Chapter 11: The Nature of the Obedience God Requires; The Eternal Obligation of the Law

OUr second argument shall be taken from the nature of that obedience or righteousness which God requirs of us, that we may be accepted of him and approved by him. This being a large subject if fully to be handled, I shall reduce what is of our present concernment in it, unto some special heads or Observations.

1. God being a most perfect, and therefore a most free Agent, all his actings towards mankind, all his dealings with them, all his Constitutions and laws concerning them, are to be resolved into his own Soveraign will and pleasure. No other reason can be given of the Original, of the whole Systeme of them. This the scripture testifis unto, Psalm 115:3.135:6. Proverbs 16:4. Ephesians 1:9, 11. Revelation 4:11. The being, existence, and natural circumstances of all creatures, being an effect of the free counsel and pleasure of God, all that belongs unto them must be ultimately resolved thereinto.

2. Upon a supposition of some free Acts of the will of God and the execution of them, constituting an order in the things that outwardly are of him, and their mutual respect unto one another, some things may become necessary in this Relative state, whose being was not absolutely necessary in its own nature. The order of all things and their mutual respect unto one another, depends on Gods free Constitution, no less then their being absolutely. But upon a supposition of that Constitution, things have in that order, a necessary relation one to another, and all of them unto God. Wherefore

3. It was a free Soveraign act of Gods will to create, effect or produce such a creature as man is; that is, of a nature intelligent, rational, capable of moral obedience with Rewards and Punishments. But on supposition hereof, man so freely made, could not be governed any other ways but by a moral instrument of law or rule, influencing the rational faculties of his soul unto obedience, and guiding him therein. He could not in that constitution be contained under the rule of God, by a mere Physical influence, as are all irrational or brute creatures. To suppose it, is to deny or destroy, the essential faculty and powers wherewith he was created. Wherefore on the supposition of his being, it was necessary that a law or rule of obedience should be prescribed unto him, and be the instrument of Gods Government towards him.

4. This necessary law, so far forth as it was necessary, did immediately and unavoidably ensue upon the constitution of our natures in relation unto God. Supposing the nature, being, and properties of God, with the works of creation on the one hand; and suppose the being, existence and the nature of man, with his necessary relation unto God, on the other, and the law whereof we speak is nothing but the rule of that relation, which can neither be, nor be preserved without it. Hence is this law eternal, indispensable, admitting of no other variation, than does the relation between God and man, which is a necessary exurgence from their distinct natures and properties.

5. The substance of this law was, that man adhering unto God, absolutely, universally, unchangeably, uninterruptedly, in trust, love, and fear, as the chief good, the first author of his being, of all the present and future Advantages whereof it was capable, should yield obedience unto him, with respect unto his infinite wisdom, righteousness and Almighty power, to protect, reward, and punish, in all things known to be his will and pleasure, either by the light of his own mind, or especial Revelation made unto him. And it is evident that no more is required unto the constitution and establishment of this law, but that God be God, and Man be Man, with the necessary relation that must thereon ensue between them. Wherefore

6. This law does eternally and unchangeably oblige all men unto obedience to God; even that obedience which it requires, and in the manner wherein it requires it. For both the substance of what it requires, and the manner of the performance of it, as unto measures and degrees, are equally necessary and unalterable, upon the suppositions laid down. For God cannot deny himself, nor is the nature of man changed as unto the essence of it whereunto alone respect is had in this law, by any thing that can fall out. And although God might superadd unto the original obligations of this law, what Arbitrary commands he pleased, such as did not necessarily proceed or arise from the relation between him and us, which might be, and be continued without them; yet would they be resolved into that principle of this law, that God in all things was absolutely to be trusted and obeyed.

7. Known unto God are all his works from the foundation of the world. In the constitution of this order of things he made it possible, and foresaw it would be future, that man would rebell against the preceptive power of this law, and disturb that order of things wherein he was placed under his moral rule. This gave occasion unto that effect of infinite Divine righteousness, in constituting the punishment that man should fall under upon his Transgression of this law. Neither was this an effect of Arbitrary will and pleasure, any more than the law it self was. Upon the supposition of the creation of man, the law mentioned was necessary from all the Divine properties of the nature of God; And upon a supposition that man would Transgress that law, God being now considered as his Ruler and Governour, the Constitution of the punishment due unto his sin and Transgression of it, was a necessary effect of Divine righteousness. This it would not have been, had the law it self been Arbitrary. But that being necessary, so was the penalty of this Transgression. Wherefore the constitution of this penalty, is liable to no more change, alteration, or abrogation, then the law it self, without an alteration in the state and relation between God and man.

8. This is that law, which our Lord Jesus Christ came not to destroy, but to fulfil, that he might be the end of it for righteousness unto them that do believe. This law he abrogated not, nor could do so without a Destruction of the relation that is between God and man, arising from or ensuing necessarily on their distinct Beings and properties. But as this cannot be destroyed, so the Lord Christ came unto a contrary end; namely, to repair and restore it where it was weakned. Wherefore

9. This law, the law of Sinless perfect obedience, with its sentence of the punishment of death on all Transgressors, does and must abide in force for ever in this world; For there is no more required hereunto, but that God be God, and Man be Man. Yet shall this be farther proved.

1. There is nothing, not one word in the scripture intimating any alteration in, or Abrogation of this law; so as that any thing should not be duty which it makes to be duty, or any thing not be sin, which it makes to be sin, either as unto matter or degrees, or that the thing which it makes to be sin, or which is sin by the rule of it, should not merit and deserve that punishment which is declared in the sanction of it, or threatned by it. The wages of sin is death. If any testimony of scripture can be produced unto either of these purposes; namely, that either any thing is not sin, in the way of Omission or Commission, in the matter or manner of its performance, which is made to be so by this law, or that any such sin, or any thing that would have been sin by this law, is exempted from the punishment threatned by it, as unto merit or desert, it shall be attended unto. It is therefore in universal force towards all mankind. There is no Relief in this case; But behold the Lamb of God.

