The Covenant of God Entered with Mankind, Chapter 11
CHAP. XI.
The Moral Law is a perfect Rule of Righteouſneſſe.
AS God keeps up his Law for a Rule to his people, ſo it is a perfect and a compleat Rule to thoſe to whom it is given. This is a doctrine unanimouſly, heretofore maintained by Proteſtant Writers, but oppoſed by Papiſts, Arminians, and Socinians. Papiſts have their traditions, added as well to the Law, as to the Goſpel, which is an accuſation of the written Law, as imperfect: They have alſo their Evangelical counſels, which though they are not commanded, yet (as Bellarmine ſpeaks) are commended, as raiſing Chriſtians to an higher perfection, then ever the Law required. Socimans (with whom many Arminians joyne) affirme, that Chriſt hath inſtituted new precepts of obedience in the Goſpel; and added them to the commands of the Law, ſuch as tranſcend and exceed all that were delivered in Old Teſtament times. Gerrard having diſputed for the perfection of the Law againſt Papiſts, cap. 14. De Evangelio, ſaith, The Popiſh opinion of new Laws promulgated by Chriſt, the Pho…inians (which is an other name of Socinians) greedily embrace; making a fair way for Mahometiſme, ſeeing that in the Alcoran it is in like manner ſaid, That Moſes gave a Law, leſſe perfect, Chriſt more perfect, and Mahomet moſt perfect of all. Gerrard quotes this paſſage out of the Cracovian Chatechiſme in the ſame chapter. Chriſt came not only to fulfil the Law for us, but added new precepts to it. Theſe new precepts, (the ſame Authour ſaith) they make twofold… Some of which do appertain to manners, ſome to ceremonies, or outward rites in worſhip. He names three that appertaine to manners: To deny a mans ſelf; take up his Croſſe, and follow Chriſt: Which three precepts my Authour in way of oppoſition ſaith, belong to the firſt commandment. Peltius in his Harmony of Arminians and Socinians, chap. 4, 5, 6. ſheweth their combination againſt the Orthodox party, as in many other things, ſo in this propoſition now controverted. He there quotes from Socinians theſe poſitions: That Chriſt in the New Teſtament did not only abrogate the Ceremonial and Judicial Law, but did much encreaſe and adde unto the Moral Law: That he came not to deſtroy the Law, but to fulfil it; which fulfilling (ſaith he) is nothing elſe but a perfecting of it, and addition of what was wanting: That we ought not only to obſerve thoſe things that are given us of God, and not abrogated by Christ, but thoſe precepts in like manner that are added by Chriſt. Much more from many Socinians, and Arminians, may be ſeen in that Authour to that purpoſe. Dr. Hammond in his Practical Catechiſme, ſpeaking of Chriſts Sermon in the Mount, agrees indeed with the Papists, againſt the Proteſtants, That Chriſt doth not here expound Moſes, and vindicate the Law from falſe gloſſes, but that he addes to the Law, and names many additions to the ſixth, ſeventh, and other Commandments, but diſſents from them, in that they make theſe Evangelical Counſels, and makes them precepts, not precepts of Moſes, but of Chriſt, added by him to the Law: but, this with much modeſty, as though he would not be peremptory in his opinion. So that *Authorities vouchſafed for the perfection of the Moral Law as a Rule.Mr. Burges, page 166. handling controverſies about the Law, ſaith, I ſhall now handle the perfection of it, and labour to ſhew that Chriſt hath inſtituted no new duty, which was not commanded before by the Law of Moſes. And this queſtion, (ſaith he) will be profitable, partly againſt the Arminians, partly the Papiſts, and lastly, the Socinians. He further ſaith, page 169. That Chriſt did not adde, new duties which were not commanded in the Law, becauſe the Law is perfect, and they were bound not to add to it, or detract from it, Therefore we are not to conceive a more excellent way of duty, then that preſcribed. Further, if we ſpeak of holy and ſpiritual duties, there cannot be a more excellent way of holineſſe this being an Idaea, and repreſentation of the glorious nature of God. Dr. Ames in his Sciagraphia, handling the Decalogue, makes this, his firſt doctrine, aLex iſta Dei quae in Decalogo