WE have already observed, that the moral law may be considered, either as the formula of the covenant of works, or as a rule of conduct. Under the former consideration we have shown that believers are dead to it, and delivered from it; that it has no demands upon them, nor any dominion over them. It now remains that we consider it under its latter denomination. Here, therefore, we shall endeavour to prove, that, as a rule of moral conduct, it deserves and requires the sincere and uninterrupted regards of all who believe.
That the law may be considered as the rule of our obedience in general, even when it ceases to have any claims upon us, or any threatenings against us, as a covenant, is a truth of great importance, and easy to be understood. Some persons, indeed, either cannot or will not see the moral law in any other light than that of a covenant.–They imagine, that if we lose the ideas of the reward it promises to perfect obedience, and of the curse it denounces against transgression, we lose the idea of the law itself. Consequently, they must maintain, that when a person is delivered from it, as a covenant, he is no longer concerned with it, under any consideration. But this is a great mistake, and pregnant with dangerous consequences.
In order to set this matter in a clear light, it may be of use to observe, That the idea of the law, as a rule, is prior, in the order of nature, to our conceptions of it, as a covenant. For, man being formed a reasonable creature, and a subject of moral government; being designed to propagate his species, and fitted for social life; it was necessary that he should have a rule for his conduct, and have the bounds of his duty prescribed:–that he should have such a rule as included both his duty to God, and his duty to his fellow-creatures. When we consider mankind as a race of rational beings, their common relation to the great Creator, and their unavoidable connection one with another, seem necessarily to require it. Such a rule we have in the moral law. The nature of things required that some such rule, for the substance of it, should have been given to our first parents in paradise; even supposing the eternal Sovereign had not been pleased to connect a promise of life with a conformity to it. As creatures in a state of trial; as accountable to God for the use of all their time, and the exercise of all their powers, it could not be otherwise.–To deny this, is to suppose, that Jehovah might have created a number of rational beings, in strict connection one with another, and all of them in a state of continual dependence upon himself; and, at the same time, that it would have been consistent with all his perfections, to have had no regard to their conduct, whatever it might be, either towards himself, or one towards another: which, in reference to moral good and evil, would have excluded providence out of the world.
But though it was necessary that our great progenitor, while in a state of innocence, should have a prescription of duty, or a rule for his conduct; there was not, there could not be, any necessity arising from that relation in which he stood to God, that this rule of his behaviour should have the form of a covenant.–Yet this was actually the case. His bountiful Creator not only informed him of his duty, and threatened punishment against his disobedience; but, in the threatening itself, it was very strongly implied, that his persevering obedience should he rewarded with life, in a happy immortality. The language of that law which he was under, is, The man who doeth these things, who performs a perfect righteousness, shall live in them. So our Lord, referring to the same law, says, This do, and thou shalt live. This promise, made to obedience, gives the law the nature and form of a covenant. This constitution, therefore, was an act of divine condescension, and of divine sovereignty. Infinite justice made it necessary, that an offence against the Majesty of heaven should be punished; but the most perfect obedience of a creature, absolutely and perpetually dependent upon the Creator, gives no claim to the least reward. Had our great progenitor, Adam, done all that was commanded, he must at last, Jesus himself being judge, have been but au unprofitable servant. Not the least pittance of merit could have arisen from the performance of his duty. Perfect obedience is a debt which every one owes to his Maker. Consequently, had our first father continued in his primitive state, he would have had no demand on the Eternal Sovereign: it being absurd to imagine, that any one should be obliged to reward his debtor, merely for discharging a just debt. There is, therefore, a conceivable, a real, an important difference, between the law, as a covenant, and the same law as a rule.–Now, as in the order of nature, and in the necessary connexions and dependencies of things, the idea of it as a Rule, is prior to that of a Covenant; so there is not the least absurdity in supposing, that, with reference to the believer, it may entirely cease, in regard to the perfect, personal obedience it requires, as the condition of life, and the curse it annexes to every sin; while it continues in full force, as the rule, of, his moral actions.
