DISCOURSE I.
ROM. iii. 31.
_Do we then make void the law thro’ Faith? God forbid. Yea, we
establish the law._
1. SAINT _Paul_ having in the beginning of this epistle, laid down his
general proposition, namely, That _the gospel of Christ is the power of
God unto salvation, to every one that believeth_: the powerful means,
whereby God makes every believer a partaker of present and eternal
salvation, goes on to shew, that there is no other way under heaven,
whereby men can be saved. He speaks particularly of salvation from
the guilt of sin, which he commonly terms justification. And that all
men stood in need of this, that none could plead their own innocence,
he proves at large by various arguments, addrest to the Jews as well
as the Heathens. Hence he infers (in the 19th verse of this chapter)
_That every mouth_, whether of Jew or Heathen, must _be stopt_ from
excusing or justifying himself, _and all the world become guilty before
God. Therefore_, saith he, by his own obedience, _by the works of
the law, shall no flesh be justified in his sight_, ver. 20. _But
now the righteousness of God without the law_, without our previous
obedience thereto, _is manifested_, ver. 21. _Even the righteousness
of God, which is by faith of Jesus Christ, unto all and upon all that
believe_, ver. 22. _For there is no difference_, as to their need of
justification, or the manner wherein they attain it. _For all have
sinned and come short of the glory of God_, (ver. 23.) the glorious
image of God wherein they were created: and all (who attain) _are
justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Jesus
Christ_: ver. 24. _Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation, thro’
faith in his blood_――ver. 25. _That he might be just, and yet the
justifier of him which believeth in Jesus_; ver. 36. that without
any impeachment to his justice, he might shew him mercy, for the sake
of that propitiation. _Therefore we conclude_, (which was the grand
position he had undertaken to establish) _That a man is justified by
faith, without the works of the law_, ver. 28.
2. It was easy to foresee an objection which might be made, and
which has in fact been made in all ages: namely, That to say _we are
justified without the works of the law_, is to abolish the law. The
apostle, without entering into a formal dispute, simply denies the
charge. _Do we then_, says he, _make void the law through faith? God
forbid! Yea, we establish the law._
3. The strange imagination of some, that St. _Paul_, when he says,
_A man is justified without the works of the law_, means only the
_ceremonial_ law, is abundantly confuted by these very words. For did
St. _Paul establish_ the _ceremonial_ law? It is evident, he did not.
He did _make void_ that law through faith, and openly avowed his doing
so. It was the _moral_ law only of which he might truly say, We do not
make void but _establish_ this _through faith_.
4. But all men are not herein of his mind. Many there are who will
not agree to this. Many in all ages of the church, even among those
who bore the name of Christians, have contended, That _the faith once
delivered to the saints_, was designed to make void the whole law.
They would no more spare the moral than the ceremonial law, but were
for _hewing_, as it were, _both in pieces before the Lord_: vehemently
maintaining, “If you establish any law, _Christ shall profit you
nothing: Christ is become of no effect to you: ye are fallen from
grace_.”
5. But is the zeal of these men according to knowledge? Have they
observed the connection between the law and faith? And that considering
the close connection between them, to destroy one is indeed to destroy
both? That to abolish the moral law is in truth, to abolish faith and
the law together? As leaving no proper means, either of bringing us to
faith, or of _stirring up that gift of God_ in our soul.
6. It therefore behoves all who desire either to come to Christ, or to
_walk in Him whom they have received_, to take heed how they _make void
the law through faith_; to secure us effectually against which, let us
enquire, first, which are the most usual ways of _making void the law
through faith_, and secondly, How we may follow the apostle, and by
faith _establish the law_.
I. 1. Let us, first, inquire, Which are the most usual ways of _making
void the law through faith_. Now the way for a preacher to make it all
void at a stroke, is, Not to preach it at all. This is just the same
thing, as to blot it out of the oracles of God. More especially when it
is done with design; when it is made a rule, “Not to preach the law:”
and the very phrase, “A preacher of the law,” is used as a term of
reproach, as tho’ it meant little less than, “an enemy to the gospel.”
2. All this proceeds from the deepest ignorance of the nature,
properties and use of the law: and proves that those who act thus,
either know not Christ, are utter strangers to living faith: or at
least, that they are but babes in Christ, and as such _unskilled in
the word of righteousness_.
