Two Questions on Christ's Interpretation of the Law of Moses

MATTH. 5. 21, 22.

THere remain two Questions more to be decided in this businesse, concerning Christs interpretation of the Law of Moses: The one is about the lawfulnesse of repelling force by force: The other about applying our selves to the Magistrate, to defend us against the injury, and violence of others. Now, that I may not be tedious in the discussing of these, I will lay down some few grounds that serve to the clearing of the truth herein, and so proceed to other matter, although (as you have heard) this tendeth much to the dignity and excellency of the Law.

First therefore take notice, that there is in all a cursed pronenesse to do things by way of revenge: Insomuch that there is not¹ one in a thousand that doth rise up in practise to this excellent way, and rule of patience. The Heathens, they thought to revenge our selves was lawfull: Thus Tully, It is the first office of Justice to hurt no body, unlesse first provoked by injury: O quam simplicem, veramque sententiam (saith Lactantius) duorum verborm adjectione corrupit! But Seneca, he was against this, Immane verbum est ultio; and, Qui ulsciscitur, excusatiùs peccat. Now whatsoever the thoughts of men may be about the lawfulnesse, it’s certain, the practises of men are much contaminated this way. In State and Civil matters, in Church matters, what a revengefull spirit breatheth in men? This certainly cometh much short of our Saviours Directions. There is no injury or violence offered unto thee, but, in stead of revengefull affections, there may be holy mortifying thoughts in thee: As when Sheba cursed David, see how that brought him to the sense of sinne, to look up unto God more then to the instrument. All defamations and reproaches may serve to make thy graces more splendent. As Plutarch observeth, the Gardener planteth his unsavory herbs, Garlike and Onyons neer his sweetest Roses, that so the smell thereof may be the more prized. That was an excellent temper of Calvin, when reviled by Luther, he said, Etiamsi Lutherus millies me diabolum vocet, ego tamen illum insignem Domini servum agnosco. Although Luther call me a thousand times a Divell, yet I acknowledge him, an eminent servant of God. Why is it, that there are such suspicions, heart-burnings, defamations of one another, hard speeches and censures, but because this lesson of Christ is not learned by us?

Consider this, that the primitive Christians have gone very farr in this Question, holding it unlawfull to defend a mans self² from another who would kill us, by killing of the Invader. Austin saith, he cannot tell how to defend those that do kill the invader; and to this purpose others. It is maintained by some, that though indeed a man is not bound to be killed rather then to kill; yet if he do chuse the former rather then the latter, he doth a work full of charity, and worthy of admiration. Another saith, these precepts of Christ were given to the Disciples, who were by their blood to increase the Church, and by their patience and humility to convert tyrants: but now modernis non congruit, nec locum habet hodie, esset enim ad detrimentum Ecclesiae; It doth not hold in these latter times, for that would be to the prejudice of the Church; A foolish assertion. As these go too high, so the Jesuits in their cases, they go too low, and give too much roome to the revenge of man; for so it’s determined by them, That a noble man, though he may save his life by flying, when invaded suddenly, yet is not bound to fly, but may lawfully kill the invader, If he cannot otherwise preserve his life and honour together. But this is corrupt counsell, and opens a way to many murders upon a pretence of honour.
Take notice of this, That the Law of God in the Old-Testament, was as strict against revenge as any precept in the New-Testament,³ and therefore nothing is now required of us, which was not then. Consider that place, Lev. 19. 16. Thou shalt not avenge, or beare any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy selfe: What can be clearer then this, to subdue those waves and tempests that do rise in our hearts? So Prov. 24. 29. Say not, I will do to him, as he hath done to me: I will render to the man, according to his work: here also revengefull expressions & resolutions are forbidden; yea the reason why we are forbidden to avenge our selves given by Paul, Rom. 12. 19. because vengeance belongs unto God, is that which was drawn from the Old-Testament. In stead therefore of disputing, let us seriously set upon the practise of the duty, & the rather because it’s sweeter then honey it selfe to our corrupt hearts; and at this time this sinne doth much rage every where.

