Christ Came Not to Destroy the Law, but to Fulfil It

MAT 5. 17.

OUr Saviour being to vindicate the Law from all corrupt¹ glosses of the Pharisees, he doth in the first place (as Chrysostome thinketh) remove the odium that might be cast upon him as if he did indeed destroy the Law; for it was then generally received, that only was Law, which the Pharisees declared to be so. And this he doth, ver. 17. Think not that I am come to destroy the Law. The reason he giveth, is from the perpetuall nature of the Law: heaven and earth, the whole world shall sooner fall into pieces, then any tittle of that. And the Prophets are here joyned to the Law, not so much in regard of their predictions, as because they were Interpreters of the Law. The second reason is from that evill which shall befall him, that doth breake it, and here he nameth a two-fold Antinomianisme; one in life and practise, the other in doctrine: That in practise is aggravated, though it be one of the least commandments. They are called least, either because the Pharisees thought them so, or else indeed, because all the commands of God were not concerning duties of the same consequence. The other in doctrine is expressed in those words, And teach men so. I cannot consent to Beza’s interpretation, making this teaching to be by example and life, or else […], to be put for […], although, as if the meaning were, He that doth break in his practice my commandment, although he do teach them in doctrine. There is no necessity of offering such violence to the Text. But if we interpret it of doctrinall breaking, it will very well agree with the Pharisees, who made void the commandements of God by the doctrines of men. The evill that shall befall such, is in those words, [He shall be called the least in the Kingdome of heaven.] Called is put for is. or be; He shall be the least. By Kingdom of heaven,² some understand that Kingdome of glory in heaven; and by least, meane nullus, none: he shall not at all enter into the Kingdome of heaven.

Others by Kingdom of heaven do understand the Church of God, and so they express it, when there shall be a reformation in the Church, and truth should break forth, which was presently to come to pass, then those corrupt teachers, who would poyson men, should be discovered, and then they should be least, that is, of no account; even as it fell out to the Pharisees, though for a while they were highly esteemed among men. I forbeare to touch upon that Question hotly disputed with some, Whether our Saviour doe in this discourse meane only the³ Morall Law, or the Ceremoniall also, as being not to my purpose. That it is meant cheifly of the Morall Law, appeareth by the instances which Christ giveth. From the Text thus opened, I observe, That any doctrine, which teacheth tho abrogation or dissolution of the Law, is highly offensive unto God.

For the opening of this consider, that the doctrines of men may either directly, and with an open face overthrow the Law, as the Marcionites and Manichees did: or else interpretatively, and more covertly; and that is done three waies.

1. when they make not the Law of God to be so full and exensiue in it’s obligation, as indeed it is; and thus the Pharisees they made void the Law, when they affirmed outward acts to be only sins: and thus the Papists do in part when they make the Law no further to oblige, then it is possible for us to keep it. These doctrines doe in tantum, though not in totum destroy the Law.

2. When men hold such principles, that will necessarily by way of⁴ consequence inforce the abrogation of the Law. And thus, though some Antinomians do expresly and boldly assert the abolishing of it, at least to beleevers; yet those that have more learning and wariness, do disclaime it, and account it a calumny: but even at the same time, while they do disclaime it (as it is to be shewed presently) they hold such assertions, as do necessarily inferr the abrogation of it.

3. The Law may be doctrinally dissolved, by pressing such duties⁵ upon men, whereby they will be necessitated to breake the commandments of God. Thus when the Pharisees taught, that whatsoever vow was made concerning any gift, they were bound to do it, though thereby they were disinabled to honour their parents. And this is most remarkably seen in the Church of Rome, who, by the multitude and necessity of observation of their Church precepts and constitutions, make men to break the plain commandments of God. Now I shall briefly instance generally about those errours that dissolve Gods Law, and then more particularly about the Antinomian doctrine.

