EXOD. 20. 1.
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 Morall1 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 did2 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 Penman3 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 he4 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,5 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: