A Vindication of the Moral Law and the Covenants, Moral treatise · Lecture 23
LECTVRE XXIII.
ROM. 3. 31.
Do we then make void the Law? yea, we eſtabliſh it.
I Shall not ſtand upon any more arguments to prove the perpetuall obligation of the Morall Law, becauſe this is abundantly maintained in that aſſertion already proved, that the Morall Law as given by Moſes, doth ſtill oblige us.
I come therefore to thoſe places of Scripture which ſeeme to Places of Scripture ſeeming to hold forth the duration of the Moral Law for a time only, anſwered.hold forth the duration of the Morall Law for a prefixed time only; even as the ceremoniall Law doth. I ſhall ſelect the moſt remarkable places, and, in anſwering of them, we ſhall ſee the other fully cleared. And I will begin with that, Luke 16. 16. The Law and the Prophets were untill John. It ſhould therefore ſeeme, that the Law was to continue but untill Johns time. I will not hereſtand to diſpute whether John Baptiſt was to be reckoned under the Old Teſtament, or the New; only take notice that we cannot make a third different eſtate, wherein the Covenant of grace ſhould be diſpenſed, as an Antinomian author doth: for our Saviour ſeemeth fully to conclude, that he did belong to the Old Teſtament; therefore he ſaith, The leaſt in the kingdome of heaven is greater then he *Minimum maximi, eſt majus maximo minimi.: Although in this reſpect he was greater then any of the Prophets that went before him, that he did not propheſie of a Meſſias to come, but pointed with his hand to him who was already come. And, as for the text it ſelfe, none can prove that the Law was to be abrogated when John Baptist came; for, leaſt any ſhould by that expreſſion think ſo, our Saviour addeth, Heaven and earth ſhall ſooner paſſe away, then that one title ſhould fall to the ground. Therefore the meaning is, that the Law, in reſpect of the typicall part of it, as it did ſhadow forth, and prefigure a Chriſt, ſo it was to ceaſe. Therefore the Law and the Prophets are put together, as agreeing in one general thing, which is, to foretell of Chriſt, and to typifie him: And this will be clearer, if you compare Matth 11. 13. with this of Luke, where it is thus ſet down, All the Prophets and the Law propheſied unto John: whereby it is cleare, that he ſpeakes of the typicall part of the Law; yet not ſo, as if the Ceremonies were then immediatly to ceaſe, only from that time they began to vaniſh.
The next place of Scripture, is that famous inſtance, ſo much urged in this controverſie Rom. 6. 15. [For you are not under the Law, but under grace.] Now to open this, conſider theſe things:
1. In what ſenſe the Apoſtle argueth againſt the Law; and The Apoſtle argueth againſt the Law, in compariſon of Chriſt.what was the proper ſtate of the Queſtion in thoſe dayes. And that appeareth Act. 1. 5. where you have a relation made of ſome beleeving Jewes that were of the ſect of the Phariſees, who preſſed the neceſſity of Circumciſion: and ſo would joyn the miſtery of Moſes and Chriſt together. Now it ſeemeth, though the Apoſtles in this councell had condemned that opinion, yet there were many that would ſtill revive this errour; and therefore the Apoſtle in this Epiſtle to the Romans, and in that to the Galathians doth reprove this falſe doctrine, and labour much againſt it. Stapleton, and other papiſts, they think that the controverſie was only about the Ceremoniall Law; and this they do, to maintain their juſtification by the works of the Law; when wrought by grace. But, though it muſt be granted, that the doubts about keeping the Ceremoniall Law were the occaſion of that great difference, and the moſt principall thing in queſtion; yet the Apoſtle, to ſet forth the fulneſſe of grace, and Chriſt, doth extend his arguments and inſtances even to the Morall Law: for the Jewes did generally think, that the knowledge and obſervation of the Morall Law without Chriſt, was enough for their peace and comfort. That the Apoſtle argueth againſt the Law in their abuſed ſenſe of it, is plain, becauſe when he ſpeaks of it in it's own nature, he commends it, and extols it. The Jewes becauſe they had the Law given them in ſuch a Divine and glorious manner, attributing too much to themſelves, thought by the obedience to this alone, without Chriſt, to be juſtified, as appeareth Rom, 10. 1. Hence the Apoſtle ſpeaketh againſt it in their ſenſe, looking for Juſtification by it; as if a learned man confuting ſome Philoſophers, which do hold that the ſecond cauſes do work by their own proper ſtrength, without any concourſe of God; he muſt in his arguments, ſuppoſe ſuch a power of the ſecond cauſe, which the adverſary pleadeth for in his minde, and in expreſſions ſometimes, yet none can gather from that, therefore there is ſuch a power in the ſecond cauſes. And if they could perſwade themſelves, that the externall performing of the Ceremoniall Law was enough to make them acceptable with God, though they lived in groſſe diſobedience to the Morall Law, (as Iſai. 1. & alibi, it many times appeareth they did) how much more, when they lived a life externally conformable to the Morall Law; muſt they needs be ſecure of their favour with God? And in this ſenſe it is, that the Apoſtle ſpeaks ſeemingly derogatory to the Law, becauſe they took it without Chriſt: Even as he calleth the ceremonies beggerly elements, when yet we know, they were ſignes of an Evangelicall grace.
