Servants of sin, Children of wrath; that Christ should cast an Eye towards, and place his Love on us? The 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 then is manifest that he loved us, and you if he ask the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Why he loved us? there can no reason on our part be given of it. And surely since his love was not deserved, no nor so much as desired by us, fit it is, it should be acknowledged with admiration, and retaliated with gratulation, and followed by imitation. This last our Apostle here aimeth at, in which respect he fitly addeth, and in you; it being most rational that what was true in the Head, should be true also in the Members, what was true in the Root should be true in the Branches, that as Christ loved us, so we Christians should love one another.

Before I proceed to this which is the next part, I shall in a few words mind you of one reading of these words, in which they have reference to this second part: Grotius tells us that in one Manuscript it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and S ^t Jerome in his translation, reads it nobis, A thing which is true in him, that is, Chri • t, and in us, that is, his Apostles, who write and publish this Commandment to you. The Original Copy was drawn by Christ, his Disciples transcribed it in their own practice, and have commended it to all Christians to write after both him, and them. This Cup of Love was begun by Christ, his Apostles pledged him, and it must go round, all Christians are to drink of it.

And here I cannot but take notice of that which I would to God were seriously laid to heart by all who succeed the Apostles in the work of the Ministry; Namely, that as S ^t John in the behalf of himself and the other Apostles saith, I write to you a Commandment concerning a thing which is true in us, so we may be able to say, that that which we enjoin the people is verified in ourselves. This is (according to Isidores phrase) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to join living with dead instruction, when our life as well as our tongue preacheth, this is (according to Primasius his Exposition) rightly to divide the word of truth, when we confirm our Doctrine by our practice. Finally, This is (according to Playfers allusion) to lift up the voice like a Trumpet, which must be held with the hand as well as blown with the mouth; when we not only report the truth by a lively Preaching, but support it by a Preaching life. Indeed then only can Ministers publish commands with authority, so as to gain belief, with boldness so as not to be ashamed, with efficacy so as to persuade, when they join patterns to their Precepts.

1. Men are very apt to question the truth of that Dectrine to which the Preachers practice giveth the lie; the way to imprint an instruction upon the Hearers heart as well as ear, is to speak by our works as well as words. It is said of our blessed Savior, He spake as one having authority: and S ^t Gregory's moral is, Cum imperio docetur, quod prius agitur, quam docetur: he only Preacheth with authority, who doth what he teacheth.

2. When a Ministers Conversation confuteth his instruction; blushing may well sit upon his cheeks, and his ears tingle to hear that of S ^t Paul, Thou that teachest another shall not steal, dost thou steal? The Leper in the Law was to cover his lips, which one morally applieth to Leprous Ministers who may well stop their mouths for shame.

3. A speech not accompanied with action, saith Isidore truly, for the most part is lifeless and ineffectual; if the Heavens, that is, the Preachers are as Brass only tinkling with sound of words; no marvel if the Earth, to wit, the People are as Iron, obdurate to all their counsels: since Cujus vita despicitur, restat ut ejus praecatio contemnatur, his Preaching is usually despicable, whose life is contemptible: in which regard S ^t Bernard saith truly of such an one, Verendum ne non tam nutriat doctrinâ verbi, quam sterili vitâ noceat. It is to be feared his vicious life more infects then his pious Doctrine instructs. That Preacher wi, ll both find most comfort in himself, and do most good to others, who can say in the words of a devout Abbot, N • n aliquem docui quicquam quod ego prius ipse non fecerim, I never taught any man any lesson which I did not first learn myself: as here S ^t John saith of this Commandment, it is true in us. And so much for this second commendatory Character of this grace of Love; its conformity to the pattern of Christ, and (as you see by some readings ) his Apostles. I now hasten to the

3. Last, That conformity which this duty hath to the state of the Gospel, and the truth of Christianity, in these words, And in you, because the darkness is past and the true light now shineth. In these words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in you, is implied a Substantive Verb, which may be put either Indicatively, or Imperatively; is, or let it be true in you, according to a different construction, of the following words. Whilst some by darkness and light understand the Legal and Evangelical administration: so the Imperative rendering best suiteth, Let this Love be true in you, because the darkness of the Law is past, and the light of the Gospel shineth. And others by darkness understand the state of unregeneracy, and by light the state of regeneracy; and so the Indicative best fits this thing which is commanded the duty of Love is true in you, because you are brought out of the darkness of nature, into the light of grace. Each of these constructions are consonant to the Analogy of Faith, agree well with the scope of the Apostle, want not the concurrence of judicious Expositors, and therefore I shall neglect neither.

