A Defense of the Sabbath Day, Chapter 5 · Commentary · Section 3 · Argument 8
ARGVM. VIII.
My 8th argument, to proue that the 7th day Sabbath is ſtill in force, is becauſe God hath expreſly commanded it, in his morall Law: & thus it may be framed.
Whatſoeuer God hath expreſly commanded to be done, in his Morall Law, or 10 commandements, that is ſtill in force.
But to ſanctify the 7th day Sabbath, God hath expreſly commanded it to be done, in his Morall Law, or 10 commandements.
Therefore to ſanctifie the 7th day Sabbath, is ſtill in force.
Here I will begine with the minor or ſecond propoſition, prouing that firſt, becauſe it will be ſooneſt done: the point then I am to proue is, that God hath commanded the ſanctification of the 7th day Sabbath, in his morall Law, or 10 com. & here firſt I will proue, that the Lord hath commanded the ſanctification of the Sabbath day: & 2dly, that this Sabbath day is the 7th day: for the former, ſee Exod. 20.8. Remember the Sabbath day, to keepe it holy; or to ſanctifie it: where you ſee an expreſſe commandement giuen, to Remember the Sabbath day; & to ſanctify it, or keepe it holy: & ſo the former point is proued.
The next point to be proued, is that this Sabbath day, it was the 7th & laſt day of the weeke, which is our Saturday: & this I ſhall proue, firſt by humane Teſtimony; 2dly by Diuine Teſtimony: for humane Teſtimony, 1. the Iewes whereſoeuer they liue, they kepe the 7th & laſt day of the weeke, our Saturday, for this Sabbath day, here commanded, as it is well knowne. 2. All Chriſtians, both Proteſtants & Papiſts confeſſe, that the 7th & laſt day of the weeke, our Saturday, was the Sabbath day, commanded in the 4th com. which point, I hauehave inciſted more largly vponupon, in the Expoſition of the 4th com.
I ſhall proue the ſame alſo, by Diuine Teſtimony, and that before the Law; at the giuing of the Law; & after the giuing of the Law. 1. Before the giuing of the Law, ſee Exod, 16.26. Sixe dayes ſhall yee gather it, but in the 7th day is the Sabbath: in it there ſhall be none: So here you ſee, before the Law was giuen, by Sabbath day, was vnderſtod the 7th day. 2. At the giuing of the Law, ſee Exod. 20, 10. But the 7th day is the Sabbath of the Lord. So here at the giuing of the Law, was vnderſtod by Sabbath day, the 7th & laſt day of the weeke. 3. After the giuing of the Law, ſee Exod. 23.12. Sixe daies thou ſhalt doe thy worke, and in the 7th day, thou ſhalt Rest. And ſee Exod. 31.15. Sixe daies ſhall men worke, but in the 7th day is the Sabbath of the holy Rest. See alſo Exod. 34.2. Sixe daies thou ſhalt worke, & in the 7th day thou ſhalt Rest: both in earing time, & in haruest. ſee alſo Leuit. 23.3. Sixe daies ſhall worke be done, but in the 7th day ſhall be the Sabbath of Reſt. And ſo it continued in the Church vntill Chriſts time, as you may ſee Luk. 13.14. yea, & after Chriſts death, as you may ſee Mat. 28.1. Mark. 16.1.2. thus you hauehave ſeene it proued, that by the word (Sabbath) in the 4th com. God, and the Church of God, vnderſtod the 7th & laſt day of the weeke: & ſo you hauehave ſeene it proued, that God commanded the ſanctification, of the 7th day Sabbath, in his morall Law.