3. Their grand plea is this: “That preaching the gospel (that is,
according to their judgment, the speaking of nothing but the sufferings
and merits of Christ) answers all the ends of the law.” But this we
utterly deny. It does not answer the very first end of the law, namely,
The convincing men of sin, the awakening those who are still asleep on
the brink of hell. There may have been here and there an exempt case.
One in a thousand may have been awakened by the gospel. But this is no
general rule. The ordinary method of God, is to convict sinners by the
law, and that only. The gospel is not the means which God hath ordained,
or which our Lord himself used, for this end. We have no authority in
scripture for applying it thus, nor any ground, to think it will prove
effectual. Nor have we any more ground to expect this, from the nature
of the thing. _They that be whole_, as our Lord himself observes, _need
not a physician, but they that be sick_. It is absurd therefore to
offer a physician to them that are whole, or that at least imagine
themselves so to be. You are first, to convince them, that they are
sick. Otherwise they will not thank you for your labour. It is equally
absurd to offer Christ to them, whose heart is whole, having never yet
been broken. It is in the proper sense, _casting pearls before swine_.
Doubtless, _they will trample them under foot_. And it is no more than
you have reason to expect, if they also _turn again and rent you_.
4. “But altho’ there is no command in scripture, to offer Christ to
the careless sinner, yet are there not scriptural precedents for it?” I
think not: I know not any. I believe you can’t produce one, either from
the four Evangelists, or the _Acts of the Apostles_. Neither can you
prove this to have been the practice of any of the apostles, from any
passage in all their writings.
5. “Nay, does not the apostle _Paul_ say, in his former Epistle to the
_Corinthians, We preach Christ crucified_? ch. i. ver. 23. And in his
latter, _We preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord_? ch. v.
ver. 4.”
We consent to rest the cause on this issue: to tread in his steps, to
follow his example. Only preach you, just as _Paul_ preached, and the
dispute is at an end.
For altho’ we are certain he _preached Christ_, in as perfect a manner
as the very chief of the apostles, yet who _preached the law_ more than
St. _Paul_? Therefore he did not think the gospel answered the same end.
6. The very first sermon of St. _Paul_’s, which is recorded, concludes
in these words. _By him all that believe are justified from all things,
from which they could not be justified by the law of Moses. Beware
therefore lest that come upon you which is spoken of in the Prophets,
Behold ye despisers and wonder and perish. For I work a work in your
days, a work which you will in no wise believe, tho’ a man declare
it unto you_, Acts xiii. 39, &c. Now it is manifest, all this is
_preaching the law_, in the sense wherein you understand the term:
even altho’ great part of, if not all his hearers, were either _Jews
or religious proselytes_, ver. 43. and therefore probably many of them,
in some degree at least, convinced of sin already. He first reminds
them, That they could not be justified by the law of _Moses_, but only
by faith in Christ: and then severely threatens them with the judgments
of God, which is in the strongest sense _preaching the law_.
7. In his next discourse, that to the Heathens at _Lystra_, (ch. xiv.
ver. 15, &c.) we do not find so much as the name of Christ. The whole
purport of it is, That they should _turn from those vain idols, unto
the living God_. Now confess the truth. Do not you think, If you had
been there, you could have preached much better than he? I should not
wonder, if you thought too, That his _preaching so ill_, occasioned
his being _so ill treated_: and that his being _stoned_, was a just
judgment upon him, for not _preaching Christ_!
8. To the jailor indeed, when _he sprang in and came trembling, and
fell down before_ Paul _and_ Silas, _and said, Sirs, What must I do
to be saved_, he immediately said, _Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ_.
(ch. xvi. ver. 29, &c.) And in the case of one so deeply convinced
of sin, who would not have said the same? But to the men of _Athens_
you find him speaking in a quite different manner, reproving their
superstition, ignorance and idolatry; and strongly moving them to
repent, from the consideration of a future judgment, and of the
resurrection from the dead, (ch. xvii. ver. 24‒31.) Likewise _when_
Felix _sent for_ Paul, on purpose that he might _hear him concerning
the faith in Christ_; instead of preaching Christ in _your_ sense
(which would probably have caused the governor either to mock, or to
contradict and blaspheme) _he reasoned of righteousness, temperance
and judgment to come_, till _Felix_ (hardened as he was) _trembled_.
(ch. xxiv. ver. 24, 25.) Go thou and tread in his steps. _Preach_
Christ to the careless sinner, by _reasoning of righteousness,
temperance and judgment to come_!