continetur eſt perfectiſſima regula ad vitam hominis dirigendam.The Law of God contained in the Decalogue is a moſt perfect Rule for guidance of the life of man. He gives foure reaſons, with an uſe of information, bUt legem iſtam Dei eo loco habeamus quo debemus, i.e. ut non aliter de eadem cogitemus quam ut de vitae noſtra unica forma & tanquam de illa norma quae nullum habet defectum ſed perfecta eſt in ſeſe & perfectionem omnem à nobis requiritThat we eſteem this Law as it ought to be eſteemed, and that, as the only Rule of our lives, and ſuch a Rule that hath no defect, but is perfect in it ſelf, and requires all perfection in it. Davenant de Juſtit. actual. cap. 40. pag. 463. ſaith, cIpſa lex Chriſti eſt exactiſſima & perfectiſſima regula Sanctitatis & juſtitiaeThe Law of God it ſelf, is a moſt exact and perfect Rule of Holineſſe and Righteouſneſſe: And in the proof of it ſaith, dPaſſim in Scripturis confirmatur quae perfectionem legis divinae mirificè extollunt.This is every where confirmed in Scripture, which wonderfully extols the perfection of the divine Law. Downham in the preface of his Tables of the Commandments ſaith, that, The Law of God is perfect, requiring perfect obedience both inward and outward, not only in reſpect of the parts, but of the degrees. The Leyden Profeſſours ſay, eTam perfecta eſt haec lex ut nihil ei in praeceptis moralibus aut à Chriſto aut ab Apoſtolis ipſius additum fuerit quoad exactionem bonorum operum normam ſub novo Teſtamento ſit adducta.The Law is ſo perfect, that nothing in Moral precepts, either by Chriſt or his Apostles, as any more exact rule of good works hath been added under the New Teſtament. Diſp. 18. §. 39. Vrſinus in his definition of the Moral Law inſerts this, fObligans omnes creaturas rationales ad perfectam obedientiam internam & externam.Binding all reaſonable creatures to perfect obedience both inward and outward, page 681. Chemnitius entitles his third Chapter de Lege,gDe perfect â obedientiâ quam Lex requirit. Of the perfect obedience which the Law requires, and preſently layes down theſe words, hVariis autem corruptelis omnibus temporibus, & olim, & nunc depravata eſt doctrina de perfect â obedientia, quam Lex Dei requirit.This Doctrine of the perfect obedience which the Law requires, in all ages paſt hath been, and is now depraved. Bucan in his common places, page 188. thus defines the Moral Law; iEſt praeceptio divina continens piè juſteque coram Deo vivendi regulam, requirens ab omni homine perfectam & perpetuam obedientiam.A divine injunction, containing a rule to live piouſly and juſtly before God, requiring of all men perfect and perpetual obedience towards God. I ſhall conclude with the Confeſſion preſented to both houſes of Parliament, by the Aſſembly of Divines, chap. 19. 2. The Law after his (i.e. Adams) fall, continued to be a perfect Rule of Righteouſneſſe, and as ſuch was delivered by God on mount Sinai in ten Commandments; To theſe more might be added, but theſe are ſufficient to ſhew the great conſent of Proteſtant Writers.
But I ſhall not reſt barely upon the authority of theſe teſtimonies, but alſo offer to conſideration theſe following Reaſons.Arguments evincing the perfection of the Moral Law.
1. If the Law be not a fully perfect, and compleat Rule of our lives, then there is ſome ſinne againſt God which is not condemned in the Law, This is clear; Deviation from any rule given of God, is a ſin: Deviation from that, ſuppoſed additional rule, is a ſin; But there is no ſin which the Law doth not condemn; Sin is a tranſgreſſion of the Law, 1 John 3, 4. He that ſins, tranſgreſſeth the Law.
2. If the Law alone diſcovers and makes ſinne known, then it is a perfect, full, and compleat Rule; this is plain: Omne rectum index est obliqui. But the Law alone diſcovers ſinne, Rom. 3. 20. This office is aſcribed there to the Law, which is no other but the Moral Law. Had not the light of that Rule guided the Apoſtle in this work, he had never made any ſuch diſcovery: And it is the moral Law written in the decalogue that he means, as appears in the quotation; I had not known lust, except the Law had ſaid, Thou ſhalt not covet.