Now I come to the Major or firſt propoſition: the profe of this will coſt me longer time then the former, not but that it is as cleere as the former, but that men of peruerſe minds, hauehave wilfully bent their wites & lerning againſt it, as they hauehave done againſt the former, but tis no matter, trueth ſhall preuaile, God aſſiſting it: the point then that I am to proue is this, that whatſoeuer God hath commanded in the Morall Law, or 10 commandements, it is ſtill in force, or now to be obſerued and obeyed: if they deny this Major, then I require them to giuegive me an inſtance to the contrary; let them ſhew me, where God hath commanded any thing to be done in the 10 commandements, which is aboliſhed & not in force now, remembring that they bring not the thing in queſtion for their inſtance.
2. Happily they will anſwer by lymitation, & diſtinguiſhing and ſo deny ſome parte of this Major, for example, ſometime they diſtinguiſh of the ſubſtance of the commandements & of the Accidentes: granting thoſe, denying theſe: by ſubſtance, they vnderſtand that which they pleaſe to make morall in the Decalogue, as the Reſt in the 4th com. & the holy actiones of prayer, reading, & preaching Gods word: by Accident, they vnderſtand that which they pleaſe to make ceremoniall in the Decalogue, as the time of Gods worſhip, to wit, the 7th day: but this is a fooliſh diſtinction, and ſo much the more vile, in that it is made againſt God; for hath not God as well commanded the Accident, & time, as the ſubſtance, and Reſt? & is it not neceſſary to obey God, in one commandemēt as well as in an other? for, the one is as well commanded as the other: did they diſtinguiſh betweene things commanded, & things not commanded, it were tollerable, but they diſtinguiſh of things all of them commanded; as betwene great commandements, and little commandements; the one they cale ſubſtances, the other Accidents; now the greater commandementes which they cale ſubſtances, theſe they will imbrace; but as for the leſſer commandements, which they pleaſe to cale Accidents, theſe they will reiect & deny; ſo then, Gods greater commandementes, they will obey; but as for his leſſer commandements, theſe they will not obey: & that becauſe they are little, and light in their eſteeme; but our Sauiour Chriſt hath taught them an other leſſon, ſaying, whoſoeuer ſhall breake one of theſe leaſt commandements, he ſhall be called the leaſt in the kingdome of heauen Mat. 5.19. Let them cale them Accidentes if they will, yet ſince they are commandements, they are not leſſe then the leaſt commandements, of which our Sauiour ſpeaketh.
That no diſtinction is to be receiued, whereby any thing inioyned in the 10 commandements is denyed, I thus further proue it. 1. this is a poſition ſo cleere, as the Sunne, that All Gods 10 commandements doe bind vsus, to obedience of them, & are ſtill in force: now if it be lawfull for any man, barely to deny this trueth, ſaying by way of anſwer, that ſome of his commandements doe not bind vsus to obedience; then eueryevery priuate mans bare deniall, ſhall be as authenticall as this cleere trueth and orthodox poſition; which is moſt abſurd: for thus a froward aduerſary may put a man to bring a light cleerer then the Sunne, that is, hee may put him to proue whither any of Gods commandementes doe binde vsus now or not: for example, a Miniſter reproueth an adulterer, from the 7th commandement; & thus he frameth his argument againſt him.
All the 10 commandements doe bind vsus &c. But the 7th com. is one of the 10 commandements &c. Shall it be lawfull for this vncleane perſon, to deny the Major in ſome parte of it, by a diſtinction, & put the Miniſter to proue, that All the 10 commandements doe bind vsus? what an impiouſe and vngodly anſwer were this? why this is our caſe; for in my Major I affirme, that all the 10 commandements doe bind vsus to obedience; & they make this vngodly anſwer, by a diſtinction, that all of them doe not bind vsus; & will put me to proue, that they doe bind vsus.
If this anſwer be lawfull, why may not Papiſts deny that the 2d com. bindeth vsus, or that it is ſtill in force, ſaying, the 2d com. touching Images, it is Iewiſh, & concerned the Iewes onelyonly, and that it forbad onelyonly Iewiſh Images; & that it concerneth not Chriſtians, & Chriſtian Images? & why may not Anabaptiſtes, and Libertines, & our new ſprung vp Eatoniſtes, deny the whole Law, euen all the 10 commandementes, & that vponupon plauſible pretenſes alſo?
