ROM. 3. 31.
I Shall in the next place discusse that famous Question, about the abrogating of the Morall Law: only I must answer to some Objections that are made against the former position, That the Law may be used by God in the preaching of it to mans Conversion, in the sense explained: which, if not attended unto, may make the assertion seem harsh, and incredible. But before I answer the Objections, let us consider a great mistake of the Antinomian author, Assert. of grace, pag. 171. where he makes the very ground, why they are charged with Antinomianisme, to be, because they do not hold the Law to be used by God instrumentally for the conversion of men. Certainly this is a great mistake, for there are many learned men, who hold the work of the Law by the power of Gods Spirit to be no more then preparatory; yet for all that, do peremptorily maintain the use and the obligation of the Law in respect of believers. Therefore they are not in this respect condemned for that errour.
Another consideration that I will propound is this,1 That the work of conversion is not wrought totally in a man without the Gospel: for, as I told you, now in the preaching of the Word there is not meere Law, nor meer Gospel, but they are to be composed and to be made helpfull to each other; and also, whatsoever benefit or effect we get in the hearing, preaching, or meditating upon the Law of God, it is to be attributed unto the Convenant of grace in Christ. And therefore all these places, which attribute conversion and holinesse to the Gospel, do not at all make against my Assertion; for the Question is not, Whether by the power of the Law we come to obey the Law; but, Whether grace may not use the Precepts, or Law preached, for the inflaming of our affections so in love with the things commanded, that we are thereby made more holy. And thus I interpret those Authors that deny the Law to be instrumentall to holinesse, that is, not animated by Gods Spirit, or seperated from it.
I come therefore to consider of those places which are brought against this truth delivered: I shall not take all, because one answer may serve for many, they being built upon the same ground.
And, first the state and Question is obscurely propounded by him; for thus he saith, [The promise, or the Gospel, and not the Law, is the seed or doctrine of our new birth.] Assert. of grace, pag. 163. Now here are Ambiguities; as first, the promise or Gospel, for by this he seemeth to decide a great Question, that whatsoever is a promise in the Scripture, that belongs to the Gospel; and whatsoever is not that, but a command or threatning, that belongs to the Law: whereas this needs a great discussion.
-
The state of the Question is not about the Gospel, or the Law, as they are both a doctrin in the Scripture: but about the Spirit of God, working by one or the other; and the not attending to this, makes the argument so confounded.
-
He saith it’s not the seed of the New birth; whereas conversion or regeneration is made the writing of the Law in the heart: and Mat. 13. the Word of God in generall is compared to seed sowne, that brings forth different fruit; as was said before: but to let this passe.
The first instance that is brought, cometh from John 17. v. 17.2 Sanctifie them through thy truth, thy Word is truth. Where, saith the Authour, to sanctifie, is to seperate any thing from a common use, and to consecrate it to God: and, applied here to man includeth two things; 1. Justification by the communication of Christs perfect holinesse, whereby the believer is presented holy and without blame to God. 2. An inward renewing, & changeing, purifying the heart and life by degrees, &c. pag. 165.
I answer. 1. The word sanctifie, when applied to men, doth3 not only signifie justification, or renovation, but setting apart to some peculiar office and charge: and there are Learned men who take this to be the meaning of Christs prayer here; That as the Priests and Levites, who were to enter into the sanctuary, did first wash their hands and feet, being also cloathed with goodly garments: so the Apostles are here prayed for by our Saviour, that they may be fitted for their great charge. And thus Chrysostome: you have a parallel place Jer. 1. 5, Before thou camest forth out of the womb, I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a Prophet unto the Nations. And this exposition is confirmed by the manner […] in truth (so they reade it, & mention not the particle […], which is not in some copies) so that they take it as an expression opposing the sanctification of the Priests, which was by legall types and shadowes. But that which doth especially confirme this exposition, seemeth to be the two verses following, As thou hast sent me into the world, so have I also sent them into the world, and for their sakes I sanctifie my selfe, that they also may be sanctified through the truth. Now sanctification as it comprehends justification and renovation, cannot be applied to Christ: but it must signifie the segregating and setting apart himselfe for the office of the Mediatour. Besides, if sanctification do here include justification, how, by the Antinomian principle, can our Saviour pray for the justification of those, who are already justified?
