To Obey Or Not To Obey, That Is The Question: An Examination Of Anthony Burgess’s Theology Of Law And Gospel In Vindiciae Legis: Part 2

by on April 30, 2025 | Comment

Burgess used the similarities between the old and new covenants to refute Antinomian errors, but perhaps the most surprising facet of his broad distinction was that the gospel contains “commands.” The command for repentance, in a sense, belongs to the gospel, not just the law. He agreed with other divines that, largely or broadly speaking, God gave “evangelical commands” which referred to faith and repentance.1 Nevertheless, the commands for faith and repentance only belong to the law and the gospel when considering their functions as administrations of the covenant of grace. He noted this similarity when he stated,

Therefore Moses and the Law is said to bear witness of Christ, and to accuse the Jews—for refusing the Messiah. The Law, that requireth belief in whatsoever God shall reveal: The Gospel that makes known Christ; and then the Law, is as it were, enlightened by the Gospel, doth fasten a command upon us to believe in Christ. This is true; if you take the Law strictly and separately from Moses his administration of it: but if you take it largely, as it was delivered by Moses, then faith in Christ was immediately commanded there; though obscurely, because (as is proved) it was a Covenant of grace. You see then, that as in the transfiguration, there was Christ, and Moses together in glory; so likewise may the Law, and the Gospel be together in their glory; and it is through our folly when we make them practically to hinder one another. 2

Thus, he highlighted the redemptive-historical progression, appealing to the law and Moses which prepared the way for Christ. According to Burgess, law and gospel should be kept together because, “if . . . you ask, whether Faith and Repentance be by the Law, or by the Gospel; I answer it is by both and that these must not be separated one from the other in the command of these duties.”3 By comparing the law and Moses with the gospel and Christ, he revealed the mutual dependence between law and gospel without intermixing the two. Instead, law and gospel work together in conversion.4 By framing faith and repentance in terms of belonging to both law and gospel, he refuted the Antinomians who argued that those under the gospel do not need the law preached to humble them, since the gospel alone does this.5 On the contrary, for Burgess, both law and gospel motivate the Christian unto obedience, albeit in different ways: the gospel to “melt the heart into kindness,” and the law to “directeth, commandeth and humbleth.”6

After demonstrating the similarities between law and gospel, Burgess posed the question of their differences. He identified one significant difference in their “measure of grace.”7 Under the law, Israel truly received Christ through faith under types and shadows, but there was obscurity in the Old Testament that God unveiled in the gospel dispensation. He noted, “While the Jews experienced drops of grace, we, as Christians, have access to the fountain of grace.”8 This access indicates that the law was temporary, paving the way for a better covenant.9 While both contain grace, the new covenant offers greater clarity and fullness.10 He referenced their fundamental unity when discussing differences, asserting that law and gospel “would promote each other.”11 He aimed to protect the loveliness of the law, emphasizing its gracious aspects and not overly stressing its differences with the gospel. Both had similarities and differences, yet Antinomians had taken their differences too far.

For Burgess, even the gospel contains commands, which he believed do not undermine the law-gospel distinction. He agreed with a narrow distinction, similar to Antinomians. As Parnham noted, Antinomians like Tobias Crisp agreed with Richard Sibbes’s conception of the law-gospel distinction by setting the law “in stark juxtaposition with Christ, the gift-giver of the covenant of grace.”12 Burgess showed that the gospel, in a sense, contained commands to undermine the Antinomian notion that law and gospel, in every sense, are always in opposition to one another. He did not intend to contradict what previous Reformed authors wrote concerning law and gospel. Rather, drawing out these similarities between the Old and New Testaments exposed the Antinomians as having created too large a chasm between law and gospel, which he sought to reconcile. Thus, for the Antinomians to argue that the entire law was abrogated under the new covenant, the Ten Commandments included, they were ignoring God’s purposes in progressively unfolding his covenant of grace through law and gospel dispensations.