In exception hereunto it is pleaded, that when it was first given unto Adam, it was the rule and instrument of a covenant between God and man, a covenant of works and perfect obedience. But upon the entrance of sin, it ceased to have the nature of a covenant unto any. And it is so ceased, that on an impossible supposition, that any man should fulfil the perfect righteousness of it, yet should he not be justified or obtain the benefit of the covenant thereby. It is not therefore only become ineffectual unto us as a covenant by reason of our weakness and disability to perform it, but it is ceased in its own nature so to be. But these things as they are not unto our present purpose, so are they wholly unproved. For

1. Our discourse is not about the Foederal adjunct of the law, but about its moral nature only. It is enough, that as a law, it continus to oblige all mankind unto perfect obedience, under its Original penalty. For hence it will unavoidably follow, that unless the commands of it be complied withal and fulfilled, the penalty will fall on all that Transgress it. And those who grant that this law is still in force as unto its being a rule of obedience, or as unto its requiring duties of us, do grant all that we desire. For it requires no obedience, but what it did in its Original constitution, that is sinless and perfect; and it requires no duty, nor prohibits any sin, but under the Penalty of death upon disobedience.

2. It is true, that he who is once a sinner, if he should afterwards yield all that perfect obedience unto God that the law requires, he could not thereby obtain the benefit of the promise of the covenant. But the sole reason of it is, because he is antecedently a sinner, and so obnoxious unto the curse of the law. And no man can be obnoxious unto its curse, and have a right unto its promise at the same time. But so to lay the supposition, that the same person is by any means free from the curse due unto sin, and then to deny that upon the performance of that perfect sinless obedience which the law requires, that he should not have right unto the promise of life thereby, is to deny the truth of God, and to reflect the highest dishonour upon his justice. Jesus Christ himself was justified by this law. And it is immutably true, that he who does the things of it shall live therein.

3. It is granted, that man continued not in the Observation of this law, as it was the rule of the covenant between God and him. The covenant it was not, but the rule of it, which that it should be was superadded unto its being as a law. For the covenant comprized things that were not any part of a Result from the necessary relation of God and Man. Wherefore man by his sin as unto Demerit, may be said to break this covenant, and as unto any benefit unto themselves to disannul it. It is also true, that God did never formally and absolutely renew or give again this law as a covenant a second time. Nor was there any need that so he should do, unless it were declaratively only, for so it was renewed at Sinai. For the whole of it being an Emanation of Eternal right and truth, it abides and must abide in full force for ever. Wherefore it is only thus far broke as a covenant, that all Mankind having sinned against the commands of it, and so by Guilt, with the Impotency unto obedience which ensued thereon, defeated themselves of any Interest in its promise, and possibility of attaining any such interest, they cannot have any benefit by it. But as unto its power to oblige all mankind unto obedience, and the unchangeable truth of its promises and Threatnings, it abids the same as it was from the Beginning.

2ly, Take away this law, and there is left no standard of righteousness unto mankind, no certain boundaries of Good and Evil, but those pillars whereon God has fixed the earth are left to move and flote up and down like the Isle of Delos in the Sea. Some say, the rule of Good and Evil unto men is not this law in its original constitution, but the light of nature, and the Dictates of reason. If they mean that light which was primogenial and concreated with our natures, and those Dictates of right and Wrong which reason originally suggested and approved, they only say in other words, that this law is still the unalterable rule of obedience unto all mankind. But if they intend the remaining light of nature that continues in every individual in this depraved state thereof, and that under such additional Depravations as Traditions, Customs, Prejudices, and Lusts of all sorts, have affixed unto the most, there is nothing more irrational, and it is that which is charged with no less inconvenience than that it leaves no certain Boundaries of Good and Evil. That which is Good unto one, will on this ground be in its own nature evil unto another, and so on the contrary; and all the Idolaters that ever were in the world might on this pretence be excused.

3ly, conscience bears witness hereunto. There is no Good nor Evil required or forbidden by this law, that upon the Discovery of it any man in the world can perswade or bribe his conscience not to comply with it in judgment, as unto his concernment therein. It will accuse and excuse, condemn and free him, according to the sentence of this law, let him do what he can to the contrary.

In brief it is acknowledged, that God by virtue of his supream dominion over all, may in some instances change the nature and order of things, so as the precepts of the Divine law shall not in them operate in their ordinary efficacy. So was it in the case of his command unto Abraham to slay his Son, and unto the israelites to rob the Aegyptians. But on a supposition of the continuance of that order of things which this law is the preservative of, such is the intrinsick nature of the Good and Evil commanded and forbidden therein, that it is not the subject of divine dispensation, as even the School-men generally grant.

10. From what we have discoursed two things do unavoidably ensue.

1. That whereas all mankind have by sin fallen under the Penalty threatned unto the Transgression of this law; and suffering of this Penalty which is Eternal death, being inconsistent with Acceptance before God, or the enjoyment of Blessedness, it is utterly impossible that any one individual person of the posterity of Adam should be justified in the sight of God, accepted with him or blessed by him, unless this Penalty be answered, undergone, and suffered by them or for them; the herein is not to be abolished but established.