1. In handling these words according to the first interpretation, we shall loook upon them two ways, as an Assertion, and as an Argument.

1. As an Assertion, we have considerable in them.

A double Subject, darkness, and light.

A double predicate of the darkness, that it is past; of the true light, that it now shineth.

1. It would in the first place be here considered, that the Gospel is set forth by light, and the Law by darkness. Suitable to this it is that S ^t Paul (as some expound those words, The night is far spent, the day is at hand ) compareth the one to the day, and the other to the night: and S ^t Ambrose interprets these words of the Psalmist, Day unto day uttereth speech, and Night unto night showeth knowledge, the one of the Christian, and the other of the Jew.

1. That the Gospel is most fitly described by light is out of question, and the Analogy may easily be demonstrated in several parables.

The Fountain of light is the Sun, and Christ the Son of righteousness is the Author of the Gospel, in which respect it is called the word of Christ. The nature of light is pure, the Doctrine of the Gospel is holy: in which regard it is called the mystery of Godliness, and the Doctrine which is according to godliness. Light by reason of its splendor and beauty is very am • able, delighting, cheering, and reviving the beholder. Evangelical truths are pleasant and comfortable to the Believer. So much the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , signifying a good message, or (according to the Angels phrase) tidings of great joy imports: such is the subtlety of the light that it penetrateth the air, the window, the smallest crevice; and so great is the Gospels efficacy that it pierceth to the very soul. So much the Author to the Hebrews asserts when he saith, The Word of God is quick and powerful piercing even to the deviding asunder of Soul and Spirit, and of the Joynts and Marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Finally, The principal effect and use of light is to discover and make manifest: things that are secret and hidden appear in the light, by reason of its clarity and brightness: for this cause chiefly is the Gospel resembled to light, because it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a revelation and manifestation of many glorious Mysteries. The Trinity of persons in the Unity of Essence; The Unity of the two natures in one Person, in the incarnation of the Son of God; The meeting together of mercy and justice in the redemption of the World; The estate of bliss and glory laid up for Believers in Heaven; The calling of the Gentiles from all parts of the Earth, out of the state of ignorance to the knowledge of God and Christ; are those mysterious Doctrines which the Gospel plainly revealeth to us; well may it deserve to be represented by the similitude of light.

2. But though the Metaphor of light very well agree to the Evangelical, yet that the other resemblance of darkness should be understood of the Legal Administration seemeth somewhat harsh and strange; nor indeed can it be admitted, but in a qualified sense.

To which end you must know that the Law of Moses may be considered either Absolutely, or Comparatively. If we consider it Absolutely in itself, it was a light. David acknowledged it, his son Solomon in his Proverbs asserteth it; and it were easy to parallel the Law to light as well as the Gospel, inasmuch as it is the Law of the Lord, an undefiled Law, rejoicing the heart; Yea, inasmuch as what ever was necessary for the Jew to know in order to Salvation was delivered in it. Again, If we consider it Comparatively with the state of the Gentiles at that time, what is here ascribed to the Gospel, belongs even to the Law, it was then the true light. In Jury was God known, saith the Psalmist, and his name was great in Israel. Whilst the whole world was an Egypt involved in the darkness of Idolatry, Jury was a Goshen, a place of light for the Knowledge and Worship of the true God.

But still compare the time of the Law, with the time of the Gospel, and so this term of darkness may be asserted of it. A light it was but a Candle light, so much the phr • se of a light, and a lamp used both by the Father and the Son, David and Solomon intimate; and perhaps the like is intended by S ^t Peters expression, of a light shining in a dark place. Now what is a Candle light but dark in comparison of Day light.

