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