MATTH. 5. 21, 22.
THe Law as you have heard, may be considered either absolutely, as a Rule, or relatively, as a Covenant: We are handling of it in the first consideration, and have proved, that, as it was delivered by Moses, it doth belong to us Christians. I shall now handle the Perfection of it, and labour to shew, that Christ hath instituted no new duty which was not commanded before by the Law of Moses. And this Question will be very profitable, partly against the Antinomians, partly the Papists, and lastly the Socinians, as will appeare in the handling of it. That therefore I may the better come to my matter intended, take notice in the generall, that these words are part of Christs Sermon upon the Mount; so that as the Law was first given upon a Mount, so also it is explained and interpreted by Christ upon a Mount. And in this Sermon is observable; first, that Christ begins with the end of actions, Blessednesse; for so Morall Philosophy, which is practicall, doth also begin. Secondly, he describes the Subjects who shall be made partakers of this, and they are described by severall properties. In the next place as some think ver. 13. he instructs the Apostles about their peculiar Office, Ye are salt (not honey, as one observeth) which is bitter to wounds: Ye are light, which is also offensive to sore eyes. In the next place he instructs the people (though some make this only spoken to the Disciples) and that first about the substance of the Precepts, what duties are to be done, against the false interpretations of the Pharisees and Scribes: and in the next Chapter he sheweth the end, Why we do the good things God requireth of us, and that is for the glory of God, which ought to consume all other ends, as the Sunne puts out the light of the fire: and the first substantiall duty of the Commandments which he instanceth in, is this in my text.
Now, before I raise the Doctrine, I must answer some Questions: as, First,1 What is meant by these words, [It hath been said by themof old] For here is some difference. It is understood by some in the dative case, (thus) It hath been said to them of old: and hereby our Saviour would comprehend the Auditors, or Hearers that have been heretofore. Others do understand it equivalent unto […], as if […] did answer the Ablative case among the Latines; and so it seemeth our Interpreters take it, and thus others that are Orthodox: but, truly, the opposition that seemeth to be in those words, [It hath been said to them of old: but I say unto you] makes me incline to the former way, […] is in the dative case. It is also demanded, who are meant2 by those of old, to what age that doth extend? Some referre it to those times only, that were between Esdras and Christ: but I rather think it is to be extended even unto Moses his time, for we see our Saviour instanceth in commands delivered then, and thus the word […] generally (except Act 21. 16.) referreth to the times of Moses, or the Prophets.
Secondly, Whether those Precepts which are said to be heard of old,3 be the Law and words of Moses, or the additions of corrupt glossers. And that most of them are the expresse words of Moses, it is plain; as Thou shalt not kill, or Commit adultery: but the doubt lyeth upon two places; The first is ver. 21. Shall be in danger of judgement. Here is, say some, a two-fold corruption: 1. By adding words, which are not in the Scripture; for they speake peremptorily, He shall dye: whereas these words seem to be obscure and doubtfull, He shall be brought before the judges to be tryed, whether he be guilty or no. The second corruption they conceive in the sense, and that is, as if the Pharisees did understand the Commandment only to forbid actuall murder, but not murderous thoughts, affections, or intentions: And this last seemeth clearly to be the truth, as is to be shewed afterwards: but for the former I do something doubt, because, though that addition be not exprest in so many words, yet there seemeth to be that which is equivalent; for, Numb. 35. 30. there we read, the murderer who was to be put to death, was to be tryed by witnesses, which argueth there were Judges to determine the cause. The second particular, is that ver. 43. Thou shalt hate thy enemy: where some learned men observe a three-fold depravation: 1. An implyed one, as if a friend were only a neighbour: 2. A plain omission; for Lev. 19. it’s added, as thy self, which is here omitted. 3. A plain addition of that which was not only not commanded or permitted, but expresly prohibited, as Exod. 23. 4. Prov. 25. 21. And this may probably be thought an interpretation of the Scribes and Pharisees arguing on the contrary, that if we were to love our neighbours, then we were to hate our enemies; yet there are some who would make the sense of this in the Scripture; that is, in a limited sense to the Canaanites; for they think that because they were commanded to make no Covenant with them, but to destroy them, and not to pity them, therefore this is as much as to hate them: and thereupon, they understand the two fore quoted places, that speak of relieving of our enemies, to be only meant of enemies that were Jews their Country-men and not of strangers. And the Jews thought they might kill any idolaters; Therefore Tacitus saith of them, there was misericordia in promptu apud suos, mercy to their own; but contra omnes alios hostile odium, hostile hatred against all others: yet this command of God to destroy those Nations, some understand not absolutely but limitedly, if so be they did refuse the conditions of peace. I therefore incline to those, who think it a perverse addition of the Scribes and Pharisees, yet am not able to say the other is false.