Sect. 3. — Antinomian objections answered.
Sect. 3. — Antinomian objections answered.
Ant. Yet, sir, as I remember, both Luther and Calvin speak as though a believer were so completely freed from the law by Christ, that he need not have his conscience troubled at all about yielding obedience to it.
Evan. I know right well that Luther on the Galatians, p. 59, says, “The conscience has nothing to do with the law or works;” and that Calvin, in his Instit. p. 403, says, “The conscience of the faithful, when the affiance of their justification before God is to be sought, must raise and advance themselves above the law, and forget the whole righteousness of the law, and lay aside all thinking about works.” Now, for the true understanding of these two worthy servants of Christ, two things are to be considered and concluded. First, That when they speak thus of the law, it is evident they mean only in the case of justification. Secondly, That when the conscience deals with the law in the case of justification, it has to deal with it only as it is the Covenant of Works; for as the law is the Law of Christ, it neither justifies nor condemns.”
So if you understand the law, as it is the Covenant of Works, according to their meaning, then it is most true what they say; for why should a man let the law come into his conscience? That is, why should a man’s conscience be troubled about doing the law to be justified by it, considering that it is an impossible thing? No, what need does a man have to trouble his conscience about doing the law to be justified by it, when he knows he is already justified another way? Indeed, what need does a man have to trouble his conscience about doing that law which is dead to him, and he to it? Does a woman have any need to trouble her conscience about doing her duty to her husband when he is dead, indeed, when she herself is also dead? Or, does a debtor have any need to trouble his conscience about paying that debt which is already fully discharged by his surety? Will any man be afraid of that obligation which is made void, the seal torn off, the writing defaced, indeed, not only cancelled and crossed, but torn in pieces? I remember the apostle says in Heb. 10.1, 2, that if the sacrifices which were offered in the Old Testament “could have made those who come to it perfect, and purged the worshippers, then they would have had no more conscience about sin;” that is, their conscience would not have accused them of being guilty of sins. Now, the “blood of Christ” has “purged the conscience” of a believer from all his sins, chap. 9.14, as they are transgressions against the Covenant of Works; and therefore, why does his conscience need to be troubled about that covenant?
But now, I ask you to observe and take note, that although Luther and Calvin thus exempt a believer from the law in the case of justification, as it is the law or Covenant of Works, yet they do not exempt a believer outside the case of justification, as it is the Law of Christ.
For thus says Luther on the Galatians, p. 182, “Outside the matter of justification, we should, with Paul in Rom. 7.12, 14, think reverently of the law, commend it highly, call it holy, righteous, just, good, spiritual, and divine. Yes, outside the case of justification, we should make a god of it.” And in another place, he says on the Galatians, p. 5, “There is a civil righteousness, and a ceremonial righteousness; yes, and besides these, there is another righteousness, which is the righteousness of the law, or of the Ten Commandments which Moses teaches; this we also teach in the doctrine of faith.” And in another place, having shown that believers, through Christ, are far above the law, he adds, “However, I will not deny that Moses shows them their duties in which respect they are to be admonished and urged. Therefore such doctrines and admonitions ought to be among Christians, as it is certain there was among the apostles, by which every man may be admonished about his estate and office.”
And Calvin, having said, as I told you before, that “Christians, in the case of justification, must raise and advance themselves above the law,” he adds, “Nor can any man thereby gather that the law is superfluous to the faithful whom, notwithstanding, it does not cease to teach, exhort, and prick forward to goodness, although it has no place in their conscience before God’s judgment-seat.”
Ant. But, sir, if I do not forget, Musculus says, “That the law is utterly abrogated.”
Evan. Indeed, Musculus, speaking of the Ten Commandments, says, If they are weak, if they are the letter, if they work transgression, anger, curse, and death: and if Christ, by the law of the Spirit of life, delivered those who believed in him from the law of the letter, which was weak to justify, and strong to condemn, and from the curse, being made a curse for us, then surely they are abrogated. Now this is most certain, that the Ten Commandments in no way work transgression, anger, curse, and death, except as they are the Covenant of Works.
Nor has Christ delivered believers from them, other than as they are the Covenant of Works. And therefore we may assuredly conclude that they are not otherwise abrogated than as they are the Covenant of Works.
Nor did Musculus intend otherwise; for he says in the words following, that it must not be understood that the points of the substance of Moses’ covenant are utterly brought to nothing; God forbid. For a Christian man is not at liberty to do those things that are ungodly and wicked. And if doing those things that the law forbids does not displease Christ; and if they are not much different, indeed contrary — if they are not repugnant to the righteousness which we received from him — then let it be lawful for a Christian man to do them; or else not. But a Christian man acting against those things commanded in the Decalogue, sins more outrageously than someone who would so do, that is under the law. That is how far off he is from being free from those things that are commanded there.