2. That unto the same end of Acceptation with God, justification before him, and Blessedness from him, the righteousness of this Eternal law must be fulfilled in us, in such a way, as that in the judgment of God which is according unto truth, we may be esteemed to have fulfilled it, and be dealt with accordingly. For upon a supposition of a failure herein, the sanction of the law is not Arbitrary, so as that the Penalty may or may not be inflicted, but necessary from the righteousness of God as the supream Governour of all.

11. About the first of these our Controversie is with the socinians only, who deny the satisfaction of Christ, and any necessity thereof. Concerning this I have treated elsewhere at large, and expect not to see an answer unto what I have disputed on that subject. As unto the latter of them, we must inquire how we may be supposed to comply with the rule, and answer the righteousness of this unalterable law, whose authority we can no way be exempted from. And that which we plead is, that the obedience and righteousness of Christ imputed unto us; His obedience as the surety of the New covenant, granted unto us, made ours by the gracious Constitution, Soveraign Appointment and Donation of God, is that whereon we are judged and esteemed to have answered the righteousness of the law. By the obedience of One many are made righteous, Romans 5:19. That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, Romans 8:4. And hence we argue.

If there be no other way whereby the righteousness of the law may be fulfilled in us, without which we cannot be justified, but must fall inevitably under the Penalty threatned unto the Transgression of it, but only the righteousness of Christ imputed unto us, then is that the sole righteousness whereby we are justified in the sight of God; But the former is true, and so therefore is the latter.

12. On the supposition of this law, and its original obligation unto obedience with its Sanction and Threatnings, there can be but one of three ways whereby we may come to be justified before God, who have sinned, and are no way able in our selves to perform the obedience for the future which it does require. And each of them have a respect unto a Soveraign Acts of God with reference unto this law. The first is the Abrogation of it, that it should no more oblige us either unto obedience or punishment. This we have proved impossible; and they will wofully deceive their own souls, who shall trust unto it. The second is by transferring of its obligation unto the end of justification on a surety or common undertaker. This is that which we plead for, as the substance of the mystery of the gospel, considering the person and grace of this Undertakers or Surety. And herein all things do tend unto the exaltation of the glory of God in all the holy properties of his nature, with the fulfilling and establishing of the law it self, Matthew 5:17. Romans 3:31. chap. 8:4. chap. 10:3, 4. The third way is by an Acts of God towards the law, and another towards us, whereby the nature of the righteousness which the law requirs is changed; which we shall examine as the only reserve against our present argument.

3. It is said therefore that by our own personal obedience we do answer the righteousness of the law so far as it is required of us. But whereas no sober person can imagine that we can, or that any one in our lapsed condition ever did yield in our own persons that perfect sinless obedience unto God which is required of us in the law of creation, two things are supposed that our obedience, such as it is, may be accepted with God as if it were sinless and perfect. For although some will not allow that the righteousness of Christ is imputed unto us for what it is, yet they contend that our own righteousness is imputed unto us for what it is not. Of these things the one respects the law, the other our obedience.

14. That which respects the law is not the Abrogation of it. For although this would seem the most expedite way for the reconciliation of this Difficulty, namely, that the law of creation is utterly abrogated by the gospel, both as unto its obligation unto obedience and punishment; and no law to be continued in force but that which requires only sincere obedience of us, whereof there is as unto duties the manner of their performance, not any absolute rule or measure, yet this is not by many pretended. They say not that this law is so abrogated, as that it should not have the power and efficacy of a law towards us. Nor is it possible it should be so; nor can any pretence be given how it should so be. It is true, it was broken by man, is so by us all, and that with respect unto its principal end of our Subjection unto God, and dependance upon him, according to the rule of it. But it is foolish to think that the fault of those unto whom a righteous law is rightly given, should abrogate or disannul the law it self. A law that is good and just may cease and expire as unto any power of obligation upon the ceasing or expiration of the relation which it did respect. So the apostle tells us, that when the Husband of a Woman is dead, she is free from the law of her Husband, Romans 7:2. But the relation between God and us, which was constituted in our first creation, can never cease. But a law cannot be abrogated without a new law given, and made by the same, or an equal power that made it, either expressly revoking it, or enjoyning things inconsistent with it, and contradictory unto its observation. In the latter way the law of Mosaical Institutions was abrogated and disannulled. There was not any positive law made for the taking of it away; but the Constitution and Introduction of a new way of worship by the gospel inconsistent with it, and contrary unto it, deprived it of all its obligatory power and efficacy. But neither of these ways has God taken away the obligation of the Original law of obedience, either as unto duties or Recompences of reward. Neither is there any direct law made for its Abrogation; nor has he given any new law of moral obedience either inconsistent with, or contrary unto it. Yea in the gospel it is declared to be established and fulfilled.

It is true, as was observed before, that this law was made the instrument of a covenant between God and Man; and so there is another reason of it; For God has actually introduced another covenant inconsistent with it, and contrary unto it. But yet neither does this instantly and ipso facto free all men unto the law, in the way of a covenant. For unto the obligation of a law there is no more required, but that the matter of it be Just and righteous, that it be given or made by him who has just authority so to give or make it, and be sufficiently declared unto them who are to be obliged by it. Hence the making and promulgation of a new law, does ipso facto abrogate any former law that is contrary unto it, and frees all men from obedience unto it, who were before obliged by it. But in a covenant it is not so. For a covenant does not operate by mere Soveraign authority; it becomes not a covenant without the consent of them with whom it is made. Wherefore no benefit accrues unto any, or freedom from the Old covenant, by the constitution of the new, unless he has actually complied with it, has chosen it, and is interested in it thereby. The first covenant made with Adam, we did in him consent unto, and accept of. And therein notwithstanding our sin, do we and must we abide, that is, under the obligation of it unto duty and punishment, until by faith we are made partakers of the new. It cannot therefore be said, that we are not concerned in the fulfilling of the righteousness of this law, because it is abrogated.

