ROM. 3. 31.
THis Text is already explained; and there are two Observations1 do naturally arise from it, as first, That it is an hard thing so to set up Christ & grace, as not thereby be thought to destroy the Law. Thus was Paul misunderstood by some; and so the Antinomians, not rightly understanding in what latitude the Orthodox in their disputations against Popery did oppose the Law to the Gospel, were thereby plunged into a dangerous errour. But on this point I will not insist. The second doctrine is that which I intend, namely, That the doctrine2 of Christ and grace in the highest and fullest manner, doth not overthrow, but establish the Law. And this doctrine will directly lead us to lay our hands on the chiefe pillars of that house, which the Antinomians have built. The Question then at this time to be discussed is, Whether the Law be abrogated or no by Christ, to the beleevers under the Gospel. And this Question I will answer by severall propositions that may conduce to the clearing of the the truth: for it would seem, as if the Scripture held out contradictions in this point. In my Text it’s denyed, that the Apostles do […] make void the Law; yet 2 Cor. 3. 11. The Apostle speaking of the Law hath this passage, [If that which be done away, […] where the word is expresly used, that yet here is denied: so Ephes. 2 14. Christ is described […] that maketh voyd the hand-writing against us. And in that place the Apostle useth the word […] when yet Mat. 5. he denied that he came […] to dissolve the Law. Grave therefore and serious is Chemnitius his admonition, In all other things, generall words beget confusion, and obscurity; but in the doctrine of the abrogation of the Law they are very dangerous, unless it be distinctly explained, how it is abrogated.
In the first place therefore consider, That about a Law there3 are these affections (if I may call them so;) There is an Interpretation, a dispensation, or relaxation: and these differ from an abrogation; for the former do suppose the Law still standing in force, though mitigated; but Abrogation is then properly, when a Law is totally taken away. And this Abrogation ariseth sometimes from the expresse constitution at first, which did limit and prescribe the time of the lawes continuance: sometimes by an expresse revoking and repealing of it by that authority which made it: sometimes by adding to that repeale an expresse law commanding the contrary. Now it may be easily proved, that the Ceremoniall, and Judiciall lawes they are abrogated by expresse repeale. The Judiciall Law 1 Pet. 2. 13. where they are commanded to be subject to every ordination of man: and this was long foretold Genes. 49. 10. The Law-giver shall be taken from Judah. The Ceremoniall Law that is also expresly repealed Act. 15. and in other places: not that these were ill or that they did come from an ill author; but because the fulnesse and substance of them was now come, of whom the ceremonies were a shadow. Yet still you must remember, that while they were commanded of God, they were the exercises of faith and piety, & God did dispense grace in the use of them; only they were beggarly and empty to such who trusted in them, & neglected Christ. Nor doth this assertion contradict that of the Apostle, Ephes. 2. 15. where he cals those ordinances enmity, and decrees against us: for those ceremonies may be considered two wayes; first as they were signes of Gods grace and favour: and secondly as they were demonstrative of a duty, which we were tyed unto, but could not performe, and in this sense all those purifications and cleansings were against us. Thus we see these lawes in every consideration made void; so that it is not now an indifferent thing to use them, though we would not put our trust in them, but sinfull. Hence I cannot see how that of Luther is true upon Gal. 2. who sath, He beleeveth, that if the Jewes beleeving had observed the Law and Circumcision in that manner which the Apostles permitted them, that Judaisme had yet stood, and that all the world should have received the ceremonies of the Jews.
