A Vindication of the Moral Law and the Covenants, Moral treatise · Lecture 17
LECTVRE XVII.
EXOD. 20. 1.
And God ſpake all theſe words, ſaying, &c.
WE have already conſidered thoſe hiſtorical Obſervations, which are in the delivery of the Law, and improved them to the dignity and excellency thereof. I now come to the handling of thoſe Queſtions which make much to the clearing of the truths about ithat are now doubted of. And, firſt of all, it may be demanded, To what purpoſe is this diſcourſe about the Law given by Moſes? Are we Jews? Doth that belong to us? Hath not Chriſt aboliſhed the Law? Is not Moſes, with his Miniſtery, now at an end? It is therefore worth the inquiry, Whether the ten Commandments, as given by Moſes, do belong to us Chriſtians, or no?
And in the anſwering of this Queſtion, I will lay down ſome Propoſitions by way of Preface, and then bring arguments for the affirmative.
Firſt therefore, Though it ſhould be granted, that the Morall The doctrine of the Antinomians heterodox, though the Law, as given by Moſes, did not binde Chriſtians.Law, as given by Moſes, doth not belong to us Chriſtians; yet the doctrine of the Antinomians would not hold: for there are ſome learned and ſolid Divines, as Zanchy and Rivet; and many Papiſts, as Suarez and Medina, which hold the Law, as dilivered by Moſes, not to belong to us, and yet are expreſly againſt Antinomiſts: for they ſay, that howſoever the Law doth not binde under that notion as Moſaicall; yet it binds, becauſe it is confirmed by Chriſt: ſo that although the firſt obligation ceaſeth, and we have nothing to do with Moſes now; yet the ſecond obligation, which cometh by Chriſt, is ſtill upon us. And this is enough to overthrow the Antinomian, who pleadeth for the totall abrogation of the Law.
Thus, you ſee, that if this ſhould be granted, yet the Law ſhould be kept up in its full vigour and force as much as if it were continued by Moſes. But I conceive that this poſition goeth upon a falſe ground, as if our Saviour, Matth. 5. did there take away the obligation by Moſes, and put a new ſanction upon it, by his own authority; as if he ſhould have ſaid, The Law ſhall no longer binde you as it is Moſes his Law, but as it is mine. Now this ſeemeth to overthrow the whole ſcope of our Saviour, which is to ſhew, that he did not come to deſtroy the Law: And therefore he doth not take upon him to be a new Law-giver, but an Interpreter of the old Law by Moſes. This I intend to handle, God willing, in that Queſtion, Whether Chriſt hath appointed any new duties, that were not in the Law before, Only this ſeemeth to be very cleare, that our Saviour there doth but interpret the old law, and vindicate it from corrupt gloſſes, and not either make a new Law, or intend a new confirmation of the old Law.
Secondly, Conſider in what ſenſe we ſay, that the Law doth binde us in regard of Moſes; And,
Firſt, this may be underſtood reduplicatively, as if it did The Law given by Moſes doth not bind us in regard of Moſes.bind, becauſe of Moſes; ſo that whatſoeveer is of Moſes his miniſtery doth belong to us: and this is very falſe, and contrary to the whole current of Scripture; for then the Ceremoniall Law would alſo binde us, becauſe à quatenus ad omne valet conſequentia; ſo that you muſt not underſtand it in this ſenſe.
Secondly, you may underſtand it thus, that Moſes as a Penman The Law given by Moſes, as written for the Church of God, and intended for good to Chriſtians in the New Teſtament, is binding.of the Scripture, writing this down for the Church of God, did by this intend good to Chriſtians in the New-Teſtament: and this cannot be well denyed by any, that do hold the Old-Teſtament doth belong to Chriſtians; for why ſhould not the books of Moſes belong to us, as well as the books of the Prophets?