Another approach to Burgess’s treatise would be to argue for an inherent tension within his narrow-broad distinction. Peter Lillback and Mark Garcia have taken this approach to Luther and Calvin’s understanding of the law-gospel distinction, putting them against each other.13 R. Scott Clark, however, has demonstrated that the Reformers, like Caspar Olevianus (1536–87), followed Luther on the law-gospel distinction.14 While Reformers like John Calvin distinguished law and gospel along redemptive historical lines, Burgess followed Calvin to refute Antinomianism.15 His refutation of Antinomianism did not lead him to abandon the “Lutheran” distinction, since he affirmed it narrowly. Promoting a Lutheran versus Calvin dichotomy seems untenable because Burgess held both views together without tension.16 He merely recognized that a mere law-gospel distinction in the strict sense was not enough to fight Antinomians who wanted them separated. This required showing the similarities between law and gospel as administrations of the covenant of grace. This led him to analyze the law in its “broad sense,” in which the law contained the gospel and the gospel contained the law.

The Westminster Assembly completed their final draft of the Westminster Confession in 1647, and Burgess’s role on the special committee on Antinomianism likely influenced chapter 19 concerning the law of God. His rejection of the Act of Uniformity, imposed by Charles II, led to his ejection in 1662.17 Yet, his influence persisted, as the Westminster Confession of Faith 19 enshrined the language of law and gospel as “sweetly complied” (WCF 19). In Vindiciae Legis, Burgess clarified this issue by bringing law and gospel together in the covenant of grace, affirming that the law commands and the gospel comforts.18 Thus, we see that the law-gospel distinction is not merely a framework that aids in theological clarity—it plays a vital role in the Christian’s daily experience. This distinction provides balance between the two poles that believers so easily drift toward: legalism and Antinomianism. On the one hand, it proclaims that Christ’s salvation is entirely free, unmerited, and a pure gift of God’s grace. On the other hand, this free grace is never without effect—it transforms lives. The law and the gospel work in tandem: the law drives sinners to the gospel, and the gospel empowers the sinner to walk in the law, not as a means of earning favor, but out of heartfelt gratitude.

Notes

  1. Burgess, VINDICIAE LEGIS, 262.
  2. Burgess, VINDICIAE LEGIS, 262.
  3. Burgess, VINDICIAE LEGIS, 262.
  4. Burgess, VINDICIAE LEGIS, 261.
  5. Burgess, VINDICIAE LEGIS, 261.
  6. Burgess, VINDICIAE LEGIS, 261.
  7. Burgess, VINDICIAE LEGIS, 253.
  8. Burgess, VINDICIAE LEGIS, 254.
  9. Burgess, VINDICIAE LEGIS, 256.
  10. Burgess, VINDICIAE LEGIS, 251.
  11. Burgess, VINDICIAE LEGIS, 263.
  12. Parnham, “Motions of Law,” 88.
  13. Clark, “Law and Gospel,” 309. In this view Luther used law and gospel as a hermeneutic separating “grace and faith from law,” while Calvin used it covenantally.
  14. For more examples, see Clark, “Law and Gospel in Early Reformed Orthodoxy;” “Letter and Spirit.”
  15. For Calvin’s developing the Law-Gospel distinction along redemptive historical lines see John Hesselink, “Law and Gospel or Gospel and Law: Calvin’s Understanding of the Relationship,” in Calviniana: Ideas and Influence of Jean Calvin (Kirksville: SCS, 1988), 16–17.
  16. Mark Garcia argues this, but Clark has already demonstrated this is false. See footnote 14 and 51.
  17. Casselli, Divine Rule Maintained, 66.
  18. Burgess, VINDICIAE LEGIS, 261.

©Cliff Foster. All Rights Reserved.

RESOURCES

Heidelberg Reformation Association
1637 E. Valley Parkway #391
Escondido CA 92027
USA
The HRA is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization

    Post authored by:

  • Cliff Foster
    Author Image

    Cliff Foster is a student at Westminster Seminary California, pursuing his MDiv. Passionate about sharing the gospel, he finds great joy in evangelism and engaging others with the truth of Scripture. When he is not studying, Cliff enjoys playing basketball. He is husband to Bre and father to their daughter, Amayah.

    More by Cliff Foster ›

Subscribe to the Heidelblog today!


Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comments are welcome but must observe the moral law. Comments that are profane, deny the gospel, advance positions contrary to the Reformed confession, or that irritate the management are subject to deletion. Anonymous comments, posted without permission, are forbidden. Please use a working email address so we can contact you, if necessary, about content or corrections.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.