A Vindication of the Moral Law and the Covenants, Moral treatise · Lecture 21
LECTVRE XXI.
ROM. 3. 31.
Do we then make void the Law through faith? God forbid: But we rather eſtabliſh the Law.
I Shall in the next place diſcuſſe that famous Queſtion, about the abrogating of the Morall Law: only I muſt anſwer to ſome Objections that are made againſt the former poſition, That the Law may be uſed by God in the preaching of it to mans Converſion, in the ſenſe explained: which, if not attended unto, may make the aſſertion ſeem harſh, and incredible. But before I anſwer the Objections, let us conſider a great miſtake of the Antinomian author, Aſſert. of grace, pag. 171. where he makes the very ground, why they are charged with Antinomianiſme, to be, becauſe they do not hold the Law to be uſed by God inſtrumentally for the converſion of men. Certainly this is a great miſtake, for there are many learned men, who hold the work of the Law by the power of Gods Spirit to be no more then preparatory; yet for all that, do peremptorily maintain the uſe and the obligation of the Law in reſpect of believers. Therefore they are not in this reſpect condemned for that errour.
Another conſideration that I will propound is this, Converſion not wrought totally by the word read or preached, but is to be attributed to the Covenant of grace in Chriſt.That the work of converſion is not wrought totally in a man without the Gospel: for, as I told you, now in the preaching of the Word there is not meere Law, nor meer Goſpel, but they are to be compoſed and to be made helpfull to each other; and alſo, whatſoever benefit or effect we get in the hearing, preaching, or meditating upon the Law of God, it is to be attributed unto the Convenant of grace in Chriſt. And therefore all theſe places, which attribute converſion and holineſſe to the Goſpel, do not at all make againſt my Aſſertion; for the Queſtion is not, Whether by the power of the Law we come to obey the Law; but, Whether grace may not uſe the Precepts, or Law preached, for the inflaming of our affections ſo in love with the things commanded, that we are thereby made more holy. And thus I interpret thoſe Authors that deny the Law to be inſtrumentall to holineſſe, that is, not animated by Gods Spirit, or ſeperated from it.
I come therefore to conſider of thoſe places which are brought againſt this truth delivered: I ſhall not take all, becauſe one anſwer may ſerve for many, they being built upon the ſame ground.
And, firſt the ſtate and Queſtion is obſcurely propounded by him; for thus he ſaith, [The promiſe, or the Goſpel, and not the Law, is the ſeed or doctrine of our new birth.] Aſſert. of grace, pag. 163. Now here are Ambiguities; as firſt, the promiſe or Goſpel, for by this he ſeemeth to decide a great Queſtion, that whatſoever is a promiſe in the Scripture, that belongs to the Goſpel; and whatſoever is not that, but a command or threatning, that belongs to the Law: whereas this needs a great diſcuſſion.
2. The ſtate of the Queſtion is not about the Goſpel, or the Law, as they are both a doctrin in the Scripture: but about the Spirit of God, working by one or the other; and the not attending to this, makes the argument ſo confounded.
3. He ſaith it's not the ſeed of the New birth; whereas converſion or regeneration is made the writing of the Law in the heart: and Mat. 13. the Word of God in generall is compared to ſeed ſowne, that brings forth different fruit; as was ſaid before: but to let this paſſe.
The firſt inſtance that is brought, cometh from John 17. v. 17. Inſtance 1…Sanctifie them through thy truth, thy Word is truth. Where, ſaith the Authour, to ſanctifie, is to ſeperate any thing from a common uſe, and to conſecrate it to God: and, applied here to man includeth two things; 1. Juſtification by the communication of Chriſts perfect holineſſe, whereby the believer is preſented holy and without blame to God. 2. An inward renewing, & changeing, purifying the heart and life by degrees, &c. pag. 165.
I anſwer. 1. The word ſanctifie, when applied to men, doth Anſwer 1.not only ſignifie juſtification, or renovation, but ſetting apart to ſome peculiar office and charge: and there are Learned men who take this to be the meaning of Chriſts prayer here; That as the Prieſts and Levites, who were to enter into the ſanctuary, did firſt waſh their hands and feet, being alſo cloathed with goodly garments: ſo the Apoſtles are here prayed for by our Saviour, that they may be fitted for their great charge. And thus Chryſoſtome: you have a parallel place Jer. 1. 5, Before thou cameſt forth out of the womb, I ſanctified thee, and I ordained thee a Prophet unto the Nations. And this expoſition is confirmed by the manner foreign in truth (ſo they reade it, & mention not the particle foreign, which is not in ſome copies) ſo that they take it as an expreſſion oppoſing the ſanctification of the Prieſts, which was by legall types and ſhadowes. But that which doth eſpecially confirme this expoſition, ſeemeth to be the two verſes following, As thou haſt ſent me into the world, ſo have I alſo ſent them into the world, and for their ſakes I ſanctifie my ſelfe, that they alſo may be ſanctified through the truth. Now ſanctification as it comprehends juſtification and renovation, cannot be applied to Chriſt: but it muſt ſignifie the ſegregating and ſetting apart himſelfe for the office of the Mediatour. Beſides, if ſanctification do here include juſtification, how, by the Antinomian principle, can our Saviour pray for the juſtification of thoſe, who are already juſtified?
