The True Difference between the Law and the Gospel

ROM. 3. 27.

WE have confuted the false differences, and now come to lay down the true, between the Law and the Gospel, taken in a larger sense.

And, first, you must know that the difference is not essentiall,¹ or substantiall, but accidentall: so that the division of the Testament, or Covenant into the Old, and New, is not a division of the Genus into it’s opposite Species; but of the subject, according to it’s severall accidentall administrations, both on Gods part, and on mans. It is true, the Lutheran Divines, they do expresly oppose the Calvinists herein, maintaining the Covenant given by Moses, to be a Covenant of works, and so directly contrary to the Covenant of grace. Indeed, they acknowledge that the Fathers were justified by Christ, and had the same way of salvation with us; only they make that Covenant of Moses to be a superadded thing to the Promise, holding forth a condition of perfect righteousness unto the Iews, that they might be convinced of their own folly in their self-righteousness. But, I think, it is already cleared, that Moses his Covenant, was a Covenant of grace: & the right unfolding the word Law, and Gospel, doth easily take away that difference which seemeth to be among the Learned in this point; for, certainly, the godly Iews did not rest in the Sacrifices, or Sacramenrs, but by faith did really enjoy Christ in them, as well as wee in ours. Christ was figured by the Mercy-seat: Now, as both the Cherubims looked to that, so both the people of the Jews and Gentiles did eye and look to Christ. For although Christ had not assumed our flesh then, yet the fruit and benefit of his incarnation was then communicated, because of the decree and promise of God, 1. Pet. 1. 20.

2. This difference is more particularly seen, in respect of the² degrees of perspicuity and clearness in the revelation of heavenly objects. Hence, 2 Pet. 1. 19. the light in the Old Testament is compared to the light in the night time; and that in the New, to the light of the sun in the day. The summ of all heavenly doctrine is reduced to these three heads: credenda, things to be beleeved: speranda, things to be hoped for: & facienda, things to be done.

Now, if you consider the objects of faith, or things to be beleeved,³ they were more obscurely delivered to them: The doctrine of the Trinity, the Incarnation of Christ, and the Resurrection, these things were but in a dark manner delivered, yet, according to the measure of that light then held forth, they were bound to beleeve those things: so that, as Moses had a vail upon him, thus also his doctrine had; and, as the knowledge we have here is […], in respect of that in heaven, so that in the Old Testament may be said to be […], in respect of that in the New.

As it is thus for the credenda, things to be beleeved, so it is also⁴ for the speranda, things hoped for. The opinion of the Socinians and others is very wicked, which makes them before Christ, only to hope in temporall good things, and the notion of the Papists observing that the Church under the New Testament is called Ecclesia, but never Synagoge; & the meeting of the Jews, called always Synagoge, but never Ecclesia, doth suppose that the Jews were gathered together as so many beasts, rather then called together as men. But this notion is judged false; and they instance Heb. 10. and James 2. where the Church of the Christians is called Synagoge; although Cameron, Praelect. de Eccles. pag. 66. doth industriously labour to prove that the Apostles did purposely abstain from the word Synagoge in reference to Christians: but his reason is not that the Papists urge, for howsoever the good things promised were for the most part temporal, and carnal, yet these figured spirituall and heavenly. It’s Austins observation, shewing that the Jews should first be allured by temporal mercies, and afterwards the Christians by spiritual: As, saith he, first that which is animal, and then that which is spiritual: The first man was of the earth, earthly; the second man was of heaven, heavenly: Thus we may say of the Jew and the Christian, That which was animal was first, and then that which is spiritual. Hence, Heb. 11. 16. Abraham and others are said to seek an heavenly country; so that although it be true which Austine (as I remember) said, though you look over the whole book of the Old Testament, yet you shall never find the kingdome of heaven mentioned there: yet we see David making God his portion, and professing that he hath nothing in heaven but him, which argueth, that they looked farther then meer outward mercies. These good things promised to the Jews were figurative, so that as a man consisteth of a soul and body, thus also doth the promises; there is the kernel and the shell: but the Jews, for the most part, looked only to the outward. Hence Christ, when he opened those things to his Disciples, did like a kind father, that breaketh the shell, and giveth the kernel to his children.