But in the next place, grant that interpretation, of sanctification4 for renovation, how doth this prove that the Law is not used instrumentally? For our Saviours argument is universall, thy word is truth. And may not this be affirmed of the Law, as well as the Gospel? Doth not David, speaking of the Law, call it pure, and cleane, that is true, having no falshood in it? Yea, it is thought probable by a learned man, that this speech of our Saviours is taken out of Psal. 119. 142. where are these words (Gerhard) expresly, Thy Law is the truth: Where the word Law cannot exclude the Morall Law, though it may include more.
The next instance is Tit. 2. ver. 11. 12. For the grace of God that5 bringeth salvation, hath appeared to all men, teaching us, that denying ungodlinesse, and wordly lusts, &c.
Answ. I answer, All this may be granted, and nothing makes against this opinion: for none deny the Gospel, to be the instruments of holinesse: But is not here a contradiction? The Author before made the Gospel and a Promise all one, whereas here it doth command holinesse and godlinesse. Is not this, with the Papists, to make the Gospel a new Law? Let him reconcile himselfe. In the next place, he doth ambiguously put into the argument, the word effectually which is not in the Text; for, although God doth by his grace in the Gospel effectually move those that are elected to Godlinesse; yet Scripture, and experience sheweth, that where the grace of the Gospel hath appeared, thus teaching men, yet all are not effectually turned unto holinesse from their wordly lusts.
Besides, the argument may be retorted upon him: What word teacheth to deny all ungodlinesse, that sanctifieth, instructeth, but the Law doth so, insomuch that the Psalmist saith, Psal. 119. A young man whose lusts are strongest, and temptations most violent, may be cleansed by attending thereunto: only you must alwayes take notice of the preheminency of the Gospel, above the Law; for the Law could never have any such good effect upon the heart of man, were it not for the gracious Promise by Christ: Therefore all the godly men in the Old Testament, that received benefit by the Morall Law, in studying of it, and meditating upon it, did depend upon the Gospel, or the grace of God in Christ, as appeareth by David, praying so often, to be quickned by Gods Law. And here, by the way, let me take notice of a remarkable passage of Peter Martyr in his Comment on the 7. Chapter of the Epistle to the Rom. ver. 14. where, speaking of the great commendation the Psalmist gives the Law of God, that it converts the soul, (and we may adde those places, of inlightning the minde, that they cleanse a mans way, &c.) he maketh this Question, Whether the Law doth ever obtain such effects or no? And he answereth affirmatively, that it doth, but then when it’s written not in tables, but in the hearts and bowels of men: so that he conceiveth the Spirit of God doth use the Law instrumentally, so that he writeth it in our hearts. And this is all we so contend for.
A third and last instance out of Scripture, in answering of6 which all is answered, is from Gal. 3. 2. Received ye the Spirit by the works of the Law; or by the hearing of faith? that is, of the Gospel, the doctrine of faith. In the opening of this text, we must take heed of three errours: First, of those, who hold we7 have faith first, before we have the Spirit; for how can we come to have faith? By our own reason and will? This were to make it no work of God. The Apostle therefore certainly speakes of the increase of the graces of the Spirit; for it is well observed by Peter Martyr, that in causes and effects, there is a kinde of circle, one increasing the other: As the clouds arise from the vapours, then these fall down again, & make vapours; only you must acknowledge one first cause, which had not it’s being from the other, and this is the Spirit of God, which at first did work faith.
The second errour is of the Papists, that maketh this difference8 between the Law and the Gospel, That the same thing is called the Law, while it is without the Spirit; and when it hath the Spirit, it is called the Gospel; This is to confound the Law and Gospel, and bring in Justification by works.