But in the next place, grant that interpretation, of ſanctification Anſwer. 2.for renovation, how doth this prove that the Law is not uſed inſtrumentally? For our Saviours argument is univerſall, thy word is truth. And may not this be affirmed of the Law, as well as the Goſpel? Doth not David, ſpeaking of the Law, call it pure, and cleane, that is true, having no falſhood in it? Yea, it is thought probable by a learned man, that this ſpeech of our Saviours is taken out of Pſal. 119. 142. where are theſe words Gerhard.expreſly, Thy Law is the truth: Where the word Law cannot exclude the Morall Law, though it may include more.
The next inſtance is Tit. 2. ver. 11. 12. For the grace of God that Inſtance 2.bringeth ſalvation, hath appeared to all men, teaching us, that denying ungodlineſſe, and wordly luſts, &c.
I anſwer, All this may be granted, and nothing makes againſt Anſw.this opinion: for none deny the Goſpel, to be the inſtruments of holineſſe: But is not here a contradiction? The Author before made the Goſpel and a Promiſe all one, whereas here it doth command holineſſe and godlineſſe. Is not this, with the Papiſts, to make the Goſpel a new Law? Let him reconcile himſelfe. In the next place, he doth ambiguouſly put into the argument, the word effectually which is not in the Text; for, although God doth by his grace in the Goſpel effectually move thoſe that are elected to Godlineſſe; yet Scripture, and experience ſheweth, that where the grace of the Goſpel hath appeared, thus teaching men, yet all are not effectually turned unto holineſſe from their wordly luſts.
Beſides, the argument may be retorted upon him: What word teacheth to deny all ungodlineſſe, that ſanctifieth, inſtructeth, but the Law doth ſo, inſomuch that the Pſalmiſt ſaith, Pſal. 119. A young man whoſe luſts are ſtrongeſt, and temptations moſt violent, may be cleanſed by attending thereunto: only you muſt alwayes take notice of the preheminency of the Goſpel, above the Law; for the Law could never have any ſuch good effect upon the heart of man, were it not for the gracious Promiſe by Chriſt: Therefore all the godly men in the Old Teſtament, that received benefit by the Morall Law, in ſtudying of it, and meditating upon it, did depend upon the Goſpel, or the grace of God in Chriſt, as appeareth by David, praying ſo often, to be quickned by Gods Law. And here, by the way, let me take notice of a remarkable paſſage of Peter Martyr in his Comment on the 7. Chapter of the Epiſtle to the Rom. ver. 14. where, ſpeaking of the great commendation the Pſalmiſt gives the Law of God, that it converts the ſoul, (and we may adde thoſe places, of inlightning the minde, that they cleanſe a mans way, &c.) he maketh this Queſtion, Whether the Law doth ever obtain ſuch effects or no? And he anſwereth affirmatively, that it doth, but then when it's written not in tables, but in the hearts and bowels of men: ſo that he conceiveth the Spirit of God doth uſe the Law inſtrumentally, ſo that he writeth it in our hearts. And this is all we ſo contend for.
A third and laſt inſtance out of Scripture, in anſwering of Inſtance 3. Anſw. Three Errours to be taken heed of in opening Gal 3. 2.which all is anſwered, is from Gal. 3. 2. Received ye the Spirit by the works of the Law; or by the hearing of faith? that is, of the Goſpel, the doctrine of faith. In the opening of this text, we muſt take heed of three errours: Firſt, of thoſe, who hold we Errour 1.have faith firſt, before we have the Spirit; for how can we come to have faith? By our own reaſon and will? This were to make it no work of God. The Apoſtle therefore certainly ſpeakes of the increaſe of the graces of the Spirit; for it is well obſerved by Peter Martyr, that in cauſes and effects, there is a kinde of circle, one increaſing the other: As the clouds ariſe from the vapours, then theſe fall down again, & make vapours; only you muſt acknowledge one firſt cauſe, which had not it's being from the other, and this is the Spirit of God, which at firſt did work faith.
