The Covenant of God Entered with Mankind, Chapter 12
CHAP. XII.
The Moral Law bindes, as it was delivered by the hand of Moſes.
A Third branch of the general Propoſition before delivered follows, which is, that the Moral Law, as delivered by the hand of Moſes, is obligatory to Chriſtians; This I confeſſe is more diſputable, then either of the former before ſpoken to; In thoſe, we had to deale with Antinomians, on the one hand; Papiſts, Arminians, Socinians, on the other hand, with ſome few others that are pleaſed in thoſe points alone to ſtrike in, with Arminians and Socinians, and in other things to oppoſe them: But in this Papiſts agree not among themſelves, but one is againſt another; neither is there that agreement amongſt Proteſtant Writers that might be deſired, which muſt not be concealed; ſome are for the affirmative, and ſome for the negative, and ſome ſeem to ſtand in a neutral indifferency. Bellarmine among the Papiſts, is for the affirmative, lib. 4. de justificatione, cap. 6. and takes up Soto for the contrary tenent, who affirmes (as he quotes him) that Chriſtians are not only delivered from the Ceremonial Law, and the guilt and terror, of the moral Law, but from the whole Law, as written in the books of Moſes, with this caution (as he reports him) that we are to keep the Law of Moſes as it is natural, and as it is in the Goſpel, and in the Epiſtles of the Apostles, but not as it was written by Moſes; for Moſes (ſaith he) could not binde us, but it is Christ that bindes us, for we are Chriſtians and not Jews. Soto hath Suarez, and Medina (as Maſter Burges obſerves) with him, and among the Proteſtants, Zanchius de redemptione lib. 1. cap. 12. and Muſculus in his common places go the ſame way, affirming, that the Moral Lawes which go under the name of the decalogue, as they were delivered by Moſes to the Iſraelites, do not concerne Chriſtians, but as they are agreeable to the Law of nature, and confirmed by Chriſt. Paraeus (as is obſerved by Rivet in his Explication, of the Decalogue, page 11.) giving in his judgement of the differing opinions of Bellarmine and Soto, affirms that the opinion of Bellarmine is moſt ſafe to be followed. Rivet himſelf, in the place quoted, takes it to be a ſtrife of words, and the difference to be inconſiderable; and in caſe the authority be granted, there ſeemes indeed leſſe danger, though the Miniſter be waved. The Antinomian (as others have obſerved) is by both parties oppoſed; Some may think, that the Law, thus gaines in its authority, in as much, as Chriſt is, of much more excellency then Moſes, when the Maſter of the Vineyard, ſaw his ſervant neglected; he ſaid, They will reverence my Sonne, Mat. 21. 37. But if the ſervant be once deſpiſed, and ſet ſo light by, as we read from ſome hands, Away with ſtammering Moſes, it may be feared, that the Sonne will not long remaine in honour, when ſervants fared ſo ill, we finde that the Sonne had little better entertainment; And, in my thoughts, there is ſcarce a readier way then this, to ſtrip us of the whole of the Law of God. Keeping up to their own principles, they can look on no more, of the Law, as binding Chriſtians, then that which is held out to us, in New Teſtament-Scriptures. If this be granted, we muſt have a New Teſtament Text, for every Moral duty; yet to gratifie adverſaries in this particular, we may ſafely yeeld, that the Law concernes not Chriſtians, as it was delivered by Moſes, only to the Iſraelites, and ſo Zanchy's Poſition, keeping ſtrictly to the termes may happily be defended. The Moral Laws as delivered by Moſes to the Iſraelites do not appertain to Chriſtians; ſo, neither doth Lukes Goſpel, or the hiſtory of the Acts, as from him to Theophilus, nor yet, any of Pauls Epiſtles, as from him, to any particular Church, or to Timothy, Titus, or Philemon. But looking on Moſes as employed of God, with his Church, with which he was in the Wilderneſſe, Acts 7. 38. and upon his writings as a depoſitum, left with the Church, they are of equal concernment, to us, as they were to the Jews, if we be as the Church of the Jewes was, a Church of God. This to me is plaine, not only by thoſe Texts of Moſes quoted in New Teſtament-Scriptures, as we heard before, but quoted alſo as from Moſes. The Apoſtle pleading for Miniſters maintenance, ſaith, For it is written in the Law of Moſes, 1 Cor. 9. 9. How were this argument of force, if Moſes his writings were not of uſe? That of Peter is convincing, 1 Pet. 1. 15, 16. But as he which hath called you is holy, ſo be ye holy in all manner of converſation; becauſe it is written, be ye holy for I am holy; This was written by Moſes, Lev. 11. 44. Lev. 19. 2. Lev. 20. 