15. Nor can it be said that the law has received a new Interpretation, whereby it is declared, that it does not oblige, nor shall be construed for the future to oblige any unto sinless and perfect obedience, but may be complied with on far easier terms. For the law being given unto us when we were sinless, and on purpose to continue and preserve us in that condition, it is absurd to say that it did not oblige us unto sinless obedience; and not an Interpretation, but a plain Depravation of its sense and meaning. Nor is any such thing once intimated in the gospel. Yea the discourses of our savior upon the law, are absolutely destructive of any such Imagination. For whereas the Scribes and Pharisees had attempted by their false Glosses and Interpretations to accommodate the law unto the Inclinations and Lusts of men, (a course since pursued both notionally and practically, as all who design to burden the Consciences of men with their own commands, do endeavour constantly to recompence them, by an Indulgence with respect unto the commands of God) He on the contrary rejects all such pretended Epikeia's and Interpretations, restoring the law unto its pristine Crown, as the jews Tradition is, that the Messiah shall do.

16. Nor can a Relaxation of the law be pretended, if there be any such thing in rule. For if there be, it respects the whole being of the law, and consists either in the suspension of its whole obligation, at least for a season, or the substitution of another person to answer its demands who was not in the original obligation, in the room of them that were. For so some say, that the Lord Christ was made under the law for us by an Acts of Relaxation of the original obligation of the law; how properly, ipsi viderint. But here in no sense it can have place.

17. The Acts of God towards the law in this case intended, is, a Derogation from its obliging power as unto obedience. For whereas it did originally oblige unto perfect sinless obedience, in all duties, both as unto their substance, and the manner of their performance, it shall be allowed to oblige us still unto obedience, but not unto that which is absolutely the same, especially not as unto the compleatness and perfection of it. For if it do so, either it is fulfilled in the righteousness of Christ for us, or no man living can ever be justified in the sight of God. Wherefore by an Acts of Derogation from its Original power, it is provided, that it shall oblige us still unto obedience, but not that which is absolutely sinless and perfect; but although it be performed with less intension of love unto God, or in a lower degree, then it did at first require, so it be sincere and universal as unto all the parts of it, it is all that the law now requirs of us. This is all that it now requires, as it is adapted unto the service of the new covenant, and made the rule of obedience according to the law of Christ. Hereby is its preceptive part, so far as we are concerned in it, answered and complied withall. Whether these things are so or no, we shall see immediately in a few words.

18. Hence it follows, that the act of God with respect unto our obedience, is not an act of judgment according unto any rule or law of his own; but an Acceptilation, or an esteeming, accounting, accepting that as perfect, or in the Room of that which is perfect, which really and in truth is not so.

19. It is added that both these depend on, and are the procurements of the obedience, suffering, and merits of Christ. For on their account it is, that our weak and imperfect obedience, is accepted as if it were perfect, and the power of the law, to require obedience absolutely perfect is taken away. And these being the effects of the righteousness of Christ, that righteousness may on their account, and so far, be said to be imputed unto us.

20. But notwithstanding the great endeavours that have been used to give a color of truth unto these things, they are both of them but fictions and imaginations of men that have no ground in the scripture, nor do comply with the experience of them that believe. For to touch a little on the latter, in the first place; There is no true believer but has these two things fixed in his mind and conscience.

1. That there is nothing in principles, habits, qualities, oractions, wherein he comes short of a perfect compliance with the Holy law of God, even as it required perfect obedience, but that it has in it the nature of sin, and that in it self deserving the curse annexed Originally unto the breach of that law. They do no therefore apprehend that its obligation is taken off, weakned or derogated from in any thing. (2) That there is no Relief for him, with respect unto what the law requires, or unto what it threatens, but by the mediation of Jesus Christ alone, who of God is made righteousness unto him. Wherefore they do not rest in, or on the acceptation of their own obedience such as it is, to answer the law, but trust unto Christ alone for their acceptation with God.

21. They are both of them doctrinally untrue; For as unto the former; (1) It is unwritten. There is no Intimation in the scripture of any such dispensation of God with reference unto the Original law of obedience. Much is spoken of our Deliverance from the curse of the law by Christ, but of the Abatement of its preceptive power nothing at all. (2) It is contrary to the scripture. For it is plainly affirmed that the law is not to be abolished, but fulfilled; not to be made void, but to be established; that the righteousness of it must be fulfilled in us. (3) It is a supposition both unreasonable and impossible. For (1) the law was a Representation unto us of the holiness of God, and his righteousness in the Government of his creatures. There can be no Alteration made herein, seeing with God himself there is no variableness nor shadow of changing. (2) It would leave no standard of righteousness, but only a Lesbian rule, which turns and apply's it self unto the light and abilities of men, and leaves at least as many various measures of righteousness as there are believers in the world. (3) It includes a variation in the center of all religion, which is the natural and moral relation of men unto God. For so there must be, if all that was once necessary thereunto, do not still continue so to be. (4) It is dishonourable unto the mediation of Christ. For it makes the principal end of it to be, that God should accept of a righteousness unto our justification, inexpressibly beneath that which he required in the law of our creation. And this in a sense makes him the minister of sin, or that he has procured an Indulgence unto it; not by the way of satisfaction and pardon whereby he takes away the guilt of it from the church; but by taking from it its nature and demerit, so as that what was so originally should not continue so to be, or at least not to deserve the punishment it was first threatned withal. (5) It reflects on the goodness of God himself. For on this supposition that he has reduced his law into that state and order, as to be satisfied by an observation of it so weak, so imperfect, accompanied with so many failures and sins, as it is with the obedience of the best men in this world, (whatever thoughts unto the contrary the Phrensie of pride may suggest unto the minds of any) what reason can be given consistent with his goodness, why he should give a law at first of perfect obedience, which one sin laid all mankind under the penalty of unto their Ruine?