3. That which alone works wrath, is the alone Rule and guide of our lives. This is clear, in what ſenſe ſoever it is, that we take working of wrath: whether we underſtand it of working of wrath in man againſt God, as ſome do; Mans heart being apt to riſe againſt him that will exerciſe Sovereignty over him, Or of the wrath of God kindled againſt man; upon tranſgreſſion of the Law. But it is the Law that works wrath: it is aſcribed to it, and it alone, Rom. 4. 15.
4. That which being removed will take away all poſſibility of ſinning, that is alone the Rule of our obedience: This is plain; were there any Rule, the tranſgreſſion of it would be ſtill our ſinne. But the Law being removed, all poſſibility of ſin is taken away: Where there is no Law, there is no tranſgreſſion, Rom. 4. 15.
5. If the Law only addes ſtrength to ſinne, viz. for condemnation, then the Law is the alone rule of obedience: This is plaine; Any other Rule whatſoever addes like ſtrength to ſinne, and upon tranſgreſſion will condemne. But the Law only addes ſtrength to ſinne, 1 Cor. 15. 56. The ſtrength of ſin is the Law.
6. Either the epithite [moral] is not juſtly given to the Law; or elſe it is a perfect Rule of manners, that is, of obedience: This is plaine, for moral denotes, as Ameſius obſerves, that uſe of it. But this epithite given to the Law, and appropriated to it, was never (as I think) upon any ſuch account challenged. Ergo.
7. Either this new Rule doth tranſcend the old Rule of the Moral Law; requiring a more exact degree of perfection, as Papiſts ſpeak of their evangelical counſels, and Socinians of their additional Goſpel precepts, or elſe it falls ſhort and admits of obedience in a degree more low. If it require obedience more high, then even the doers of the Law, in the greateſt height and poſſible ſuppoſed perfection; though equal to the Angels, are ſinners: The Law might be fulfilled, and yet diſobedience charged. If it fall ſhort of the old Rule (which it ſeemes is the opinion of ſome who confeſſe an imperfection in our perſonal righteouſneſſe, as it refers to the old Rule; and aſſert a perfection, as it relates to the new Rule) then the new Rule allows that which the old Rule condemnes, and ſo they bring in a diſcrepancy between them and finde an allowance for tranſgreſſion. So that I think, I have ſufficient authourity, divine and humane, with reaſons that are cogent, to conclude that which I have aſſerted, That the old Rule, the Rule of the Moral Law, is a perfect Rule, and the only Rule.
Six ſeveral exceptions are taken againſt theaExceptions taken againſt the perfection of the Law. perfection of this Law, or ſingularity of it, as a rule by a learned hand.
1. It is demanded, What ſay you for matter of duty, to the poſitive b1. Exception.precepts for the Goſpel? of Baptiſm; the Lords day; the Officers and government of the Church, &c? Is the Law of nature: the only rule for thoſe? And foreſeeing what would be anſwered as well he might, he addes, If you ſay, they are reducible to the ſecond commandment, I demand, 1. What is the ſecond commandment, for the affirmative part, but a general precept to worſhip God, according to his poſitive inſtitution? 2. Do ye take the precept de genere to be equivalent to the precepts de ſpeciebus? &c. To this I think I may anſwer out of his own mouth, where he ſayes, The neglect of Sacraments is a breach of the ſecond commandment. In caſe we break the commandments in the neglect of them, then the commandment requires the obſervation of them. For which Maſter Burges Vindiciae Legis page 149. Balls Catechiſme, Ameſius his Sciographia, Dod on the commandments, Downhams Tables, Zanchy, each of them on this commandment; and Cawdry and Palmer on the Sabbath, Part. 2. Pag. 176. may be conſulted. For further clearing of this point, we muſt conſider of the preceptive part of the Moral Law, which alone in this place is our buſineſſe to enquire after, 1. As it is epitomized in the Decalogue, thoſe ten words, as Moſes calls them, Exod. 34. 28. Or elſe, as commented upon, and more amply delivered in the whole Book of the Law, Prophets, and Scriptures of the New Teſtament. 