The ſecond errour is of the Papiſts, that maketh this difference Errour 2.between the Law and the Goſpel, That the ſame thing is called the Law, while it is without the Spirit; and when it hath the Spirit, it is called the Goſpel; This is to confound the Law and Goſpel, and bring in Juſtification by works.
The third is of the Socinian mentioned afterwards. Theſe Errour 3.rocks avoided, we come to conſider the place: and firſt I may demand, Whether any under the Old-Teſtament were made partakers of Gods Spirit, or no? If they were, how came they by it? There can be no other way ſaid, but that God did give his Spirit in all thoſe publique Ordinances unto the beleeving Iſraelites; ſo that although they did in ſome meaſure obey the Law, yet they did it not by the power of the Law, but by the power of Grace.
Again, in the next place, (which hath alwaies much prevailed with me) did not the people of God receive the Grace of God offered in the Sacraments at that time? We conſtantly maintain againſt the Papiſts, that our Sacraments and theirs differ not for ſubſtance. Therefore in Circumciſion and the Paſchall Lamb, they were made partakers of Chriſt as well as we: yet the Apoſtle doth as much exclude Circumciſion, and thoſe Jewiſh Ordinances from Grace, as any thing elſe. Therefore that there may be no contradiction in Scripture, ſome other way is to be thought upon, about the expoſition of theſe words. Some there are therefore that doe underſtand by the Spirit, the wonderfull and miraculous works of Gods Spirit: for this was reſerved till the times of the Meſſias, and by theſe miracles his Doctrine was confirmed to be from Heaven; and to this ſenſe the fifth verſe ſpeaketh very expreſly: and Beza doth confeſſe, that this is the principall ſcope of the Apoſtle, though he will not exclude the other gracious works of Gods Spirit: And if this ſhould be the meaning, it were nothing to our purpoſe.
Again, thus it may be explained, as by faith is meant the doctrine of faith, ſo by the works of the Law, is to be underſtood the doctrine of the works of the Law, which the falſe Apoſtles taught, namely, that Chriſt was not enough to juſtification, unleſſe the works of the Law were put in as a cauſe alſo. And if this ſhould be the ſenſe of the Text, then it was cleare, that the Galathians, were not made partakers of Gods Spirit, by the corrupt doctrine that was taught them alate by their ſeducers, but before, while they did receive the pure doctrine of Chriſt: and therefore it was their folly, having begun in the ſpirit, to end in the fleſh. This may be a probable interpretation. But that which I ſhall ſtand upon, is this, The Jewes and falſe Apoſtles they looked upon the Law as ſufficient to ſave them without Chriſt: conſider Rom 2. 17, 18, 19. or when they went furtheſt, they joyned Chriſt, and the obſervance of the Morall Law equally together for juſtification and ſalvation: whereas the Law ſeparated from Chriſt, did nothing but accuſe and condemne, not being able to help the ſoul at all. Therefore it was a vain thing in them, to hope for any ſuch grace, or benefit as they did by it. So that the Apoſtles ſcope is, not abſolutely to argue againſt the benefit of the Law, which David and Moſes did ſo much commend, but againſt it in the ſenſe, as the Jewes did commonly dote upon it, which was to have juſtification by it alone; or at the beſt, when they put the Law and Chriſt together. Now both theſe we diſclaime, either that God doth uſe the Law for our juſtification; or that of it ſelfe, it is able to ſtirre up the leaſt godly affection in us.
More places of Scripture are brought againſt this, but they will come in more fitly under the notion of the Law as a covenant. Thus therefore I ſhall conclude this point, acknowledgeing that many learned and orthodox men ſpeake otherwiſe, and that there is a difficulty in clearing every particular about this Queſtion: but as yet that which I have delivered, earrieth the more probability with me; and I will give one Text more, which I have not yet mentioned, and that is Act. 7. 38. where the Morall Law that Moſes is ſaid to receive, that he might give the Iſrealites, is called foreign, the lively Oracles; that is, not verba vitae, but verba viva & vivificantia, ſo that foreign is as much as foreign, giving life: not that we could have life by vertue of any obedience to them; but when we by grace are inabled to obey them, God, out of his mercy, beſtoweth eternall life. Let me alſo adde this, that I the rather incline to this opinion, becauſe I ſee the Socinians, urging theſe places, or the like, where juſtification and faith is ſaid to be by Chriſt, and the Goſpel, that they wholly deny that any ſuch thing as grace and juſtification was under the Law, and wonder how any ſhould be ſo blind as not to ſee, that theſe priviledges were revealed firſt by Chriſt in the Goſpel under the new Covenant; whereas it is plain, that the Apoſtle inſtanceth in Abraham and David, (who lived under the Law as a ſchoole maſter,) for the ſame kinde of juſtification as ours is.