That the moral law is a rule of life to believers, may be proved by various arguments. Some few of the many which might be produced, I shall now offer to the reader's consideration.–Paul, we find, even in that very chapter where he treats the most largely and explicitly concerning believers being dead to the law, and the law being dead to them; asserts, with regard to himself, I delight in the law of God, after the inward man. (Rom. vii. 22.) Now, whatever law it be that is here designed, he informs us that he delighted in it after the inward man. By which expression he intends, not the soul, in contradistinction to the body; but the mind, considered as renewed, in opposition to the corruption of nature, still inherent.–This law, therefore, cannot be that which is ceremonial; for that was abrogated by the death of Christ. Nor can it be the law of sin; for that was his greatest burden, as appears from the context. Nor can it be the law of his mind, or that new and holy disposition which was produced in his heart in regeneration; for then the sense would be, 'I delight in the new disposition of my mind, after my renewed mind.' Nor can it be the moral law, as a covenant; for to that he declares he was dead.–It remains, then, that it must be the moral law, as the rule of his obedience to God. In the law, thus considered, he greatly delighted. He saw it was holy, and just, and good. That supreme love which he had to his God; that ardent affection which he had to his neighbour; caused him to esteem it highly, and to observe it with diligence. Nay, whoever is possessed of the same ho1y, and heavenly principle, cannot but love that law which requires the constant exercise of it.*
* See also Verse the twenty-fifth: So then, with the mind, I myself serve the law of God.
In another part of the stone epistle he evidently exhorts his christian brethren to the practice of duty, by setting before them the precepts and prohibitions of the moral law. These are his words, Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another, hath fulfilled the law. For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery: Thou shalt not kill: Thou shalt not steal: Thou shalt not bear false witness: Thou shalt not covet: And if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. (Rom. x. iii. 8, 9, 10.) Now, to what purpose does the infallible teacher make use of these precepts and prohibitions, when exhorting believers to good works, if they have nothing to do with the law? Where is the propriety, where is the reason of his doing so, on supposition that it is not the rule of their conduct? For no one, acquainted with the gospel, can imagine, that he is here urging the law upon them as a covenant of works, which prescribes duty as the condition of life; and yet there is no other light in which to consider it, if it be discarded as a rule of conduct.–I conclude, therefore, that the inspired author has here taught us, in a very emphatical manner, that the law is a rule of life to believers.
The same experienced saint and incomparable man, when writing to the church at Ephesus, says, Children obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. This exhortation he enforces, by adding, Honour thy father and mother: which are the words of the law, and the first commandment with promise. –Now, is it not strange, exceedingly strange, that the apostle should thus refer to the law, and expressly mention its precepts, when exhorting the people of God to perform their respective duties; and that he should do it, not only once, but repeatedly, and to different churches, if he did not consider it as the rule of their moral conduct? If the moral law had been entirely abrogated; if believers had been freed from all concern with it, he must have known it. But if so, it is absolutely unaccountable that he should, in this manner, make use of it and urge its injunctions, when writing to a church of Christ called out from among the Gentiles.–What! was the Lord's ambassador so much at a loss for motives and arguments to enforce his divine Master's commands, even on the minds of those who were in professed subjection to him, that he must, in order to gain his point, make use of au antiquated law–a law with which they had no concern! This was far from him: the thought be far from us!–That first-rate minister in the Messiah's kingdom was well persuaded, that the holy law was a rule for the conduct of Christians. Our divine Surety having paid it the highest respect, in performing that perfect obedience which it required, and in suffering the dreadful penalty which it threatened, as a covenant; Paul knew that it deserved the most sincere and uninterrupted regard, from all who profess to believe in Jesus, in the whole of their conversation. Without supposing this, we cannot discern either propriety or sense in his thus making use of it, when addressing believers.
We have a testimony to the truth for which we plead, from the pen of another apostle; which, as it appears directly to our purpose, may be considered.–James, in perfect agreement with Paul, says, If ye fulfil the royal law, according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well. (James ii. 8.) –That it is the moral law of which he speaks, cannot admit of a doubt; for he expressly mentions one of its principal commands. Now, says he, If ye believers fulfil the royal law of love one to another without any difference of rich and poor, of high and low, according to the Scripture in which it is written, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well. Ye act agreeably to the will of your heavenly Father, and to the commandment of your divine Lord, who is king in Zion. Acts of Christian kindness and of brotherly, love to your fellow creatures and fellow Christians, proceeding from love to God and with a view to his glory, are good works; such as the Lord himself will acknowledge to be well done.–Here we may further observe, that in loving our neighbour, and in evidencing this love by a series of suitable actions: we should have our eye upon that authority which, enjoins it, and upon that law which, requires it. It is the authority of God in his law which we ought to regard. –I now proceed to confirm the truth by other considerations.
If the moral law be not a rule of life to believers, either there is some other, and a new rule given in its stead, or there is not. If another, it may be presumed, that it is either more or less perfect than that contained in the moral law: But more perfect it cannot be, without supposing that the old, the eternal law was imperfect; to suppose which, is absurdly, blasphemous.–If it be less perfect, the consequence is plain. It is not a complete system of duty. It admits of imperfections. It connives at sin. "But, for any one to imagine that infinite wisdom would contrive, and that infinite holiness would give such a rule for the conduct of rational creatures, is absolutely inconsistent with the divine character, and pregnant with blasphemy. Such a rule, therefore, condemns itself, and sinks with its own weight. But if there be not another, then it follows, by necessary consequence, that as there is no rule to regulate the conduct of believers, they can neither obey nor disobey.
Sin and duty, as to them, are unmeaning names and empty sounds: because obedience presupposes a command.–It is equally evident, that where there is no law, no rule of action, there can be no transgression. For how should that be sin, which is not forbidden; which, therefore, is not the breach of any law? But if all irregularities of temper and conduct be forbidden to believers; and if dispositions and practices of a contrary kind be required of them, it must be by a law; a law they are bound to regard, as the rule of their duty to both God and man.
The sentiment opposed represents the Holy One of God as the minister of sin. For it supposes that Christ has, in reference to his disciples, dissolved all obligation to duty: than which, nothing can be more false, nor more derogatory to our Saviour's hononr. The satisfaction which he made to eternal justice, delivers the persons of believers from final condemnation and everlasting punishment; but the nature of their actions remains the same. Every affection of heart, and every action of life, which the law forbids and condemns in others, is equally forbidden and equally criminal in them. Nay, they being considered as under additional obligations, as knowing their duty better, and as having superior motives to the performance of it; if there be a difference, on the comparison, in regard to any impurity of heart or irregularity of life, it lies against them. Though redeemed from the curse of the law, they are under obligation to observe its precepts; nor would it be either to their honour, or to their happiness, to be otherwise.
I suppose it will not be denied by any, who acknowledge the Bible to contain a divine revelation, that the saints and people of God under the antient jewish (economy, were bound to regard the moral law as the rule of their conduct. Yet, it is evident, they were no more under it, as a covenant, nor any more obnoxious to its curse, than real Christians under the gospel dispensation. Those who believed in the promised Messiah before he appeared, were pardoned and justified, were sanctified and saved; and that by the same glorious grace, and the same all-sufficient Mediator, with all who have known the Lord since the Eternal Word became incarnate: the way of justification and salvation having been but one, and precisely the same, in all ages.–If, then, those antient saints were bound to regard the law as the rule of their moral behaviour, what reason can be given, why believers now should not be under the same obligation? Especially, since our Lord has declared, in the most solemn and explicit manner, that he came not to destroy, but to fulfil the law –To fulfil it, as a covenant, by his own consummate obedience, and by his most bitter sufferings, in the stead of his people: and to enforce on their minds, by the most cogent motives, its heavenly precepts, as a perfect rule of duty. So that whether we consider the law as a rule of duty, or as a covenant of works, it is not made void by the coming of Christ, nor yet by the doctrine of grace; but on the contrary, it is firmly established, and highly magnified. (Rom. iii. 31. Isa. xlii. 21.)
