Ecumenical Christian Library

  • Loading…

The Perpetual Obligation of the Moral Law

164613 min read

ROM. 3. 31.

I Shall not stand upon any more arguments to prove the perpetuall obligation of the Morall Law, because this is abundantly maintained in that assertion already proved, that the Morall Law as given by Moses, doth still oblige us.

I come therefore to those places of Scripture which seeme to1 hold forth the duration of the Morall Law for a prefixed time only; even as the ceremoniall Law doth. I shall select the most remarkable places, and, in answering of them, we shall see the other fully cleared. And I will begin with that, Luke 16. 16. The Law and the Prophets were untill John. It should therefore seeme, that the Law was to continue but untill Johns time. I will not herestand to dispute whether John Baptist was to be reckoned under the Old Testament, or the New; only take notice that we cannot make a third different estate, wherein the Covenant of grace should be dispensed, as an Antinomian author doth: for our Saviour seemeth fully to conclude, that he did belong to the Old Testament; therefore he saith, The least in the kingdome of heaven is greater then he2: Although in this respect he was greater then any of the Prophets that went before him, that he did not prophesie of a Messias to come, but pointed with his hand to him who was already come. And, as for the text it selfe, none can prove that the Law was to be abrogated when John Baptist came; for, least any should by that expression think so, our Saviour addeth, Heaven and earth shall sooner passe away, then that one title should fall to the ground. Therefore the meaning is, that the Law, in respect of the typicall part of it, as it did shadow forth, and prefigure a Christ, so it was to cease. Therefore the Law and the Prophets are put together, as agreeing in one general thing, which is, to foretell of Christ, and to typifie him: And this will be clearer, if you compare Matth 11. 13. with this of Luke, where it is thus set down, All the Prophets and the Law prophesied unto John: whereby it is cleare, that he speakes of the typicall part of the Law; yet not so, as if the Ceremonies were then immediatly to cease, only from that time they began to vanish.

The next place of Scripture, is that famous instance, so much urged in this controversie Rom. 6. 15. [For you are not under the Law, but under grace.] Now to open this, consider these things:

  1. In what sense the Apostle argueth against the Law; and3 what was the proper state of the Question in those dayes. And that appeareth Act. 1. 5. where you have a relation made of some beleeving Jewes that were of the sect of the Pharisees, who pressed the necessity of Circumcision: and so would joyn the mistery of Moses and Christ together. Now it seemeth, though the Apostles in this councell had condemned that opinion, yet there were many that would still revive this errour; and therefore the Apostle in this Epistle to the Romans, and in that to the Galathians doth reprove this false doctrine, and labour much against it. Stapleton, and other papists, they think that the controversie was only about the Ceremoniall Law; and this they do, to maintain their justification by the works of the Law; when wrought by grace. But, though it must be granted, that the doubts about keeping the Ceremoniall Law were the occasion of that great difference, and the most principall thing in question; yet the Apostle, to set forth the fulnesse of grace, and Christ, doth extend his arguments and instances even to the Morall Law: for the Jewes did generally think, that the knowledge and observation of the Morall Law without Christ, was enough for their peace and comfort. That the Apostle argueth against the Law in their abused sense of it, is plain, because when he speaks of it in it’s own nature, he commends it, and extols it. The Jewes because they had the Law given them in such a Divine and glorious manner, attributing too much to themselves, thought by the obedience to this alone, without Christ, to be justified, as appeareth Rom, 10. 1. Hence the Apostle speaketh against it in their sense, looking for Justification by it; as if a learned man confuting some Philosophers, which do hold that the second causes do work by their own proper strength, without any concourse of God; he must in his arguments, suppose such a power of the second cause, which the adversary pleadeth for in his minde, and in expressions sometimes, yet none can gather from that, therefore there is such a power in the second causes. And if they could perswade themselves, that the externall performing of the Ceremoniall Law was enough to make them acceptable with God, though they lived in grosse disobedience to the Morall Law, (as Isai. 1. & alibi, it many times appeareth they did) how much more, when they lived a life externally conformable to the Morall Law; must they needs be secure of their favour with God? And in this sense it is, that the Apostle speaks seemingly derogatory to the Law, because they took it without Christ: Even as he calleth the ceremonies beggerly elements, when yet we know, they were signes of an Evangelicall grace.

  2. That the Apostle useth the word [Law] in divers senses, which hath been the occasion of so much difficulty in this point. Now in most of those places, where the Law seemeth to be abolished, it is taken in one of these two senses: Either, first synecdochically, the Law put for part of the Law: to wit, for that part4 which actually condemneth, and accuseth; as when the Apostle saith, [Against such there, is no Law:] here he speaketh as if there were nothing in a Law but condemnation; whereas we may say, A Law is for a thing by way of direction and prescription, as well as against a thing by accusation. Or, secondly, the word [Law] is put for the ministery of Moses, which dispensation was farre inferiour unto the ministery of the Gospel: And in this sense, the Apostle doth much use it in the Epistle to the Galathians, and in the Epistle to the Hebrewes. So that here is a continuall mistake, when the Antinomians heap place upon place, which seem to abolish the Law, and do not first declare what Law, and in what sense those places are to be expounded.