Lastly, Our Saviour doth not here forbid a lawfull publique revenge,⁴ but a private one. This distinction of publique and private revenge, being unknown to the Fathers in the primitive times, made them runne into very hard and incommodious expressions; some giving occasion hereby of that distinction of counsels and precepts: others, as Austin, making the revenge allowed in the Old-Testament to be peculiar to the dispensation of those times: Hence, when one Volusianus objected to him, that the Doctrine of Christ did not agree to the manners of a Common-wealth; he answereth by comparing the Precept of Christ with that of Caesars, That he used to forget nothing, but injuries. Now this doth not indeed speake according to the scope of our Saviour here, who is giving rules to private Christians, not to publique Magistrates. Now that there is such a distinction as this, appeareth plaine, thus; Paul, Rom. 12. 18. exhorteth Christians not to avenge themselves, because vengeance belongs to God; yet, Chap. 13. speaking of the Magistrate, ver. 4. he saith, He is the avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil: so then there is revenge and a revenger, which is not God; nor yet our selves, but the Magistrate; yet the revenge that the Magistrate inflicteth may well be called the vengeance of God, because it’s Gods appointment he should doe it. Thus Numb. 31. 3. Arme your selves, and avenge the Lord on the Midianites: so 2. Chron. 19. You execute the judgments of the Lord, and not of men; yet for all this, you must know that Magistrates may have revengefull affections in them, even when they execute justice; and so people, when they implore the Magistrates aid, it may not be out of zeale to justice & love to the publique good, but because of private affections, and carnall dispositions. And oh the blessednesse that would accrew to the Common-wealth, if all were carried in their severall places upon this publique ground!

Having therefore dispatched briefly these controversies, I come to another, wherein the Antinomian doth directly derogate from the profitable effect & benefit of the Law. This therefore is an assertion which an antinomian Authour maintaineth, that the Law is not an instrument of true sanctification, & that⁵ the promise or the Gospel is the seed and doctrine of our new birth & for this he bringeth many arguments, and the judgments of diverse learned men, Assertion of grace, pag. 163. And it may not be denyed, but that many speeches might fall from some men, which might seem to comply with that opinion. I shall now labour to maintaine the positive part, viz. that the Law of God preached, may be blessed by him instrumentally to work the conversion of men: and it is necessary to make this good; for, were the contrary true, it would be a Ministers duty in great part to lay aside the preaching of the Morall Law, as not instrumentall, or subservient to that maine end of the Ministery, which is the conversion of soules. Nor can I yeeld to that, that the preaching of the Law works onely preparatorily, or some terrours about sinne, and can goe no further; but (I suppose) that Jesus Christ hath obtained of God by his death, that such efficacy and vertue should goe forth in the Ministry that whether it be by Law, or Gospell he preacheth, the soules of men may be healed, and converted thereupon: Onely two things must be premised;

First, that the Law could never work to regeneration, were⁶ it not for the Gospel-promise. Nemo potest implere legem, per legem, None can obey the Law, by the Law meerly. Had not God graciously promised to give a new heart through Christ, there had been no way to make any thing effectuall that we preach out of the Law; so that (for instance) while a Minister, preaching of any Commandement, doth thereby mould, and new frame the heart; all this benefit comes by Christ, who therefore died, and ascended into Heaven, that so the things we preach may be advantagious to our souls: so that there never was in the Church of God meer pure Law, or meer pure Gospel. But they have been subservient to each other in the great work of conversion. The question is not then, whether converting grace, be ex lege, or vi legis, of, or by the power of the Law, but whether it may be cum lege, with the preaching of the Law. I know it’s of great consequence to give an exact difference between the Law and the Gospel. It is well said of Luther, Qui scit inter Legem & Evangelium discernere, gratias agat Deo, & sciat se esse Theologum: but I shall not meddle with that now. This is that which I assert, That, as to the point of a mans conversion, God may make the opening of the Morall Law instrumentally to concur thereunto, onely this cometh by Christ.

