the word "alein" (alone) in the celebrated text, "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law " (Rom. iii. 28). In the English version no such audacious gloss was admitted; yet, through the influence of Luther's teaching, the passage has been generally understood as rendered in the German. Thus in Wesley's hymns it is given in Luther's words, "Be justified by faith alone." Now Milton does not agree with this sense of the apostle's words. His remarks on this point are striking: "The apostles nowhere, in summing up their doctrine, use words implying that a man is justified by faith alone, but generally conclude as follows: that ‘a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.' I am at a loss to conjecture why our divines should have narrowed the terms of the apostolical conclusion. Had they not so done, the declaration in the one text that by faith a man is justified without the deeds of the law' would have appeared perfectly consistent with that in the other, 'by works a man is justified, and not by faith only' (James ii. 17, 24). For St. Paul does not say simply that a man is justified without works, but without the works of the law;' nor yetby faith alone, but 'by faith which worketh by love' (Gal. v. 6). Faith hath its own works, which may be different from the works of the law. We are justified therefore by faith, but by a living, not a dead faith. A living and true faith cannot consist without works, though these latter may differ from the works of the written law. Such were those of Abraham and Rahab." His comments on this point are a condemnation of the whole Church, for Luther had declared "faith alone to be the article of a standing or a falling Church." Milton's argument is, however, considerably hampered by his views of a vicarious sacrifice. He does not, like Luther, affirm that a man may commit heinous crimes a thousand times a day, and yet retain his interest in the merits of Christ; still he is in great perplexity respecting the meaning of the apostle's words, "the works of the law." After several pages of quotations from the Epistles he comes to the conclusion "that the whole of the Mosaic law"-not only the Levitical portion, but the law of the Ten Commandments-"is abolished by the Gospel." In this conclusion it is remarkable he finds only one writer of his own age who agrees with him, the Italian Zanchi (better known by his Latinized name Zanchius), an extreme Calvinist, known to English readers only by Toplady's translation of his work on "Predestination." Milton takes the opportunity of bringing forward this

1 Milton was either unfamiliar with Luther's writings or unsuspicious of the reason of his haste in this matter, whose conclusions were so blindly indorsed by the English divines.

writer's name as his solitary support in this emergency; but it must be confessed that Milton's remark on the way in which Zanchi had executed his task is equally applicable to his own mode of reasoning: "He neglects to follow up his conclusions, losing himself in a multitude of minute exceptions, and apparently fluctuating between the two opinions" as to whether the "works of the law" apply to the Ceremonial part only or include also the Moral Law. There must have been a change for the worse after Milton's day, for his sentiments on the entire abrogation of the Moral Law were subsequently almost universally adopted by English divines, although not on his authority. The very air of the Church has been tainted as by an epidemic; any one who maintained the ancient law of "righteousness was marked as a servant of Antichrist. For such there was kept an unwritten Index Expurgatorius. I was once conversing with an excellent woman, when I spoke of the great importance of a "good life" as a preparation for heaven, by which remark she became so excited as to condemn the keeping of the commandments for the sake of salvation as an enormous sin-a relic of Popish presumption: her heart was right, but the Catechism had smothered her reason. This is no solitary instance: the very sacraments have been imbued with this solifidian sentiment, the passion of the Cross being held up as a substitute for the penalty of sin, and an unqualified passport to heaven. This is positively asserted in the Exhortation to Communicants in the Church of England. The Holy Supper is to be "received in remembrance of Christ's meritorious Cross and Passion, whereby alone we obtain remission of our sins, and are made partakers of the kingdom of heaven." Thus the "wise virgins" of the Church have been taught to look upon "good works" as a snare of Satan, whilst the "foolish virgins" have been only too eager to seize the ecclesiastical bait.

But let us examine the nature of Milton's difficulty, and note the inconsistency of his conclusions. He cites a number of texts which plainly speak of the works of the Ceremonial Law as no longer obligatory. It is especially the law "contained in ordinances :" in several passages it is more positively defined as "the circumcision." In one place at least the two expressions are employed as synonymous. The point of contrast is between the mere formal statute and the "faith of God." The "abrogation" of the law as a Jewish form is to be succeeded by its exaltation to a new ideal. "He is not a Jew who is one outwardly, . . . but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter" (Rom. ii. 28, 29). This doctrine is repeated in the Epistle to the Colossians: "You

being dead in your sins, and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath He quickened together with Him; . . . blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, nailing it to His cross" (Col. ii. 13, 14). The "handwriting of ordinances" is evidently the Ceremonial Law, which was "blotted out" in the Jewish acceptation, but retained in a higher import. In Milton and other writers this new ideal of the law is entirely overlooked. There is no perception whatever that this temporary ritual veiled an inner law of spiritual life, and that this law remains as the jewel in the casket. In the Gospels and Epistles the spirit of this law is shown, but not as to its specific statutes. For the time had not come when these mysteries could be fully revealed. The Lord said, "I have many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now" (John xvi. 12). And the apostle describes the law as "having a shadow of good things to come, but not being the very image of the things;" yet although he refers to many things in the ritual, he does not enter into any specific explanation as to what this very image" consists in (Heb. x.). It was "a figure for the time then present" (Heb. ix. 9). So much was unveiled as to show somewhat of the glory within the letter. But the spiritual details were reserved for the more glorious season of the Second Advent.

