Query 11. Distinguishing the Law
QUERY 11. — Is the division of the law, as explained and applied in The Marrow, justified? And can it not be rejected without burying several gospel truths?
Ans. — We humbly judge that the tripartite division of the law, if rightly understood, may be allowed as orthodox. Yet, seeing that what we are concerned with, as contained in our Representation, is only the division of the law into the Law of Works, and the Law of Christ, we say that we are still of the opinion that this distinction of the law is to be carefully maintained. In that regard, according to the Scripture, We understand the Law of Works to be the Covenant of Works which believers are wholly and altogether delivered from — although they are certainly under the law of the Ten Commandments in the hand of a Mediator. And if this distinction of the law, thus applied, is overthrown and declared groundless, then several sweet gospel truths must unavoidably fall in its ruins. For instance, if there is no difference put between the law as a covenant, and the law as a rule of life to believers, in the hand of Christ, then it must follow that the law still retains its covenant-form with respect to believers, and that they are still under the law in this formality. This is contrary to Scripture, Rom. 6.14, and 7.1-3, and contrary to the Confession of Faith, chap. 19.6. It would also follow that the sins of believers are still to be looked at as breaches of the Covenant of Works, and consequently, that their sins not only deserve the wrath and curse of God (which is a most certain truth), but also make them actually liable to the wrath of God, and the pains of hell forever, which is true only of those who are in a state of black nature; Lesser Catechism ques. 19, and contrary to the Confession of Faith, chap. 19.1. It will likewise follow, that believers are still to eye God as a vindictive and wrathful Judge, even though his justice is fully satisfied in the death and blood of their blessed Surety, apprehended by faith. These and many other sweet gospel truths, we think, fall in the ruins of the foresaid distinction, if it is condemned as groundless.