The first Hereticks that opposed it, were the Marcionites and⁶ Manichees, Marcion (whom Tertullian calls Mus potincus, because of his arroding and gnawing the Scripture, to make it serviceable to his errours; he, among other errours, broacheth this, That the old Law (as he calls it) was evill, and that it came from an evill god. To him in this opinion succeeded Manes, (who truly might be so called, because of his madness, although his followers to take away that reproach, called him Mannichaeus, as much as one that poured forth Manna, as some affirme.) This mans errours, though they were very gross, yet so propagated, that it was two hundred yeares ere they were quieted. These and their followers all agreed in this, to reject this Law of God. There were also Hereticks called Anomi, (as it were sine lege) but their errour was, to think that they could by their knowledge comprehend the divine nature: And they gave somuch to this their faith, that they held, Whosoever should imy brace it, though he committed hainous and atrocious sins, yet thes should do him no hurt, Epiphan. lib. 3. Haeres. 36. But to let pasthese, we may say, Popery is in a great part Antinomianisme. And Antichrist he is called […], that lawless One: for, is not their doctrine, that the Pope may dispense with the Laws of God, and that the Pope and Christ have the same Consistory, Antinomianisme? and in particular, we may instance in their taking away the second Commandement out of some Carechismes, because it forbiddeth the worshipping of Images. Hence Vasquez, one of their Goliahs, doth expresly maintain, that the second Commandement did belong only to the Jews, and so not obliging us Christians, thinking it impossible to answer our arguments against their Image-worship, if that be acknowledged still in force.

Is there not also a generation of men, who do by doctrine deny the fourth Commandement? How many late books and practises have been for that opinion? But hath it not fallen out according to the later exposition of my Text, that they are the least in the Kingdome of heaven; men of little account now in the Church while reforming?

I might likewise speak of some Anabaptists, (for there are of that sect that disclaim the opinion) who overthrow the fifth Commandement by denying Magistracy lawfull for Christians.

But I will range no further: The Antinomians do more fall against this Text then any, in that they do not only by doctrine teach the dis-obligation of the least commandement, but of all, even of the whole Law. This doth appeare true in the first Antinomians in Luthers time, of whom Islebius was the captain: he was a School-master, and also professor of Divinity at Islebia. It seemeth he was a man like a reed shaken with every winde: for first he defended, with the Orthodox, the Saxon Confession of Faith; but afterwards was one of those that compiled the Book called the Interim. When Luther admonished him of his errour, he promised amendment, but for all that secretly scattered his errour; which made Luther set forth publikely six solemn disputations against the Antinomians, that are to be seen in his works: which argueth the impudency of those that would make Luther on their side. By these disputations of Luthers he was convinced, and revoked his errour, publishing his recantation in print: yet when Luther was dead, this Euripus did fall into his old errour, and publikely defended it. Now how justly they might be called Antinomists, or, as Luther sometimes, Nomomachists, appeareth by these Propositions, which they publikely scattered about in their papers: as.

1. That the Law is not Worthy to be called the word of God.⁷
2. To heare the word of God, and so to live, is a consequence of the Law.
3. Repentance is not to be taught out of the Decalogue, or any Law of Moses, but from the violation of the Son of God in the Gospel.
4. We are with all our might to resist those, who teach the Gospel is not to be preached but to those whose hearts are first made contrite by the Law,

These are Propositions of theirs set downe by Luther, against which he had his disputations, Vol. 1. Sousselberge, lib. contra Antin. pag. 38. relateth more: as,

1. The Law doth not shew good works, neither is it to be preached that we may do them.
2. The Law is not given to Christians; therefore they are not to be reproved by the Law.
3. The Preachers under the Gospel are onely to preach the Gospel, not the Law; because Christ did not say, Preach the Law, but Gospel to every creature.
4. The legall Sermons of the Prophets doe not at all belong to us.
5. To say that the Law is a rule of good works, is blasphemy in Divinity.

Thus you see how directly these oppose the Law, and therefore come under our Saviours condemnation in the Text: yet at other times, the proper state of the Question between the Orthodox & Antinomists, seemeth to be, not, Whether a godly man do not delight in the Law, and do the works of the Law; but, Whether he doth it, Lege docente, urgente, & mandante, the Law teaching, urging, and commanding: As for the latter Antinomians, Doctor Taylor, and Mr. Burton, who preached, and wrote against them, do record the same opinions of them. Doctor Taylor in his Preface to his Book against them, saith, One preached, that the whole Law, since Christs death, is wholly abrogated and abolished. Another, that to teach obedience to the Law, is Popery. Another, That to do any thing, because God commands us; or to forbeare any sin, because God forbids us, is a signe of a morall man, and of a dead and unsound Christian. Others deliver, That the Law is not to be preached, and they that do so, are Legall Preachers.