9. If you say, “But he _preached Christ_ in a different manner in
his epistles;” I answer, He did not there preach at all: not in that
sense wherein we speak: for _preaching_ in our present question, means,
speaking before a congregation. But waving this, I answer, 2. His
epistles are directed, not to unbelievers, such as those we are now
speaking of, but _to the saints of God in Rome, Corinth, Philippi_ and
other places. Now unquestionably he would speak more of Christ to these,
than to those who were without God in the world. And yet, 3. Every one
of these is full of the law, even the epistles to the _Romans_ and the
_Galatians_: in both of which he does what you term preaching the law,
and that to believers as well as unbelievers.
10. From hence ’tis plain, you know not what it is, to _preach Christ_,
in the sense of the apostle. For doubtless St. _Paul_ judged himself
to be _preaching Christ_, both to _Felix_, and at _Antioch_, _Lystra_,
and _Athens_. From whose example every thinking man must infer, That
not only the declaring the love of Christ to sinners, but also the
declaring that he will come from heaven in flaming fire, is, in the
apostle’s sense, _preaching Christ_. Yea, in the full scriptural
meaning of the word. To _preach Christ_, is, to preach what he hath
revealed, either in the old or new Testament: so that you are then
as really preaching Christ, when you are saying, _The wicked shall
be turned into hell, and all the people that forget God_, as when you
are saying, _Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the
world_!
♦10. Consider this well: that to _preach Christ_, is to preach all
things that Christ hath spoken; all his promises, all his threatnings
and commands; all that is written in his book. And then you will know
how to preach Christ, without making void the law.
11. “But does not the greatest blessing attend those discourses,
wherein we peculiarly preach the merits and sufferings of Christ?”
Probably, when we preach to a congregation of mourners or of believers,
these will be attended with the greatest blessing: because such
discourses are peculiarly suited to their state. At least, these will
usually convey the most comfort. But this is not always the greatest
blessing. I may sometimes receive a far greater, by a discourse that
cuts me to the heart and humbles me to the dust. Neither should I
receive that comfort, if I were to preach or to hear no discourses
but on the sufferings of Christ. These by constant repetition would
lose their force and grow more and more flat and dead: ’till at length
they would become a dull round of words, without any spirit or life or
virtue. So that thus _to preach Christ_, must in process of time, make
void the gospel as well as the law.
II. 1. A second way of _making void the law thro’ faith_, is, the
teaching that faith supersedes the necessity of holiness. This divides
itself into a thousand smaller paths: and many there are that walk
therein. Indeed there are few that wholly escape it: few who are
convinced, we _are saved by faith_, but are sooner or later, more or
less, drawn aside into this by-way.
2. *All those are drawn into this by-way, who if it be not their
settled judgment, that faith in Christ intirely sets aside the
necessity of keeping his law, yet suppose either, 1. That holiness
is less necessary now than it was before Christ came: or, 2. That a
less degree of it is necessary; or, 3. That it is less necessary to
believers than to others. Yea, and so are all those, who altho’ their
judgment be right in the general, yet think they may take more liberty
in particular cases, than they could have done before they believed.
Indeed the using the term _liberty_, in such a manner, for “Liberty
from obedience or holiness,” shews at once, that their judgment is
perverted, and that they are guilty of what they imagined to be far
from them, namely of _making void the law thro’ faith_, by supposing
faith to supersede holiness.
3. The first plea of those who teach this expresly, is, that “we are
now under the covenant of grace, not works: and therefore we are no
longer under the necessity of performing the works of the law.”
And whoever was under the covenant of works? None but _Adam_ before
the fall. He was fully and properly under that covenant, which required
perfect, universal obedience, as the one condition of acceptance; and
left no place for pardon, upon the very least transgression. But no
man else was ever under this, neither Jew nor Gentile, neither before
Christ nor since. All his sons were and are under the covenant of grace;
the manner of their acceptance is this: the free grace of God thro’ the
merits of Christ, gives pardon to them that believe, that believe with
such a faith as working by love, produces all obedience and holiness.
4. The case is not therefore as you suppose, that men were _once_ more
obliged to obey God, or to work the works of his law than they are
_now_. This is a supposition you cannot make good. But, we should have
been obliged, if we had been under the covenant of works, to have done
those works antecedent to our acceptance. Whereas now all good works,
tho’ as necessary as ever, are not antecedent to our acceptance but
consequent upon it. Therefore the nature of the covenant of grace,
gives you no ground, no encouragement at all, to set aside any instance
or degree of obedience, any part or measure of holiness.