If believers be not under the commanding power of the law, supposing them to act ever so contrary to it, they are not chargeable with sinning against it, nor can they be denominated transgressors. For instance, the law says, Thou shalt love God with all thy heart; that is, with a supreme and perfect affection. Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. These are its capital commands; these are the sum of the law. But if the law be not a rule of life to the Christian; if he be not under its commanding power; he is no longer obliged to love God or his neighbour. Consequently, on supposition that he love neither of them, he is not guilty in the eye of the law; for where there is no right to command, there can he no authority to pronounce guilty. If, therefore, the believer be not under the commanding power of the law, whatever the dispositions of his heart, or the actions of his life may be, he is no transgressor of the law, it having no concern with him. Such are the shocking absurdities, and such the implicit blasphemy, which follow a denial of the truth for which we contend.
We may argue also from the experience of the Christian, and the dictates of his own conscience. When he reflects on the corruptions of his heart, the imperfections of his duties, and the exceeding sinfulness of sin, what is the standard by which he forms an estimate of these things? Some rule of duty he must have; some rule he must, in his own conscience, acknowledge; or he could not appreciate the dispositions of his heart and the actions of his life, so as to pronounce them either good or evil, perfect or defective, and be pained or pleased on the reflection. Now, what rule can this be, but the moral law? Is it not a complete one, and fit for the purpose? Is there any sin which is not forbidden; is there any duty which is not commanded, by that law which requires the constant exercise of perfect love to God, and perfect love to man? Can the believer acquit himself, in the court of conscience, when he is persuaded that his tempers or actions are contrary to it? Or does he ever condemn them as criminal, but on a supposition that there is something in them which is forbidden by it? Was it ever known that a Christian should say of his inclinations or actions, ' I pronounce these to be evil, though required by the moral law; and I declare those to be good, though contrary to it?' An infallible pen has informed us, that by the law is the knowledge of sin. Nor is its usefulness, in this respect, confined to the time when a sinner is first awakened and converted. It is of use, in the hand of the Spirit, in all the future progress of the christian life. As the believer grows in grace, he sees more of its purity; and is proportionably humbled under a sense of his own depravity. If, then, it be of use to a believer, still to convince of sin, and still to humble for it; and if sin be no other than a transgression of the law, it follows, that it must be the rule of his moral conduct.
The law, considered as moral, is founded on the nature of things. The sublime perfections of Jehovah, and the relation in which he stands to man, as being his Creator, Preserver, and Governor; the dependent condition of man, and the blessings he receives from his Maker, constitute that foundation on which the law is built, as it respects our duty to God, in the exercise of perfect love, and in the performance of holy worship. As the law regards our neighbour, it is founded on that mutual relation in which we stand one to another in the present state of existence. As is the stability, therefore of those foundations on which the law is built, must be that of the obligation attending the law itself. If those relations from which all our obligations to God, and one another arise, be firm and unchangeable; such also must be the obligations themselves: for the several relations and obligations co-exist. This being the case, it follows, by necessary consequence, That while Jehovah is possessed of absolute perfection, and man a dependent being; while God is God, and man is man, that law which requires perfect love to our Maker is unchangeable. So long also as our relation one to another continues the same, it cannot but be the duty of every one, to love his neighbour as himself Consequently, so far as we come short in either of these respects, we fail in the performance of duty, and are chargeable with sin.
Why should any one wish to be free from the law, considered as a rule of moral conduct? It commands nothing but what is right, nor forbids any thing that is not wrong. As the things it requires are worthy of God and useful to man; so the things it prohibits are hateful to him and hurtful to us. To suppose it possible for God to approve those things which the law condemns, would be a flagrant dishonour to his divine character; and to imagine that men might perform them without injuring their own souls, is a fatal mistake. Besides, is it not the design of the Holy Spirit, in the regeneration of sinners, to produce in them an habitual desire of doing that which is right? But can those dispositions or actions be accounted right, which are contrary to the attributes of God, or inconsistent with a due acknowledgment of them? *
* STAPFERI Institut. Theolog. Polem. Tom. i. cap. iii, sect. 1435, 1436.
