The Middle Way of the Covenants Law and Gospel, Part 2
Of the Law and Goſpel.
FOR this Theam, I ſhall have need to ſpeak the leſs in regard of what hath been ſaid already. That which I have to offer, I ſhall ſerve in by way of ſtriking light at a paſſage or two in a Book which hath been intended in the Chapter before, but not named. I am ſenſible how many there are, who being taken with the Preaching of free grace, are too apt to diſrelliſh other Preachers, who preſs more unto Duty; and I think that Writer does not therefore ſpend his pains without good cauſe about the conſiſtency of good works with the Goſpel and Juſtification. It is objected againſt ſuch Divines, that they are but Legal Preachers, and that they impeach the grace of God by putting men ſo much on Doing. To the one his Anſwer is, They Preach not the Works of Moſes Law, but the Works Chriſt enjoyns: To the other he tells us, The Law and Goſpel both put us upon doing, but not the ſame thing, nor with the ſame diſpoſition, which he explains; The Goſpel gives better rules of life, and power to do according to them, with a more willing and chearful mind than the Law did. I will here under favour of this ingenious perſon, uſe a few words.
For the firſt, I look not on this Anſwer ſo jejunely, as if the meaning of the Authour was only that they preach not the Ceremonial Law; for who need be inform'd of that, or that the ceremonial Law does no longer oblige? But ſuppoſing the Moral Law it ſelf coming under a double conſideration, to wit, as delivered by Moſes, and as it is in the hand of Chriſt; it is this indeed which is worth his enquiry, how the dutyes of the ten Commandements, or thoſe good works which we, as well as the Jews are bound to perform, are obligatory in the one reſpect, and not in the other. Now ſhould he have uſed theſe words, as ſome of our Divines do, and by the diſtinction intend only, we are not obliged to good works in the point of Juſtification, but out of gratitude to our Redeemer, or to that purpoſe, he muſt run ſtreight into that premunire which he ſtrives to avoid, to wit, of Juſtification by Faith only. If he ſtick upon this, that the Law, as it was in the hand of Moſes, was given for a temporal covenant, and not ſo as it is in the hand of Chriſt, I do not ſee what that does ſignify to the objection. This is that therefore which is to be ſaid, and to be conceived therefore what he intends. By the works of the Law, underſtand we, that exact obedience which is required unto living by the Law, Do this and live. By the works Chriſt enjoyns, let us underſtand that ſincerity only in our obedience which God requires unto our living by Faith, or accepts though imperfect through Chriſt. Good works are not exacted now of any in the firſt ſence, but good works are required of all in the ſecond. That Preacher that ſhould Preach obedience to the decalogue, as neceſſary to life in the former ſence, were a legal Preacher indeed; but that Preacher that preaches obedience and good works in the ſecond ſence, is but a Preacher of the Goſpel, and may not preach otherwiſe, as he tenders his Hearers Salvation. And behold, one came to Chriſt, and ſaid, what ſhall I do that I may inherit Eternal Life? And he ſaid to him, if thou wilt enter into life, keep the Commandements. The Commandements then, I ſay, may be conſidered as the matter of the covenant of works, or our Legal Righteouſneſs: or as the matter of the covenant of grace, or our Evangelical Righteouſneſs. In the former ſence, if any man could perform them, he ſhould merit Eternal Life, and be ſure to have it; but there is no man can keep them as they are ſo required. In the latter ſence, there is no man but muſt keep them (as to the prevalent intereſt of his will, which conſtitutes integrity), and does, that ever was, and is finally juſtified and ſaved.