5. “But are we not _justified by faith, without the works of the law_?”
Undoubtedly we are, without the works either of the ceremonial or the
moral law. And would to God all men were convinced of this. It would
prevent innumerable evils. Antinomianism, in particular; for generally
speaking, they are the Pharisees who make the Antinomians. Running
into an extreme so palpably contrary to scripture, they occasion others
to run into the opposite one. These seeking to be justified by works,
affright those from allowing any place for them.
6. *But the truth lies between both. We are doubtless _justified by
faith_. This is the corner-stone of the whole Christian building. We
are _justified without the works of the law_, as any previous condition
of justification. But they are an immediate fruit of that faith,
whereby we are justified. So that if good works do not follow our faith,
even all inward and outward holiness, it is plain our faith is nothing
worth: we are yet in our sins. Therefore, that _we are justified by
faith_, even _by faith without works_, is no ground for _making void
the law thro’ faith_: or for imagining that faith is a dispensation,
from any kind or degree of holiness.
7. “Nay, but does not St. _Paul_ expresly say, _Unto him that worketh
not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is
counted for righteousness_? And does it not follow from hence, That
faith is to a believer in the room, in the place of righteousness?
But if faith is in the room of righteousness or holiness, what need is
there of this too?”
This, it must be acknowledged, comes home to the point, and is indeed
the main pillar of Antinomianism. And yet it needs not a long or
laboured answer. We allow, 1. That God _justifies the ungodly_, him
that till that hour is totally ungodly, full of all evil, void of
all good. 2. That he justifies _the ungodly that worketh not_, that
till that moment worketh no good work: neither can he: for an evil
tree cannot bring forth good fruit. 3. That he justifies him _by
faith alone_, without any goodness or righteousness preceding:
and, 4. *That _faith is_ then _counted to him for righteousness_,
namely, for _preceding righteousness: i. e._ God, thro’ the merits
of Christ, accepts him that believes, as if he had already fulfilled
all righteousness. But what is all this to your point? The apostle
does not say, either here or elsewhere, that this faith is counted
to him for _subsequent righteousness_. He does teach, that there
is no righteousness _before_ faith. But where does he teach, that
there is none _after_ it? He does assert, holiness cannot _precede_
justification: but not, that it need not _follow_ it. St. _Paul_
therefore gives you no colour for _making void the law_, by teaching
that faith supersedes the necessity of holiness.
III. 1. There is yet another way of _making void the law thro’ faith_,
which is more common than either of the former. And that is, the doing
it practically: the making it void in _fact_, tho’ not in _principle_:
the _living_, as if faith was designed to excuse us from holiness.
How earnestly does the Apostle guard us against this, in those well
known words: _What then? Shall we sin, because we are not under the
law, but under grace?_ God _forbid_! Rom. vi. 15. A caution which it
is needful throughly to consider, because it is of the last importance.
2. The being _under the law_ may here mean, 1. The being obliged to
observe the ceremonial law. 2. The being obliged to conform to the
whole _Mosaic_ institution. 3. The being obliged to keep the whole
moral law, as the condition of our acceptance with God: and, 4. The
being under the wrath and curse of God, under sentence of eternal death;
under a sense of guilt and condemnation, full of horror and slavish
fear.
3. Now altho’ a believer is _not without law to_ God, _but under the
law to Christ_, yet from the moment he believes, he is not _under the
law_, in any of the preceding senses. On the contrary, he is _under
grace_, under a more benign, gracious dispensation. As he is no longer
under the ceremonial law, nor under the _Mosaic_ institution; as he
is not obliged to keep even the moral law, as the condition of his
acceptance: so he is delivered from the wrath and the curse of God,
from all sense of guilt and condemnation, and from all that horror and
fear of death and hell, whereby he was _all his life_ before _subject
to bondage_. And he now performs (which while _under the law_ he could
not do) a willing and universal obedience. He obeys not from the motive
of slavish fear, but on a nobler principle, namely, The grace of God
ruling in his heart, and causing all his works to be wrought in love.
4. What then? Shall this evangelical principle of action, be less
powerful than the legal? Shall we be less obedient to God from filial
love, than we were from servile fear?