2. We muſt diſtinguiſh of the manner how the Law preſcribes, or commands any thing as duty, which is either expreſly, or Synecdochically, either directly, or elſe interpretatively, virtually, and reductively; I very well know, that the Law is not in all particulars ſo explicitely, and expreſly delivered, but that, 1. The uſe, and beſt improvement of reaſon is required to know, what pro hic & nunc is called for at our hands for duty. The Law layes down rules in affirmative precepts, in an indefinite way, which we muſt bring home by particular application, diſcerning by general Scripture Rules, with the help of reaſon (which ſometimes is not ſo eaſie to be done) when it ſpeaks to us in a way of concernment, as to preſent practical obſervation. 2. That hints of providence are to be obſerved, to know what in preſent is duty, as to the affirmative part of the commandment of God. If that man, that fell among theeves, between Jeruſalem and Jericho, had ſate by the way, on the green graſſe, without any appearance of harme, or preſent need of help, the Samaritane that paſſed that way, had not offended, in caſe he had taken no more notice, then the Prieſt and Levite did: But diſcerning him that caſe, as he then was, the ſixth commandment called for that, which he then did, as a preſent office of love to his neighbour, according to the interpretation of this commandment given by our Saviour, Mark 3. 4. When the Phariſees watched him, whether he would heale the man with the withered hand on the Sabbath day, He demands of them, Is it lawful to do good on the Sabbath day, or to do evil, To ſave life, or to deſtroy? It was not their minde that Chriſt ſhould kill the man, onelyonly they would not have had him, then to have cur'd him: But not to cure when it is in our power, according to Chriſts interpretation, is to kill. If diligent obſervation be not made, the commandment may be ſoone tranſgreſs'd. 3. Skill in Sciences, and profeſſions is to be improved by men of skill, that the commandment may be kept. The Samaritane poured wine and oyle into the travellers wounds, knowing that to be of uſe, to ſupple and refreſh them. Had he known any other thing more ſovereigne, which might have been had, at hand; he was to have uſed it. As skill in medicines is to be uſed for preſervation of mens lives, ſo alſo skill in the Laws, by thoſe that are vers'd in them, for the help of their neighbour, in exigents; concerning his eſtate and livelihood. 4. We muſt liſten to Gods mouth, to learne when he ſhall be pleaſed at any time further to manifeſt his minde for the clearing of our way in any of his precepts. There was a command, concerning the place of publick, and ſolemn worſhip, Deut. 12. 5. VntoUnto the place which the Lord your God ſhall chooſe out of all your Tribes to put his Name there, even to his habitation ſhall ye ſeek, and thither ſhalt thou come, Now thou muſt depend on the mouth of God, to obſerve what place in any of the Tribes; he would chooſe for his habitation. When God commands, that all inſtituted worſhip ſhall be according to his preſcript; This is a perfect Rule implicite, and virtual; tying us to heed the Lord at any time, more particularly diſcovering his will, and clearing this duty to us. Was not the Law of worſhip perfect, to Abraham, unleſſe it explicitely told him that he muſt ſacrifice his Sonne? And if any take themſelves to be ſo acute, as to ſet up a new Rule, as ſome are pleaſed to ſtile it, then they antiquate and aboliſh the old Rule, and ſingularly gratifie the Antinomian party. Two Rules will no more ſtand together then two covenants; calling it a new Rule, men make the firſt old: Now that which decayeth and waxeth old, is ready to vaniſh away, Heb. 8. 17. It is added moreover, doth not the Scripture call Chriſt our Lawgiver, and ſay the Law ſhall go out of Zion, &c. Iſa. 2. 3. And was not the old Law his? Saint Paul, I am ſure, quotes that which belongs to the preceptive part of the Moral Law, and calls it the Law of Chriſt, Gal. 6. 2. His Laws were delivered in the wilderneſſe, whom the people of Iſrael there tempted and provoked; This is plain, for they ſinn'd againſt the Lawgiver, and from his hands they ſuffered. And who they tempted in the wilderneſſe, ſee from the Apoſtles hand, 1 Cor. 10. 