22. All these things and sundry others of the same kind, do follow also on the second supposition of an Acceptilation or an Imaginary estimation of that as perfect, which is imperfect, as sinless which is attended with sins innumerable. But the judgment of God is according unto truth; neither will he reckon that unto us for a perfect righteousness in his sight, which is so imperfect as to be like tattered Rags, especially, having promised unto us, Robes of righteousness and Garments of salvation.

That which necessarily follows on these discourses is, That there is no other way whereby the original, immutable law of God, may be established, and fulfilled with respect unto us, but by the imputation of the perfect obedience and righteousness of Christ, who is the end of the law for righteousness unto all that do believe.

Our second argument is drawn from the nature of the obedience or righteousness that God requires of us for us to be accepted and approved by Him. This is a broad subject if handled in full, so I will organize what is relevant here under a few specific headings.

First: God being the most perfect and therefore the most free of all agents, all His dealings with mankind — all His actions toward them, all His arrangements and laws concerning them — must be traced back ultimately to His sovereign will and pleasure. No other ultimate explanation can be given for the whole system of them. Scripture testifies to this (Psalm 115:3; 135:6; Proverbs 16:4; Ephesians 1:9, 11; Revelation 4:11). The existence and natural circumstances of all creatures are an effect of God's free counsel and pleasure, so everything that belongs to them must ultimately be resolved into that same source.

Second: given certain free acts of God's will and their execution — establishing an order among things external to Him and determining their relations to one another — some things become necessary within that established order that were not absolutely necessary in their own nature. The order of all things and their mutual relations depend on God's free constitution just as much as their existence does. But once that constitution is established, things within that order stand in necessary relationship to one another and all of them to God. Therefore:

Third: it was a free and sovereign act of God's will to create a being like man — that is, a creature with intelligence, reason, and the capacity for moral obedience, reward, and punishment. But given that man exists as such, he could only be governed by a moral instrument — a law or rule — that works through the rational faculties of his soul to guide him toward obedience. He could not, by his nature, be governed the way irrational animals are, by mere physical influence. To suppose that would be to deny or destroy the essential faculties and powers with which he was created. Therefore, given that man exists, it was necessary that a law or rule of obedience be prescribed to him as the instrument of God's governance.

Fourth: this necessary law — necessary to the extent just described — arose immediately and unavoidably from the constitution of our nature in relation to God. Given the nature, existence, and attributes of God on one side, and the existence, nature, and necessary relationship of man to God on the other, this law is simply the rule governing that relationship — a relationship that cannot exist or be maintained without it. The law is therefore eternal and not subject to removal, admitting of no variation except as the relationship between God and man might vary — which is a necessary consequence of their distinct natures and attributes.

Fifth: the substance of this law was that man, clinging to God absolutely, universally, unchangeably, and without interruption — in trust, love, and fear — as the highest good and the first author of his being and all present and future benefits, should yield obedience to Him. This obedience was to be given with respect to God's infinite wisdom, righteousness, and almighty power to protect, reward, and punish, in all things known to be His will and pleasure — whether known through the natural light of reason or through special revelation. It is clear that nothing more is required to establish this law than that God be God and man be man, with the necessary relationship that must follow between them. Therefore:

Sixth: this law eternally and unchangeably obligates all people to obedience to God — that obedience which it requires, in the manner in which it requires it. Both the substance of what it requires and the manner of its performance — its measures and degrees — are equally necessary and unalterable, given the premises laid down. For God cannot contradict Himself, and the essential nature of man — to which alone this law has reference — is not changed by anything that may happen to him. Even if God chose to add to the original obligations of this law whatever additional commands He pleased — commands that did not necessarily arise from the relationship between Him and us, and could exist or not exist independently — these would still be resolved into that foundational principle of the law: that God is to be trusted and obeyed absolutely in all things.

Seventh: all God's works are known to Him from the foundation of the world. In establishing this order of things, He made it possible and foresaw it would happen that man would rebel against the preceptive authority of this law and disturb the order in which he had been placed under God's moral governance. This gave rise to an expression of infinite divine righteousness in the form of the punishment appointed to fall on man upon his transgression of the law. This punishment was no more a product of arbitrary will than the law itself was. Given the creation of man, the law described was necessary — arising from all the divine attributes of God's nature. And given that man would transgress that law, God now acting as his Ruler and Governor, the appointment of punishment due to man's sin and transgression was a necessary expression of divine righteousness. This would not have been the case if the law itself had been arbitrary. But since the law was necessary, so was the penalty for transgressing it. Therefore the appointment of this penalty is no more subject to change, alteration, or removal than the law itself — short of a fundamental change in the relationship between God and man.

Eighth: this is the law that our Lord Jesus Christ came not to abolish but to fulfill — so that He might be the end of the law for righteousness to all who believe. He did not and could not abolish this law without destroying the relationship between God and man that necessarily arises from their distinct natures and attributes. Since that relationship cannot be destroyed, the Lord Christ came to the opposite end: to repair and restore what had been weakened in it. Therefore:

Ninth: this law — the law requiring sinless, perfect obedience, with its sentence of death upon all transgressors — does and must remain in force forever in this world. Nothing more is required for this to be so than that God be God and man be man. This will be further demonstrated below.