The second thing which I premise is this, that howsoever the Law preached may be blest to conversion, yet the matter of it cannot⁷ be the ground of our justification, or adoption: so that when a man doth repent, & turn unto God from his sins, he cannot have hope or consolation in any thing he doth, but it must be in the promise of the Gospel; so that the difference of the Law and Gospel lieth not in this, (as some do assigne) that one is the instrument of grace, and the other not; (for God useth both, as I shall shew) but in this, that the holinesse wrought in us by preaching of the Word of God, whether it be Law or gospel, doth not justifie us; but this favour is in an evangelicall manner, by forgiving whatsoever is irregular in us, and communicating Christ his righteousnesse to us. Therefore let us not confound the Law, or Gospel, nor yet make them so contrary in their natures and effects, that where one is, the other cannot be.

To these two, there is also a third thing to be premised, and⁸ that is, how the word of God in generall is a medium, or instrumentall to our conversion. For, the clearing of this well, must needs discover, that the Law of God, being part of Gods word, doth convert as well as the Gospel: and this must needs be the opinion of all sound Divines, whatsoever may fall from them at other times, as appeareth by their common answer to the Papists Question. If the Law, and the commands thereof be impossible, to what purpose then doth he command them? why doth he bid us turne to him when we cannot? Then we answer that these commandements are not onely informing of a duty, but they are practicall and operative means appointed by God, to work, at least in some degree, that which is commanded. Hence those commands are compared, by the Learned, to that command of our Saviour to Lazarus, that he should rise up and walk. It doth also further appeare, in those ends they assigne of Gods revealing the Law, viz. to make us see as in a glasse our Deformity, to be humbled before God; to be affrighted out of our selves, to seek for grace in Christ; now can the meer Law of it selfe do this; doth not grace work this in us by the preaching of the Law; and is not this the initiall grace of conversion? as Austin said, Tract. 12. in Johan: cumcaeperit tibi displicere quod fecisti, inde incipiunt bona opera tua, quia accusas mala operatua: Initium operum bonorum, est confessio malorum: The beginning of good in us, is the accusation of that which is bad.

Therefore, for the clearing of this generall, take notice, 1. That the word of God as it is read, or preached, worketh no further⁹ then objectively to the conversion of a man, if considered in it self. Take it (I say) in it self, not animated by the Spirit of God, and the utmost effect it can reach unto, is to work onely as an object upon the Understanding. And in this sense it is that the Scripture is compared to a light. Now we know the Sun giveth light by way of an object, it doth not give a seeing eye to a blind man. It is a noble Queston in Divinity, Seeing regeneration is attributed both to the word, and to Baptisme, how one worketh it differently from the other: Or, If both work it, why is not one superfluous? Now concerning the word preached, we may more easily answer, then about the Sacraments, viz. that it works by way of an object upon the soul of a man: and were it not set home by the Spirit of God, this is the furthest worke it could obtaine. And this doth plainly appeare, in that the word of God doth only convert those who are able to heare and understand. And the word of God being thus of it selfe onely a directive and informative rule: hence it’s compared to the Pilots Compasse, to Theseus his thred, leading us in the Circean gardens of this world: and therefore take away the Spirit of God, and we may say, the whole Scripture is a letter killing, yea that which we call the Gospel. Preach the promises of the Gospel a thousand times over, they convey no grace, if the spirit of God be not there effectually. Indeed, if the communicating of grace were inseparably annexed to the preaching of the Gospel, then that were of some consequence which is objected by the Antinomian. But sad experience sheweth, that notwithstanding the large promises of grace to overflow like a fountain; whereas in the Old Testament, it was by drops only, yet the greater part to whom the grace of God is offered, are not converted.