To clear this, Be pleased to observe that this darkness is not opposed simply to light, but to the true light and that as shining; now this expression of true may be taken in a threefold reference, as contradistinguished to that which is imperfect, figurative and false.

1. As perfect is sometimes no more then true, so true is sometimes as much as perfect, it is the gloss of Grotius upon the Text. Quod in quâque re eminet solet dici 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that which is the most Eminent in any kind, is said to be truly so, thus the true light is as much as the choice and most resplendent light; in which sense Christ himself is said in the Gospel to be, and here the Evangelical Administration is called the true light. That this is the meaning of the Epithet here, appeareth so much the more, in that the Article is prefixed both before the Substantive, and the Adjective: as if we should render it the light, the true being so most Eminently and Transcendently. Indeed the Law is a light, and in some sense a true light because it did not deceive nor misguide them who walked according to it; but still the Gospel is the true because the most illustrious light, and so in comparison of it, the Law is as it were darkness.

2. It is not an unusual signification of true and truth in holy writ, nor unsuitable to this place to take it in opposition to Types, Figures, and Ceremonies; in this sense we are to understand it, where Christ is called the true Tabernacle, that of Moses being only a Type of him: and when our Savior saith, God will be worshiped in truth, not according to the Typicall and Ceremonial worship of the Law; and yet more appositely to our present purpose, when it is said, The Law came by Moses, but grace and truth by Jesus Christ. The meaning whereof is briefly thus, whereas the Law only enjoineth, the Gospel enableth, and what the Law taught in Figures, is nakedly delivered in the Gospel. Congruous to which is that of S ^t Austin, Grace comes by Christ, Ut datâ indulgentiâ peccatorum quod praeceptum erat ex Dei dono custodiretur, that indulgence being granted to our failings, what is commanded may by God's assistance be performed; and truth, Ut ablatâ observatione umbraru • quod promissium erat ex fide presentaretur, that by removing the obscure Types what is promised might be made manifest. Upon this account the phrase of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , darkness here used may be attributed to the Law, or at least that which is by the learned D ^r Hammond observed to be the reading in the Royal Manuscript 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a shadow, all the Ceremonies, Types, and Sacrifices of the Law being but shadows of those things which the true light of the Gospel more fully discovereth. This is excellently expressed by S ^t Paul to the Colossians, where he calleth the Legal Ceremonies a shadow, and Christ the Body: to the Hebrews when he saith, the Law was a shadow of good things to come; not the very Image: in both which Scriptures put together, you find a Body, an Image, a Shadow; the Body is Christ, the Image the Gospel, the Shadow the Law. Now as the Representation which a shadow maketh of the Body is very dark and obscure in comparison of that which the Image showeth: since the shadow represents only in communi, that there is a Body; the Image in particulari, the several Lineaments of the Body; so the discoveries which the Law maketh of Christ and Salvation by him are very imperfect in comparison of the Gospel Revelations.

3. If you like to retain the common signification of true as opposite to false, you must take in the Verb shineth, and so the sense will be clear; the true light shineth only in the Gospel, and therefore the Law is called darkness. True there was a light a true light in the Law, but it did not shine forth, it was as it were hid under a Bushel; and so a state of darkness in comparison of the shining light in the Gospel. It is very observable to this purpose, that all things were covered and wrapped up to the Jews; when they carried the Brasen Altar in the wilderness, they covered it with a Purple Cloth; when they carried the Ark it was covered with three coverings, a Vail, a Badgers skin, and a Cloth of blew; the Table of the Shew Bread had three coverings; and except the laver everything was covered in the Temple; Yea, the Temple itself had a Vail. When Moses came from the Mount, his Face was veiled; the Priests bare the things which they might not see: and all this to signify what a concealment there was of divine knowledge under the Law. To this purpose S ^t Gregory allegorizeth these words of the Psalmist, Tenebrosa aqua in nubibus, Dark water in the Clouds, that is, Occulta scientia in Prophetis, the darkness of knowledge in the Law and Prophets.