In the second place, if we would speake exactly and properly; We cannot say, in any good sense, that the Morall Law is abrogated4 at all. It is true indeed, our learned Writers shew, that the Law in abrogated in respect of justification, condemnation, and rigour of obedience; all which I shall instance in afterwards: but if a man would speake rigidly, he cannot say, it is abrogated Wee may say, it’s mitigated, as to our persons, though Christ our surety did fully undergoe its: for if God had taken away the Law so, that man nor his surety had been under the curse of it, or should have obeyed it, then had it been properly abrogated: whereas now, seeing our surety was bound to satisfie it, and perfectly to obey it and we still obliged to conforme unto it, we cannot so properly in the generall say, it was abrogated. Therefore we may more properly say that there is a change and alteration in us towards the Law, then that the Law is changed or abrogated. Hence observe, though the Apostle denyeth that he doth […] make void the Law, yet he useth this expression Rom. 7. 6. […] we are freed or abrogated from the Law, rather then that is abrogated. Thus it is, if we would speake properly: yet, because the satisfaction and obedience is by Christ, and not by us, we may say, that it is abrogated to us, so that we may not look for remission of sins, or justification by it. But you must still distinguish, when we speake of the Law, some parts of it from the whole: some parts of the Law may be abolished, and yet not the whole nature of it: for there is in the Law these parts; First the Commands.5 Secondly, the Promises of life to him that doth them; and thirdly, the threatnings of eternall wrath to him that faileth in the least. Now the Morall Law, though it be abrogated in respect of the two later to a beleever, yet in respect of the former it doth still abide; yea, and will continue in Heaven it selfe. And we have already proved against the Antinomians, that one part of the Law may abide, when the other doth not.6
The third proposition,
Those that say the Law is abolished as it is foedus, but not as it is regula; say true. The Law may be considered as it is a Covenant, or as it is an absolute Rule, requiring conformity unto it: Now it may be truly granted, that the Law is abolished in the former notion, though not in the later; only in expressing this Covenant there is difference among the Learned: some make the Law a Covenant of works, and upon that ground that it is abrogated: others call it a subservient covenant to the covenant of grace, and make it only occasionally, as it were, introduced, to put more luster and splendour upon grace: Others call it a mixt covenant of works and grace; but that is hardly to be understood as possible, much lesse as true. I therefore think that opinion true, as shall be hereafter shewed, that the7 Law given by Moses was a Covenant of grace; and that God did not. since man fallen, ever transact with him in any other Covenant, but that of grace: Though indeed this Covenant of grace did breake out more clearly, in succession of ages, according to the wise dispensation of Gods good pleasure. So then the Law, as a Covenant, though of grace, is abrogated, because though there be still the same essence of the former and later covenant, yet the administration of the former is altogether antiquated. This fully appeareth in Heb. 7. 18, 19. and again, Heb. 8. 7, 8. whosoever therefore expects life and justification by the Law, he sets up the covenant of works again. Nor is it any advantage to say, these workes are the workes of grace, and wrought by Christs spirit; for still if we were justified by doing whatsoever the works were, yet it would be in such a way as Adam was, though with some difference. We therefore doe desire to lift up our voices, as vehemently as any Antinomian, against self Justiciaries, against pharisaicall, Popish, formall men, that say unto the good workes they doe, These are thy Christ, These are thy Jesus, oh my soul. In matter of Justification, we would have all of Pauls Spirit, to know nothing but Christ crucified, to account all things dung and drosse We desire to bewaile, and abundantly to bewaile the little need and want that people feel of Christ in all their duties. We are troubled, that any can be quiet in their duties, and performances; and do not cry out, None but Christ, None but Christ. All this we pleade for, and preach; only we hold the Law as a rule still to walk by, though not a Covenant of works to be justified by.
- The Antinomian distinction of the Law abolished as a Law,8 but still abiding in respect of the matter of it, is a contradiction. This is a rock, that the adversary hath daily refuge unto. The Law (saith the Antinomian) in the matter of it, so farre as I know, was never denyed to be the rule, according to which a beleever is to walk and live: Therefore I take the contrary imputation to be an impudent slander. Asser. of grace, pag. 170.
But to reply, if they hold the matter of the Law to be a rule, how can they shelter themselves from their own argument; for if the matter oblige then when a beleever walketh not according to his duty, he sinneth, and, to sinne the curse is due: so that this evasion will no wayes helpe them, for still an obligation or bond lyeth upon them, which, if broken they are made obnoxious unto the Law, of God. Again, to say the matter of the Law bindeth, but yet not as a Law, is a meere contradiction; for what is a Law, but such an object held forth by the command and will of a superiour? Then I demand whether [love to God] being the object, or matter held forth, have not also Gods will passing upon it that it should binde. According to the Antinomian assertion, it should be true, that love to God should binde us, because the matter it selfe is good; but not because God willeth us to love him: Nay, they must necessarily deny the will of God obliging us in the Law to love him; for a law is nothing but the will of the Law-giver, that such things should be obeyed, or avoided. And if there were any colour for that distinction between the matter of the Law binding, and not the Law, it would only hold in that matter which is perpetually and necessarily good; as. To love God, to honour parents: but in that matter which is only good by some positive divine institution; as, Keeping of the Lords Day, there we must say, that the Law binds, as a Law, and not meerly from the matter of the Law.