2. That the Apoſtle uſeth the word [Law] in divers ſenſes, which hath been the occaſion of ſo much difficulty in this point. Now in moſt of thoſe places, where the Law ſeemeth to be aboliſhed, it is taken in one of theſe two ſenſes: Either, firſt ſynecdochically, the Law put for part of the Law: to wit, for that part The word Law taken in a two-fold ſenſe.which actually condemneth, and accuſeth; as when the Apoſtle ſaith, [Againſt ſuch there, is no Law:] here he ſpeaketh as if there were nothing in a Law but condemnation; whereas we may ſay, A Law is for a thing by way of direction and preſcription, as well as againſt a thing by accuſation. Or, ſecondly, the word [Law] is put for the miniſtery of Moſes, which diſpenſation was farre inferiour unto the miniſtery of the Goſpel: And in this ſenſe, the Apoſtle doth much uſe it in the Epiſtle to the Galathians, and in the Epiſtle to the Hebrewes. So that here is a continuall miſtake, when the Antinomians heap place upon place, which ſeem to aboliſh the Law, and do not firſt declare what Law, and in what ſenſe thoſe places are to be expounded.
3. Conſider theſe Phraſes, Of the Law, Without the Law, Theſe Phraſes of the Law, Without the Law, under the Law, and In the Law, explained.Under the Law, and In the Law. Without the Law is two wayes: Firſt, he is without the Law, that is, without the knowledge and underſtanding of it. Thus the Gentiles are without the Law: And ſecondly, Without the Law, that is, without the ſenſe and experience of the accuſing and terrifying power of the Law; and thus Paul, Rom. 7. ſaid, when the Law came, he died. Now the godly, though they are denied to be under the Law, yet they are not ſaid to be without the Law; for if the Morall Law were no more obliging beleevers now, then it was Heathens or Gentiles before they ever heard of it, both in reſpect of knowledge and obſervation of it, then might beleevers be ſaid to be without the Law: and to this without the Law, is oppoſed, In the Law, Rom. 2. 12. foreign, the vulgar In legem: Beza cum lege; It ſignifieth thoſe that do enjoy the Law, and yet ſinne againſt it. And much to this purpoſe is that Phraſe Of the Law, Rom. 4. 14. which ſometimes is as much as, Of the Circumciſion, to wit, thoſe that are initiated into the Miniſtery of Moſes: but in other places it ſignifieth as much as foreign, and the oppoſite to it is, foreign, as in this 4. of the Rom. and ver. 14 where the Apoſtle declaring that the promiſe made to Abraham was not of the Law, he cannot meane the Law of Moſes, for all know, that was long after; but he meanes what's done in obedience to the Morall Law ſo farre as it was then revealed. The Apoſtle uſeth alſo another phraſe, foreign, By the Law; which is to be underſtood in this ſenſe, by works done in conformity to the Law: and in this ſenſe the Apoſtle urgeth, that righteouſneſſe, or the promiſe, are not by the Law: But all the difficulty in this controverſie is about the phraſe, Under the Law: Therefore take notice,
4. There is a voluntary being under the Law, as Chriſts was; and A two-fold being under the Law.there is to be under it in an ill ſenſe. A voluntary and willing obedience unto the Law, is acceptable: and thus the Apoſtle 1. Cor. 9. 20. the Apoſtle ſaith, he was made to ſome as under the Law, though there indeed he ſaith foreign. but that is added becauſe of the ceremoniall part of the Law. Therefore he calleth himſelfe excellently, foreign, though a godly man be not properly foreign. yet he is foreign, And he addeth to Chriſt, leſt they ſhould think that he ſpoke of the whole Law, the ceremoniall part of it which was aboliſhed by Chriſt; ſo that a godly man in a well explained ſenſe, may be ſaid to be under the Law. Aquinas Comment. ad Cap. 6. v. 14. Hath this diſtinction, A man may be under the Law, or ſubjected to it, two wayes, Firſt, willingly and readily, as Chriſt. Secondly, unwillingly & by way of compulſion, when not out of love but feare, men do obey the Law & this is ſinful, in the former ſenſe all beleevers may be ſaid to be under the Law but yet, becauſe the Apoſtle uſeth it for the moſt part in an ill ſenſe, as here in the text, and in that place, tell me, ye that deſire to be under the Law, (though Law there be uſed for the whole Miniſtery of Moſes, and not of the Morall Law) let us conſider in what ſenſe this is denied to the Godly.