9. And as to the Scripture quoted, the words are exegetically ſet down in thoſe that follow them. The Law ſhall go out of Zion, and the Word of the Lord out of Jeruſalem: Which is no more, but that the Name of the Lord, which was then known in Judah, ſhall be great from the riſing of the Sun, to the going down thereof. It is further demanded, And is he not the anointed King of the Church, and therfore hath legiſlative power? For anſwer, I deſire to know what King the Church had, when the old Law was, before Chriſt came in the fleſh? The Kingdom was one and the ſame, and the King one and the ſame then, and now, as I take it. Many ſhall come from the Eaſt, and Weſt, and ſhall ſit down with Abraham, Iſaac and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. The Gentiles coming in at the Goſpel-call, are under the ſame King, and in the ſame Kingdom. And if all this were granted which is here pleaded for, it is no more then a change in ſome poſitive, circumſtantial Rites, and what is this to the queſtion handled by our Authour; That our righteouſneſſe which is imperfect according to the old Rule, is perfect according to the new? when old and new in that which is naturally Moral, is one and the ſame. When the Law required heart-ſervice, and love with the whole heart, upon ſpiritual ends and motives, upon which account all fell ſhort in their obedience, and performance, ſhall we ſay that Chriſt did diſpenſe with any of this, that ſo the Rule being lower, our obedience now may anſwer. Others that make Moſes and Chriſt two diſtinct Law-givers and agents for God, in holding out diſtinct precepts, give the pre-eminence to Chriſt, and account his Law to be of more eminent perfection. This Authour on the contrary ſeems to make the Laws of Chriſt to ſtoop far beneath thoſe of Moſes.
2. For Juſtification of this accuſation of the Moral Law of imperfection, 2. Exception.it is added, the Moral, taken either for the Law given to Adam, or written in Tables of ſtone, is not a ſufficient rule for us now, for beleeving in Jeſus Chriſt, no nor the ſame Law of nature as ſtill in force under Chriſt. For a general command of beleeving all that God revealeth, is not the only rule of our faith, but the particular revelation and precept are part, &c. To this I ſay,
1. As before, I think I may anſwer out of his own mouth, where he ſays, Neglect of Sacraments is a breach of the ſecond commandment, and unbelief is a breach of the firſt. If we break the commandment in unbelief, then the Commandment bindes us to believe.
2. Much of that which I have ſpoke by way of anſwer to the former, may be applied to this likewiſe.
3. I ſhall hereafter ſpeak to this, that faith is a duty of the Moral Law, where the Reader may have further ſatisfaction.
4. If Adam had no command for faith, then he was not in any capacity to believe, and by his fall loſt not power of beleeving: And conſequently it will not ſtand with the Juſtice of God to exact it at our hands, having never had power for the performance of it.
5. I ſay, there was power in Adam, for that faith that juſtified, but not to act for juſtification. Adam had that habit, and the Law calls for it, from all that are under the command of it: But the Goſpel diſcovers the object by which a ſinner through faith is juſtified.
3. The ſame anſwer may ſerve to the third exception, which indeed is the ſame with the former,3. Exception. only a great deal of flouriſhing is beſtowed, in diſcourſe of the underſtanding and will, paralleling them with the Prefaces, grounds and occaſions of Laws, not needful to be repeated. And at laſt bringing all to the Articles of the Creed, to which enough already is ſpoken.
4. It is ſaid,4, Exception. But what if all this had been left out, and you had proved the Moral Law the only Rule of duty? doth it follow therefore that it is the only Rule? Anſw. If the Moral Law be the only Rule of duty, then I take it to be the only Rule; for I enquire after nothing but duty, and I take righteouſneſſe to be matter of duty, and then the only Rule of duty, is the only Rule of righteouſneſſe. It is further ſaid, Sure it is not the only Rule of rewarding. And I ſay, Rewarding is none of our work, but Gods, and I look for a Rule of that work which is ours, and that we are to make our buſineſſe, I confeſſe an imperfection in it, to give life, but aſſert a perfection as the Rule of our lives, It juſtifies no man, but it orders and regulates every juſtified man.