- The Law is no more abrogated to a beleever under the Old-Testament,9 then to one under the New. This assertion will much discover the falsenesse of the adversaries opinion: for they carry it, as if the Law were abrogated only to the beleevers under the Gospell. Now how can this ever be made good? for either they must deny that there were any beleevers under the Old-Testament; or, if there were, then they are freed from the Law as much as any now. Indeed if you take the Law for the whole administration of the Covenant in the Old Testament, we grant that it was pedagogicall, and more servile; so that a beleever under the Old-Testament, did not meet with such cleare and evident dispensations of love as a beleever under the Gospel: yet in respect of justification and salvation, the Law was the same to them as to us, and to us as to them.
We do not deny but that the administration of the later covenant is farre more glorious then that of the former, and that we enjoy many priviledges which they did not then: but whatsoever is necessary and essentiall to justification or salvation, they were made partakers of them, as well as we. The ordinary resemblance of theirs, and our happinesse; is by those two, spoken of Numb. 13. 23. that bare upon the staffe the cluster of grapes from the land of Canaan, if then we speake of the Law in regard of the essentiall parts of it, which are directing, commanding, threatning, promising life upon perfect obedience: These are either still equally in power, or else equally abrogated unto all beleevers, whether under the Old or New Testament. Let them therefore consider whether the arguments against beleevers subjection under the New Testament, be not also equally as strong against those that are under the Old. Therefore it is wild Divinity of an Antinomian (in Chap. 6. of the Honey-combe of free justification:) who makes three different estates of the Church: one under the Law, and another under John Baptist, and a third under the Gospel. Now he compareth these together, and sheweth how we under the Gospel exceed those of the Law that were godly: and among other things, there are two notorious falshoods; as first, That God indeed saw sinne in the beleevers of the Old Testament, but not in those of the New. But how absurd and contradictory to the Author himself is this assertion? For was not that place which they so much urge [God seeth not iniquity in Jacob] spoken of the Church in the Old Testament? And besides, if the godly were then in Christ, doth it not necessarily follow by his principles, that God must see no sinne in them? This I bring, not as if there were any truth in that opinion of God his seeing no sinne in beleevers, whether of the Old, or New Testament; but only to manifest their absurd contradictions.
The second difference he makes is, That God seeing sinne in those of the Old Testament, did therefore punish them and afflict them for sinne but he doth not this under the Gospel. Hereupon he sheweth, how Moses for a word was strucken with death, and so Jonah, Uzzah, Eli: these had sudden punishments upon them. Hence also (saith he) came there terrible faimines upon them. Now who seeth not how weak and absurd these arguments are? For, doth not the Apostle 1 Cor. 11. speaking of those under the New Testament, that some were siok, and some did sleep, and that they were judged of the Lord? were not Ananias and Sapphira stricken dead immediately? Are there not famines, pestilence, and the bloudy warre upon men under the Gospel? Besides, these assertions are contradictions to themselves: for if their arguments from Gods Law, and from Christ prove the quite taking away of sin, and the punishments of it; then it holdeth as firmly for all beleevers as for some.