It is true, Eternal life, Salvation by Christ, and those other sublime truths are to be found in the Law, but as a Face under a Mask, as a Sun in a Cloud, Heavenly wrapped up in Earthly promises, Christ involved in Types and Figures. There were but few that knew anything of these truths in comparison of the multitudes now, and that they did know was but obscurely in comparison of the clearness now. Divine knowledge was then as an Oyntmennt kept close in an Alablaster Box, now the savor thereof perfumeth the whole house. Then it was at best but as the dawning of the Day, now it is full Noon: and those Doctrines which were velata inveteri, folded up in the Old, are revelata in novo, unfolded in the New Testament. To this tends that expression used by S ^t Paul concerning Christians, We all with open face behold the glory of the Lord. The Jews faces were veiled, ours are open, they according to the Apostles phrase elsewhere saw afar of and so darkly, we as it were near hand and so clearly.

To sum it up, Look as the true shining light of the Gospel in comparison of that beatifical Vasion, so the typical instruction of the Law in comparison of Evangelical teaching is but darkness or at best a shadow. Indeed the Triumphant Church is in intimis, the holy of holies. The Christian Church Militant, in atrijs the holy place. But the Jewish in extimis the outward Court. When God gave the Law the second time, he commanded the people to stand at the foot of the Mount▪ Aaron, Nadab, Abihu, and the Seaventy Elders of Israel to worship afar off in the middle of the Mount, and Moses ascends to the top of the Mount, even within the Cloud: by which three one hath represented the three states of the Church: By those who stood at the bottom, the Jewish; By them who worshipped in the middle, the Christians; And by Moses the glorified Church. In one word to use S ^t Ambrose his phrase, Umbra in lege, imago in Evangelio, veritas in Cael • , the Truth is in Heaven, the Image in the Gospel, but in the Law only the shadow.

2. The just fitness of those Metaphors darkness and light, in reference to the Law and Gospel being manifested; that which next is more briefly to be considered, is that, which is predicated concerning both. Namely, That the one is past, and the other now shineth. Indeed the word for passing is in the Present Tence 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 it doth pass away, for when S ^t John wrote this Epistle, it was only in fieri, passing, not past: those Legal Ceremonies began to die at Christ's Passio • : then, in signification thereof was the Vail of the Temple not only perforatum, or attritum, or laceratum, worn or torn a little, but rent in twain from the top to the bottom; but they were not dead and buried till the destruction of the Temple itself; so that during the space between Christ's Passion and Jerusalem's desolation, they were passing away: and the Evangelical Administration did more and more display itself. Thus as when the house is built the Scaffold is pulled down, when the Sun ariseth the Starrs disappear; when the Prophet himself came the staff was taken off, and when Christ increased, John the Baptist decereased; so when the Gospel was published the Legal Administrations vanished away.

And surely the Consideration hereof should teach us on the one hand to bewail the hardened Jews, who though the darkness be past and the true light now shineth, shut their eyes against the light, and love to abide in darkness. S ^t Jerome very aptly compareth the Jews before Christ, to those that eat the flesh: Christians under the Gospel to those who eat the Marrow, but the Jews now to the dogs that gnaw the bone. Indeed those Legal observances at the best were only 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a shadow but now they are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 darkness exitiall to those who still embrace them? Oh let us pity and pray for the blinded Jews, that the veil may be taken from their faces; and they may behold the light which shineth so brightly: nor is there less cause of gratulation in respect of our selves, then lamentation in regard of the Jews. It was a great benefit to learning, when the obscure hyeroglyphicks of the Egyptians were changed into letters, and Plato's dark writings were brought down to more easy conceptions by Aristotle; but surely far greater is the benefit which the Church hath now, the Evangelical Administration suceeding in the room of the legal. Oh, how fitly may that expression of the Psalmist be taken up by us Christians! God is the Lord which hath shown us light, a clear full glorious light, let us be glad and rejoice in it!

