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 Mount⁶ 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, and⁷ Servant 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 much⁸ 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 onely the works of the Ceremoniall Law, but neither of the Morall Law do justifie; but that benefit we have by Christ onely: 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 Morall⁹ 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 the¹⁰ 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 incongruous¹¹ 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 onely, 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, then¹² 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 which¹³ 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.

Answ. 1. Answ. 2. Answ. 3. Now to the Preface some answer thus, That we may be said 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, 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 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 onely 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 as¹⁴ 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.

Answ. Now this may be answered: It doth not follow that the 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,¹⁵ 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,¹⁶ 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.

Footnotes

1. The doctrine of the Antinomians heterodox, though the Law, as given by Moses, did not binde Christians. ↩

2. The Law given by Moses doth not bind us in regard of Moses. ↩

3. The Law given by Moses, as written for the Church of God, and intended for good to Christians in the New Testament, is binding. ↩

4. 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. ↩

5. The Morall Law is binding. 1. In Regard of the matter of it. ↩

6. 2. In regard of the preceptive authority put upon it.
   ↩

7. The obligation of the Morall Law perpetuall, proved by severall Arguments ↩

8. Argum. 1. ↩

9. Argum. 2. ↩

10. Argum. 3. ↩

11. Argum. 4. ↩

12. Argum. 5. ↩

13. Arguments of the Antinomians, whereby they would prove, that the Law, as given by Moses, does not bind Christians, examined & answered, Argum. 1. ↩

14. Argum. 2. ↩

15. 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. ↩

16. Take heed of rejecting the Law, as given by Moses. ↩