Therefore in the next place consider this, Whatsoever good effects,¹⁰ or benefit is conveyed to the soul by the preaching of the Law, or the Gospel, it’s efficiently from Gods Spirit: so that we must not take the Law without the Spirit of God; and then compare it with the Gospel, having the Spirit of God, for that is unequall. And by the same reason, I may preferre the Law sometimes before the Gospel; for I may suppose a Minister, opening the duties of the Law, as Christ doth here in this Chapter, and the Spirit of God accompanying this, to change the heart of a man: and on the otherside, one preaching the Gospel, in the greatest glory of it, yet not accompanyed with Gods Spirit, there may not be the least degree of grace wrought in any hearer: Therefore I cannot well understand that, the Law indeed that sheweth us our duty, but the Gospel, that giveth us grace to do it; for, if you take the Gospel for the Promises preached, how many are there that heare these, that yet receive no benefit by them? and on the other side, if the Law, setting forth our duty, be accompanyed with Gods Spirit, that may instrumentally work in us an ability to our duty; and without the Spirit the Gospel cannot do it. It is true, if this were the meaning, that had there been only Law, there could never have been any grace vouchsafed, but it is by reason of Christ, and so the Promises of the Gospel, that any good is brought to the soules; and so the Law worketh as a medium to our Conversion by Christ. If, I say, this be the meaning, then it’s true; but the obscure, and unclear expressing of this, giveth an occasion to the Antinomian errour.

Now that the Scripture, as it is written, or preached, without¹¹ the Spirit of God cannot convert us, is plain, partly because then the devils, and great men of parts, which do understand the letter of the Scripture better then others, would be sooner converted; partly because the Scripture, so far as it’s a word read, or preached, cannot reach to the heart, to alter and change that. Hence the Word of God, though it be compared to a sword, yet it’s called a Sword of the Spirit, Ephes. 6. 17. Yet, although this be true, we must not fall into that extream errour of some, who therefore deny the necessity of the Scripture, and would have us wholly depend upon the Spirit of God, saying, The Scripture is a creature, and we must not give too much to a creature; for the Spirit is the efficient, and the Word is the subordinate, and these two must not be opposed, but composed one with the other.¹²

Now having cleared this generall. I bring these Arguments to prove the Law, and the preaching of it, the means of Conversion.

That which is attributed to the whole word of God, as it is Gods word, ought not to be denyed to any part of it. Now this is made the property of the whole Word of God, to be the instrument of Conversion, 2 Tim. 3. 16. where you have the manifold effects of Gods word, To reprove, to correct, & to instruct in righteousness, that the man of God may be thorowly furnished to every good work. Now mark the universality of this, All Scripture, whether you take all collectively or distributively, it will not invalidate this argument, because every part of Scripture hath it’s partiall ability, and fitnesse for these effects here mentioned. Thus Math 13. the Word of God in generall is compared to seed sown, that bringeth forth fruit: see also Heb. 4. 12.
The second Argument is taken from those places where the¹³ Law is expresly named to be instrumentall in this great work. Not to name that place of Rom. 7. 14. where the Law is called spirituall, in this respect as well as in others, because it is that which works spiritually in us; as Paul was carnall, because he worked carnally: The places are cleare out of the 119. Psal. and Psal. 19. 7. The Law of God is perfect, converting the soul. It is true, some understand the converting of the soul, to be as much as the reviving of it, as if the soul were ready to swoune away through the troubles thereof; but then the Law doth revive them again, and comfort them: and according to this sense they take Law largely, as comprehending the Gospell; but it seemeth hard to expound that phrase in such a manner. That therefore which the Antinomian doth object against this place is, that the Hebrew word doth signifie largely any doctrine, and so may comprehend the whole Word of God. But this is easily answered: First, the same Hebrew word is commonly used for the Law, when it is strictly taken; and therefore this maketh more against them, that the word [Law] in the Hebrew notion doth not signifie such a commanding, terrifying and damning thing, but rather that which doth instruct and informe.

