Matthew Poole and continuators on Matthew 5:17

17 Think not that I am come to destroy the Law or the Prophets, I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

There are so many Adversaries, Iews, Papists, Socinians, Anabaptists, Antinomians, &c. That make their advantages of this Text, for the Establishing their several Errors, that it would require a Volume to vindicate it from their several Exceptions, those who desire Satisfaction may read Spanhemis Dub. Evang. 12.3. The plain Sense of the Text is this: It would have been a great Cavil with the Iews especially (who had a great reverence for the Law) if either our Saviours Enemies amongst them, could have perswaded People, that Christ came to destroy the Law and the Prophets: Or his own hearers had entertained from his Discourse any such Apprehensions. Our Saviour designing in his following Discourse, to give a more full and strict Interpretation of the Law than had been given by the Pharisees and other Jewish Doctors, prefaceth that Discourse, with a Protestation against his coming to destroy the Law, and averring that he came to fulfil it. It is manifest by his following Discourse, that he Principally spake of the Moral Law, tho he also fulfilled the Ceremonial Law, he being the Antitype in whom all the Types of that had their Complement, and real fulfilling and Accomplishment. Saith he, I am not come to Destroy, and put an end to the Moral Law. I am come to fulfil it, not to fill it up, as Papists and Socinians contend, adding any new Precept to it, but by yielding my self a Personal obedience to it, by giving a fuller and stricter Interpretation of it, than you have formerly had, and by taking the Curse of it (so far as concerneth my Disciples) upon my self, and giving a just Satisfaction to Divine Justice for it. The greatest Objection urged against Christ destroying part of the Law, and adding new Precepts to the Moral Law, is that about the Change of the Sabbath, but this is none, if we consider, that the Moral Law required no more than one Day of seven to be kept as a Day of Holy Rest, not this or that particular Day, for the particular Day, the Iews learned it from the Ceremonial Law, as Christians learn theirs from Christ's, and the Apostles Practice. Nor is it any Objection against this, that the seventh Day from the Creation is mentioned in the Law, to those who know how to distinguish betwixt the Precept and the Argument, the seventh from the Creation is not in the Precept, but in the Argument. For in six Days, &c. Now there is nothing more ordinary than to have Arguments of a particular Temporary Concernment used to inforce Precepts of an eternal Obligation, where the Precepts were first given to that particular People, as to whom those Arguments were of Force, an instance of which is in the first Commandment, as well as in this: As on the other side Arguments of universal Force, are oft annexed to Precepts, which had but a particular Obligation, upon a particular People for a time. Thus in the Ceremonial Law, we often find it is an Argument to inforce many Ceremonial Precepts. For I am the Lord thy God.