When the divine Sovereign displays his perfections, he manifests his glory: and so far as we acknowledge those perfections in a suitable manner, we glorify him. Now, as the law requires nothing more of us, than to treat God as God, and our fellow-creature as our fellow-creature; in other words, as it only requires us to treat objects and things as they are, in their own nature, and in their several relations to us; its precepts and prohibitions must be unalterable, and the never-failing rule of the Christian's moral conduct. *
*The very learned and celebrated VITRINGA, when reasoning on this important subject, speaks to the following effect:–'When Paul affirms that believers, being under grace, are free from the law, he must not be understood as asserting, That they are loosed from an obligation to observe the precepts which constitute the substance of those moral laws which are contained in the writings of Moses;–for, how absurd, how blasphemous, how shocking it would be to suppose, that the people of God, under the gospel-dispensation are not bound by any law to revere, and love, and adore their Maker; nor under any obligation to seek the good, or promote the happiness of their fellow-creatures! Certain it is, that grace and faith neither do, nor were ever intended to free believers from the obligations and laws of humanity. No; their benevolent design was, to restore mankind to happiness, and to perfect them in holiness. But were Christians released from the law of love, they would not be in the common condition of humanity. For what if it to be a man, but to be a creature endued with reason; dependent on God for existence, and for all the comforts of life; from whom only he can expect salvation from every evil, and the enjoyment of every good, that is necessary to perfect his nature and reader him completely blessed? To GOD, therefore, as his Creator, Preserver, Governor, and Supreme Good, he necessarily stands related; so related, as to be accountable to him for the enjoyment of every favour, the exercise of all his powers, and the performance of every action. As JEHOVAH'S consummate perfections demand of a rational creature that is absolutely dependent upon him and formed for his glory, the highest acts of adoration; as the dominion of God over all creatures, requires obedience and subjection; as the majesty and justice of God challenge humility and reverence; so the boundless goodness of God, which is the source of all the comforts we have received, of all the blessings we now enjoy, and of all the happiness we hereafter expect, That INFINITE GOODNESS, I say, to which every man's conscience bears witness, obliges the reasonable creature to love God; that is, to cleave to him, with all the force of inclination and all the fervour of affliction, as being supremely amiable; and to rejoice in his happiness, as a Being of boundless excellence. Now, as one Divine perfection infers all others–and as one relation of God to man comprehends all others, –including, at the same time, all the duties of man to God which arise from those relations, so all the duties we owe to God might be demonstrated from almost any of those divine perfections which have a relation to man.' VITRING. Observ. Sac. Tom ii. 1. vi. cap. xviii. sect, 1.
It must, indeed, be acknowledged, that a complete conformity to this high and heavenly rule, is what the most holy and zealous believer cannot attain. A perfect personal holiness, is not attainable by mortals. For, if we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us, The law, notwithstanding, is no less the standard of duty,–is no less the rule by which we should walk, than if we could observe it with the greatest punctuality. Every one, therefore, who pretends to faith in Jesus, ought to use his utmost diligence, that his tempers and actions may correspond with it as much as possible. This is his indispensable, duty; and this, if a real Christian, will be his ardent desire.
Nor has the true believer any objection to it, or any fears from it, thus considered. It is no longer a fiery law, thundering out anathemas, and flashing vengeance against him. No; it is mild and gentle. –He sees that its precepts are highly salutary, and its prohibitions exactly right. He does not wish to have them altered. Love to God and our neighbour is a compendium of its precepts: and in the exercise of that love he desires to abound. As to its prohibitions he knows that the things forbidden would be an injury to him, were they pursued; therefore he esteems it his happiness to abstain from them. The new disposition, received in regeneration, expresses itself in love to God, and in obedience to his law, as pure and holy. The gospel furnishes him with the strongest arguments and the most winning motives to abound in obedience; while it is his earnest prayer, that the Spirit of grace would afford effectual assistance for the performance of every duty. It is his greatest grief, that he does not more constantly and perfectly transcribe the sacred precepts into his conduct, and cause them to shine in his own example.