In the third place, there are facienda, things to be done. Now⁵ although it be true, (as I have proved) that Christ hath added no new command to the Law of Moses; and whatsoever is a sin now in moral things, was also then; yet the doctrine of these things was not so full, penetrating, and clear as now under the Gospel. There is a dangerous book, called, The Practicall Catechisme, that venteth much Socinian poyson, and in this particular, among other things, that Christ added to the Law, and perfected it, filled up some vacuities in it; Certainly, the Law of God being perfect, and to which nothing must be added, cannot be said to have vacuities in it; and Christ is said to fill the Law, in respect of the Pharisees, who by their corrupt glosses had evacuated it. And one of his reasons, which he brings to prove his assertion, makes most against him, viz. Except your righteousness exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, &c. This maketh against him, because our Saviour doth not say. Except your righteousness exceed the righteousness of the Law and the Prophets; (which he must have said, if his opinion were true) but, of the Scribes and Pharisees, who had corrupted the text with their false glosses. I will not consider his other reasons; for they are so weak, that he seemeth to be afraid of them: And, certainly, it would be strange Divinity, to say, that a Jew might have lusted after a woman in his heart, and not have sinned; but now it would be sin in a Christian.

The second particular difference is in respect of the measure of grace. Hence the Scripture speakes, as if they had under the Old⁶ Testament none at all, meerly because there was not such a plentifull effusion of his Spirit upon them: not but that if we consider some particular persons, they might have such degrees of grace, that few under the Gospel can be compared unto them, as Abraham and David; but this was not according to the ordinary dispensation of his graces then: So that as one starre differeth from another in glory, thus did the Church of the Jewes, from that of Christians. They had drops, but we have the fountaine; they had glimmerings, but we have the sun it selfe. Now, as these are priviledges, so they are also great engagements for more eminent knowledge, and holiness then was in those dayes. But all that the Prophets reproved in their people, ignorance, selfe confidence, resting upon externall duties, &c. the same may we in our hearers⁷

3. Their condition was more servile. All things did press more to fear, and bondage, then now among us. Hence the Apostle, Gal. 4. 30. compareth their condition to the sons of the bondwoman. Hence Austine makes Timor, and Amor, the difference of the two Testaments; God met man sinning in the Law, as he did Adam, with terrour, charging sin upon him; but under the Gospel, as the father did the prodigall son, coming home to him. See Heb. 12. this difference considered by Paul, Yee are not come to Mount Sinai, &c. Only you must rightly understand this. The Jewes had a two fold consideration; one, as being servile, and another of them, as sonnes, but under age: so that they were not wholly excluded from the Spirit of Adoption: yea, the Apostle saith, That the Promises, and Adoption did belong unto thom; and David doth appropriate God unto himselfe as his God, in his prayer, which argued he had the Spirit of Adoption, inabling him to call, Abba, Father. Now, as they were more obnoxious to an inward bondage, so they were under an outward bondage also, opposite unto which is that Christian liberty Paul speakes of, whereby the yoke of all those ceremonious burdens is taken off them; and Paul doth vehemently and fervidly dispute against those that would introduce them.

In the asserting of this difference, one scruple is to be removed, which is this, How could the Jewes be said to be in more servitude then the Christians; meerly because of those ceremonies and sacrifices? for, seeing they were commanded by God, and had spirituall significations, they did thereby become helpes unto their faith, and were exercises of their piety. As under the Gospel none can say that the Sacraments are a burden, and tend to bondage, because they are visible signes: But rather God doth hereby condescend in his great love unto us for, as Chrysostome observeth, if wee had been incorporeall, God would not then have appointed visible Sacraments, (no more then he doth to Angels) but now consisting of soul and body, he doth institute some things in an accommodated way to helpe us, and to promote our faith.

But this may be answered, that although they were spirituall in signification, yet they being many, and requiring much bodily labour, they could not be observed without much difficulty: and therefore no priest, or Levite, that was spiritually minded, in those dayes, but would rather choose to exercise the ministery under the Gospel, then to busie himself in the killing of beasts, and fleaing of them, which was their duty to do. Therefore well did Austine observe the love of God in appointing for us Sacraments, fewer in number, easier in observation, and more cleare in signification. Again, those bodily exercises did rather fit those that were children, and were more convenient to that low condition, then unto the full age of the Church: and Sacraments, though they be an help, yet they suppose some imbecillity in the subject: therefore in heaven there shall be none at all. Only take notice, that Popery, having introduced so many ceremonious observations, and such a multitude of Churchprecepts, hath made the times of the Gospel to be the times of none-age again. This also discovereth that such are not spirituall, that delight in ceremoniall wayes: and the more men fix their heart upon sensible observations, the less they partake of spirituall.

