;$z The Vie of the La, Mofes the repref ntative,and Chrif f the fubflantiall and reali Mediator.Bur now though there be two Covenants, and tiro Mediators, and they fo much in appearance ! contrary unto one another, as that God may in them keme inconftant, and to have by one concerti and re- pented for the other : yet all this while God is one ; that is,He is the fame in both Covenants, carries the fame pur- pofe and intention both in the Law and in the Gofpell, namely, a benevolence, and defire of reconcilement with men. VTerf. 21. Is the LaW then againft the Promifes of God? Cod forbid : for if there had Beene a LaW given which could have given Life, verily rigghteoufne(fe Amid have been by the Law.] Here wee have an Objection of the Iewes. If God be One, then Hee doth not fpeake one thing,and meane another, pronounce the Law in fome words, and require them to be otherwife underffood : And then it wil follow that the Law is againff the Pro- mifes, for in the common conf1ruc`ïion and fcnfe of the words it is manifeftly contrary. This Ob jec`fion the A- poffle doth retort upon them. In as much as the Law would be againff the Promife, ifit fhould flád for a rule of jufti fication by it felfe, and not for a manudunion un- to Chrif}; therefore God being one and the fame, con - ftant in his Promife for Righteoufücffe which he made to Abraham, they were in a manifeff errour who fought for righteoufneffe from the Law, becaufe that would evidently inferre one of thefe two things, ei- ther inconffancy in Gods Will, or inconfiftency in his ans. The fubflance and ftrength of the Apof}les anfwer I take to be this :Contrariety is properly in theNature of things confidered by them fel ves. Now though there be in the Law an accidentals contrariety to the Gofpell, by reafon of the fin of man which bath brought weak - nefle upon it, fo that the Law now curfeth, and the Gofpell blcffeth; the Law now condemneth, and the Gofpell
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=