Furthermore, ſuch diſtinctiones are Blaſphemouſe; & therefore to be reiected: for, to deny that any thing commanded by God, in his 10 com. both bind vsus to obedience; is to deny, that Gods will ſhould be obeied by vsus; to reiect his Soueraignty & gouernance; & as much as if we ſhould ſay, we will not, that God ſhall Raigne ouer vsus. is it not Blaſphemy, when the Creatour ſhall ſay, doe this, & the creature ſhall anſwer, He will not? thus doe they, who by diſtinctions, will reiect any one thing, commanded in the 10 commandements.
Further ſuch anſwers as by diſtinctions, deny any one thing, commanded in the 10. commandements, doe plainly bewray the Authoures thereof, to be profeſſed enemies, to the Integrity & perfection of God Lawe; and would that God ſhould be ſerued but by halues & by peecemeale; and therefore, their ſuch diſtinctiones are vnſound, & to be reiected by all men fearing God, & louing the Lawes of God.
Such anſwers are to be reiected, and men are ſolely to reſt contented with this, that it is commanded in the Morall Law, without demaunding any other proofes my reaſon hereof is, becauſe neither better proofes, nor of higher authority, can be poſſibly produced for the profe of any doctrine in Diuinity: for vvhat better proofe, can any man bring, or any Chriſtian man expect, then Gods commandements? & amongſt all Gods commandements, then his 10 Morall commandements? there is no Scripture of higher Authority, then the Morall Lavv.
The 10 Commandements, the Creede, and the Lords prayer, theſe of all other Scriptures, are holden as principles of our Chriſtian Religion: now how abſurd a thing it is, for any to deny principles in any Arte, let all men iudge that hauehave any ſkill in Artes: A man may as vvell be permitted by a diſtinction to deny that eueryevery one of the 6 petitiones of the Lords prayer, doe belong vntounto vsus; or that ſome of the Articles of our faith, doe belong vntounto vsus vponupon ſome plauſible reaſones forged, as by a diſtinction to deny that whatſoeuer is commanded in the 10 commandements doth belong vntounto vsus.
Thus I hauehave proued, that it is vnſufferable in A Chriſtian Church, that any man ſhould vſe a diſtinction or deniall, againſt this Orthodox & moſt cleere trueth, that all things commanded in Gods 10 commandements are in force, & doe binde vsus to obedience. for this cauſe, I neede not procede any further, for the proofe of this Major & orthodox trueth: for, if it be ſo cleere & vndeniable a trueth, as no man may deny it, then I may very well ſpare the proofe of it: Neuertheleſſe, for the truethes ſake, & for its further confirmation, I will proue it vntounto you, by many and ſondry arguments: but by the way, one thing firſt, I would ſhould be taken into conſideration, which is this, that Diuines and all others, who are enemies vntounto this moſt auncient ordinance, of Gods Sabbath, they are driuen to ſhrowd themſelues, from the force of this my 8th Argument, by this abominable & vngodly anſwer, ſaying, that all Gods commandements doe not binde vsus to obedience; or, that ſome of the 10 commandements, doe not bind vsus to the obedience of them: nay, they muſt hold, if they aboliſh the 7th day Sabbath, that it is a ſinne for vsus to yeeld obedience vntounto all the 10. commandements, & that it is Iudaiſme: I deſire that all men would take ſpeciall notice of this abſurdety that ſo they may ſee what rockes, theſe are forced to rune vponupon, who deny the Lords Sabbaths.
Should common people make ſuch anſwers, they deſerued but a common cenſure, but if Miniſters; yea Puritane Miniſters ſhall make ſuch vngodly anſwers, what cenſure are they worthy of? I hauehave greate reaſon to vrge this point; becauſe if they grant me this trueth, to wit, that all Gods commandementes doe binde vsus to obedience, the which no man fearing God can deny, then of neceſſity they muſt grant me, that the old Sabbath is ſtill in force, becauſe it is one of Gods commandements.