To wind up this first Interpretation by considering the words (in this sense) as an argument why this command of love ought to be true in us; Namely, Because we live under the Christian dispensation. Indeed hatred and malice were not tolerable in the Jews, but they are abominable in us Christians; who should live in love if not we, to whom the love of God and Christ is so clearly revealed? Oh my brethren, how sad is it to think, though (the shadow as some read it) the darkness (as others) be past, and the true light now shineth; yet we may too truly complain that the shadow remaineth? nothing but shadows of grace, fancies of godliness found among us; nay the darkness of envy and hatred, and all uncharitable walking prevaileth among us. Oh be we exhorted, since we have the light, to walk in it, to walk worthy of it, to walk as children of it, by walking in this path of love. And so much for that Exposition.

The other interpretation renders these words assertively, is true in you, and expounds the darkness and light of sin and grace; an Exposition which I incline to as most rational, it being very probable that our Apostle as in the following verses he useth the same metaphors; so here intends the same things; and that there his primary scope is to describe by darkness and light, man's corrupt and regenerate estate, will appear in the handling. For the better prosecution of these words in this sense, be pleased to proceed with me by these steps, and observe,

1. What is the state of all men before conversion; Namely, a state of darkness; darkness is in our minds, the darkness of ignorance and infidelity, we neither do nor can know aright either God or ourselves, The natural man perceiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, is S ^t Paul's general Doctrine, asserting our ignorance of God; and the particular charge against Laodicea, That she knew not she was wretched and miserable, poor, blind, and naked; may justly be extended to all mankind in regard of self-ignorance. Indeed there is so much light left in us as may render us inexcusable, but not as can lead us to Heaven, we neither of our selves can find out, nor yet discern divine truths, though they are set before us, how quick sighted soever reason may be in naturals; it is dim yea blind in spirituals: and as our blessed Savior argueth, If the eye be darkness, the whole body must needs be dark; the eyes of our understanding being darkened; no marvel if our will and affections be clouded, yea a darkness of sin overrun our whole man; so that what S ^t Paul saith to the Ephesians, is true of all unregenerate persons, they are not only in the concrete dark, but abstract darkness it self.

2. What the state of all regenerate persons is, The darkness is past and the true light of saving knowledge and heavenly grace shineth in their hearts. Regenerate Christians are called in the New Testament new Creatures, and indeed not unfitly; since as it was in the old, so is it in this new Creation. We read in the beginning of Genesis, That darkness was upon the face of the deep, and God said let there be light. A fit Emblem of the Spirits work in a sinners Conversion. Whereas darkness covereth the soul before, a glorious light ariseth in, and diffuseth itself through it; To this no doubt the Apostle alludeth when he saith, God who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts: and for this reason it is that very often the turning of a sinner is set forth by this Metaphor: so Paul's conversion of the Gentiles is called a turning them from darkness to light; the converted Colossians are said to be delivered from the power of darkness; and of the Ephesians it is said, You who were sometimes darkness, are now light in the Lord. Suitable to all which is this phrase in my Text, The darkness is past, and that true light now shineth.

Nor is it unworthy the observation, how fitly these two clauses are joined together, since the one cannot be without the other; nay, indeed one is the cause of the other. In every convert there is not only a passing away of darkness, but a shining of the true light; yea, the shining of the light is the cause of the passing away of the darkness; in which respect Zanchi noteth, that Conjunctio copulans pro causali posita videtur, the Copulative Conjunction, and is put for the Causal, for. This will the more appear if we consider what S ^t Austin hath observed, Namely, That darkness is nothing else but the non residency of light, and therefore that which expelleth darkness, must needs be the presence of light: thus the grace of the Spirit infused into the Soul, is that which prevaileth to the expulsion of sin. Look as the taking of an antidote driveth out the poison; the putting of a new Seal upon the Wax defaceth the old stamp, and the return of the Sun causeth the darkness to vanish; so is it the donation of the Spirit and his grace which dispossesseth Sin and Satan of the Soul.