For the ſecond, we have two or three things to be touched: In the firſt place, I do not believe (craving that Gentlemans pardon) that the Goſpel gives any better, or any other rules of life, than what are contained in the Law. It is true that Chriſt hath inſtituted other Sacraments, but it is the Moral Law we call the rule of life, and that Chriſt came not to bring us the Syſteme of any new Law, but to explain aad eſtabliſh the Law Moral (which the Jews, I count, and Gentiles both ever had, the one by the light of Nature, the other by Revelation alſo) is a truth ſomthing more conſiderable, as I take it, than that alone which our Divines contend for againſt the Sooinian in this matter. In the next place, when Divines make a difference between the Law and Goſpel, as to the power of doing, that the Law commands to do, but the Goſpel gives power to do; The Law commands the tale of Brick, but gives not Straw, and the like expreſſions: I doubt not, but they have ſome verity at the bottom, which ſhould have nakedly been laid down, if he could, by this Bright perſon, For the delivery of things after others, by roat, without diſgeſtion, is the great fault which he finds ſo often in other mens Books. The Law and Goſpel we know are liable to a diverſe acception. By the Law moſt properly, I think, we are to underſtand that Law which is written in the heart of man by Nature, in Adams and ours, the copy whereof, is the ten Commandements, called the Moral Law: and by the Goſpel, the Law of Chriſt; That which he delivered, and his Apoſtles. The matter whereof in both, may be conſidered qua faedus, or qua regula, to uſe the terms of others. Qua regula, the things required in the Law moral, and the Goſpel or Law of Chriſt, are the ſame: but qua faedus, the Law of Nature originally requires theſe things in perfection, to be accepted unto life; and the Law of Chriſt requires them in ſincerity only, accepting them, though imperfect unto life, through his Mediation and Redemption. This is the only difference that concerns us here between the Law and the Goſpel. The Law then and Goſpel both being conſidered as the Doctrin of life, how does this Author ſpeak, that the one gives power, and not the other? The rule ſhews what we are to do; the power to do, is not given by our being ſhown. That which therefore is to be underſtood by ſuch terms, may come to this; that, that which the Law thus taken (that is the Law of our Creation, and qua faedus) does require of man, is not in our power to do, and conſequently none can attain Salvation by it: but that which the Goſpel requires, we have power to perform; and if we be not wanting to God's Grace, upon the performance we ſhall be ſaved. In the third place, when he ſays the Goſpel enables us to do with a more willing and chearful mind then the Law; if we underſtand this kind of ſpeech, as thoſe Divines do I think ordinarlly that uſe it, in ſuch a ſence, that Chriſt having done all our works for us, that Righteouſneſs of his which was a moſt perfect conformity to the Law, being imputed, or accepted in our behalf for life, there are no good works now required of us to do, but only as the teſtification of our thankfulneſs, and belief of this, and therefore we perform all we do with gladneſs, joy, and love altogether, without bondage, fear, or doubt, it being not in order to our Juſtification, though we miſcarry in the doing: I do apprehend this Learned Man would be one of the firſt to diſlike ſuch Teaching. Yet is there thus much here of truth alſo, That when the Law (ſo taken as before) does give us no heart at all to do that which through the fleſh (as the Apoſtle ſpeaks) is indeed impoſſible to any, the Goſpel does give us encouragement to do, upon the account, that what it requires may be performed, and by that performance (through the aſſiſtance of God's Spirit) as the condition, Man is both juſtified and ſaved.
I know well that St. Auguſtine does uſe the like expreſſions, and I think often, but he does explain his meaning, which comes to this; that when the Law of works commands us what is our duty, and threatens us if we do it not, the Law of Faith (he counts) directs us to God for his aſſiſtance, grace, or ſpirit, to do what he commands. I do not forget neither, that God hath promiſed his ſpirit, and ſo his grace for the performance of the New Covenant; and though it does not follow, that if Adam had ſtood, he ſhould not therefore have given man his grace and ſpirit for performing the perfect obedience of the Old, as well as to us for the performing imperfect under the New, ſeeing that Father does ſpeak of grace to Adam, as to us; and if we ſhould aſcribe the obedience he performed, during his Innocency to his own ſtrength, and not to the adjutory of God's ſpirit altogether, he would not endure it: Yet if the Authour, or thoſe Divines of ours that ſpeak as he does, will choſe rather to make good what they ſay upon the contrary aſſertion, then can I tell how to underſtand with them. When God made Man at firſt, we know, he endued him with original righteouſneſs. Let us ſuppoſe this righteouſneſs alone, ſufficient to him for the performing the Law, unto which he was made; ſo that before the fall, there was no need of that we call grace (which is properly ſuch help of the ſpirit, as conſiſts in the healing and relief of our falne eſtate) to enable man to do that which he had ſtrength to perform by nature, until he did voluntarily deflect from it. But when he was fallen, and loſt that righteouſneſs, which was his ſtrength, then are we to conceive a need ſtreight, both of a new Law, to be lowerd, brought down, or fitted to his weakneſs, that he may be able; and alſo of grace, that he may be made willing to perform it. And thus ſhall there be grace, the ſpirit, and the promiſe of it belonging to the Covenant of our Redeemer, when there was none, nor need of it, to belong to the covenant of our Creation. However, there is this I count moſt certain, and I would have it to be noted, that the ſpirit which is promiſed or given to man for his obedience to God, is promiſed and given only in reſpect to this Covenant, not for the performance of the Covenant of Nature, for then ſhould Adam never have falne, nor we have had any need of a Redeemer.