But, in the next place, grant that the Word hath such an extensive and comprehensive sense, yet it doth not exclude the Morall Law, but doth alwayes include. Can any man think, when David commends the Law of God, that he meaneth all the Word of God but the Morall Law, when indeed that was the greatest part of it at that time?

That opinion, which would make Christ not take an instrumentall way for the conversion of men in his first Sermon, wherein he¹⁴ was very large, that must not be asserted; but to hold that the preaching of the Law is not a Medium to conversion, must needs be to say, that Christ did not take the neerest way to convert his hearers; for if you consider that Sermon, it’s principally spent in the opening of the Morall Law, and pressing the duties thereof: and how can we thinke, but that our Saviour judged this profitable and soul-saving matter? Nor can I see, why it should be said to be only the occasion, and not medium, if powerfully set home by Gods Spirit.
If the Law of God have that objectively in it, that may work exceedingly upon the heart, when set home by Gods Spirit, then it may be used instrumentally as well as the Gospell; but it hath objectively such a nature in it: which doth appeare by Davids approving and delighting in Gods Law: by Paul. Rom. 7. who delighted in the Law of God. When therefore a Minister setteth forth the lovely purity and excellency of the matter of the Law, how it resembleth the nature of God, why may not the Spirit of God, in the exercise hereof, raise up the heart and affections to be more and more in love with it? If the Heathen said of Vertue, that if it could be seen with corporall eyes, the beauty thereof would ravish men: how much more may this be true of the purity and holinesse of the Law?
If the Ceremoniall Law, the Sacraments and Sacrifices were blessed by Gods Spirit, while they were commanded to be used for the strengthening and increase of grace, notwithstanding the deadly nature of them now; then the Morall Law may also be blessed by God for spirituall effects, seeing it standeth still in force.

Let the Use then of this be, by way of admonition, that in¹⁵ stead of disputing about or against the Law, that we would pray to have the savory benefit and fruit of it in our souls. Urge God with that Promise of writing his Law in our heart: Be thou so farre from being an Antinomian, that thou hast thy heart and life full of this holy Law of God: Not that the matter of the Law can be the ground of thy Justification, but yet it is thy Sanctification. What is Regeneration, but the writing of the Morall Law in thy heart? This is that Image of God, which Adam was created in. Oh therefore that we could see more of this holy Law in the hearts and lives of men, that the Law of God might be in mens mindes inlightning them, in their wils and affections inflaming, and kindling of them.

All men naturally prone ta revenge injuries. ↩
The primitive Christians held it unlawfull for a man in his own defence to kill the invader. ↩
Revenge as strictly forbidden in the Old Test. as in the New. ↩
Private revenge unlawfull, and forbidden by our Saviour. ↩
The preach ing of the Law not onely preparatively, but (being blessed by God) instrumentally works the conversion of men. ↩
The Law without Christ cannot work to regeneration. ↩
The Law may be blessed to conversion. yet the matter of it can neither be ground of justification, or consolation to us. ↩
The Scripture in generall is a medium, working by Christ to our conversion. ↩
The word read or preached concurres obejctively onely to mans conversion. ↩
All the benefits conveyed to the soul by the preaching of the word, are efficiently from Gods Spirit. ↩
The VVord without the Spirit, cannot convert us, and why. ↩
Six Arguments to prove the Law, and the preaching of it, means of Conversion. 1. ↩
↩
↩
Use. Pray for the benefit of the Law in our souls. ↩

Ecumenical Christian Library

Explorer

Two Questions on Christ's Interpretation of the Law of Moses

Backlinks

Ecumenical Christian Library

Explorer

Two Questions on Christ's Interpretation of the Law of Moses

Footnotes

Backlinks