First: there is nothing in Scripture — not a single word — indicating any alteration or abolition of this law. Nothing that the law declares to be a duty has ceased to be a duty; nothing it calls sin has ceased to be sin — whether in matter or degree. Nor has anything the law declares to be sin been exempted from deserving the punishment its sanction announces. The wages of sin is death. If any scriptural testimony can be produced to show either that something the law declares sinful — whether by omission or commission, in substance or manner — is no longer sin, or that any such sin is now exempt from the punishment the law threatens in terms of merit and desert, it should be brought forward. Until then, this law stands in universal force toward all mankind. There is no relief from it — except: behold the Lamb of God.

Against this it is argued that when this law was first given to Adam, it served as the rule and instrument of a covenant between God and man — a covenant of works and perfect obedience. But with the entrance of sin, it ceased to function as a covenant for anyone. Indeed, it so ceased that even if — on an impossible supposition — someone were to fulfill its perfect righteousness, he would not thereby be justified or obtain the benefit of the covenant. The law has therefore not merely become ineffective for us as a covenant because of our weakness and inability to perform it; it has ceased, in its own nature, to be a covenant at all. But these claims, besides being irrelevant to our present argument, are wholly unproved. For the following reasons:

First: our discussion is not about the law's covenantal dimension but about its moral nature only. It is enough to establish that as a law it continues to bind all mankind to perfect obedience under its original penalty. From this it unavoidably follows that unless its commands are fulfilled, the penalty will fall on all who transgress it. Those who grant that this law still has force as a rule of obedience — as requiring duties of us — have conceded everything we need. For it requires no obedience except what it originally required: sinless and perfect obedience. And it requires no duty and forbids no sin except under the penalty of death for disobedience.

Second: it is true that once a person has sinned, perfect obedience to God afterward could not by itself gain him the benefit of the covenant's promise. But the only reason for this is that he is already a sinner and therefore already liable to the law's curse. No one can be under the curse of the law and have a claim to its promise at the same time. But suppose a person were somehow freed from the curse due to sin — if we then denied that perfect, sinless obedience of the kind the law requires would give that person a right to the promise of life, we would be denying the truth of God and casting the highest dishonor on His justice. Jesus Christ Himself was justified by this law. And it remains unchangeably true that he who does what the law requires shall live by it.

Third: it is granted that man did not continue in obedience to this law in its role as the rule of the covenant between God and him. To be precise: the law was not itself the covenant, but its rule — the covenantal aspect being added on top of the law's inherent authority. The covenant included elements that did not arise necessarily from the relationship between God and man. Therefore, by sinning, man may be said to have broken the covenant in terms of forfeiting its benefits and, as far as any advantage to himself was concerned, rendering it void. It is also true that God never formally and absolutely renewed or re-enacted this law as a covenant a second time. Nor was there any need for Him to do so, except in a declarative sense — which is what happened at Sinai. For the whole law, being an expression of eternal right and truth, remains and must remain in full force forever. The covenant has been broken only in this sense: all mankind has sinned against its commands and, through guilt and the resulting inability to obey, has forfeited any claim to its promise and any possibility of obtaining such a claim. But as to the law's power to bind all mankind to obedience, and the unchangeable truth of its promises and threats, it remains exactly what it was from the beginning.

Second: remove this law, and mankind is left with no standard of righteousness, no certain boundaries between good and evil. The pillars on which God has fixed the moral order of the world would be left to drift and float like a ship without an anchor. Some say the rule of good and evil for humanity is not this original law but the light of nature and the dictates of reason. If they mean the original light that was created with our nature, and those dictates of right and wrong that reason originally suggested and approved, they are simply saying in other words that this law remains the unalterable rule of obedience for all mankind. But if they mean the residual light of nature that continues in fallen individuals in this corrupted state — further distorted by traditions, customs, prejudices, and every kind of sinful desire — there is nothing more irrational. This leaves no certain boundary between good and evil: what is good to one person would on this basis be evil in its very nature to another, and vice versa. And every idolater who has ever existed could use this argument as an excuse.

Third: conscience bears witness to this law. Regarding every good commanded and every evil forbidden by this law, no one in the world, once it is made clear to them, can convince or bribe their conscience to withhold agreement as to what it means for them personally. Conscience will accuse or excuse, condemn or acquit, according to the sentence of this law — whatever a person does to resist it.

Briefly acknowledged: by virtue of His supreme dominion over all things, God may in some instances alter the ordinary operation of the divine law's precepts. This is what happened when He commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son and when He directed the Israelites to take the Egyptians' valuables. But assuming the continuation of the order of things that this law was designed to preserve, the intrinsic nature of the goods it commands and the evils it forbids places them beyond the reach of divine dispensation — as even the scholastic theologians generally concede.

Tenth: from what has been discussed, two things unavoidably follow.

First: since all mankind has fallen under the penalty threatened for transgressing this law, and since enduring that penalty — eternal death — is incompatible with acceptance before God or the enjoyment of blessedness, it is utterly impossible for any descendant of Adam to be justified in God's sight, accepted by Him, or blessed by Him unless this penalty is answered, borne, and suffered — either by them or for them. The law in this regard is not to be abolished but established.

Second: for the same ends — acceptance with God, justification before Him, and blessing from Him — the righteousness of this eternal law must be fulfilled in us in such a way that by God's judgment, which is according to truth, we are reckoned to have fulfilled it and are treated accordingly. For if this is not fulfilled, the law's sanction is not an arbitrary matter — the penalty may or may not be applied according to some discretion — but is a necessary consequence of God's righteousness as the supreme Governor of all.