It is true, that there are ſome Divines are ſo much (with Auſtin) to have Adams ſtanding (ſuppoſing he had ſtood) to be of grace, that they will have mans original righteouſneſs to be a work (or habit) ſupernatural, from which, when Adam fell, he returned, (as they would teach us) to his pure naturals, and ſo his Poſterity are born. But this is a kind of Pelagianiſme, no ways to be received: For what indeed ſhould be a Creatures Nature, if that be not, which it receives from its Creation? Beſides, if mans original righteouſneſs be not lookt on as natural, how ſhall original ſin, which conſiſts in the loſs of it, be defined by the depravation of our nature, according to the doctrin of the Church of England, as well as the Catechiſme of the Aſſembly? Neither is Dr. Taylor here to be heard, who cannot abide that, that (whatſoever he will call it) which we contract from Adam without any will of our own, ſhould be held to be ſin, or ſo much as damnable, though it ſhould be granted him through Chriſt's redemption actually to damn no body. It may be the want of a plainer conſideration, what the immediate benefit of Chriſt's redemption to the world, is, made that excellent perſon think this ſo grievous. It is not grievous, I hope, that God ſhould give a Law to his Creature according to his nature; and that therefore having made man righteous, he ſhould require of him to continue in that righteouſneſs, and walk up according to it. It neceſſarily follows without any thing elſe, that this Law being made in Innocency, muſt condemne all man-kind, in whom this righteouſneſs and perfection is no longer to be found; ſo that by nature, or according to this Covenant of mans nature, we are, and muſt be all the Children of wrath, as the Apoſtle ſpeaks. It would now be indeed a grievous thing if God ſhould deal with any in that juſtice, as he might according to this Covenant; and therefore it hath pleaſed him according to a Righteouſneſs of his declared in the Goſpel, in oppoſition to the righteouſneſs of this Covenant of works, to give us his Son; who by the work of his Mediation for man-kind, ſhould prepare a remedying Law, or univerſal conditional remiſſion againſt that condemnation. As for Children then, if they are Baptized, we are to account they do perform this Covenant, or new Law, by the Faith of their Parents bringing them to Baptiſme. This is my Covenant you ſhall keep, every man-child ſhall be Circumciſed. If they be not Baptiſed, we are yet to look on them as ſuch who have not broken this new Law, or never refuſed and rejected their remedy; and ſo long as by the Redemption of Chriſt, they are delivered over with all the world from the Covenant of works, to the new Law to be judged, I will not be the man that ſhall condemn one Infant to Hell, or unto torments; although, if there be any that will make a difference of place, or ſtate in the future life for Children, proportionable only to the difference there is between performing the condition, and not being guilty of any breach at all of it, I will not gain-ſay them, nor determine any thing in a matter ſo lubricous, and above what is written.
To return, By the Law and the Goſpel, it may be thought perhaps by ſome, that we are to underſtand the ſtate of the Old and New Teſtament; and ſo muſt this Authour mentioned be made to conceive that David, and the like holy men, had not the ſame ſpirit or power, or not ſo much, to enable them to obſerve God's precepts, as we have now, when he uſes theſe expreſſions. That the ſpirit was given under the Goſpel as to his miraculous giſts in another meaſure, then under the Law. I believe; and that ſuch Texts as the ſpirit was not yet given, becauſe Chriſt was not yet lorified, and that, they had not yet heard that there was a Holy Ghoſt, with the like, may be happily ſo underſtood, I believe: But to think that the Spirit, as to ſanctification of the heart, and inclining it to a ready ſervice of God, was not given under the Old Teſtament as well as under the the New, is a conceit I will not faſten on any. To ſay it is given more to us now, than to David, Samuel, Jeremy, and ſuch perſons in reſpect to this end, will yet require explanation and proof, if that be intended wholly by theſe ſpeeches.