I will instance but in a fourth (because these differences are given by most that treate on this subject) and that shall be the⁸ continuance and abode of it. The Law, in that Mosaicall administration, was to indure but till Christ the fulness came; and then, as the scaffolds are pulled down when the house is built, so were all those externall ordinances to be abolished, when Christ himselfe came. A candle is superfluous when the sun appeareth. A School-master is not necessary to those that have obtained perfect knowledge. Milke is not comely for those who live on solid meat. The chaff preserves the corn, but when the corn is gathered, the chaff is thrown away. And when the fruit commeth, the flower falleth to the ground And in this sense the Apostle, Heb. 7. doth argue against it, saying, it could bring nothing to perfection, Neither could any of those purifications work any good and spiritual effect. It behoved therefore that a Christ should be exhibited, which would work all those spirituall mercies for us, Hence had there been no farther proceeding, but we must alwaies have stayed in such offerings, and sacrifices, it had been impossible for ever that God should have been pleased with us. It is therefore in this respect, that it was to be antiquated, and a better covenant to come in the room of it. The Apostle calleth those things, Heb. 10. a shadow: Now a shadow, that doth shew a man, but yet the shadow, that doth not live, or eate, or speak: so those sacrifices they shadowed out Christ, but yet they could not exhibite the reall benefits by Christ. As Elisha sent his servant with a staff to raise up the Shunamites son, but he could doe nothing; then cometh the Prophet himself, and raiseth him up: so it’s here, Moses was like the Prophets servant, he went with a staff to raise up those dead in sin, but could not do it without Christ.

Here may be one Question made upon these things, and that is, Why God appointed such various and different administrations? This providence of God became a rock to the Marcionites, and Manichees, insomuch that they denyed the same God to be Author of both the Testaments. To answer this; certainly God, if he pleased, could have as clearly revealed Christ, and poured out his pirit, giving eternall life as plentifully under the Law, as under the Gospel. But to aske why he did thus, would be as presumptuous and arrogant, as to aske, why he created the world no sooner. If the School-master teach the new beginner in another way, then he doth the proficient in study, no man doth blame his wisedom. As in the Paschall Lamb, they were to eate the flesh, but to throw away the bones; so in all matters of religion, those things that are revealed and profitable we may feed upon, and whatsoever is abstruse and difficult, we may let goe. Praestat per Deum nescire, quia ipse non revelaverit; quàm per hominem scire, quia ipse praesumpserit, Tert. de Anima.⁹

Now, to conclude, I come to give the difference between the Law strictly taken, as requiring exact and perfect obedience, promising eternall life upon no other termes: and the Gospel strictly taken, as a solemne promulgation of Christ, and his benefits to a broken sinner.

And the first is this, The Law in some measure of it is made¹⁰ knowne by naturall light, and so agreeable to a naturall conscience. I say in some measure; for there is much of the duty of the Law that is unknown to naturall consciences, yet the most externall and outward duties are knowne, and accordingly, as the truth of them is discerned by naturall light, so the will doth joyne with them as good to be done (though not in a godly way.) But it is otherwise with the Gospel, for the very truth of it must be wholy revealed by God, so that no naturall acumen in the world, could ever excogitate this wonderfull remedy, of justification and salvation by Christ. And as it is thus above knowledg, so the heart is more averse from this way.

And by this you may see, why it is such an hard thing to beleeve; why the people of God are so hardly perswaded, when loaden with guilt, to roule their soules upon Christ. The reasorris, there is nothing in his natural conscience to further him in this duty. Press a man against murder, theft, adultery; here is naturall conscience joyning for this duty: but urge him to beleeve, this is altogether above nature. Hence it is also, that naturally we seek to be justified by the works we do; so that to be justified by faith is another way, then corrupted nature in us, or right nature in Adam would have inclined unto, Therefore let not the people of God be so discouraged in their agonies and combats about their unbeliefe: Let them know, that a little degree of faith is of great consequence. And if he said, that Christi anity was perpetua naturae violentia, a perpetuall violence offered to nature, this is most sure in a matter of faith. We are as froward in rejecting of a promise, as stubborn in refusing of a command.

The second difference is in the object matter: The Law holdeth¹¹ forth a perfect righteousness, and will not admit of any other; but the Gospel, that condescends, and brings pardon through Christ. And this is the maine difference, and in which they can never be made one. Now the Papists, Arminian, Socinian, and others do overthrow this grand and maine difference holding justification by works under some notion, or other: whereas the Apostle maketh an immediate opposition, If of faith, then not of works. The Apostle doth not distinguish of works of nature, and works of grace, or works of grace perfect imperfect: but speaketh absolutely, & so doth also exclude that subtile opinion, of making faith to justifie as a work; for the Apostle, making an opposition between faith and works, must necessarily take faith under such a notion, as cannot be a work. And this truth is that which is the pillar of the Church of God, and that which differenceth us from Jews, Turks, Papists, and many Hereticks.