Eleventh: on the first of these two points, our controversy is with the Socinians alone, who deny the satisfaction of Christ and any necessity for it. I have addressed this at length elsewhere and do not expect to see a response to the arguments I have set forth there. On the second point, we must ask how we can be said to comply with the rule of this unchangeable law — whose authority we can in no way escape. Our answer is that the obedience and righteousness of Christ imputed to us — His obedience as the surety of the new covenant, granted to us and made ours by God's gracious constitution, sovereign appointment, and donation — is the basis on which we are judged and reckoned to have answered the righteousness of the law. "Through the obedience of the One the many were made righteous" (Romans 5:19). "So that the requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us" (Romans 8:4). From this we argue as follows.

If there is no other way for the righteousness of the law to be fulfilled in us — without which we cannot be justified but must inevitably fall under the penalty threatened for transgressing it — except through the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, then that imputed righteousness is the sole righteousness by which we are justified in God's sight. The premise is true, and so is the conclusion.

Twelfth: given this law with its original obligation to obedience, its sanction, and its threats, there are only three possible ways in which those of us who have sinned — and are entirely unable in ourselves to render the obedience the law requires going forward — can come to be justified before God. Each of them involves a sovereign act of God with reference to this law. The first is the abolition of the law — so that it no longer binds us to either obedience or punishment. We have shown this to be impossible, and those who place their trust in it will fatally deceive themselves. The second is the transfer of the law's obligation, for the purpose of justification, onto a surety or common representative. This is what we contend for as the substance of the mystery of the gospel — given who this Surety is and the grace He brings. By this way, all things tend toward the exaltation of God's glory in all the holy attributes of His nature, together with the fulfilling and establishing of the law itself (Matthew 5:17; Romans 3:31; 8:4; 10:3-4). The third way involves an act of God with respect to the law on one side and an act toward us on the other, by which the nature of the righteousness the law requires is changed. This is the only remaining alternative to our present argument, and we will now examine it.

Third consideration: it is claimed that by our own personal obedience we answer the righteousness of the law to the extent required of us. But since no sober person can imagine that we are able — or that anyone in our fallen condition has ever been able — to render in our own persons the perfect, sinless obedience to God that the law of creation requires, two suppositions are needed to make our obedience, such as it is, acceptable to God as if it were sinless and perfect. For although some will not allow that Christ's righteousness is imputed to us for what it actually is, they contend that our own righteousness is imputed to us for what it is not. One of these two suppositions concerns the law, the other concerns our obedience.

Fourteenth: what is said about the law is not that it has been abolished. Although abolishing the law of creation entirely — removing its obligation both to obedience and to punishment, leaving in force only a law requiring sincere obedience with no absolute standard for how that obedience must be performed — might seem the most convenient way to resolve this difficulty, many do not in fact claim this. They do not say the law is abolished in such a way that it no longer has the force and effect of a law toward us. Nor is it possible that it should be, and no basis can be given for how it could be. It is true that the law has been broken by man — broken by all of us — with respect to its primary purpose of keeping us in subjection to God and dependence on Him according to its rule. But it is foolish to think that the failures of those to whom a righteous law was rightly given should abolish the law itself. A good and just law may cease and expire in its binding power when the relationship it governed ceases or expires. So the apostle tells us that when a woman's husband dies, she is free from the law of her husband (Romans 7:2). But the relationship between God and us, established in creation, can never cease. Furthermore, a law cannot be abolished without a new law enacted by the same or an equal authority — either expressly revoking the old one or requiring things incompatible with it and contradictory to its observance. It was in this second way that the law of the Mosaic institutions was abolished. There was no direct law enacted to remove it; rather, the establishment of a new form of worship through the gospel — incompatible with and contrary to the old — stripped it of all binding authority. But God has taken neither of these approaches with respect to the original law of moral obedience — neither as to its duties nor as to its rewards and punishments. There is no direct law enacting its abolition, and He has given no new law of moral obedience that is either incompatible with or contrary to it. On the contrary, the gospel declares that this law is established and fulfilled.

It is true, as was noted earlier, that this law was also made the instrument of a covenant between God and man — and that provides another angle to consider. For God has actually introduced a new covenant that is incompatible with and contrary to the old. Yet even this does not instantly and automatically free all people from the law in its covenantal capacity. For the binding force of a law requires only that its content be just and right, that it was enacted by one with proper authority to do so, and that it has been sufficiently declared to those who are to be bound by it. Therefore the enactment and proclamation of a new law automatically abolishes any previous law contrary to it and frees all those formerly bound by it. But a covenant does not work this way. A covenant does not operate by mere sovereign authority alone — it does not become a covenant without the consent of the parties with whom it is made. Therefore no benefit and no freedom from the old covenant comes to any person simply because the new covenant has been constituted, unless that person has actually come to it, embraced it, and been brought into it. In Adam, we consented to and accepted the first covenant. And despite our sin, we remain — and must remain — under its obligation to duty and punishment, until by faith we become partakers of the new covenant. It cannot therefore be said that we have no concern with fulfilling the righteousness of this law on the grounds that it has been abolished.

Fifteenth: nor can it be claimed that the law has received a new interpretation by which it is now declared not to require sinless, perfect obedience — so that its demands can be met on far easier terms. The law was given to us when we were sinless and for the specific purpose of keeping us in that condition. It is absurd to say it did not oblige us to sinless obedience. To propose this is not a reinterpretation of the law but a plain corruption of its sense and meaning. Nor is any such thing even hinted at in the gospel. In fact, our Savior's teaching on the law is completely destructive of any such idea. The scribes and Pharisees had attempted by false glosses and interpretations to accommodate the law to human desires and appetites — a practice later pursued both theoretically and practically by those who, in burdening people's consciences with their own commands, consistently try to compensate by being indulgent with respect to God's commands. But Christ rejected all such attempts at accommodation and restored the law to its original, full demands — just as Jewish tradition holds the Messiah would do.

