A Vindication of the Moral Law and the Covenants, Moral treatise · Lecture 26
LECTVRE XXVI.
ROM. 3. 27.
Where is boaſting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay, but by the law of faith.
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, The difference between the Law and the Goſpel is not eſſentiall, but accidentall only.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 the Heavenly obiects more clearly revealed in the N. Teſtament, then in the Old.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, 1. It is ſo for the credenda.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 foreign, in reſpect of that in heaven, ſo that in the Old Teſtament may be ſaid to be foreign, in reſpect of that in the New.
As it is thus for the credenda, things to be beleeved, ſo it is alſo 2. For the speranda.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. Now 3. For the facienda.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 Old The meaſure of grace ordinarily greater in the Goſpel, then under the Law.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 hearersThe Iews under the Law were in a more ſervile condition, then Chriſtians under the Goſpel.
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 the The continuation of the Law was to laſt, but till the coming of Chriſt.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.Difference between the Law ſtrictly taken and the Goſpel ſtrictly taken.
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 made 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.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 holdeth 2. The Law requires perfect righteouſneſs: the Goſpel brings pardon through Chriſt.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 good 3. If righteouſneſs were by the Law, eternall life were a debt, but the Goſpel holds it forth as Gods meere indulgence.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, foreign 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, ſtrictly 4. The Law is only for thoſe that have a perfect nature the Goſpel. for broken-hearted ſinners.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: The 5. The Law conditional. the Goſpel abſolute.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.