Notes: Sect. 3. — Antinomian objections answered.
Notes: Sect. 3. — Antinomian objections answered.
330
That is, the law of the Ten Commandments — commonly called the Moral Law, as it is the Law of Christ — neither justifies nor condemns men in the sight of God. How can it do either the one or the other as such, since to be under it, as it is the Law of Christ, is the peculiar privilege of believers, already justified by grace and set beyond the reach of condemnation according to the apostle in Rom. 8.1, “There is, therefore, now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” But to say that this makes the Law of Christ despicable, is to forget the sovereign authority of God in him, his matchless love in dying for sinners, the endearing relation in which he stands to his people, and on the one hand, the enjoyment of actual communion and fellowship with God, and the many precious tokens of his love to be conferred on them in the way of close-walking with God; and on the other hand, the lack of that communion and fellowship, and the many fearful tokens of his anger against them for their sins. (See sec. 11.) All these belong to the Law of Christ, and they will never be despicable in the eyes of any gracious soul; though I doubt if ever hell and damnation were more despised in the eyes of others, than they are at this day in which believers and unbelievers are set so much on a level with respect to these awful things.
As to the point of condemnation, it is evident from Scripture, that no law can condemn those “who are in Christ Jesus,” Rom. 8.1, 33, 34. And the law, as it is the Covenant of Works, condemns all those who are not in Christ, but under the law. Gal. 3.10; Rom. 3.19. And particularly, it condemns every unbeliever, whose condemnation will be fearfully aggravated by his rejection of the gospel offer; this rejected offer will be a witness against him in the judgment; in respect to which our Lord says, John 12.48, “The word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.” Compare chap. 15.22, “If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have had sin; but now they have no cloak for their sin.” Therefore the law, which unbelievers still remain under as a Covenant of Works, will condemn them with a double condemnation. John 3.18, “He that does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.” And hence it appears that there is as little need of, as there is warrant for, a condemning gospel. The holy Scripture states it as the difference between the law and the gospel — the former is the ministration of condemnation and death, and the latter is the ministration of righteousness and life. 2Cor. 3.6-9. Compare John 12.47, “If any man hears my words, and does not believe, I do not judge him, for I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world.”
As to the point of justification; no man is, nor can be justified by the law. It is true, the Neonomians or Baxterians, to wind a righteousness of our own into the case of justification, turn the gospel into a law, properly so-called; and tell us that the gospel justifies as a law, and roundly admit what is the necessary consequent of that doctrine: namely, that faith justifies, as it is our evangelical righteousness, or our keeping the gospel law. It runs thus: He that believes shall not perish. (Gibbon’s Ser. Morn. Ex. Meth. p. 418—421.) But the holy Scripture teaches, that we are justified by grace, and by no law or deed (or work of a law, properly so-called) call it the Law of Christ, or the gospel law, or whatever law one pleases; and thereby faith itself, considered as a deed or work of a law, is excluded from the justification of a sinner, and has its place in it only as an instrument. Gal. 3.11, “That no man is justified by a law in the sight of God, is evident.” — Chap. 5.4, “Whoever of you is justified by a law, you have fallen from grace.” — Rom. 3.28, “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith, without deeds of a law.” Gal. 2.16, “Knowing that a man is not justified by works of a law.” I read a law, deeds, and works simply, because so the original words used in these texts undeniably signify.
To this agrees the Westm. Confess., chap. 11. art. 1, “These whom God effectually calls, he also freely justifies, not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone; not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them as their righteousness; but,” etc. Larg. Cat. quest. 73. — “Faith justifies a sinner in the sight of God, not as if the grace of faith, or any act of it were imputed to him for his justification; but only as it is an instrument by which he receives and applies Christ and his righteousness. West. Confess., chap. 19. art. 6. — “Although true believers are not under the law, as a Covenant of Works, to be justified or condemned by it, yet it is of great use to them, as well as to others, in that as a rule of life, informing them of the will of God and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly.” From this last passage of the Confession, two important points plainly offer themselves. (1.) That the law is a rule of life to believers, directing and binding them to duty, though they are neither justified nor condemned by it. (2.) That neither justifying nor condemning belongs to the law as a rule of life simply, but as a Covenant of Works. And these are the very points taught here by our author.
331
Col. 2.14, “Blotting out the hand-writing, nailing it to his cross.”
332
That is, raise our esteem of it to the highest pitch, and give it illimitable obedience, Compare this with what is cited from the same Luther concerning the law, page 113.