-
The arguments of the Antinomian for the greater part, which10 they urge do not only overthrow the use of it to beleevers, but also unbeleevers. This also is good to be attended unto; for the Apostle in many places, where he speaks of the Law as a Schoolmaster, and the continuance of it for a time, doth not speake comparatively of a beleever with an unbeleever, but of the state of the Gospel, and the state of the Old Testament: so that, as a wicked man may not circumcise, or take up the sacrifices, so neither may he use the Morall Law, as commonly the Jewes did, which was as distinct from Christ, and as if that of it self were able alone to save. Therefore I wonder why the Antinomians bring many of their arguments to prove that a beleever is freed from the Law; for, certainly, most of those places will inferre, that unbeleevers also under the New Testament are; for, the Apostle, for the most part, doth argue against that state of the Church and administrations that were used formerly; as in the 1 Cor. 3. when the Apostle makes the administration of the Law to be death, and of the Gospell life. Here he speaketh not of particular persons, but of the generall state under the Gospel: So in Gal. 2. and 3. Chapters he argueth against the whole dispensation of the Law, and makes it equally abrogated unto all. And it may probably be thought, that that famous expression of the Apostle [ye are not under the Law but under grace] is not only to be understood of every particular beleever; but generally of the whole dispensation of the Gospell under the New Testament.11
-
We will grant, that to a beleever the Law is, as it were, abrogated, in these particulars:
-
In respect of Justification. Though, I say, mitigation might be properly here used, yet we will call it abrogation (with the12 Orthodox) because to the godly it is in some sense so. And that which is most remarkable, and most comfortable, is, in respect of justification; for now a beleever is not to expect acceptation at the throne of grace in himself, or any thing that he doth, but by relying on Christ. The Papists they say, this is the way to make men idle and lazy; doing in this matt er, as Saul did, who made a Law that none should eate of any thing, and so Jonathan must not taste of the honey. Saul indeed thought hereby to have the more enemies killed; but Jonathan told him, that if they had been suffered to eate more honey, they should have been more revived and inabled to destroy their adversaries. Thus the Papists, they forbid us to eat of this honey, this precious comfort in Christ, as if thereby we should be hindered in our pursuit against sinne, whereas indeed it is the only strength and power against them.
-
Condemnation and a curse. Thus still the condition of a beleever13 is made unspeakably happy, Rom. 8. There is no condemnation: And, Christ became a curse for us: so that by this means the gracious soul hath daily matter of incouragement, arguing in prayer thus: O Lord, though my sins deserve a curse, yet Christ his obedience doth not: Though I might be better, yet Christ needeth not to be better: O Lord, though I have sinned away my own power to do good, yet not Christs power to save. Heb. 6. 18. you have a phrase there [flying for arefuge] doth excellently shew forth the nature of a godly man, who is pursued by sin as a malefactor was for his murder, and he runneth to Christ for refuge: and so Beza understands that expression of the Apostle, Phil. 3. 9. [And be found in him,] which implyeth the justice of God searching out for him, but he is in Christ. Now when we say, he is freed from condemnation, that is to be understood actually, not potentially: There is matter of condemnation, though not condemnation it selfe.
-
Rigid obedience. This is another particular, wherein the14 Orthodox declare the abrogation of the Law: but this must warily be understood; for christ hath not obtained at Gods hands by his death, that the Law should not oblige and tye us unto a perfect obedience: for this we maintain against Papists, that it’s a sin in beleevers, they do not obey the Law of God to the utmost perfection of it: And therefore hold it impossible for a beleever to fulfill the Law: But yet we say, this mercy is obtained by Christ, that our obedience unto the Law, which is but inchoate and imperfect, is yet accepted of, in, and through Christ: for, if there were only the Law and no Christ, or grace: It is not any obedience, though sincere, unlesse perfect, would be entertained by God: neither would any repentance or sorrow be accepted of, but the Law strictly so taken, would deale as the judge to the malefactor, who being condemned by the Law, though he cry out in the anguish of his spirit, that he is grieved for what he hath done, yet the Law doth not pardon him.
-
It is not a terrour to the godly; nor are they slavishly compelled15 to the obedience of it. And in this sense they are denied to be under the Law: But this also must be rightly understood; for there is in the godly an unregenerate or carnall part, as well as a regenerate and spirituall; See Rom. 7. 22, 25. with my minde I serve the Law of God, but with my flesh the Law of sin. Now although it be true, that the Law, in the terrible compelling part of it, be not necessary to him so far as he is regenerate; yet, in regard he hath much flesh and corruption in him, therefore it is that the Scripture doth use threatnings as so many sharpe goads to provoke them in the waies of piety. But what godly man is there, whose spirit is so willing alwayes, that he doth not finde his flesh untoward and backward unto any holy duty? How many times do they need that Christ should draw them, and also that the Law should draw them? So that there is great use of preaching the Law even to beleevers still, as that which may instrumentally quicken and excite them to their duty. Qui dicit se amare legem, mentitur, & nescit quid dicit: Tàm enim amamus legem, quàm homicida carcerem, said Luther: and this is true of us, so far as we are corrupt. He that saith he loveth the Law, lyeth, and knoweth not what he saith, for we love the Law, as a murtherer doth the Gaol.
