But to make our way more clear and safe, one thing must yet be premised
unto these considerations; and this is, that God’s commands for holiness
may be considered two ways: —
1. As they belong unto and are parts of the covenant of works; [i.e. under Law]
2. As they belong and are inseparably annexed unto the covenant of
grace [i.e. under Gospel].
In both respects they are materially and formally the same; that
is, the same things are required in them, and the same person requires
them, and so their obligation is joint and equal. Not only the
commands of the new covenant do oblige us unto holiness, but those
of the old also, as to the matter and substance of them. But there is a
great difference in the manner and ends of these commands as
considered so distinctly. For, —
1. The commands of God, as under the old covenant [i.e. Law], do so require
universal holiness of us, in all acts, duties, and degrees of them, that upon
the least failure, in substance, circumstance, or degree, they allow of
nothing else we do, but determine us transgressors of the whole law; for,
with respect unto them, “whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet
offend in one point, he is guilty of all,” James 2:10. Now, I acknowledge
that although there ariseth from hence an obligation unto holiness to them
who are under that covenant, and such a necessity of it as that without it
they must certainly perish, yet no argument of the nature with those
which I insist upon can hence be taken to press us unto it: for no
arguments are forcible unto this purpose but such as include
encouragements in them unto what they urge; but that this consideration of
the command knoweth nothing of, seeing a compliance with it is, in our
lapsed condition, absolutely impossible, and for the things that are so, we
can have no endeavors. And hence it is that no man influenced only by the
commands of the law, or first covenant, absolutely considered, whatever in
particular he might be forced or compelled unto, did ever sincerely aim or
endeavor after universal holiness.
Men may be subdued by the power of the law, and compelled to habituate
themselves unto a strict course of duty, and being advantaged therein by a
sedate natural constitution, desire of applause, self-righteousness, or
superstition, may make a great appearance of holiness; but if the principle
of what they do be only the commands of the law, they never tread one
true step in the paths of it.
2. The end why these commands require all the duties of holiness of us is,
that they may be our righteousness before God, or that we may be
justified thereby: for
“Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the
man which doeth those things shall live by them,” Romans 10:5;
that is, it requires of us all duties of obedience unto this end, that we may
have justification and eternal life by them. But neither on this account can
any such argument be taken as those we inquire into; for by the deeds of
the law no man can be justified:
“If thou, LORD, shouldest mark iniquities, O Lord, who shall stand?”
So prays David, “Enter not into judgment with thy servant; for in thy
sight shall no man living be justified,” Psalm 143:2; Romans 3:20;
Galatians 2:16. And if none can attain the end of the command, as in
this sense they cannot, what argument can we take from thence to prevail
with them unto obedience? Whosoever, therefore, presseth men unto
holiness merely on the commands of the law, and for the ends of it, doth
but put them upon tormenting disquietments and deceive their souls.
However, men are indispensably obliged hereby, and those must eternally
perish for want of what the law so requires who do not or will not by faith
comply with the only remedy and provision that God hath made in this
case. And for this reason we are necessitated to deny a possibility of
salvation unto all to whom the gospel is not preached, as well as unto
those by whom it is refused; for they are left unto this law, whose
precepts they cannot answer, and whose end they cannot attain.
It is otherwise on both these accounts with the commands of God for
holiness under the new covenant, or in the gospel; for, —
1. Although God in them requireth universal holiness of us, yet he doth
not do it in that strict and rigorous way as by the law, so as that if we fail
in anything, either as to the matter or manner of its performance, in the
substance of it or as to the degrees of its perfection, that thereon both that
and all we do besides should be rejected. But he doth it with a
contemperation of grace and mercy, so as that if there be a universal
sincerity, in a respect unto all his commands, he both pardoneth many
sins, and accepts of what we do, though it come short of legal perfection;
both on the account of the mediation of Christ. Yet this hindereth not but
that the law or command of the gospel doth still require universal holiness
of us, and perfection therein, which we are to do our utmost endeavor to
comply withal, though we have a relief provided in sincerity on the one
hand and mercy on the other; for the commands of the gospel do still
declare what God approves and what he doth condemn, — which is no
less than all holiness on the one hand and all sin on the other, — as exactly
and extensively as under the law: for this the very nature of God requireth,
and the gospel is not the ministry of sin, so as to give an allowance or
indulgence unto the least, although in it pardon be provided for a multitude
of sins by Jesus Christ. The obligation on us unto holiness is equal unto
what it was under the law, though a relief be provided where unavoidably
we come short of it. There is, therefore, nothing more certain than that
there is no relaxation given us as unto any duty of holiness by the gospel,
nor any indulgence unto the least sin. But yet, upon the supposition of the
acceptance of sincerity, and a perfection of parts instead of degrees, with
the mercy provided for our failings and sins, there is an argument to be
taken from the command of it unto an indispensable necessity of holiness,
including in it the highest encouragement to endeavor after it; for, together
with the command, there is also grace administered, enabling us unto that
obedience which God will accept. Nothing, therefore, can void or evacuate
the power of this command and argument from it but a stubborn contempt
of God, arising from the love of sin.