  3. Consider these Phrases, Of the Law, Without the Law,5 Under the Law, and In the Law. Without the Law is two wayes: First, he is without the Law, that is, without the knowledge and understanding of it. Thus the Gentiles are without the Law: And secondly, Without the Law, that is, without the sense and experience of the accusing and terrifying power of the Law; and thus Paul, Rom. 7. said, when the Law came, he died. Now the godly, though they are denied to be under the Law, yet they are not said to be without the Law; for if the Morall Law were no more obliging beleevers now, then it was Heathens or Gentiles before they ever heard of it, both in respect of knowledge and observation of it, then might beleevers be said to be without the Law: and to this without the Law, is opposed, In the Law, Rom. 2. 12. […], the vulgar In legem: Beza cum lege; It signifieth those that do enjoy the Law, and yet sinne against it. And much to this purpose is that Phrase Of the Law, Rom. 4. 14. which sometimes is as much as, Of the Circumcision, to wit, those that are initiated into the Ministery of Moses: but in other places it signifieth as much as […], and the opposite to it is, […], as in this 4. of the Rom. and ver. 14 where the Apostle declaring that the promise made to Abraham was not of the Law, he cannot meane the Law of Moses, for all know, that was long after; but he meanes what’s done in obedience to the Morall Law so farre as it was then revealed. The Apostle useth also another phrase, […], By the Law; which is to be understood in this sense, by works done in conformity to the Law: and in this sense the Apostle urgeth, that righteousnesse, or the promise, are not by the Law: But all the difficulty in this controversie is about the phrase, Under the Law: Therefore take notice,

  4. There is a voluntary being under the Law, as Christs was; and6 there is to be under it in an ill sense. A voluntary and willing obedience unto the Law, is acceptable: and thus the Apostle 1. Cor. 9. 20. the Apostle saith, he was made to some as under the Law, though there indeed he saith […]. but that is added because of the ceremoniall part of the Law. Therefore he calleth himselfe excellently, […], though a godly man be not properly […]. yet he is […], And he addeth to Christ, lest they should think that he spoke of the whole Law, the ceremoniall part of it which was abolished by Christ; so that a godly man in a well explained sense, may be said to be under the Law. Aquinas Comment. ad Cap. 6. v. 14. Hath this distinction, A man may be under the Law, or subjected to it, two wayes, First, willingly and readily, as Christ. Secondly, unwillingly & by way of compulsion, when not out of love but feare, men do obey the Law & this is sinful, in the former sense all beleevers may be said to be under the Law but yet, because the Apostle useth it for the most part in an ill sense, as here in the text, and in that place, tell me, ye that desire to be under the Law, (though Law there be used for the whole Ministery of Moses, and not of the Morall Law) let us consider in what sense this is denied to the Godly.

  5. That Interpretation of some, though of solid Judgement,7 who make the phrase [Not to be under the Law] to be as much as, Not under the curse of the Law; or, Not obnoxious to the guilt by it, seemeth not to agree with the context. I know this is generally received as the sense of the place; and there is this argument urged for it, because the Apostle maketh an objection from hence; Shall we sinne because we are not under the Law, but under grace? Therefore it should seem that the Law is taken for the condemning power of it, and grace for pardoning and free Justification: but because the Apostle is here speaking of sanctification, both in this Chapter, and the Chapter following, I preferre8 Beza’s interpretation, which makes the being under the Law, to be the same in sense with, under sin; for the Apostle, speaking of himselfe as carnall, Chap. 7. saith, that the Law wrought in him all manner of evill: and this indeed is the work of the Law in every unregenerate man; so that the more the Law is applyed to him, the more doth his corruption break forth. Now then this is the Apostles argument, Let not sin reign in you, for now you are not under the Law stirring up sin, and provoking it in you, but under grace; not justifying or pardoning, as properly and immediately meant here (though they were under that also) but sanctifying and healing. And the Apostle maketh the objection following [What then, shall we sin, because we are not under the Law?] because the phrase was ambiguous,, and might be thought to have such a sense, as the Libertines make it to have, to wit, to do every thing as we please without any controule by any Law: and in this explication, we shall see a sweet harmony in the context.

The third instance is Rom. 7. especially in the beginning of the Chapter: but the answer to the former Objection, will also cleare this, because the apostle continueth in the same matter, explaining what it is to be under the Law, by a similitude from a wife married to an husband, who is bound to him so long as he liveth, but when he dyeth, she is free. Now in the reddition of the similitude, there is some difference among Commentators: but I take it thus, Sin, which by the Law doth irritate and provoke our corruptions, that is the former husband the soul had, and lusts they are the children hereof; but when we are regenerated, then Christ becomes the husband of the godly soul: so that they are deceived who make the Morall Law the husband, but sin is properly the husband: And if you will say the Morall Law, you must understand it in this sense only, as it doth inflame the heart to all evil; therefore the Apostle (as is well observed by the Learned) doth not say, the Law is dead, but, we are dead; for indeed the Law is never so much alive as in the godly, who do constantly obey it, & live accordingly to it.

This will also serve for that place, Gal. 5. 18. If ye be led by the spirit, ye are not under the Law; That is, under the Law forcibly compelling.

Austin distinguisheth of four states of men; those who are Ante legem, and these commit sin without knowledge of it: Sub lege, and these commit it with some fighting, but are overcome; Sub gratia, and these do fight and shall overcome: and Sub pace, these we may make to be those in heaven.

Footnotes

  1. Places of Scripture seeming to hold forth the duration of the Moral Law for a time only, answered. ↩

  2. Minimum maximi, est majus maximo minimi. ↩

  3. The Apostle argueth against the Law, in comparison of Christ. ↩

  4. The word Law taken in a two-fold sense. ↩

  5. These Phrases of the Law, Without the Law, under the Law, and In the Law, explained. ↩

  6. A two-fold being under the Law. ↩

  7. The commonly received sense of that Phrase, Not to be under this Law. rejected. ↩

  8. Beza’s inrerpretation of the phrase approv’d. ↩

Backlinks