Besides, the believer beholds the law,–not in the hands of Moses, and as surrounded with the flames of Sinai,–but in the hands of that Prince of peace who is king of Zion. He sees that the dear, the adorable, the ascended Jesus, having fulfilled its high demands, as a covenant, and released him from its awful curse, now employs it as an instrument of his benign government, for the good of the redeemed, and the glory of his own eternal name. As in the hand of Christ, it is a friend and a guide, pointing out the way in which the Christian should walk, so as to express his gratitude to God for his benefits, and to glorify the Redeemer. It shows him also, how imperfect is his own obedience, and so is a happy mean of keeping him humble at the foot of sovereign grace, and entirely dependent on the righteousness of his divine Sponsor.
Now, reader, what think you of the law, as a rule of moral conduct? Is it pleasant, is it delightful to you? In vain you profess to know the gracious gospel, while you continue an enemy to the holy law. For as the law, in its covenant form, is the appointed mean of convincing the careless sinner of his need of that righteousness which is revealed in the gospel, for the justification of his person before God, so the gospel, exhibiting adequate relief to the distressed conscience, is the happy instrument of conciliating the believer's regard to the law, as a rule of conduct, that his faith may be evidenced in the sight of men. Thus the law and the gospel are mutually subservient to one another, while both agree to promote the happiness of the redeemed, and the glory of their divine Author. He, therefore, who does not pay an habitual regard to the law, in a course of obedience, has no experience of the gospel, in a way of comfort. As he tramples on that divine authority, which appears in the former, so he despises that boundless grace, which is revealed in the latter. Such an one is an enemy to both, and his state is most deplorable.
Remember, reader, that you may talk as much as you please, about the holy tendency of evangelical principles; but the adversaries of the gospel will never believe you, if they do not see the truth of what you say exemplified in your own conduct. The import of those observations which they make on your conversation, is, 'You that speak with such fluency and confidence about the doctrines of grace, and the necessity of faith, let us see what influence these doctrines have on your own tempers and your own behaviour? Show us your faith by your works? This is a reasonable demand.–They are authorised to make it; and wo, wo be to every professor of evangelical truth, whose behaviour is not answerable to that demand! For if our conduct be inconsistent with our profession, we shall soon be treated as the greatest enemies to Christ and his cause.
Are you a believer in Jesus? one that knows the grace of God in truth? You have the purest and strongest motives imaginable, to regard the law. Has the SON OF THE HIGHEST done all you were bound to perform, as the condition of life; and suffered all you were condemned to sustain, as the penalty annexed to disobedience? Has he done and suffered all this in your stead, that he might procure a fall, final, and everlasting Salvation for you, a poor, perishing sinner? Has he expressed his regard to the law, as a Covenant, not in words but in deeds; in such deeds as astonish the universe? and shall you be backward to manifest your love to the law, as a rule of moral duty, by a serious, holy; heavenly conduct? Did HE, whom angels adore, obey, and bleed, and die,–DIE an accursed death, that the claims of the law, as a covenant, might be all answered? and shall it seem hard to you, to deny yourself, to subdue your corruptions, and to walk by this heavenly rule? Is it the popular clamour against the genuine gospel, 'That it makes void the law?' and shall it be your constant business and fervent prayer, so to observe the sacred precepts, as to be a living confutation of that detestable slander? Do not reason and conscience, scripture and experience, all concur to show the expediency, the utility, the necessity of conforming your life to the law, as a rule? O, believer! yours is the happy state; let yours be the holy life. Let it appear that, though dead to the law, as a covenant, you abhor the things it forbids, and delight in the things it commands.–Then will you stop the mouths of gainsayers; then will you glorify the name of your God.–Amen.