Master Burton also in his Book against them, affirmeth, they divided all that made up the body of the Church of England into Hogs or Dogs: Hogs were such that despised justification, living in their swinish lusts; Dogs such, who sought to be justified by their works. He tels of one of their disciples, that said, Away with this scurvy sanctification; and that there is no difference between godly here, and in their state of glory, but only in sense and apprehension. Many other unsavory assertions are named by those Authors, but these may suffice to give a tast of their opinions; for it is elegantly spoken by Irenaeus, in such falshoods as these are, lib. 2. c. 34. adversus Haereses. We need not drink up the whole sea, to tast whether the water be salt; but as a statue that is made of clay, yet outwardly so gilded, that it seemeth to be gold, if any man take a piece of it in his hand, and discover what it is, doth make every one know what the whole statue is: so it is in this case.

For my my part, I am acquainted with them no other waies, but by their Books which they have written, and in those every errour is more warily pressed, then in secret. There I finde, that sometimes they yeeld the Law to be a rule of life, yea they judge it a calumny to be called Antinomists; and if so, their adversaries may be better called Antifidians And it cannot be denied, but that in some parts of their Books there are wholsome and good passages; as in a wood or forrest, full of shrubs and brambles, there may be some violets and primroses: yet for all this, in the very places where they deny this assertion as theirs, they must be forced to acknowledge it. The Author of the Assertion of Free-grace, who doth expresly touch upon these things, and disclaimes the opinion against the Law, pag. 4. and pag. 6. yet he affirmeth there such principles, from whence this conclusion will necessarily follow.

For first, he makes no reall difference either in Scripture, or use of words, between the Law reigning and ruling; so that if the Law rule a man, it reigneth over him, Now then, they deny that the Law doth reign over a beleever (and so do the Orthodox also) therefore they must needs hold, that it cannot be a rule unto him. And then, pag. 5. whereas Doctor Taylor had said, The Apostle doth not loose a Christian from the obedience to the Law, or rule thereof (he adds,) He dare not trust a beleever without his keeper, as if he judged no otherwise of him, then of a malefactor of Newgate, who wouldrob and kill, if his Gaoler be not with him. Again, this is most clear by what he saith, pag. 31. he refuteth that distinction of being under the mandatory power of the Law, but not the damnatory: he makes these things inseparable, and as impossible for the Law to be a Law, and have not both these as to take the brains and heart from a man, and yet leave him a man still. Now then, seeing he denieth (and so do all Protestant Writers) that a beleever is under the damnatory power of the Law, he must also deny, he is under the mandatory, because (saith he) this is inseperable.

I will in the next place give some Antidotes against this opinion,⁸ and the Authors thereof. Luther calleth them, Hostes Legis, Organa Satanae: he saith, their doctrine is more to be taken heed of, then that of the Papists; for the Papists, they teach a false or imperfect repentance, but the Antinomians take all away from the Church. Rivet cals them Furores Antinomorum.

In the first place, awe thy heart with a feare against errours in⁹ doctrine as that which may damn thee, as well as an open gross sin. Consider that place Galat. 5. 20. where heresies are reckoned among those sins that are very gross, and do exclude from the Kingdome of Heaven: and that he takes heresies there in a religious consideration, is plain, because it’s made to differ from seditions, strifes, and variances. Neither do thou please thy self in that question, What is heresie? Tu Haereticus mihi & ego tibi; for, the Apostle makes it there a manifest work of the flesh, and 2 John 10. see how much afraid the people of God ought to be of any evill doctrine; and there the Apostle cals evill doctrine, evill deeds.

2. Look to all the places of Scripture, as well as some only. That¹⁰ is a perpetuall fault among the Antinomians: they only pitch upon those places; where Christ and his grace is spoken of; but not of those Texts, where duties are commanded, especially those places of Scripture, where the Law of God is wonderfully commended, for the many reall benefits that come by it; where likewise the perpetuity and eternity of it is much celebrated. Lex Dei in aeternum manet; vel implenda in damnatis, vel impleta in beatis, The Law of God abideth alwaies, either to be fulfilled in the damned, or already fulfilled in those that are made happy, said Luther. What a curb would it be unto this errour, if they would consider, with what an holy passion & zeal the Apostle doth deny, that he destroyeth the Law, making this very objection to himself, Do we then make void the Law? God forbid. Now can we thing that the Apostle, who in the third chapter to the Romans, doth so vehemently deny, that he destroyeth the Law, should so much forget himself, as in the fourth chapter to abolish it? No ordinary man would fall into such a contradiction.