And thus I come to another Queſtion, which is the proper and immediate ground of ſtrife between the Antinomian and us, and from whence, they have their name; and that is, the abrogation of the Morall Law: And howſoever I have already delivered many things that do confirme the perpetuall obligation of it; yet I did it not then ſo directly, and profeſſedly, as now I ſhall; The Text (I have choſen) being a very fit foundation to build ſuch a ſtructure upon. I will therefore open The Text opened.the words and proceed as time ſhall ſuffer. The Apoſtle Paul, having laid down in verſes preceding, the nature of juſtification, ſo exactly, that we may finde all the cauſes, efficient, meritorious, formall, inſtrumentall and finall deſcribed; as alſo the conſequent of this truth, which is the excluding of all ſelf-confidence and boaſting in what we do; he draweth a concluſion or inference, ver, 26. And this concluſion is laid down firſt affirmatively and poſitively, [A man is juſtified by faith,] the Phraſes foreign, and foreign, and foreign, are all equivalent with the Apoſtle: And then, to prevent all errours and cavils, he doth ſecondly lay it down excluſively without works. And this propoſition he doth extend to the Jews and Gentiles alſo from the unity or oneneſſe of God; which is not to be underſtood of the unity of his Eſſence, but Will and Promiſe. Now when all this is aſſerted, he maketh an objection (which is uſuall with him in this Epiſtle;) and he doth it for this end, to take away the calumny and reproach caſt upon him by his adverſaries, as one that would deſtroy the Law. The objection then is this, (propounded by way of interrogation, to affect the more,) Do we make voyd the Law? foreign; The Apoſtle uſed this word in this Chapter, ver. 3. and it fignifieth to make empty and voide, ſo that, The Law ſhall be of no uſe, or operation.
Now to this, the Apoſtle anſwereth negatively, by words of defiance and deteſtation, God forbid: So that by this expreſſion you ſee how intolerable that doctrine ought to be unto the people of God, that would take away the Law. And the Apoſtle doth not only defie this objection, but addeth, we eſtabliſh the Law, foreign a Metaphor from thoſe that do corroborate and make firm a pillar, or any ſuch thing that was falling. It hath much troubled Interpreters, how Paul could ſay, he eſtabliſhed the Law, eſpecially conſidering thoſe many places in his Epiſtles which ſeem to abrogate it. Some underſtand it thus, That the righteouſneſſe of faith, hath it's witneſſe from the Law and Prophets, as ver. 21. in this Chapter; ſo that in this ſenſe they make the Law eſtabliſhed, becauſe that which was witneſſed therein, doth now come to paſſe. Even as our Saviour ſaid Moſes did bear witneſſe of him. But this interpretation doth not come up to the Apoſtles meaning. Thoſe that limit this ſpeech to the Ceremoniall Law, do eaſily interpret it thus: That the ceremonies and types were fulfilled in Chriſt; who, being the ſubſtance and body, they are all now fulfilled in him. But the Apoſtle comprehends the Morall Law under the word [Law.]
The Papiſts they make the Goſpel a new Law, and they compare it with the old Law having the Spirit, as two things differing only gradually; ſo that they ſay, the old Law is eſtabliſhed by the new, as the childhood is eſtabliſhed by elder age: which is not by abolition, but perfection.
That which I ſee the Orthodox pitch upon, is, that the Law The Law eſtabliſhed three wayes by the Goſpel.is eſtabliſhed three wayes by the Goſpel.
Firſt, whereas the Law did threaten death to every tranſgreſſor, this is eſtabliſhed in Chriſt, who ſatisfied the juſtice of God.
Secondly, in that the Law requireth perfect obedience, this is alſo fulfilled in Chriſt. Now this is a matter worth diſcuſſion, Whether the righteouſneſſe we are yet juſtified by, be the righteouſneſs of the Law.
For thoſe learned men, that are againſt the imputation of Chriſts active obedience, they urge this argument, which ſeemeth to carry much ſtrength with it: That if Chriſts active obedience be made ours, and we juſtified by that, then are we ſtill juſtified by the works of the Law, and ſo the righteouſneſſe of faith and works is all one; faith in us, and works in Chriſt. If therefore active obedience be made ours, (as I conceive the truth to be in that doctrine) then we may eaſily ſee the Law is eſtabliſhed.
Thirdly, but laſtly, which I take to be the truth, and Auſtin heretofore interpreteth it ſo, the Law is eſtabliſhed, becauſe by the Goſpel we obtain Grace in ſome meaſure, to fulfill the Law; ſo that we ſtill keep the Law in the preceptive and informative part of it: and do obtain by faith in Chriſt, obedience in ſome degree to it; which obedience alſo, though it be not the Covenant of grace, yet is the way to Salvation.