5. It is further ſaid,5. Exception. The ſame I may ſay of the Rule of puniſhment. To which I give the ſame anſwer: It is not our work, but Gods, either to reward or puniſh. And here he ſpeaks of a part of the penalty of the new Law, And I know no penalty properly diſtinct from the penalty of the old. He is wont to compare it to an Act of Oblivion, and Acts of Oblivion are not wont to inflict penalties, but ſerve to remove them when another Law impoſes them. That of the Parable is inſtanced, None of them that were bidden ſhall taſte of the Supper; when the ſin for which they there ſuffer is a breach of a Moral command.
6. It is ſaid,6. Exception. The principal thing intended is, that the Moral Law is not the only Rule, what ſhall be the condition of Life or Death, and therefore not the only Rule according to which we muſt now be denominated, and hereafter ſentenced, Juſt or Vnjuſt. To this I have already given a ſufficient anſwer, and if I had not, our Authour anſwers fully for me, where he ſays, The precepts of the Covenant, as meer precepts, muſt be diſtinguiſhed from the ſame precepts conſidered as conditions, upon performance of which we must live, or die for non-performance? And I ſpeak of them as meer precepts, and ſo they are our Rule of righteouſneſs, & not as they are conditions either of the covenant of works or grace. And a man may be denominated righteous, by the Laws Rule, when he cannot ſtand before the ſentence of it as a covenant, of which we have heard ſufficient. After a long diſcourſe againſt all poſſibility of juſtification by the Law of works, as though I were therein an adverſary; or that the Antinomian fancy were above all anſwer; that a man cannot make the Law his Rule, but he makes it withal his Juſtification, he goes about to prevent an objection, and ſays, If you ſhould ſay, this is the covenant and not the Law, he will reply. 1. Then the Law is not the only Rule. To which I ſay, When my work is to make it good, that the Law is our only Rule, I marvel that he will ſo much as imagine, that I will ſay that which makes it not the only Rule. But perhaps, he thinks I do not ſee, how it cannot follow, as indeed I do not, neither can I ſee any colour for it. 2. He replies, It is the ſame thing in ſeveral reſpects, that we call a Law and a Covenant (except you mean it of our covenant-act to God, of which we ſpeak not) who knows not that praemiare, and punire are Acts of a Law? And that an Act of Oblivion or general pardon on certaine termes is a Law, and that the promiſe is the principal part of the Law of Grace. To which I ſay, that praemiare and punire are eſſential in a Law. Some have power of command, ſo that their words in juſt things is to be a Law, where moſt deny any power of puniſhment; as an Husband over the Wife. Some parents have Authority to command children, (children remaining under the obligation of the fifth commandment as long as the relation of a childe continueth) when they have neither power to reward or puniſh. Jacob took himſelf to be in power, to command Joſeph (among the reſt of his Sons, as appears in the charge concerning his burial, Gen. 47. 29, 30. and chap. 49. 29. So compared) and yet he was not in power either to reward or puniſh him. And though they be acts of a law where he that gives the Law is in power; Yet they are no parts of a Rule, nor any directory of life to him to whom they are propoſed. I know that an Act of Oblivion or general pardon may be called a Law, as many other things are, catachreſticè and abuſivè; but that it ſhould be a Law properly ſo called, I know not. The Romanes defined a Law, whileſt that a Democratie was in force among them, to be Generale juſſum populi, aut plebis rogante magistratu. Afterwards when the State was changed, and the Legiſlative power was in other hands, they defined it to be, Juſſum Regis aut Imperatoris. And Tully's definition of a Law is, that it is, Ratio ſumma inſita in natura, quae recta ſuadet, prohibetque contraria. Here juſſio, ſuaſio, and prohibitio are expreſs'd, which are not found in Acts of Oblivion. That every man, who is within the verge of ſuch an Act, may be ſaid to be acquit by Law, I willingly grant; ſeeing that act takes off the force of the Law condemning him: But that it is a Law, ſtrictly ſo taken, I know not.