The third is of the Socinian mentioned afterwards. These9 rocks avoided, we come to consider the place: and first I may demand, Whether any under the Old-Testament were made partakers of Gods Spirit, or no? If they were, how came they by it? There can be no other way said, but that God did give his Spirit in all those publique Ordinances unto the beleeving Israelites; so that although they did in some measure obey the Law, yet they did it not by the power of the Law, but by the power of Grace.
Again, in the next place, (which hath alwaies much prevailed with me) did not the people of God receive the Grace of God offered in the Sacraments at that time? We constantly maintain against the Papists, that our Sacraments and theirs differ not for substance. Therefore in Circumcision and the Paschall Lamb, they were made partakers of Christ as well as we: yet the Apostle doth as much exclude Circumcision, and those Jewish Ordinances from Grace, as any thing else. Therefore that there may be no contradiction in Scripture, some other way is to be thought upon, about the exposition of these words. Some there are therefore that doe understand by the Spirit, the wonderfull and miraculous works of Gods Spirit: for this was reserved till the times of the Messias, and by these miracles his Doctrine was confirmed to be from Heaven; and to this sense the fifth verse speaketh very expresly: and Beza doth confesse, that this is the principall scope of the Apostle, though he will not exclude the other gracious works of Gods Spirit: And if this should be the meaning, it were nothing to our purpose.
Again, thus it may be explained, as by faith is meant the doctrine of faith, so by the works of the Law, is to be understood the doctrine of the works of the Law, which the false Apostles taught, namely, that Christ was not enough to justification, unlesse the works of the Law were put in as a cause also. And if this should be the sense of the Text, then it was cleare, that the Galathians, were not made partakers of Gods Spirit, by the corrupt doctrine that was taught them alate by their seducers, but before, while they did receive the pure doctrine of Christ: and therefore it was their folly, having begun in the spirit, to end in the flesh. This may be a probable interpretation. But that which I shall stand upon, is this, The Jewes and false Apostles they looked upon the Law as sufficient to save them without Christ: consider Rom 2. 17, 18, 19. or when they went furthest, they joyned Christ, and the observance of the Morall Law equally together for justification and salvation: whereas the Law separated from Christ, did nothing but accuse and condemne, not being able to help the soul at all. Therefore it was a vain thing in them, to hope for any such grace, or benefit as they did by it. So that the Apostles scope is, not absolutely to argue against the benefit of the Law, which David and Moses did so much commend, but against it in the sense, as the Jewes did commonly dote upon it, which was to have justification by it alone; or at the best, when they put the Law and Christ together. Now both these we disclaime, either that God doth use the Law for our justification; or that of it selfe, it is able to stirre up the least godly affection in us.
More places of Scripture are brought against this, but they will come in more fitly under the notion of the Law as a covenant. Thus therefore I shall conclude this point, acknowledgeing that many learned and orthodox men speake otherwise, and that there is a difficulty in clearing every particular about this Question: but as yet that which I have delivered, earrieth the more probability with me; and I will give one Text more, which I have not yet mentioned, and that is Act. 7. 38. where the Morall Law that Moses is said to receive, that he might give the Isrealites, is called […], the lively Oracles; that is, not verba vitae, but verba viva & vivificantia, so that […] is as much as […], giving life: not that we could have life by vertue of any obedience to them; but when we by grace are inabled to obey them, God, out of his mercy, bestoweth eternall life. Let me also adde this, that I the rather incline to this opinion, because I see the Socinians, urging these places, or the like, where justification and faith is said to be by Christ, and the Gospel, that they wholly deny that any such thing as grace and justification was under the Law, and wonder how any should be so blind as not to see, that these priviledges were revealed first by Christ in the Gospel under the new Covenant; whereas it is plain, that the Apostle instanceth in Abraham and David, (who lived under the Law as a schoole master,) for the same kinde of justification as ours is.