5. That Interpretation of ſome, though of ſolid Judgement, The commonly received ſenſe of that Phraſe, Not to be under this Law. rejected.who make the phraſe [Not to be under the Law] to be as much as, Not under the curſe of the Law; or, Not obnoxious to the guilt by it, ſeemeth not to agree with the context. I know this is generally received as the ſenſe of the place; and there is this argument urged for it, becauſe the Apoſtle maketh an objection from hence; Shall we ſinne becauſe we are not under the Law, but under grace? Therefore it ſhould ſeem that the Law is taken for the condemning power of it, and grace for pardoning and free Juſtification: but becauſe the Apoſtle is here ſpeaking of ſanctification, both in this Chapter, and the Chapter following, I preferre Beza's inrerpretation of the phraſe approv'd.Beza's interpretation, which makes the being under the Law, to be the ſame in ſenſe with, under ſin; for the Apoſtle, ſpeaking of himſelfe as carnall, Chap. 7. ſaith, that the Law wrought in him all manner of evill: and this indeed is the work of the Law in every unregenerate man; ſo that the more the Law is applyed to him, the more doth his corruption break forth. Now then this is the Apoſtles argument, Let not ſin reign in you, for now you are not under the Law ſtirring up ſin, and provoking it in you, but under grace; not juſtifying or pardoning, as properly and immediately meant here (though they were under that alſo) but ſanctifying and healing. And the Apoſtle maketh the objection following [What then, ſhall we ſin, becauſe we are not under the Law?] becauſe the phraſe was ambiguous,, and might be thought to have ſuch a ſenſe, as the Libertines make it to have, to wit, to do every thing as we pleaſe without any controule by any Law: and in this explication, we ſhall ſee a ſweet harmony in the context.
The third inſtance is Rom. 7. eſpecially in the beginning of the Chapter: but the anſwer to the former Objection, will alſo cleare this, becauſe the apoſtle continueth in the ſame matter, explaining what it is to be under the Law, by a ſimilitude from a wife married to an husband, who is bound to him ſo long as he liveth, but when he dyeth, ſhe is free. Now in the reddition of the ſimilitude, there is ſome difference among Commentators: but I take it thus, Sin, which by the Law doth irritate and provoke our corruptions, that is the former husband the ſoul had, and luſts they are the children hereof; but when we are regenerated, then Chriſt becomes the husband of the godly ſoul: ſo that they are deceived who make the Morall Law the husband, but ſin is properly the husband: And if you will ſay the Morall Law, you muſt underſtand it in this ſenſe only, as it doth inflame the heart to all evil; therefore the Apoſtle (as is well obſerved by the Learned) doth not ſay, the Law is dead, but, we are dead; for indeed the Law is never ſo much alive as in the godly, who do conſtantly obey it, & live accordingly to it.
This will alſo ſerve for that place, Gal. 5. 18. If ye be led by the ſpirit, ye are not under the Law; That is, under the Law forcibly compelling.
Auſtin diſtinguiſheth of four ſtates of men; thoſe who are Ante legem, and theſe commit ſin without knowledge of it: Sub lege, and theſe commit it with ſome fighting, but are overcome; Sub gratia, and theſe do fight and ſhall overcome: and Sub pace, theſe we may make to be thoſe in heaven.