A Vindication of the Moral Law and the Covenants, Moral treatise · Lecture 22
LECTVRE XXII.
ROM. 3. 31.
Do we then make void the Law?
THis Text is already explained; and there are two Obſervations 'Tis hard to ſet up Chriſt and grace, and not be thought to deſtroy the Law.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 doctrine The doctrine of Chriſt and grace, doth eſtabliſh the Law.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 foreign make void the Law; yet 2 Cor. 3. 11. The Apoſtle ſpeaking of the Law hath this paſſage, [If that which be done away, foreign] where the word is expreſly uſed, that yet here is denied: ſo Epheſ. 2 14. Chriſt is deſcribed [foreign] that maketh voyd the hand-writing againſt us. And in that place the Apoſtle uſeth the word foreign when yet Mat. 5. he denied that he came foreign 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 there Interprtation, diſpenſation, &c. affections of a Law.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 abrogated We may ſay that the Morall Law is mitigated, as to our perſons, but 'tis not abrogated.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 foreign make void the Law, yet he uſeth this expreſſion Rom. 7. 6. foreign 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. Three parts of the Law.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.The Law is aboliſhed as it is a Covenant, but not as it is a Rule.
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 the The Law given by Moſes a Covenant of grace.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.
4. The Antinomian diſtinction of the Law aboliſhed as a Law, It is an abſurd contradiction to ſay the matter of a Law bindeth, but not as a Law.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 nob ecauſe 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.
5. The Law is no more abrogated to a beleever under the Old-Teſtament, The Law equally abrogated to beleevers under the Old and New Teſtament.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.
6. The arguments of the Antinomian for the greater part, which Antinomian Arguments moſtly overthrow the uſe of the Law both to beleevers and unbelevers.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.The Law to a beleever is abrogated.
7. We will grant, that to a beleever the Law is, as it were, abrogated, in theſe particulars:
1. In reſpect of Juſtification. Though, I ſay, mitigation might be properly here uſed, yet we will call it abrogation (with the 1. In reſpect of juſtification.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.
2. Condemnation and a curſe. Thus ſtill the condition of a beleever 2. In reſpect of condemnation.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.
3. Rigid obedience. This is another particular, wherein the 3. In reſpect of rigid obedience.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.
4. It is not a terrour to the godly; nor are they ſlaviſhly compelled 4. In reſpect of tefrour and ſlaviſh obedience.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.
5. It doth not work, or increaſe ſin in them as in the wicked. The 5. In reſpect of the increaſe of ſin.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.
6. It is abrogated in many acceſſaries, and circumſtantials. Even 6. In reſpect of many Circumſtantials.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 doctrine 7. Yet that it continues to them as a rule, appears, 1. From the different phraſes uſed concerning the ceremoniall Law.of the Goſpel that is written in paper, and what can that do?
7. But the Law doth perpetually continue as a rule to them: Which may thus appeare:
1. 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, foreign, Epheſ. 2. 14. So again, foreign, Heb. 7. 12. foreign antiquare, foreign, ſeneſcere, foreign evaneſcere, Heb. 8. ult. foreign, 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.
2. From the ſanctification and holineſſe that is required of the 2. From that holineſſe that it requires of the beleever.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.
3. In that diſobedience to it is ſtill a ſin in the beleever: For 3. In that diſobedience is ſtill a ſin.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.
4. From the difference of the Morall Law, and the other lawes, in reſpect of the cauſes of abrogation. There can be very good reaſons 4. Becauſe it differs from other lawes in reſpect of cauſes of abrogation. Three reaſons why the Ceremoniall Law ſhould be abrogated.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.