-
It doth not work, or increase sin in them as in the wicked. The16 Apostle, Rom. 7. 8. Complaineth of this bitter effect of the Law of God, that it made him the worse. The more spirituall and supernaturall that was, the more did his earnall and corrupt heart rage against it: so that the more the Law would damm up the torrent of sinfull lusts, the higher did they swell. Now, this sad issue was not to be ascribed to the Law but to Paul’s corruption: As in the Dropsie it is not the water or beere, if frequently drunk, that is to be blamed for the increase of the disease, but the ill distemper in the body. Or as Chysolologus explaineth it, Serm. 112. The greatnesse of the light doth not blind, and hebetate the eyes; for light was especially created of God for them; but it is the infirmitie and weaknesse of the eyes, which are not able to endure such clearnesse: so the Law which of it’s selfe is holy and just, of fraile man requiring severe obedience, doth more and more overwhelme him: And in another place Serm. 115. As the thorns that are by the Axe cut downe, do more and more sprout out; so do, corruptions, while cut off by the Law, because they remain fixed in the root of us. Now in the godly, because there is a new nature, and a principle of love and delight in the Law of God wrought in him, his corruption doth not increase and biggen by the Law, but is rather subdued and quelled: although sometimes, even in the godly, it may work such wofull effects: Thus Asa grew more enraged because reproved by the prophet for his wickednesse. And this also take notice of, that as the commandement of the Law, so also the promises of the Gospel, do only stirre up evill in the heart totally unsanctified.
-
It is abrogated in many accessaries, and circumstantials. Even17 the Morall Law, considered in some particulars, is abrogated totally: as in the manner of writing, which was in tables of stone. We know the first tables were broken; and what became of the last, or how long they continued, none can tell: and this makes Paul use that opposition, 2 Cor. 3. 3. Not in tables of stone, but in the fleshly tables of the heart: Although this you must know, that the doctrine of the Gospel, as written with inke and paper, doth no more availe for any spirituall working, then the Law written in tables. Therefore the Apostle useth in that verse this phrase, [Not written with inke] as well as [Not in tables of stone.] And this is to be observed against the Antinomians, who to disparage the Law, may say, that was written in stones, what good can that do? May we not also say, she doctrine18 of the Gospel that is written in paper, and what can that do?
-
But the Law doth perpetually continue as a rule to them: Which may thus appeare:
-
From the different phrases that the Apostle useth concerning the Ceremoniall Law, which are no where applyed to the Morall Law. And these Chemnitius doth diligently reckon up, […], Ephes. 2. 14. So again, […], Heb. 7. 12. […] antiquare, […], senescere, […] evanescere, Heb. 8. ult. […], abrogatio. Heb. 7. 18. Now, saith he, these words are not used of the Morall Law, that it is changed, or, waxeth old, or, is abrogated; which do denote a mutation in the Law; but when it speaks of the Morall Law, it saith, We are dead to it, We are redeemed from the curse of it: Which Phrases do imply the change to be made in us, and not in the Law. If therefore the Antinomians could bring such places that would prove it were as unlawful for us to love the Lord, because the Morall Law commands it, as we can prove it unlawfull to circumcise, or to offer sacrifices; then they would see something for their purpose.