333
According to the holy Scripture, it is certain that the law of the Ten Commandments has an irritating effect, whereby the commandments increase sin; and have a condemning and killing effect, so that they work curse, death, and wrath, called anger (it would seem) in the language of our forefathers, when Musculus’ Commonplaces of Christian Religion was translated into English (1563). And it is no less certain, that Jesus Christ has delivered believers from the law as it has these effects, Rom. 14.1 5, “For if those who are of the law are heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect, because the law works wrath.” — Chap. 7.5, 6, “For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins which were by the law, worked in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. But now we are delivered from the law that we should serve in newness of spirit,” etc. — Chap. 8.2, “For the law of the spirit of life, in Christ Jesus, has made me free from the law of sin and death.” — Gal. 3.13, “Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us.” If then the Ten Commandments have these effects, not only as they are the Covenant of Works, but as they are the Law of Christ, or a rule of life, then believers are altogether delivered from them, which is absurd and abominable doctrine. Therefore it evidently follows that the Ten Commandments have these effects, only as they are the Covenant of Works. The truth is, to a gracious soul the strongest possible temptation to Antinomianism, or casting off the Ten Commandments for good and all, would be to labour to persuade him, that they have these effects, not only as they are the Covenant of Works, but as they are the Law of Christ. So that, take them how he may, he will find they not only have a cursing, condemning, and killing power, but also an irritating effect, increasing sin in him. Nevertheless, a Christian man, in doing against them (which is the reverend Musculus’ phrase, cited by the author on the following page) may be a transgression; for a man may transgress the law, even though the motions of his sins are not by the law. And how such a man’s sinning is more outrageous than an ungodly man’s sinning, will convincingly appear if one measures the outrageousness of sinning by the obligations to duty lying on the sinner, and not by his personal hazard. This is a measure more becoming a slave than a son.
334
Thus our author has proved, that the law of the Ten Commandments is a rule of life to believers; and has vindicated Luther and Calvin from the opposite Antinomian error, as he does Musculus also, in the words which follow: and that is from their express declarations, in their own words. Here is the conclusion of the whole matter: to show the judgment of other orthodox Protestant divines on this topic, against the Antinomians, it will not be amiss to adduce a passage out of a system of divinity commonly put into the hands of students not very many years ago, I am sure. “It is one thing (says Turretin, disputing against the Antinomians) to be under the law as a covenant; and another thing to be under the law as a rule of life. In the former sense, Paul says, ‘That we are not under the law, but under grace,’ Rom. 6.14, as to its covenant relation, curse, and rigour; but in the latter sense we always remain bound to it, though for a different end. For in the first covenant, man was to do this to the end that he might live; but in the other, he is bound to perform the same thing, not that he may live, but because he lives.” Turretin, loc. 11. quest. 24. thes. 7. View again, Westm. Confess., chap. 19. art. 6, the words of which are cited page 166. note 7. Our author’s conclusion agrees with this, namely: That believers are in no way, nor otherwise delivered from the law of the Ten Commandments, than as they are the Covenant of Works, Now, how can those who oppose Antinomianism on this topic, contradict the author on it except by asserting, “That believers are not delivered from the law, as it is the Covenant of Works, but that they are still under the power of the Covenant of Works?” These are principles as opposite to the received doctrine of orthodox Protestant divines, and to the Confession of Faith, as they are to the doctrine of our author.
335
That is, that the particular precepts of the law of the Ten Commandments, called by Musculus “the substance of the law-covenant,” are disannulled, and are no more to be regarded.
336
That is, very unsuitable.
337
That is, if they are (as certainly they are) displeasing to Christ — most unsuitable, contrary, and repugnant to the righteousness which the believer has received from Christ — then they are by no means to be done.
338
These are still the words of Musculus, adduced by the author to show that that famous divine was no Antinomian; and if they will not serve to clear him, but he must still be on that side, I apprehend orthodox Protestants will be sorry for their loss of that great man. But though it is observed that he speaks of doing against the things commanded in the law, but not against the law itself, there is no hazard: for it is evident that by the law, Musculus understands the Covenant of Works, or in his style, Moses’s covenant. And since he was not of the opinion that believers are under the Covenant of Works, nor under the commanding power of that covenant, he could not say that they sinned against it. However, he still looks at the Ten Commandments, the substance of that covenant, to also be the Law of Christ, binding the Christian man to obedience. From his saying that “a Christian doing against these things, sins more outrageously than one who is under the law,” it indeed, follows that a Christian’s sin is more displeasing to God, and deserves a heavier curse in itself; yet in the meantime, the Law of Christ has no curse annexed to transgressions of it. For sin’s deserving a curse does not arise from the threatening, but from its contrariety to the precept; and consequently, to the holy nature of God. Therefore it is manifest that sin does not deserve a curse because a curse is threatened; but a curse is threatened because sin deserves it. And the sins of believers in themselves deserve a heavier curse than the sins of others. Yet the Law of Christ does not have a curse annexed to transgressions of it, because the heavy curse, deserved by the sins of believers, was already laid on Christ to whom they are united. He bore it for them, and bore it away from them, so that they cannot be threatened with it over again, after their union with him.