Thirdly, therefore we may underſtand it thus, that God, when he gave the ten Commandements by Moſes to the people of Iſrael, though they were the preſent ſubject to whom he Though the people of Iſrael were the preſent ſubject to whom the Morall Law was given, yet the Obſervation thereof was intended for the Church of God perpetually.ſpake; yet he did intend an obligation by theſe Laws, not only upon the Jewes, but alſo all other Nations that ſhould be converted, and come to imbrace their Religion: And this is indeed the very proper ſtate of the Queſtion, not, Whether Moſes was a Miniſter, or a Mediator to the Chriſtians as well as the Jewes? (for that is clearly falſe) but, Whether, when he delivered the ten Commandements, he intended only the Jewes, and not all that ſhould be converted hereafter? It is true, the people of Iſrael were the people to whom this Law was immediately promulged; but yet the Queſtion is, Whether others, as they came under the promulgation of it, were not bound to receive it as well as Jews? So that we muſt conceive of Moſes as receiving the Morall Law for the Church of God perpetually; but the other Lawes in a peculiar and more appropriated way to the Jewes: For the Church of the Jewes may be conſidered in their proper peculiar way, as wherein moſt of their ordinances were typicall, and ſo Moſes, a typicall Mediator; or, Secondly, as an Academy, or Schoole, or Library, wherein the true doctrine about God and his will was preſerved, as alſo the interpretations of this given by the Prophets then living; and in this latter ſenſe, The Morall Law is binding. 1. In Regard of the matter of it.what they did, they did for us, as well as for the Jewes. And, that this may be the more cleared to you, you may conſider the Morall Law to binde two wayes:
1. In regard of the matter, and ſo whatſoever in it is the Law of Nature, doth oblige all: and thus, as the Law of Nature, it did binde the Jewes before the promulgation of it upon Mount 2. In regard of the preceptive authority put upon it.Sinai.
2. Or you may conſider it ſecondly, to binde in regard of the preceptive authority, and command, which is put upon it; for when a Law is promulged by a Meſſenger, then there cometh a new obligation upon it: and therefore Moſes a Miniſter, and The obligation of the Morall Law perpetuall, proved by ſeverall ArgumentsServant of God, delivering this Law to them, did bring an obligation upon the people.
Now the Queſtion is, Whether this obligation was temporary or perpetuall? I incline to that opinion, which Pareus alſo doth, that it is perpetuall, and ſo doth Bellarmine and Vaſquez
3. Howſoever Rivet ſeemeth to make no great matter in this Queſtion, if ſo be that we hold the Law obligeth in regard of the matter, though we deny it binding in regard of the promulgation of it by Moſes: howſoever (I ſay) he thinkes it a Logomachy and of no great conſequence; yet certainly it is: For, although they profeſſe themſelves againſt the Antinomiſts, and do ſay, The Law ſtill obligeth, becauſe of Chriſts confirmation of it; yet the Antinomians do profeſſe they do not differ here from them, but they ſay, the Law bindeth in regard of the matter, and as it is in the hand of Jeſus Chriſt. It is true, this expreſſion of theirs is contradicted by them, and neceſſarily it muſt be ſo: for Iſlebius, and the old Antinomians, with the latter alſo, do not only ſpeake againſt the Law as binding by Moſes; but the bona opera, the good works, which are the matter of the Law, as appeareth in their dangerous poſitions about good works, which heretofore. I have examined: but, truly, take the Antinomian in their former expreſſions, and I do not yet underſtand how thoſe Orthodox Divines differ from them. And therefore if it can be made good without any forcing or conſtraining the Scripture, that God when he gave the ten Commandements (for I ſpeak of the Morall Law only) by Moſes, did intend an obligation perpetuall of the Jewes, and all others converted to him, then will the Antinomian errour fall more clearly to the ground; only when I bring my Arguments for the affirmative, you muſt ſtill remember in what ſenſe the Queſtion is ſtated, and that I ſpeak not of the whole latitude of the Miniſtery of Moſes.
And, in the firſt place, I bring this Argument, (which much Argum. 1.prevaileth with me:) If ſo be the Ceremoniall Law, as given by Moſes, had ſtill obliged Chriſtians, though there could be no obligation from the matter, had it not been revoked and aboliſhed; then the Morall Law given by Moſes muſt ſtill oblige, though it did not binde in reſpect of the matter, unleſſe we can ſhew where it is repealed. For the further clearing of this, you may conſider, that this was the great Queſtion, which did ſo much trouble the Church in her infancy, Whether Gentiles converted were bound to keep up the Ceremoniall Law? Whether they were bound to circumciſe, and to uſe all thoſe legall purifications? Now how are theſe Queſtions decided, but thus? That they were but the ſhadows, and Chriſt the fulneſſe was come, and therefore they were to ceaſe.