2. The commands of the gospel do not require holiness and the duties of
righteousness of us to the same end as the commands of the law did, —
namely, that thereby we might be justified in the sight of God; for whereas
God now accepts from us a holiness short of that which the law required,
if he did it still for the same end, it would reflect dishonor upon his own
righteousness and the holiness of the gospel. For, —
(1.) If God can accept of a righteousness unto justification inferior unto or
short of what he required by the law, how great severity must it be
thought in him to bind his creatures unto such an exact obedience and
righteousness at first as he could and might have dispensed withal! If he
doth accept of sincere obedience now unto our justification, why did he
not do so before, but obliged mankind unto absolute perfection according
to the law, for coming short wherein they all perished? Or shall we say
that God hath changed his mind in this matter, and that he doth not stand
so much now on rigid and perfect obedience for our justification as he did
formerly? Where, then, is the glory of his immutability, of his essential
holiness, of the absolute rectitude of his nature and will? Besides, —
(2.) What shall become of the honor and holiness of the gospel on this
supposition? Must it not be looked on as a doctrine less holy than that of
the law? for whereas the law required absolute, perfect, sinless holiness
unto our justification, the gospel admits of that to the same end, on this
supposition, which is every way imperfect, and consistent with a
multitude of sins and failings? What can be spoken more to the derogation
of it? Nay, would not this indeed make “Christ the minister of sin,” which
our apostle rejects with so much detestation, Galatians 2:17? for to say
that he hath merited that our imperfect obedience, attended with many and
great sins (“for there is no man that liveth and sinneth not”), should be
accepted unto our justification, instead of the perfect and sinless obedience
required under the law, is plainly to make him the minister of sin, or one
that hath acquired some liberty for sin beyond whatever the law allowed.
And thus, upon the whole matter, both Christ and the gospel, in whom
and whereby God unquestionably designed to declare the holiness and
righteousness of his own nature much more gloriously than ever he had
done any other way, should be the great means to darken and obscure
them; for in and by them, on this supposition, God must be thought (and
is declared) to accept of a righteousness unto our justification unspeakably
inferior unto what he required before.
It must be granted, therefore, that the end of gospel commands, requiring
the obedience of holiness in us, is not that thereby or thereon we should be
justified. God hath therein provided another righteousness for that end,
which fully, perfectly, absolutely answers all that the law requires, and on
some considerations is far more glorious than what the law either did or
could require. And hereby hath he exalted more than ever the honor of his
own holiness and righteousness, whereof the external instrument is the
gospel; which is also, therefore, most holy. Now, this is no other but the
righteousness of Christ imputed unto us; for “he is the end of the law for
righteousness unto them that do believe,” Romans 10:4. But God hath
now appointed other ends unto our holiness, and so unto his command of
it, under the gospel, all of them consistent with the nature of that
obedience which he will accept of us, and such as we may attain through
the power of grace; and so all of them offering new encouragements, as
well as enforcements, unto our endeavors after it. But because these ends
will be the subject of most of our ensuing arguments, I shall not here insist
upon them. I shall only add two things in general: —
[1.] That God hath no design for his own glory in us or by us, in this
world or unto eternity, — that there is no especial communion that we can
have with him by Jesus Christ, nor any capacity for us to enjoy him, —
but holiness is necessary unto it, as a means unto its end.
[2.] These present ends of it under the gospel are such as that God doth no
less indispensably require it of us now than he did when our justification
was proposed as the end of it. They are such, in brief, as God upon the
account of them judgeth meet to command us to be holy in all manner of
holiness; Owen, Pneumatologia V.iii, Works 3:606-609.