-
From the sanctification and holinesse that is required of the19 beleever, which is nothing but conformity to the Law: so that, when we reade the Apostle speaking against the Law, yet that he did not meane this of the Law as a rule, and as obliging us to the obedience thereof, will easily appeare: For when the Apostle, Gal. 5. 4. had vehemently informed them of their wofull condition who would be justified by the Law, yet ver. 13. and 14. pressing them not to use their liberty as an occasion to the flesh, he giveth this reason, For all the Law is fulfilled in one word, even in this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy selfe. What doth the Apostle use contradictions in the same Chapter? Presse them to obey the Law, and yet reprove them for desiring to be under it? No certainly, but when they would seek justification by the Law, then he reproveth them: and when, on the other side, they would refuse obedience to the Law, then he admonisheth them to the contrary. As for their distinguishing between the matter of the Law, and the Law, we have already proved it to be a contradiction.
-
In that disobedience to it is still a sin in the beleever: For20 there can be no sin, unlesse it be a transgression of a Law, as the Apostle John defineth sin. Now then, when David commits adultery, when Peter denyeth Christ, are not these sins in them? If so, is not Davids sin a sin, because it is against such and such a Commandement? As for their evasion, it is a sin against the Law as in the hand of Christ, and so against the love of Christ, and no otherwayes, this cannot hold; for then there should be no sinnes, but sinnes of unkindnesse, or unthankfulnesse. As this Law is in the hand of Christ; so murder is a sin of unkindnesse: but as it is against the Law simply in it self, so it is a sin of such kind as murder, and not of another kinde; so that the consideration of Christs love may indeed be a great motive to obey the commands of God, yet that doth not hinder the command it selfe from obliging and binding of us, as it is the will of the Law giver. But of this distinction more in it’s place.
-
From the difference of the Morall Law, and the other lawes, in respect of the causes of abrogation. There can be very good reasons21 given, why the Ceremoniall Law should be abrogated, which can no wayes agree to the Morall: as,
First, The Ceremoniall Law had not for it’s object that which is perpetuall, and in it self holinesse: To circumcise, and to offer sacrifice, these things were not in themselves holy and good, nor is the leaving of them a sin; whereas the matter of the Morall Law is perpetually good, and the not doing of it, is necessarily a sin. I speak of that matter, which Divines call Morall naturall. Can we thinke that to the Apostle it was all one, whether a man was a murderer, adulterer, or chast and innocent; as it was whether a man was circumcised, or not circumcised? Tertullian said well, Lib. de Pud. Cap. 6. Operum juga rejecta sunt, non disciplinarum, libertas in christo non fecit innocentiae injuriam, manet lex tota pietatis, sanctitatis &c. The burthens of the Ceremoniall Law are removed, not the commands of holinesse; liberty in Christ is not injurious to innocency.
Again, The Ceremoniall Law was typicall, and did shadow forth Christ to come. Now when he was come, there was no use of these ceremonies.
And, lastly, The Jewes and the Gentiles were to consociate into one body, and no difference be made between them. Now to effect this, it was necessary that partition-wall should be pulled down, for as long as that stood, they could not joyn in one.
Footnotes
-
‘Tis hard to set up Christ and grace, and not be thought to destroy the Law. ↩
-
The doctrine of Christ and grace, doth establish the Law. ↩
-
Interprtation, dispensation, &c. affections of a Law. ↩
-
We may say that the Morall Law is mitigated, as to our persons, but ‘tis not abrogated. ↩
-
Three parts of the Law. ↩
-
The Law is abolished as it is a Covenant, but not as it is a Rule. ↩
-
The Law given by Moses a Covenant of grace. ↩
-
It is an absurd contradiction to say the matter of a Law bindeth, but not as a Law. ↩
-
The Law equally abrogated to beleevers under the Old and New Testament. ↩
-
Antinomian Arguments mostly overthrow the use of the Law both to beleevers and unbelevers. ↩
-
The Law to a beleever is abrogated. ↩
-
- In respect of justification.
-
- In respect of condemnation.
-
- In respect of rigid obedience.
-
- In respect of tefrour and slavish obedience.
-
- In respect of the increase of sin.
-
- In respect of many Circumstantials.
-
- Yet that it continues to them as a rule, appears, 1. From the different phrases used concerning the ceremoniall Law.
-
- From that holinesse that it requires of the beleever.
-
- In that disobedience is still a sin.
-
- Because it differs from other lawes in respect of causes of abrogation. Three reasons why the Ceremoniall Law should be abrogated.