3. Do not affect applause among people, as having found some new nigher way about Christ and grace, then others have. I have¹¹ observed this itching humor in the Antinomian Sermons printed; where they will call upon their hearers to mark; it may be they shall heare that, which they have not heard before, when the thing is either false; or, if it be true, is no more then ordinarily is taught by others. But now, when men desire to be applauded in the world, they suggest to their inward disciples, as if they had found out some new unheard thing; and their followers broach it abroad, and so they come to be exalted. thus they do like Psaphon the Libyan: It’s reported of him, that he kept ten tame birds at home, and taught them to sing, Magnus deus Psaphon; and when he had done so, he let these birds flye into the woods and mountains, where all the other birds learned the same song of them: which the Libyans perceiving, and thinking it no plot, but a divine accident, decreed¹² to sacrifice to Psaphon, and to put him in the number of their Gods.

4. Do thou diligently study fundamentals and the principles of Religion. As the childe groweth crooked, for not being well looked to at first; and many errours do now spread themselves, because men are not well catechised. They build without a foundation. It was a grave complaint of Maximus an Ecclesiasticall Writer, […]. It is a great matter to have a sound and accurate knowledge in matters of Religion. It was a wise speech of Aristides, who being demanded by the Emperour to speak to something propounded ex tempore, answered, Propound to day, and I will answer to morrow, […], We are not of those who vomit or spit out things, suddenly, but take time to be diligent, and considering.

5. When thou doest begin to encline to an opinion, that differeth¹³ from the learned and godly, be not too rash and precipitate in publishing it. The Apostle giveth a good rule, Rom. 14. Hast thou faith? have it to thy self. He doth not there command a man to equivocate, or dissemble, and deny a truth; but not needlesly to professe it, when it will be to the offence of others. Cyprian reproving the rashnesse of those Christians that would goe on their own accord to the Heathen Magistrates, professing themselves Christians, whereby they were put to death, hath a good and elegant speech, Confiteri nos magis voluit, quàm profiteri: he doth confesse, that doth it, being asked and demanded; he doth professe, that doth it out of his own free accord.

6. Consider, that Antinomianisme is the onely way indeed to overthrow¹⁴ grace and Christ. For he sets up free grace and Christ, not who names it often in his Book, or in the Pulpit, but whose heart is inwardly and deeply affected with it. Now, who will most heartily and experimentally set up Christ and grace of these two, i. Who urgeth no use of the Law, who takes away the sense or bitternesse of sin, who denieth humiliation; or he, who discovers his defects by the perfect rule of the Law, whose soule is inbittered and humbled because of these defects? Certainly, this later will much more in heart, and reall affections set up free grace.

Footnotes

1. The Text opened. ↩

2. What meant by Kingdom of heaven. ↩

3. Doctr. The doctrines of men may either directly or covertly overthrow the Law. Covertly, there waies. 1 When they make it not so extensive in its obligation as it is. ↩

4. 2 VVhen they hold principles by necessary consequence inforcing the abrogation of it. ↩

5. 3. VVhen they press such duties up on men, as will necessitate them to break the commandements of God.
   ↩

6. The Marcionites and Manichees, the first oppugners of the Law. ↩

7. Postions of Antinomians. ↩

8. Antidotes against Antinomian errours. ↩

9. 1. Be afraid of entertaining errours in doctrine, as that which may damn thee.
   ↩
10. 2. Look upon those places of Scripture, where duties are commanded, as well as those where Christ and grace are spoken of.
    ↩
11. 3. Beware of affecting applause among the people.
    ↩
12. 4. Get to be well grounded in the principles of Religion.
    ↩
13. 5. Be not rash in publishing any new opinion.
    ↩
14. 6. Antinomianisme overthrows Christ and grace.
    ↩