Hence we may take notice, what it is that maketh the difference between a Convert and a natural Man, namely, the shining of the light of grace. We that are converted were once involved in the same state of darkness with the rest of the world, and as unable to deliver ourselves from it, had not God's free grace caused the light to shine upon us, which he denieth to others: in which regard S ^t Peter saith to the converted Christians to whom he wrote, You are a chosen Generation, a royal Priesthood, an holy Nation, a peculiar People, that you should show forth the praise of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.

But yet it must withal be considered, that the words in this sense are better read according to the Greek, the darkness passeth away, then that it is past, since so long as we are here, though our light be true, yet it is not perfect, but shineth more and more to the perfect day. Now according to the increase of the light is the decrease of the darkness, and therefore because it is not full noon, perfect day whilst we are here, the darkness cannot be said to be wholly past, but rather is still passing; if then we are sensible of the remainder of darkness in our hearts; let it trouble, but not too much dismay us: light and darkness in remiss degrees may be together, nor must we expect the darkness of sin to be wholly removed till we participate the light of Glory.

3. In whomsoever the darkness passeth, and the true light shineth: this is true of which our Apostle here speaketh, this grace and duty of love will show itself in all regenerate persons: it is a clear maxim, where there is the cause, there will be the effect; such as is the root, such will be the fruit; now goodness which is a companion of love, is called by the Apostle Paul, A fruit of the Spirit, or as some Greek Copies read it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a fruit of light, this light which here is said to shine, which is no other then the grace of the Spirit; no wonder if where this light shineth there this beam and fruit of it appear: indeed glowe worm light and star light is such as hath no beat at all to accompany it, but Sun light which is the true light expelling darkness wanteth not heat, which is the Emblem of this grace of love whereby the soul is warmed, yea enflamed.

Examine we then ourselves by this Character if we be brought from darkness to light, this is true in us, who so experienceth this change will find some measure of strength to perform this command, darkness is hateful, but light is lovely; the darkness of sin causeth hatred, but the light of grace love, if the wild Beast of envy and malice range abroad in thy Conversation, it is a plain argument that as yet it is might with thee.

For a close of this particular I have already told you, that according to this sense these words, true in you, are to be read Affirmatively, and so they are a commendation of those to whom our Apostle wrote, and intimate, that this command, which he was to impose on them, was already true in them: and his design hereby no doubt was to encourage them the more in the practice of this duty. Since according to that of the Orator, Trabimur omnes laudis studio, all men love to be commended, and praise is a spurr to Virtue. This is that policy which our blessed Saviou • himself is pleased to use in all his Epistles to the Asian Churches, except that of Laodicea; owning and praising those graces which he saw in them. The like we may find practiced by all the Apostles in their Epistles. S ^t Paul writing to the Corinthians, Now I praise you Brethren: to the Galatians, you did run well: S ^t Peter, Whereunto you do well that you take heed. It were easy to instance in each; and surely this practice is deservedly imitable by Ministers towards their People, Superiors towards Inferiors; Yea, all men one towards another. Render to all their dues, honor to whom honor belongeth, saith S ^t Paul. It is a breach of that justice, which is due from man to man, not to give due commendations. Indeed flattery is abominable, and therefore there must be Salt as well as Honey, in our praises: commendations are then commendable when they are done with fidelity, and exceed not verity; having just ground, and aiming at a right end: we may, we ought to acknowledge and declare the good, which we see in others, as here S ^t John doth.

But perhaps you will say, if this were true in them already, what need our Apostle write this Commandment to them? is it not in vain to bid a man do that, which he already doth? I answer, No: and that upon a double account.

1. That which was true, must be still true, and so a command may be given to enjoin the continuance in, as well as the entrance upon any duty. As the Devil diverteth some from, so he interrupteth others in the performance of what is good; we had need to be called upon once and again, least we faint in the race.

2. That which was true, ought to be more true in them; we fulfill no command so exactly, but we may complain of manifold defects, nor do we ever so well, but still we may do in all, better; the truth of Love and every grace is in whom the true light shineth, and on whom regeneration is conferred, but the strength of grace may still be deficient; and therefore there is continual need of writing and Preaching this Commandment even to those who practice it.