And thus for the Judiciall Laws, becauſe they were given to them as a politick body, that polity ceaſing, which was the principall, the acceſſory falls with it; ſo that the Ceremoniall Law, in the judgement of all, had ſtill bound Chriſtians, were there not ſpeciall revocations of theſe commands, and were there not reaſons for their expiration from the very nature of them. Now no ſuch thing can be affirmed by the Morall Law; for the matter of that is perpetuall, and there are no places of Scripture that do abrogate it. And, if you ſay, that the Apoſtle in ſome places, ſpeaking of the Law, ſeemeth to take in Morall, as well as Ceremoniall, I anſwer it thus: The queſtion which was firſt ſtarted up and troubled the Church, was meerly about Ceremonies, as appeareth Act 15. and their opinion was, that by the uſage of this Ceremoniall worſhip they were juſtified; either wholly excluding Chriſt, or joyning him together with the Ceremoniall Law. Now it's true, the Apoſtles, in demoliſhing this errour, do ex abundanti ſhew, that not onelyonly the works of the Ceremoniall Law, but neither of the Morall Law do juſtifie; but that benefit we have by Chriſt onelyonly: Therefore the Apoſtles, when they bring in the Morall Law in the diſpute, they do it in reſpect of juſtification, not obligation; for the maine Queſtion was, Whether the Ceremoniall Law did ſtill oblige: and their additionall errour was, that if it did oblige, we ſhould ſtill be juſtified by the performance of thoſe acts; ſo that the Apoſtles do not joyn the Morall and Ceremoniall Law in the iſſue of obligation (for, though the Jewes would have held, they were not juſtified by them, yet they might not have practiſed them) but in regard of juſtification: and this is the firſt Argument.
The ſecond Argument is from the Scripture, urging the Morall Argum. 2.Law upon Gentiles converted, as obliging of them, with the ground and reaſon of it; which is, that they were our fathers: ſo that the Jews and Chriſtians beleeving are looked upon as one people. Now, that the Scripture urgeth the Morall Law upon Heathens converted, as a commandment heretofore delivered, is plain When Paul writeth to the Romans, chap. 13. 8, 9. he telleth them, Love is the fulfilling of the Law; and thereupon reckons up the commandments which were given by Moſes. Thus when he writeth to the Epheſians, that were not Jews, cap. 6. 2. he urgeth children to honour their father and mother, becauſe it's the firſt Commandment with promiſe. Now this was wholly from Moſes, and could be no other way: And this is further evident by James, chap. 2. 8, 10. in his Epiſtle, which is generall, and ſo to Gentiles converted, as well as to the Jews. Now mark thoſe two expreſſions, v. 8. If you fulfill the royall Law, according to the Scriptures; that is, of Moſes, where the ſecond Table containeth our love to our neighbour: and then, v. 10. He that ſaid, Do not commit adultery, ſaid alſo, Do not kill; where, you ſee, he makes the Argument not in the matter, but in the Author who was God by Moſes to the people of Iſrael. And if you ſay, Why ſhould theſe Commandments reach to them? I anſwer, becauſe (as it is to be ſhewed in anſwering the objections againſt this truth) the Jews and we are looked upon as one people. Obſerve that place, 1 Cor. 10. The Apoſtle, writing to the Corinthians, ſaith, Our fathers were all baptized unto Moſes in the cloud and ſea, &c. Now how could this be true of the Corinthians, but only becauſe ſince they beleeved, they were looked upon as one?
The third Argument is from the obligation upon us to keep the Argum. 3.Sabbath day: This is a full Argument to me, that the Morall Law given by Moſes doth binde us Chriſtians; for, ſuppoſing that opinion (which is abundantly proved by the Orthodox) that the Sabbath day is perpetuall, and that by vertue of the fourth Commandment, we cannot then but gather, that the Commandments, as given by Moſes, do binde us: For here their diſtinction will not hold of binding ratione materiae, by reaſon of the matter; and ratione miniſterii, by reaſon of the miniſtry: for the ſeventh day cannot binde from the matter of it, there being nothing in nature, why the ſeventh, rather then the fifth, ſhould oblige; but only from the meer Command of God for that day: and yet it will not follow, that we are bound to keep the Jewiſh ſeventh day, as the Learned ſhew in that controverſie.
Now then, thoſe that deny the Law as given by Moſes, muſt needs conclude, that we keep the Sabbath day at the beſt, but from the grounds of the New-Teſtament, and not from the fourth Command at all: And, howſoever it be no argument to build upon, yet all Churches have kept the morall Law with the Preface to it, and have it in their Catechiſmes, as ſuppoſing it to belong unto us.