Sixteenth: nor can a relaxation of the law be claimed, if such a thing exists at all in principle. If it does exist, it would concern the law as a whole and would consist either in suspending its entire obligation — at least for a time — or in substituting another person to answer its demands in the place of those originally obligated. Some do say that the Lord Christ was made under the law for us through an act of relaxation of the original obligation — how technically accurate that is, they may judge for themselves. But in the sense relevant here, this concept has no application.

Seventeenth: the act of God toward the law that is being proposed in this case is a partial reduction of its binding power with respect to obedience. The original law obligated us to perfect, sinless obedience in all duties — both in their substance and in the manner of their performance. The proposal is that the law should still be allowed to bind us to obedience, but not to the exact same obedience as before — specifically not to its completeness and perfection. For if it did still require perfect obedience, then either that requirement must be fulfilled by Christ's righteousness on our behalf, or no living person can ever be justified in God's sight. So by this partial reduction of the law's original power, the proposal is that the law now requires sincere and universal obedience — covering all its parts — but not absolutely sinless and perfect obedience. Even if our obedience is performed with less intensity of love for God, or at a lower degree than the law originally required, that is now all the law asks of us. This is all it requires as it has been adapted to serve the new covenant and made the rule of obedience according to the law of Christ. On this view, the law's preceptive demands, as they apply to us, are met and satisfied. Whether any of this is actually the case, we will examine briefly and directly.

Eighteenth: from this it follows that God's act with respect to our obedience is not an act of judgment according to any rule or law of His own, but an acceptilation — a legal fiction by which what is genuinely imperfect is treated and accepted as perfect, or as a substitute for what is perfect.

Nineteenth: it is added that both of these — the reduction of the law's demands and the acceptilation of imperfect obedience — depend on and are procured by Christ's obedience, suffering, and merit. It is on account of His work that our weak and imperfect obedience is accepted as if it were perfect, and that the law's power to require absolutely perfect obedience is removed. And since these are effects of Christ's righteousness, that righteousness may on their account and to that extent be said to be imputed to us.

Twentieth: but despite all the effort expended to give these ideas an appearance of truth, both of them are human inventions and fictions — they have no grounding in Scripture and do not accord with the experience of those who believe. To touch briefly on the experiential point first: every true believer has two things firmly established in his mind and conscience.

First: in every principle, habit, quality, and action where he falls short of perfect compliance with God's holy law — the law as it originally required perfect obedience — he recognizes that he has sinned, and that what he has done in itself deserves the curse originally attached to breaking that law. True believers therefore do not perceive the law's obligation as having been lifted, weakened, or reduced in any way. Second: they find no relief from what the law requires or from what it threatens except through the mediation of Jesus Christ alone, who is made righteousness for them by God. They therefore do not rest on or find comfort in the acceptance of their own obedience, as if it were sufficient to answer the law — but trust in Christ alone for their acceptance with God.

Twenty-first: both of these positions are also doctrinally false. On the first claim — the reduction of the law's demands — three things may be said. First, it has no scriptural basis. There is no hint in Scripture of any such arrangement by which God has reduced the demands of the original law of obedience. Much is said about our deliverance from the law's curse through Christ, but nothing at all about any reduction of its preceptive authority. Second, it is contrary to Scripture. Scripture plainly states that the law is not to be abolished but fulfilled, not to be nullified but established, and that its righteous requirement must be fulfilled in us. Third, it is a supposition both unreasonable and impossible, for the following reasons. The law was a representation to us of God's holiness and His righteousness in governing His creatures. No change can be made here, since with God Himself there is no variableness or shadow of turning. It would also leave no fixed standard of righteousness — only a flexible rule that bends and adapts to the capacities and abilities of each individual, leaving as many different measures of righteousness as there are believers in the world. It would also involve a change in the very center of all religion: the natural and moral relationship of human beings to God. For there must be such a change if everything that was once necessary to that relationship no longer continues to be. Furthermore, it dishonors the mediation of Christ. It makes the principal purpose of His mediation to be that God should accept for our justification a righteousness incomparably inferior to what He originally required. In a sense this makes Christ the agent of sin — not by taking away its guilt through satisfaction and pardon, but by stripping away its very nature and demerit, so that what was originally sin should no longer be sin, or at least should no longer deserve the punishment originally threatened. Finally, it reflects poorly on God's own goodness. If He has now reduced His law to a state where it can be satisfied by obedience as weak, as imperfect, and as accompanied by as many failures and sins as even the best believers' obedience is in this world — whatever the delusions of pride may suggest to anyone's mind to the contrary — what reason consistent with His goodness can be given for why He originally gave a law of perfect obedience, where a single sin brought the penalty of ruin on all mankind?

Twenty-second: all these and various other objections of the same kind also apply to the second claim — the acceptilation, or the imaginary treating of imperfect obedience as if it were perfect, of sin-laden obedience as if it were sinless. But God's judgment is according to truth. He will not reckon as a perfect righteousness in His sight what is so imperfect as to be like torn rags — especially when He has promised us robes of righteousness and garments of salvation.

The necessary conclusion from all this discussion is that there is no other way in which God's original and unchangeable law can be established and fulfilled with respect to us, except through the imputation of the perfect obedience and righteousness of Christ — who is the end of the law for righteousness to all who believe.