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.