And when thoſe prophane opinions, and licentious doctrines came up againſt the Sabbath Day; did not all learned and ſound men look upon it as taking away one of the Commandments? Therefore that diſtinction of theirs, The Morall Law bindes as the Law of Nature, but not as the Law of Moſes, doth no wayes hold: for the Sabbath day cannot be from the Law of Nature, in regard of the determinate time, but hath its morality and perpetuity from the meere poſitive Commandment of God.
The fourth Argument from Reaſon, that it is very incongruous Argum. 4.to have a temporary obligation upon a perpetuall duty. How probable can it be, that God, delivering the Law by Moſes, ſhould intend a temporary obligation only, when the matter is perpetualy; As if it had been thus ordered, You ſhall have no other gods but till Moſes his time: You ſhall not murder or commit adultery but till his miniſtry laſteth, and then that obligation muſt ceaſe, and a new obligation come upon you. Why ſhould we conceive that, when the matter is neceſſary and perpetuall, God would alter and change the obligations? None can give a probable reaſon for any ſuch alteration. Indeed, that they ſhould circumciſe, or offer ſacrifices till Moſes miniſtry laſted onelyonly, there is great reaſon to be given; & thus Auſtin well anſwered Porphyrius, that objected God was worſhipped otherwayes in the Old-Teſtament then in the New: That is no matter, ſaith Auſtin, if that which be worſhipped be the true object, though it be worſhipped divers waves (when appointed by him) no more then when the ſame thing is pronounced in divers Languages.
The fifth Argument, If the Law by Moſes do not binde us, then Argum. 5.the explication of it by the other Prophets doth not alſo belong unto us: For this you muſt know, that Moſes in other places doth explane this Law; and Davids Pſalmes, and Solomons Proverbs, as alſo the Propheſies of the Prophets, ſo farre as they are Morall, are nothing but explications of the Morall Law. Now what a wide doore will here be open to overthrow the Old-Teſtament? If I bring that place Deut. 32. 46. [Set your hearts upon theſe words which I teſtifie to you this day, becauſe it is your life, &c.] to urge Chriſtians to keep the Commandments of the Lord, it may be replyed, What is that to us? we have nothing to do with Moſes: The matter, indeed doth belong to us as it is in the New-Teſtament, but as it is there written, ſo we have nothing to do with it. And by this meanes all our Texts, and proofes, which are brought in our Sermons may be rejected. And therefore Dominicus à Soto (who is among the Papiſts for the negative) expreſly ſaith, lib. 2. de Juſt. & jure, quaest. 5. Art. 4. that no place can be brought out of the books of the Old-Teſtament, unto Chriſtians, as in reſpect of the obliging force of it. This is plainly to overthrow the Old-Teſtament.
Now let us conſider what are the chiefeſt Arguments which Arguments of the Antinomians, whereby they would prove, that the Law, as given by Moſes, does not bind Chriſtians, examined & anſwered, Argum. 1.they bring for the ſupport of this opinion, that the Law, as given by Moſes, doth not binde Chriſtians. And, firſt, they urge the Preface [I am the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of Egypt.] This doth not belonge to us, becauſe we nor our fathers ever were in Egypt: &, ſay they further, The temporall Promiſe to keep the Law, doth not belong to us: therefore Epheſ. chap. 6 2. when Paul urgeth that Commandment with Promiſe, he doth not keep to the Promiſe particularly, that thy life may be long in the land the Lord thy God ſhall give thee; but ſpeakes generally, firſt by adding ſomething, that it may be well with thee, which was not in the firſt Promiſe; & then ſecondly, by detracting, ſaying only, that thou mayeſt live long upon the earth in generall.
