merable Instances of Transgression of the Law. For that Law that was not externally proposed, was written in their Hearts, Rom. 114, 15. compare c. iii. 19. The whole World therefore were, and are under the Law. So that the Law is here considered not as Moses's Dispensation, in which Sense it was restrained to the Jews, but as of Universal Extent and Obligation. Paul's Design was - to exclude all those Works and Deeds of our own performing, which Men seek to be justified by, and surely that is by the Moral Law. A Law that the Gentiles were concerned in, by Transgression whereof they were Sinners, and under the Curse whereof they must perish, unless redeemed from it. Those then that would evidence themselves to be the Children of Promise, must look upon the Covenant of Grace as a free Promise, and the free Promise as that alone which can help them, Heb. viii. 8, 9. 10, 11, 12, 13. What can a Law of Commandments do, where there is no Strength to perform? Happy are the Souls who are acquainted with the Covenants of Promise, Eph. ii. 12. Such was the Covenant of Noah, and the Covenant of Grace (whereof that was Typical) in the many Editions of it, Gen. ix. 9.-17. Isa. liv. 9, 10. The Law was added because of Transgressions, and is useful to convince thereof; but it is the Gospel that holds forth a Saviour. The Distinction of a Gospel-Law and Gospel-Works is too slender to bear out a Man on a Death-Bed, and at the Day of Judgment, however some may now trifle with it. Many think, and will often say, That Sinners are willing to have Christ as a Saviour, but not as a King and Lawgiver. To speak freely, I verily think, as to great numbers in the Professing World, the contrary is rather true. They would have Christ as a Lawgiver, and are not willing to have him as a Saviour. The Papists contend, that Christ is a Lawgiver, and you must be saved by keeping his Law. The Socinians and Arminians are all of them also agreed in this. But (sure I am not mistaken)? they are Enemies to all that FreeGrace whereby he saves Sinners: And so is every Man by Nature. True indeed, they would be saved; but they would not have Christ to be their Saviour. They would be saved by a Law, and so by Obedience of their own Performing. And whatever Man he is, of whatsoever Profession, that setteth up his own Righteousness, and puts any Trust therein (and doubtless such there are, yea, the most of those who miscarry under a Profession, are such). He, I say, would have Christ to be a Lawgiver (if it may be said he would have Christ at all): But Christ, as a Saviour by his Righteousness, he would not, he will not have, John v. 40. Mr. Mowsley's Experience is a Confirmation of this, p. 100, 101, 102, 103. He thought verily he desired the Destruction of Sin, and loved to hear of a holy Life mightily, but the Doctrine of Denying Self-Righteousness was a hard Saying, and he could not, a great while, tell how to suppose one should be justified by Another's Righteousness. It is at least as great a Point, and as difficult, to submit to Christ's Righteousness, as to submit to his Government, Rom. x. 3. Till the former be done, Men are but * holy Hypocrites under all their Attainments. How often do we hear Signs and Marks laid down that make no Discovery of this. The way of receiving Christ in Truth, as a Saviour, is for a Sinner, who has neither Righteousness nor Strength, nor any thing that's good, who sees all is lost, that there can be no repairing of ruined Nature, to seek his whole Salvation from the Lord Jesus Christ, by Believing: Not only to seek Sanctification, as a legal Professor may think he doth; but to seek it from Christ, as the alone Author and Fountain of it, in a way of Believing. This is the Soul that desires to have Christ in his Kingly Office. Again, not only to follow after a justifying Righteousness; but to receive Christ for Righteousness, as the Matter of his Justification, Rom. ix. 30, 31, 32, 33. Otherwise, seeing Righteousness by the Works of the Law, they stumble at that Stumbling Stone, where so many Professors have stumbled, Men that seemed not far from the Kingdom of Heaven, and yet so far as never to obtain it. What then? Is not Christ a Lawgiver? Let Luther Speak, on Gal. i. 16. "The Gospel is such a Doctrine as admitteth no Law: Yea, it must be separated as far from the Law as there is Distance between Heaven and Earth. This is easy to say, but hard to practice in the Agony and conflict of conscience. Again, * Luther. དད on ch. ii. 4, 5. No Law, let it be never so holy, ought to teach me that I am justified, and shall live through it. The Gospel teacheth me not what I ought to do, but what Jesus Christ the Son of God has done for me." Again, on ch. ii. 16. "Christ, according to his true Definition, is no Lawgiver, but a Forgiver of Sins, and a Saviour." One would doubt whether Mr. Baxter had wrote against Luther, or Luther against him, but that we know who lived first These things are spoken by Luther in the Article of Justification. Christ gives no Law to justify us by our own Obedience, neither in whole, nor in part. This is not the End of his coming, to be a Lawgiver, but a Saviour, John i. 17. Luke xix. 10. This is his main Work as Mediator, even to fulfil the Law, redeem from it, save us from its curse, and dispose us under Grace, Rom. vi. 14. Yet a Lawgiver Christ is, Isa. xxxiii. 22. (1.) As to the Worship and Discipline of his House; and therein to visible Saints, to justified and saved ones. In this respect, let him be, O Believer, thy only Lawgiver, and follow not the Dictates of Men, nor the complying Humour of this Age, wherein Occasional conformity is the grand controversy of the Day. Maintain a catholic Love, but avoid a catholic compliance: And then never fear the Brand of being a Bigot to a Party, for being faithful to Christ and thy own Soul. (2.) In that He teaches the Law as a Rule of conversation to Believers. Thus, He is not first a Lawgiver, and then a Justifier; but first a Justifier, then a Lawgiver. That is, he teaches how his Justified Ones are to walk before God, and they are to seek the Law at his Mouth, Mal. ii. 7. I think also that unregenerate Men should do all the Good they are capable of, and wait upon God in a way of Duty, it may be a lessening of Condemnation. But let. them take heed how they oppose the Gospel, for this is to sin with a high Hand. It will be said, it may be, that I have not taken a sufficient Notice of that Concession of the new Methodists, That Christ is our legal Righteousness; that all the Righteousness which satisfies the Law, we must look for in Christ, and not in ourselves, Answ. It is not worth the Notice; because * what they give with one Hand they take away with the other. They own Christ's Righteousness only as a Satisfaction for the Breach of the Law, and that therefore his Active Righteousness is not imputed, and so destroy the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness to us, in the true and proper Notion of Imputation. How is Christ our Righteousness then, especially when there is another Law to be fulfilled by us for Righteousness? Again, it may be said, They make Faith but the Condition of our Partaking of Christ's Righteousness, and this they take to be less than an Instrument. Answ. When we (according to them) are under a New Law, requiring Faith and Obedience, as a Rule of Righteousness, and which must be fulfilled by Personal Performances, then Faith, with the Works that attend it, is our true Justifying Righteousness. Whatever it is as to Christ's • As Dr. Tully observes Paul. Justific. c. 11, p. 117. |