Before I paſs, there is one paſſage of this apt Writer, I cannot but note with much approbation. It is Grace that accepts of our Repentance, and Obedience after we have ſinned. This paſſage contains more in it, then the moſt are like to be aware of. The Scripture tells us in ſeveral Texts, that by Grace we are ſaved, & freely juſtified, and not by Works. By Works we are to underſtand the works of the Law, and that quâ faedas, as before; and no body is juſtified or ſaved by theſe works, they being above the ability of any to perform. By Grace, I will underſtand with him this accepting our ſincere, though imperfect obedience for life through Chriſt, as if it were perfect righteouſneſs. Not unto him that worketh, that is, unto him that hath not performed the works of the Law, which if they were perfect, he ſhould live by them: but unto him that believeth on him that juſtifies the ungodly, that is, but is ungodly in reference to theſe works, or is one that his Conſcience tells him, hath ſinned, and does ſin, or is imperfect, and falls ſhort of theſe works, yet believes that God is gracious and merciful for all that, and will pardon theſe ſins and failings, if he repent and walk ſincerely, though imperfectly, his Fath is imputed for Righteouſneſs; his Faith, that is ſuch a believing this, as produces that repentance and ſincere walking, is imputed to him for Righteouſneſs; that is, is made to ſtand him in that ſtead as a perfect righteouſneſs would do; ſo that through grace, or this gracious acceptance, he ſhall live by it. There are works (if I may ſtill ſay over, what hath been ſomwhere alſo ſaid before) that would make life to be of debt according to God's Covenant of Nature, if any could perform them, and ſo there are none juſtified or ſaved by works, for all have ſinned and fall ſhort (under this ſence) of the glory of God: Or there are works that cannot be accepted or imputed unto life, but through grace; and ſo is it, that by grace only, or gratis, that the Scripture teaches us we are juſtified and ſaved. Nay, the acceptance of our imperfect, ſincere obedience for righteouſneſs, or that we ſhould live by it, is that very grace it ſelf that ſaves us. So well am I pleaſed with this Note from that Authour.
If this ſeem to ſavour too much of inculcation, you muſt pardon me. I do apprehend that the Doctrin of grace and juſtification, whereof I have been, and therefore am ſtill the longer, hath been the occaſion of ſeveral apprehenſions in good men, that inſtead of being conducive to, have proved but hinderances of, true ſober practical Godlineſs. There are two of theſe mentioned by the ſame underſtanding perſon.
☞ The one is a conceit, that a Chriſtian may not avoyd ſin, and do good, for fear of Hell, and to obtain Heaven, that is for the ſake of Reward. This the Mentioner hath confuted with plain text, that it needs not a ſecond hand: OnelyOnly, that it may not needleſly diſquiet any, I will advance this contrary truth; that whatſoever perſon, out of any principle, fear, or hope, or love, does, or ſhall in the prevalent intentions of his Soul, and endeavour as to the conſtant tenour of his life, prefer his Eternal Salvation before his Fleſh-pleaſing in this world, is ſurely in a good Eſtate, the Converted man, or the Godly man, that ſhall be ſaved. He that does Righteouſneſs is born of God. I will ſuppoſe him a Chriſtian, and one that acts according to the Sripture; but if he be a Heathen, and acts herein but fully up to his light, I dare not deny the ſame of him. And indeed, what is that pure love of God, out of which you will ſay alone, a man muſt act? If you love me, ſays Chriſt, who knows beſt, keep my Commandements. The love of God, and keeping his Commandments are the ſame. The commands of God are to be kept that we may inherit Eternal Life, Chriſt tells the Ruler in the Goſpel expreſs (I have noted before), and conſequently we may love God to that end. If man could do any good to God, by his duties, or any hurt by his ſins, then ſhould I believe there was ſome other end of our duty, than man's Salvation. You may ſay, this appears ſelfiſh, or ſelf-love only. I anſwer that, that man then, who does but love himſelf ſo as to ſeek the Salvation of his Soul above his fleſh, this world, and any thing therein, is the man he ſhould be in the ſight of God. If you ſtick at it, conſider, what is Salvation? A loving God, a delighting in him, a conformity to him. I love God in keeping his Commandements in this life, that I may be conformed to him, and have complacency in him to all Eternity. I will adde, our Orthodox Divines ſay not (and are not to be ſo underſtood) that good works may not be done with reſpect to the reward; but with reſpect to the reward, as due to them ex condigno. For to expect that God ſhould accept of what we do, in bearing with our failings, and rewarding us out of Grace; when we walk ſincerely before him, is but to act our Faith on, or putting our truſt in, his declared goodneſs, Chriſts Merits, and the promiſes of the Goſpel.