To end all, What remaineth but that this large and excellent Preface, with which our Apostle ushereth in his discourse of love, have an effectual influence upon our hearts and lives, to prepare us for the Doctrine, and excite us to the practice of it? It is a command, and that not antiquated but still in force, it was practiced by Christ himself and all his holy Apostles, it is most suitable to the Gospel Administration, under which we live; yea, if we have the true light of grace in us, this cannot but be in some measure exercised by us.

And therefore, that we may obey this old and new Commandment, which God hath given us; that we may follow that choice and excellent pattern, which Christ and his Apostles have set us; that we may walk worthy of the Gospel, which shineth among us:

Finally, That we may declare ourselves to be indeed what we profess, brought from darkness to light, let us attend to, and set upon the performance of the following instruction which should now be handled, but that the time prevents, and therefore must be referred to another opportunity.

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF S ^t JOHN.

W Hat humidum and calidum, the natural heat and radical moisture, are to the body, that are repentance, and love to the soul; nor are those more necessary to the conservation of our temporal, then these to the sustentation of our spiritual life. Indeed the principal grace is Faith, this brings as it were the copula, that which knits Christ and the Christian together in Union with whom consists our life; but the maintaining of this life is by the moisture of godly contrition for our sins, and the warmth of holy affection towards God and Man: no wonder if we find as Faith and Repentance; so likewise Love frequently inculcated in holy writ upon all Christians. Indeed this latter is one of the principal Subjects of this Epistle, so that though our Apostle minds us of Repentance in confessing our sins, and Faith in believing on the Name of Jesus Christ, yet he chiefly insists on loving, and that as God, so our Brother, which is the design of the Verses I have now read, He that saith he is in the light, &c.

Having dispatched the preamble inciting, contained in the two former Verses, I am now to procced to the Doctrine instructing, laid down in these three; for whereas before he had mentioned a Commandment concerning, which he did now write to them, and withal adorned it with very amiable Characters, he now plainly and expressly declareth what this Commandment is; Namely, That of loving our Brother, for so Interpreters well observe these Verses to be an Exposition of the general commendation in those; and having by his large praises endeavored to inflame them with desires after the knowledge and practice of it, he goeth on to inform them what it is, and wherein it consists.

Nor would it be passed by, that our Apostle in handling this Doctrine of Love pursueth that Metaphor which he made use of in the former Chapter, where he layeth down the general scope of his Epistle; hereby no doubt intending to intimate to us that this duty of Brotherly Love, is a primary step of that walking in the light, which intituleth to fellowship with God; and so on the contrary, hatred of our Brother, a chief step of that walking in darkness, which depriveth us of that communion, so that we are now come to the fourth step of that divine walk, which S ^t John designeth to chalk out in this Epistle. The first whereof is Repentance, The second Obedience, The third Imitation of Christ, And now the fourth which we are from these verses to discourse upon is, The love of our Brethren, He that saith he is in the light, &c.

In these three Verses we have two general parts considerable;

A Grace proposed, The Vice opposed.

The proposition is in the 10. Verse, The opposition in the 9, and 11. Verses.

And inasmuch as the grace is in order of nature before the vice: and (according to that Geometrical maxim, Rectum est Index sui & obliqui ) the way to know when we commit the sin is to understand the nature of the grace; and yet further, since the opposition is intended as an amplification of the proposition, I shall therefore in handling these Verses begin with the middlemost, wherein is contained

The Thesis or grace proposed, He that loveth his Brother abideth in the light, and there is no occasion of stumbling in him.

In the discussion whereof be pleased to observe two things, the nature and the benefit of the grace, the former in the Subject, the latter in the predicate of the proposition.

