A Vindication of the Moral Law and the Covenants, Moral treatise · Lecture 29
LECTVRE XXIX.
MAT 5. 17.
Whoſoever therefore ſhall break one of theſe leaſt commandements, and ſhall teach men ſo, ſhall be called the leaſt in the Kingdome of heaven.
OUr Saviour being to vindicate the Law from all corrupt The Text opened.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 foreign, to be put for foreign, 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, What meant by Kingdom of heaven.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 the 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.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 of 2 VVhen they hold principles by neceſſary conſequence inforcing the abrogation of it.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 duties 3. VVhen they preſs ſuch duties up on men, as will neceſſitate them to break the commandements of God.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 and The Marcionites and Manichees, the firſt oppugners of the Law.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 foreign, 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.Poſtions of Antinomians.
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 onelyonly 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, Antidotes againſt Antinomian errours.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 in 1. Be afraid of entertaining errours in doctrine, as that which may damn thee.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. That 2. Look upon thoſe places of Scripture, where duties are commanded, as well as thoſe where Chriſt and grace are ſpoken of.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 have 3. Beware of affecting applauſe among the people.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, decreed 4. Get to be well grounded in the principles of Religion.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, foreign. 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, foreign, 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 differeth 5. Be not raſh in publiſhing any new opinion.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 onelyonly way indeed to overthrow 6. Antinomianiſme overthrows Chriſt and grace.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.
FINIS.