The other Apprehenſion is, that a Chriſtian muſt not live on his own Purſe or Earnings. A pretty ſound of ſomthing, which (as I ſuppoſe) does ſignify that which other Divines intend by Reſting in Dutys. There is therefore a reſting in Duty, I may ſay, and a reſting on God in Duty. I doubt not but a Chriſtian is to truſt to God for whatſoever he ſeeks of him upon the performance of his duty, when it were but preſumption to do ſo without that performance. It is true, that no man, by any thing he can do (ſeeing when he hath done all, he is but an unprofitable Servant) can deſerve or merit any thing from God's hand (and much leſs his ſaving Grace, which is moſt free) ſo as it may be properly ſaid to be earned, as wages is due unto work, or to make his bleſſings of debt; yet is a Chriſtian by his prayers, and the like duty, ſaid to get, or obtain from God whaſoever he hath from him; and as a man does live on his Eſtate which he gets, ſo may a Chriſtian be ſaid to live his ſpiritual life, upon the riches of God's grace which he gets by his duty. The want of truſting to duty therefore, in a right ſenſe, is indeed, I doubt me, more reprovable in our Proteſtants ordinarily than their reſting in duty. And I am ſeriouſly troubled very often, at what I have obſerved in ſome of our ſpecial practical Divines about this point of reſting in duties (I will particularly name Mr. Shepheards ſincere Convert,) which is enough to bring any man Religiouſly melancholly (for the more pious his Soul is in the caſe, the more liable it muſt be to ſuch ſtroaks) into deſperation. I will, therefore, ſay thus much in zeal againſt that danger. Let a man be but careful of two things about reſting in duty, and trouble himſelf henceforth no more, but about the doing of it. The firſt is, Let him take heed of making any duty a pillow to lay his head on to reſt in ſin. Thus it is dangerous indeed to reſt in duty; and this may be either when a man thinks he may ſin, and go on in it, becauſe he Prays, gives Almes, or the like; as if that would bear him out: Or chiefly, when a man ſhall ſit down ſhort of ſincere Converſion, by doing of ſome duty, that is by taking up in leaving ſome ſins, and doing many things he did not before, he ſhall content himſelf, and not come up to that univerſal unreſerved, giving up himſelf to Chriſt, as is required of him to that ſincerity of life, which is the condition of Salvation. This is the moſt deadly, dangerous reſting in duty that I will admoniſh every Soul of. And then for the ſecond, I will ſay only, Let him be a Proteſtant, which I count he is, and I doubt not but his opinion alone againſt merit, and that he is juſtified through Chriſt, will ſecure him for the reſt of this buſineſs. Provided though, he remembers ſtill that humility, and the like qualification of Soul, when he hath done all he can do, is alſo his duty.
And now after I have ſpoken of theſe Heads, if any be otherwiſe minded in whatſoever I have hitherto ſaid, and are reſolved to keep to that only which they count the ſoundeſt Calviniſme in them all, I will be ſo candid, as to lay down their doctrin for them, to the beſt advantage. God hath Elected ſome to Salvation. Chriſt dyed only for them. That which he hath Purchaſed by his Death, is not only the benefit conditionally, but Faith it ſelf the condition. Faith is the perſwaſion of a man, that Chriſt hath died particularly for him, and ſo his ſins are forgiven. This perſwaſion, or apprehenſion of Chriſt, makes Chriſt ones own, and ſo juſtifies inſtrumentally, without works, either Legal or Evangelical, and how, alſo to ſerve this turn, I have ſet down in my paper of Juſtification, page 15. No man can be ever, in good earneſt, thus perſwaded, but the Elect, for whom alone this Faith is purchaſed. When a Miniſter then declares the Goſpel, and requires of all in God's name to Believe, to wit, to believe particularly that Chriſt hath dyed for their ſins, as knowing not, for his part, who the Elect by name be, there is no fear of hurt unto any, ſeeing no perſon on earth ſhall be able to be perſwaded hereof indeed (that perſwaſion, with Calvin and Luther, being true Faith), but the Elect only. Beſides, as ſoon as this perſwaſion once is but wrought, it does ſo poſſeſs the Soul with love and gratitude to the Redeemer, that it conſtrains it to Chriſtian duty; ſo that unfained Converſion, Self-denyal, a Crucifixion with Chriſt to the world and the fleſh, and the life of God, and that with perſeverance to the end, do follow as naturally (to wit, according to the new Nature) as the Fig-tree brings forth Figgs, or the Olive, Olives, without all poſſibility of ſeparation from it. This Doctrin, if any will ſo concatenate the parts, does ſeem to me to carry a kind of myſterious authority in it, that I find ſome awe for it at my heart, although really, I am convinced both of the danger of it, and alſo (excepting only in the firſt propoſition) that it is untrue. So far am I from deſpiſing of thoſe, againſt whom the ſpirit of that Authour, in the book intimated, ſeems ſo much over-ſharpened: when yet I do encline in my own ſentiments to hang things together, much rather after his faſhion, than theirs, who would look upon me as more Evangelical, in ſuch a Determination.
Deo Gloria mihi Condonatio. J. H.
ERRATA.
PAge 16. l. 21. for deſires read deſerves. p. 18. l. 7. for Clouds read Cloud.
End of the text · John Humfrey, The Middle Way of the Covenants Law and Gospel (1674)