’Tis well, if this is not a common case: if this practical
Antinomianism, this unobserved way of _making void the law thro’
faith_, has not infected thousands of believers.
*Has it not infected you? Examine yourself honestly and closely. Do you
not do now, what you durst not have done when you was _under the law_,
or (as we commonly call it) _under conviction_? For instance. You durst
not then indulge yourself in food. You took just what was needful, and
that of the cheapest kind. Do you not allow yourself more latitude now?
Do you not indulge yourself a _little_ more than you did? O beware,
lest you _sin, because you are not under the law, but under grace_!
5. *When you was under conviction, you durst not indulge the lust of
the eye in any degree. You would not do any thing, great or small,
merely to gratify your curiosity. You regarded only cleanliness and
necessity, or at most very moderate convenience, either in furniture
or apparel; superfluity and finery of whatever kind, as well as
fashionable elegance, were both a terror and an abomination to you.
*Are they so still? Is your conscience as tender now in these things,
as it was then? Do you still follow the same rule both in furniture and
apparel, trampling all finery, all superfluity, every thing useless,
every thing merely ornamental; however fashionable, under foot? Rather,
have you not resumed what you had once laid aside, and what you could
not then use without wounding your conscience? And have you not learned
to say, “O, I am not _so scrupulous_ now.” I would to God you were!
Then you would not _sin_ thus, _because you are not under the law, but
under grace_.
6. *You was once scrupulous too of commending any to their face, and
still more, of suffering any to commend _you_. It was a stab to your
heart: you could not bear it: you sought the honour that cometh of
God only. You could not endure such conversation: nor any conversation
which was not good, to the use of edifying. All idle talk, all trifling
discourse you abhorred: you hated as well as feared it, being deeply
sensible of the value of time, of every precious, fleeting moment. In
like manner, you dreaded and abhorred idle expence; valuing your money
only less than your time, and trembling lest you should be found an
unfaithful steward even of the mammon of unrighteousness.
Do you now look upon praise as deadly poison, which you can neither
give nor receive but at the peril of your soul? Do you still dread and
abhor all conversation, which does not tend to the use of edifying; and
labour to improve every moment, that it may not pass without leaving
you better than it found you? Are not you less careful as to the
expence both of money and time? Cannot you now lay out either, as you
could not have done once? Alas! How has that _which should have been
for your health, proved to you an occasion of falling_? How have you
_sinned, because you was not under the law, but under grace_!
7. *God forbid you should any longer continue thus to _turn the grace
of_ God _into lasciviousness_! O remember, how clear and strong a
conviction you once had, concerning all these things. And at the same
time you was fully satisfied, from whom that conviction came. The world
told you, you was in a delusion: but you knew, It was the voice of God.
In these things you was not _too scrupulous_ then; but you are not now
_scrupulous enough_. God kept you longer in that painful school, that
you might learn those great lessons the more perfectly. And have you
forgot them already? O recollect them, before it is too late. Have you
suffered so many things in vain? I trust, it is not yet in vain. Now
use the conviction without the pain: practise the lesson without the
rod. Let not the mercy of God weigh less with you now, than his fiery
indignation did before. Is love a less powerful motive than fear? If
not, let it be an invariable rule “I will do nothing now I am _under
grace_, which I durst not have done when _under the law_.”
8. *I cannot conclude this head, without exhorting you to examine
yourself likewise touching sins of omission. Are you as clear of
these, now _you are under grace_, as you was when _under the law_? How
diligent was you then in hearing the word of God? Did you neglect any
opportunity? Did you not attend thereon day and night? Would a small
hindrance have kept you away? A little business? A visitant? A slight
indisposition? A soft bed? A dark or cold morning?――Did you not then
fast often? Or use abstinence to the uttermost of your power? Was not
you much in prayer, (cold and heavy as you was) while you was hanging
over the mouth of hell? Did you not speak and not spare, even for an
unknown God? Did you not boldly plead his cause? Reprove sinners? And
avow the truth, before an adulterous generation?――And are you now a
believer in Christ? Have you the _faith that overcometh the world_?
What! and are less zealous for your Master now, than you was when you
knew him not? Less diligent in fasting, in prayer, in hearing his word,
in calling sinners to God? O repent. See and feel your grievous loss!
Remember from whence you are fallen! Bewail your unfaithfulness! Now be
zealous and do the first works; lest if you continue to _make void the
law through faith_, God cut you off, and _appoint_ you your _portion
with the unbelievers_!