Now to the Preface ſome anſwer thus, That we may be ſaid Anſw. 1.literally to be in Egypt: and they goe upon this ground, that we are made one with the people of the Jewes; and they bring the eleventh of the Romanes to prove this, where the Gentiles are ſaid to be graffed in, ſo that they become of the ſame ſtock. And it is plane, that the Beleevers are Abrahams ſeed; and then, by this interpretation, whatſoever mercy was vouchſafed unto them, we are to account it as ours. This cannot well be rejected, but yet I ſhall not pitch upon this. Others therefore they ſay, Anſw. 2.That this bondage was typicall of our ſpirituall bondage; and the deliverance out of it was typicall, of our deliverance from Hell. But this is not ſo literall an interpretation as I deſire, though I think it true. Therefore, in the third place, I ſhall anſwer, That there may be peculiar arguments that do belong Anſw. 3.to the Jewes, why they ſhould keep the Commandments, and there are genarall ones that belong to all. The generall arguments are, I am the Lord thy God, this belongs to us; and then that peculiar argument may belong to them. And this is no new thing to have a perpetuall duty preſſed upon a people, by ſome occaſionall, or peculiar motive. Hence Jerem. 16. 14. 15. God ſaith there by the Prophet, that they ſhall no more ſay, The Lord that brought up out of the land of Egypt, but that brought up out of the land of the North. Where you ſee a ſpeciall new argument may be brought for the generall duty. And as for the particular temporall Promiſe, I grant that did onelyonly belong to them; but Ideny the conſequence, that therefore the precept doth not: for the Scripture uſeth divers arguments to the obedience of the ſame Command. Davids Pſalmes for the moſt part, and ſome of Paul's Epiſtles, as Philemon, &c. were written upon particular occaſions, yet the matter of them doth ſtill belong to us.
The ſecoud Argument is, that, If the Law did oblige us as Argum. 2.given by Moſes, then it did the Gentiles, and Heathens alſo, and ſo the Heathens were bound to thoſe Commandements, as well as the Jewes: but that is not ſo; therefore Paul, Rom. 2. ſpeaketh of the Gentiles without this Law, and as thoſe that ſhall be judged without it.
Now this may be anſwered: It doth not follow that the Anſw.Law by Moſes muſt preſently binde the Gentiles, but when promulged and made known to them; as at this time, Infidels and Pagans are not bound to beleeve in Ieſus Chriſt: but if the doctrine of Chriſt were promulged to them, they were then bound. And I make no queſtion but other Nations were then bound in the time of Moſes his miniſtery, to enquire after the true God, and to worſhip him in the Jewiſh way, ſo far as they could. Thus we read of the Eunuch coming up to Jeruſalem to worſhip And certainly, if a whole Nation had then been converted, either they muſt have worſhipped God according to their own inſtitution, or God would have revealed unto them ſome different way of worſhipping him from the Jews, or elſe they were bound ſo far as they could (for the Ceremoniall worſhip bound them no otherwaies) to worſhip God in the Jewiſh way, then appointed by him. The Law then given by Moſes did binde Gentiles, as it was made known to them: Thus the ſtranger in the gates was to keep the Sabbath, though that be meant of a ſtranger that had received their religion; yea, Nehem. 13. 19. Nehemiah would not ſuffer the Tyrians that were ſtrangers, who did not ſubmit to the Jewiſh Law, to pollute the Sabbath.
Now to all this that hath been ſaid, you muſt take this limitation, Though the Law given by Moſes doth not belong to us in all the particulars of the adminiſtration of it, yet in the obliging power of it. it does.That the Law given by Moſes doth not belong to us in all the particulars of the adminiſtration of it. The giving of the Law in that terrible manner might be a peculiar thing belonging to the Jewes, as becoming the diſpenſation of the Old Teſtament; but yet the giving of the Law it ſelf, in the obliging power of it, doth belong to us. We all acknowledge that the Old Teſtament had a peculiar adminiſtration from the New; it was fuller of terrour, and ſo did gender more to bondage then the New: Hence ſome ſay, that the Law was given on Mount Sinai; which it was ſo called from Seneh, a bramble buſh (the buſh God appeared in.) the Mountaine being full of bramble buſhes, repreſenting unto us the terrible and pricking power of the Law.
Uſe. To take heed of rejecting the Law, as given by Moſes, Take heed of rejecting the Law, as given by Moſes.leſt at the ſame time we reject the whole Old-Teſtament: for it is ſaid of the Prophets, as well as the Law, that they are till John; and then why ſhould they limit the Law to Moſes his hands, more then others? Why ſhould they not ſay, The Law, as by David, as by Iſaiah, and Ieremiah, doth not binde? And if you ſay, they in other places ſpeake of Chriſt; ſo doth Moſes alſo, as our Saviour expreſly ſaith. So that I ſee not how an Antinomian can follow his principle, but he muſt needs caſt off the Old-Teſtament, except it be in what it is propheticall of Chriſt.