And thus I come to another Question, which is the proper and immediate ground of strife between the Antinomian and us, and from whence, they have their name; and that is, the abrogation of the Morall Law: And howsoever I have already delivered many things that do confirme the perpetuall obligation of it; yet I did it not then so directly, and professedly, as now I shall; The Text (I have chosen) being a very fit foundation to build such a structure upon. I will therefore open10 the words and proceed as time shall suffer. The Apostle Paul, having laid down in verses preceding, the nature of justification, so exactly, that we may finde all the causes, efficient, meritorious, formall, instrumentall and finall described; as also the consequent of this truth, which is the excluding of all self-confidence and boasting in what we do; he draweth a conclusion or inference, ver, 26. And this conclusion is laid down first affirmatively and positively, [A man is justified by faith,] the Phrases […], and […], and […], are all equivalent with the Apostle: And then, to prevent all errours and cavils, he doth secondly lay it down exclusively without works. And this proposition he doth extend to the Jews and Gentiles also from the unity or onenesse of God; which is not to be understood of the unity of his Essence, but Will and Promise. Now when all this is asserted, he maketh an objection (which is usuall with him in this Epistle;) and he doth it for this end, to take away the calumny and reproach cast upon him by his adversaries, as one that would destroy the Law. The objection then is this, (propounded by way of interrogation, to affect the more,) Do we make voyd the Law? […]; The Apostle used this word in this Chapter, ver. 3. and it signifieth to make empty and voide, so that, The Law shall be of no use, or operation.
Now to this, the Apostle answereth negatively, by words of defiance and detestation, God forbid: So that by this expression you see how intolerable that doctrine ought to be unto the people of God, that would take away the Law. And the Apostle doth not only defie this objection, but addeth, we establish the Law, […] a Metaphor from those that do corroborate and make firm a pillar, or any such thing that was falling. It hath much troubled Interpreters, how Paul could say, he established the Law, especially considering those many places in his Epistles which seem to abrogate it. Some understand it thus, That the righteousnesse of faith, hath it’s witnesse from the Law and Prophets, as ver. 21. in this Chapter; so that in this sense they make the Law established, because that which was witnessed therein, doth now come to passe. Even as our Saviour said Moses did bear witnesse of him. But this interpretation doth not come up to the Apostles meaning. Those that limit this speech to the Ceremoniall Law, do easily interpret it thus: That the ceremonies and types were fulfilled in Christ; who, being the substance and body, they are all now fulfilled in him. But the Apostle comprehends the Morall Law under the word [Law.]
The Papists they make the Gospel a new Law, and they compare it with the old Law having the Spirit, as two things differing only gradually; so that they say, the old Law is established by the new, as the childhood is established by elder age: which is not by abolition, but perfection.
That which I see the Orthodox pitch upon, is, that the Law11 is established three wayes by the Gospel.
First, whereas the Law did threaten death to every transgressor, this is established in Christ, who satisfied the justice of God.
Secondly, in that the Law requireth perfect obedience, this is also fulfilled in Christ. Now this is a matter worth discussion, Whether the righteousnesse we are yet justified by, be the righteousness of the Law.
For those learned men, that are against the imputation of Christs active obedience, they urge this argument, which seemeth to carry much strength with it: That if Christs active obedience be made ours, and we justified by that, then are we still justified by the works of the Law, and so the righteousnesse of faith and works is all one; faith in us, and works in Christ. If therefore active obedience be made ours, (as I conceive the truth to be in that doctrine) then we may easily see the Law is established.
Thirdly, but lastly, which I take to be the truth, and Austin heretofore interpreteth it so, the Law is established, because by the Gospel we obtain Grace in some measure, to fulfill the Law; so that we still keep the Law in the preceptive and informative part of it: and do obtain by faith in Christ, obedience in some degree to it; which obedience also, though it be not the Covenant of grace, yet is the way to Salvation.
Footnotes
-
Conversion not wrought totally by the word read or preached, but is to be attributed to the Covenant of grace in Christ. ↩
-
Instance 1[…] ↩
-
Answer 1. ↩
-
Answer. 2. ↩
-
Instance 2. ↩
-
Instance 3. Answ. Three Errours to be taken heed of in opening Gal 3. 2. ↩
-
Errour 1. ↩
-
Errour 2. ↩
-
Errour 3. ↩
-
The Text opened. ↩
-
The Law established three wayes by the Gospel. ↩