7. and why ſhould we be engaged to holineſſe, eo nomine, becauſe Moſes writ it, and gave it in charge, in caſe Moſes his writings do not binde Chriſtians? This alſo to me is plaine, in reaſon, Chriſt was King then, as now, his Church is the ſame, now, as then, we, and they make up one Kingdome, Matth. 8. 11. The Lawes of Chriſt therefore (unleſſe they appear to be repealed) are now, in force as in former times. There is not a temporal Obligation (ſaith Maſter Burges Vindiciae Legis, page 162.) laid upon a perpetual duty. The duties are confeſſed, to be perpetual, why ſhould Moſes then deliver them to be only of temporal permanency? Neither is there any thing brought by Soto, or any other hand to evince the contrary. In the cloſe of the words already quoted, he ſayes, Moſe-could not binde us, but Chriſt, for we are not Jews, but Christians, To this we ſay, He could not binde us, authoritatively, but miniſterially, and becauſe Chriſt bindes, therefore Moſes bindes; ſeeing, Moſes was a ſervant, in that houſe, where Chriſt was a Sonne, Chriſt was King of his Church, in Moſes his dayes, Iſrael tempted Chriſt in diſobeying Moſes, 1 Cor. 10. 9. He commanded for Chriſt, when he gave command to the Iſraelites, and theſe commands are of concernment unto Chriſtians, who are their fellow ſubjects. The Arguments produced by Soto are ſatisfyingly anſwered by Bellarmine. Soto ſaith, that the Preface of the law leads to the Iſraelites onelyonly, I am the Lord thy God, that brought thee out of the land of Egypt, and out of the houſe of bondage. But it was the Jews, and not Chriſtians, that were in Egypt. This is falſe, as one of theſe Jeſuites truly anſwers the other, we were in Egypt as well as the Nation of the Jews; They were our fathers, and we their children, 1 Cor. 10. 1. It was once indeed otherwiſe with us, being branches of the wilde Olive; But the natural branches, being cut off, we are grafted into their ſtead, that mercy of deliverance from Egypt, being a Church-mercy, is our mercy. He further objects that of Luke 16. 16. The Law and the Prophets were until John, and is anſwered, that, that is underſtood of the Law, prophecying by figures, and not inſtructing in manners, which is further explained, Matth. 11. 13. For all the Prophets and the Law prophecyed until John, that is, all the propheſies of the Meſſiah to come, whether delivered in words by the Prophets, or by ſignes and Law-ceremonies did not reach beyond John, who was the laſt of the Prophets, who did bear witneſſe of Chriſt. Some ſay, that in caſe the Law bind, as it was delivered by Moſes; then all that Moſes did deliver, is obligatory to Chriſtians, Quâtale, is, omne, and ſo the ceremonial Law, bindes, as doth the Moral, and we ſhall bring our necks under that yoke. To this anſwer, all that Moſes did deliver doth binde, unleſſe we have a releaſe, or diſcharge from the ſame authority, by which he ſpake, and hence an argument is drawn, for proof of that which we have in hand, If the ceremonial Law had bound Chriſtians to this day, had it not been revoked, and aboliſhed, then the moral Law, which is no where revoked, or aboliſhed (as hath been ſhewn) doth ſtill bind Chriſtians. This is plaine, there is no reaſon, that the ceremonial Law ſhould be obligatory, above the Moral; But the ceremonial Law had bound Chriſtians to this day, had it not been revoked and aboliſhed; This is as plain, when the great queſtion was, in the primitive times, whether the ceremonial Law did binde Chriſtians, whether they were to circumciſe their children, after the manner of Moſes; and conſequently to obſerve other Rites. This is decided, in making it appear, that theſe were aboliſhed, as being ſhadows of good things to come, and an end put to their obligation. It may be further objected, that if all be of force, that Moſes wrote, as from him, then that of divorce of the wife, on any cauſe is of force likewiſe. That was commanded by Moſes, as the Phariſees, Mat. 19. 7. tell the Lord Chriſt from Deut. 24. 1. To this Chemnitius hath anſwered, that Moſes delivered this, Tanquam legiſlator, as one, that gave orders to that people, as, to their political eſtate; not, Tanquam Theologus, as a Prophet, raiſed up to deliver the minde and will of God unto them. Moſes his writings therefore are in force, not onelyonly ratione materiae, as containing ſuch precepts upon which Chriſt in the New Teſtament hath put a divine ſanction; but by vertue of a ſanction from heaven put upon them, as delivered by him, and the obligation ſtill remaining. If Moſes once be neglected, I ſhall fear, that Peter and Paul will not long be honoured, Moſes being a ſervant in the ſame houſe, with them, and the reſt of the Apoſtles, and pen-men of New Teſtament-Scriptures.