1. The Subject of the proposition, He that loveth his brother. So that the grace here set before us is the love of our Brother: S ^t Austin speaking of love hath observed a four fold Object, whereabout it is conversant, Quod supra nos, quod nos sumus, quod juxta nos, quod infra nos; The first above us, namely, God, The second our Selves, The third about Us, The fourth beneath us, our Bodies; and as he well observeth two of them are so natural that there is no need of a Precept, to wit, ourselves, and especially our bodies; and therefore the command of love is expressed in these two, the Love of God, and of our Neighbor, the latter of which our Apostle here calls for.

If you look backward upon the 5. Verse of this Chapter▪ you find the Apostle speaking of the Love of God, that being indeed the primary Object of Love: and here he adviseth to the love of our Brother; these two being not contrary but subordinate: a little after he speaketh of two Loves which are inconsistent, the Love of the Father, and the Love of the World; but it is not so with the Love of God and our Brother; nay, Indeed the former is a • ause of the latter, and the latter a testimony of the former. Love to our Brother is effected by our love to God; and our Love to God is perfected by love to our Brother: and therefore very fitly doth our Apostle here speak of the latter, (having before mentioned the former ) because he is now about to describe the word or Commandment the keeping whereof perfects, that is, declareth our love to God to be perfect or sincere, which is no other then Brotherly love.

For the better unfolding of which, I shall briefly resolve these two queries,

What that Love is which we owe to our Brother?

Who that Brother is whom we are so to Love?

Not to discourse of Love at large, be pleased to know, That to Love our Brother as Zanchi well defineth, 'tis To have our mind so inclined towards him, as that we will, and to the utmost of our power, confer good upon him: Suitable hereunto is that description of the Philosopher, Love is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ▪ To will that which is good to, and as far as we are able to do that which we will for another. If then you ask what is the formal act of this love? I answer 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ▪ benevolence. If what is the proper effect of it? The answer is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , beneficence; nor can love be, where either of these is wanting: on the one hand, if there be beneficence and not benevolence, it is not love. When S ^t Paul saith, Though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing; he intimateth, that it is possible for a man to bestow his goods on the poor, and yet want love, liberality being sometimes a fruit rather of vain glory, then charity. On the other hand, if there be benevolence, and not beneficence, it is not love; since it is only vell •• tas, not voluntas, a wishing and woulding, not a serious willing: Trahit secum animorum propensio omnem beneficentiam, saith Gwalther, a cordial propension carrieth with it a vigorous prosecution. In this respect St James chideth those, who when a Brother or Sister is naked and destitute of daily bread, say to them depart in peace, be you warmed, be you filled, notwithstanding they gave them not those things which were needful for the body: that is not charity which only expresseth itself in words, not works; love being an emanation of the will, in a way of adhaesion to its object, cannot but will all good to the object loved; and since the will is the Queen Regent of the whole man (in which regard the actions of all the other faculties are called the imperate acts of the will) commanding the execution of its inclination; it must needs follow, that he who seriously wills, cannot but really endeavor his brothers good; and therefore that velleity which like an empty cloud vanisheth away without efficacy, is not an act of love: in which respect some not unfitly give the sense of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to move every •• one, and use all means for accomplishing the good we will; only that caution (according to our ability must be here inserted: for as S Paul saith in this very case, If there be first a willing mind, it is accepted according to that a man hath, and not according to that he hath not; where there is want of ability, benevolence (though it cannot be profitable to our Brother, yet) is acceptable to God, and ought to be to him without beneficence. The one then, namely a good will, is absolutely and always necessary; The other to wit good works conditionally, and with this limitation, so far as they are within the sphere of our activity, and compass of our ability.

Besides this general definition of love; it will not be amiss somewhat more particularly, to inquire into the several ways of exercising it, that we may see how many lines meet in this center of love; which may both fully and briefly be delineated by a double reference.

1. To the present condition of our brother, who Either hath the good already; and then love first blesseth God, and next cong • atulateth him, rejoicing him at the presence, and willing the continuance, yea increasing of it, so far as may be good and expedient for him.

Or else he wants the good, and is distressed by some kind of evil; and then love beareth a part with him in his sufferings by sympathy, wiping away his tears with the spunge of her compassion; yea, not only so, but endeavoreth to