The third difference is from the manner of obtaining the good¹² thing promised: He that shall obtain eternall life by the Law, hath it of debt, and by way of justice, Rom. 4. 4. Not as if Adam in the state of innocency could have merited at Gods hands; or as if God became in strict justice a debtor; seeing Adam was beholding to God for all: but in some sense it would have been so. Hence boasting would not then have been excluded: eternall life being the reward of those holy works, which he should have done, but now all is of grace, through Christ; our righteousness is meerly Gods indulgence: not the holiness that is in us, but the sinn pardoned makes us acceptable. So that the broken contrite heart can never sufficiently admire the grace and goodness of God in the Gospel-way: And no marvell if so be that Paul is so frequently ravished with the considerations thereof. This may well be caIled good newes, […] And if our hearts were spiritually affected, we should say, How beautifull are the feet of those that bring these glad tydings?

The fourth difference is in respect of the subject: The Law, strictly¹³ taken, is only for those who have a perfect and holy nature: therefore it’s a Covenant, (as you heard) of friendship, and not of reconciliation, so that there is no necessity of any Mediatour. Indeed, there is good use of urging it to proud Pharisaicall men, to bring them out of love with themselves; to gross sinners, that their hearts might be broken, seeing the curses belong to them; yea, to the godly also, to teach them the faire copy they are to write after: but, in respect of justification by it, and eternall life, there is none can have that benefit but such who shall be found perfectly holy: It was not Moses, but the serpent that did heale; so it is not the Law, but Christ that can comfort broken hearts stung with sin. The Priest, and the Levite they pass by, not pitying of him. But now the Subject to whom the Gospel is given, is a broken hearted sinner, one that feeleth himselfe ready to be covered over with all confusion, one that lyeth wounded in conscience, crying for some oyle to be poured into his wounds. Oh! what miserable comforters then must all Popish and Socinian Doctors be, who will advise the sinfull tempted man to seek out works for the Law, which is as uncomfortable, as to bid a sick diseased man get some of the Philosophers stone, or to eat a piece of a Phoenix, and then, and not till then, he shall be in ease?

Lastly, The Law differeth in the forme of it from the Gospel: The¹⁴ Law is conditionall, but the Gospel absolute. I find this Question a very troublesome one, Whether the Gospel be absolute or no? Whether Gospel be a doctrine of works? Whether it hath precepts, or threatnings? Now the meaning of this Question is not, Whether the Gospel be so absolute that it requireth not faith as a condition: Or Whether it be so absolute, as that it excludeth all repentance and holiness; he is an infant in Scripture that thinketh so: But, Whether the Gospel doth promise eternall life to a man for any dignity, intention, merit, work, or any disposition in us under any distinction or notion whatsoever; or only to faith apprehending Christ. Now the Answer is, that if we take the Gospel largly, for the doctrine of Christ and the Apostles, there is no question, but they pressed duty of mortification & sanctification, threatning those that do not so: but if you take the Gospel strictly, then it holdeth forth nothing but remission of sins through Christ, not requiring any other duty as a condition, or using any threatning words thereunto. But then it may be demanded, To which is repentance reduced? Is it a duty of the Law, or a duty of the Gospel? Of the Law strictlytaken, it cannot be, because that admitteth none. Must it not therefore be of the Gospel? And I find in this particular, different either expressions or opinions, and generally the Lutheran Divines do oppose the Antinomians upon this very ground, that the Gospel is not a Sermon of repentance, nor doth exhort thereunto; but it must be had from the Law, which doth prepare them for Christ. I shall therefore, because this was the foundation of Antinomianisme, and it had it’s rise from hence, handle the next day this Question, Whether the Gospel doth command repentance, or no. Or, Whether it be only from the Law.

Footnotes

1. The difference between the Law and the Gospel is not essentiall, but accidentall only. ↩

2. Heavenly obiects more clearly revealed in the N. Testament, then in the Old. ↩

3. 1. It is so for the credenda.
   ↩
4. 2. For the speranda.
   ↩
5. 3. For the facienda.
   ↩

6. The measure of grace ordinarily greater in the Gospel, then under the Law. ↩

7. The Iews under the Law were in a more servile condition, then Christians under the Gospel. ↩

8. The continuation of the Law was to last, but till the coming of Christ. ↩

9. Difference between the Law strictly taken and the Gospel strictly taken. ↩

10. 1. The Law in some measure is known by the light of Nature, but the truth of the Gospel must be wholly revealed by God.
    ↩
11. 2. The Law requires perfect righteousness: the Gospel brings pardon through Christ.
    ↩
12. 3. If righteousness were by the Law, eternall life were a debt, but the Gospel holds it forth as Gods meere indulgence.
    ↩
13. 4. The Law is only for those that have a perfect nature the Gospel. for broken-hearted sinners.
    ↩
14. 5. The Law conditional. the Gospel absolute.
    ↩