66

:

1

Milton has a singular remark, which proves how little he realized either the "letter" or the "spirit" of the Ceremonial Law. He is quoting the passage, "For as many as are under the works of the law are under the curse (as stated in Deut. xxvii. 26), and he argues that the apostle does not in these words allude to the Ceremonial Law merely, but to the whole of the Mosaic Law, because he says "to fulfil the Ceremonial Law could not have been a matter of difficulty it must therefore have been the entire Mosaic Law from which Christ delivered us. Whether or not it was so easy to fulfil every point of the Ceremonial Law (even as originally given) may be a matter for discussion. But we must bear in mind what the Lord says about the Pharisaic notions of this law, and the countless traditions which they had heaped upon every text, so as to make it a "burden grievous to be borne ;" whilst they themselves would not "touch it with one of their fingers." The Lord plainly refers to the Ceremonial Law as being more regarded than the Moral Law: "Many other things there be which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and tables" (Mark vii. 4). "Ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith" (Matt. xxiii. 23).

But it is evident that neither Milton nor the common expositors of the Mosaic Law have fairly grasped the subject. Let us look at the

66

texts on which he relies in support of his conclusion that the Moral Law is included in the "works" which have been abolished. He cites the apostle's words, "If the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, how shall not the ministration of the Spirit be rather glorious?" (2 Cor. iii. 7, 8.) But the apostle does not say that the law engraven in stones was abolished; he says it is more glorious" under the ministration of the Spirit than it was as first given in the glory of Sinai. Does this mean that it was abrogated? The "ministration of death" describes the Jewish ideas of the law as a merely earthly duty, whilst "the ministration of the Spirit" refers to the same laws unfolded in the light of the Gospel as a law of eternal life. The "veil" that had been over the face of Moses was 66 taken away."

Milton quotes a similar passage from the Romans: “What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin but by the law: for I had not known lust [coveting], except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet" (Rom. vii. 7). Now the apostle does not say that the commandment is abolished; his argument implies that he did not know, by nature, that he should not covet; hence he adds, "I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died." The law aroused in him the consciousness that he was a sinner, and he "died." The meaning of this expression appears more clearly from the succeeding verses (10-23). He is now looking at the law, not in his old Pharisaic state, but in the light of the new revelation. He sees his own sinful condition from a deeper ground. "The commandment is holy, just, and good." "We know [now] that the law is spiritual; but I [now see that I] am carnal, sold under sin." Does the apostle mean, then, that he was no longer bound by the commandment? No; he explains how, under the Gospel, the commandment must be more perfectly kept: "I delight in the law of God after the inward man: but I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind." And soon after he further explains his meaning: "There is now no condemnation to those who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit." Surely to walk "not after the flesh" is to keep the commandment.

The great contrast between the obligation of the Moral and the Ceremonial Law is asserted in such language as this: "Now that ye know God, how turn ye to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?" (Gal. iv. 9.) This is very different from anything the apostle writes about the Ceremonial Law. Will any one assert that the Moral Law consists of "weak and beggarly elements"? The apostle himself declares it "holy, just, and good." Does any one

imagine that "the commandments contained in ordinances" applies to the Moral Law? Or that "circumcision was a part of the Moral

Law?

We must bear in mind that the Jews did not perceive the spirit of the Moral Law: they reduced it to a mere ceremony, and thus to a dead level with their other ceremonies; for all their "works they did to be seen of men." They made " 'long prayers at the corners of the streets," and "sounded a trumpet before them when they gave alms." The Divine precepts were paraded on their phylacteries, and emblazoned on their gateways, and with such servile obedience they were complacently satisfied.

But will any one affirm that with those who, like Zacharias and Elisabeth, "walked in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless," these commandments and ordinances were a condemnation? Although these exemplary Israelites saw not in the bright light of the Gospel, does it follow that they had no faith at all?

There is another consideration respecting the Moral Law which seems little attended to. In the Epistle to the Hebrews we have a quotation from the prophet Jeremiah: “Behold, I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel. I will put My laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts" (Heb. viii. 8-13; Jer. xxxi. 31). When the apostle adds, "Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is about to vanish away," does he mean that the commandments are abolished? Does he not rather mean that the Jewish Economy (in which all the Divine ordinances and commandments had been reduced to a dead letter) was now superseded by a dispensation in which the Law and the Prophets were to be resuscitated in a new glory filled with a spiritual import, and inscribed on the consciences and lives of men?

Does

Milton's argument involves the whole subject in confusion, and leads him into strange fancies and contradictions. He cites the apostle's words in Rom. vi. 14, 15, with this curious conclusion : "Paul teaches that by the abrogation of the law, sin, if not taken away, is at least weakened in power." What does he mean? he mean that by abolishing the commandment, "Thou shalt not covet," the covetous disposition of men is weakened? Shall we abolish all laws against rogues and murderers in order to weaken their criminal proclivities? The apostle in verse 18 makes this rational comment on his own words; he says, "Being made free from sin, ye become the servants of righteousness." Were they freed from sin by cancelling the law which prohibited it? The apostle's meaning is not thus contradictory. The Gospel has placed the Mosaic Law in a new light;