An other thing I deſire ſhould be taken into conſideration, is that ſuch as deny any thing in my Major by any diſtinctiō, that ſo they may deny Gods 7th day Sabbath, they rune into theſe other abſurdeties, 1. they hereby doe deface Gods royall Law, making it a Morall-ceremoniall Law, an euerlaſting-temporary Law, & a very Monſtre. 2. They draw vsus to Anabaptiſtry, & prophaneſſe, that ſo we ſhould hauehave none of Gods. Sabbaths. 3. They make an auncient & holy prayer of our Church, a mere babling with God: to wit, that prayer added to the 4th com. in the Congregation. 4. As the Sabbath is Gods ordinance, ſo the Decalogue is Gods Law: now were men profeſſed enemies to God, then if they ſhould doe what in them is, to aboliſh his Sabbaths, & to reiect as much of his Law as poſſibly they could deniſe, it were, but ſutable to their profeſſion: but that wee, who are profeſſed friēds to God & to his Law, that wee (I ſay) ſhould reiect, & deſire to reiect as much of Gods Law, as poſſibly by any wite we can deuiſe, this is abhominable: & ſo I come to make profe of the point.
That all Gods commandements are now to be obſerued and obeied: I proue it by Teſtimony humane, & Diuine: for humane Teſtimony, the firſt ſhall be that of Reuerent Perkines, who writing againſt our common aduerſary the Papiſt, he vndertaketh to proue, that the religion of the Church of Rome agreeth to the corruption of mans nature: amongſt many other arguments, he ſheweth how that Papiſts doe repeale & make of none effect, all the 10 commandements of the Morall-Law: and to this purpoſe he begineth on this wiſe, The morall Law conteining perfect righteouſneſse, is flat oppoſite to mans corrupt nature: therefore whatſoeuer religion ſhall repeale and make of none effect the commandements of the Morall Law; the ſame religion muſt needs ioyne hands with the corruption of mās nature, & ſtand for themaintenance of it. This doth the Religion of the Church of Rome: it may beit doth not plainly repeale them, yet in effect it doth, and if it ſhall fruſtrate but any one point, of any one commandement, yea, the whole Law thereby is made vaine. Perkines, in his firſt volume, pag. 400. vnderunder the title, A papiſt cannot goe beyond a reprobate. I deſire that theſe his words may be weighed; where he ſaith, thar if the religion of the Church of Rome, ſhall fruſtrate but any one pointe, of any one comman. It doth thereby make fruſtrate the whole Law.
Now a double vſe I may make of theſe words, the one is, that all Gods commandements are now to be obſerued and obeyed: becauſe hee ſaith, that not ſo much as any one point, of any one commandement is to be fruſtrated; & further he addeth for confirmation thereof, that the aboliſhing of any one point, in the 10 commandements, it is the aboliſhing of the whole Law alſo; and ſo he hath confirmed my Major. The other vſe I make of theſe his words is, by his Teſtimony, to confute the madneſſe of ſuch Diuines, as deny the Integrity and perfection of Gods Law, & therefore invent diſtinctiones, whereby they may curtaile the law, denying that whatſoeuer is commanded in the 10 com, doth belong vntounto our practiſe; which is the abſurdety confuted in the laſt point handled before this; for the further confirmatiō whereof, let it be obſerued, that Learned Perkines ſaith that, that religion, which fruſtrateth but any one point, of any one cemmandemēt, it doth thereby fruſtrate the whole law; let theſe Diuines then ſee into what a ſnare they are falne, by denying ſome on point, in ſome one comman. to wit, the Lords 7th day, Saturday Sabbath, for hereby they pull vponupon, not themſelues alone, but vponupon our Chriſtian religiō alſo, this guilt, to wit, that by ſo doeing, it doth aboliſh the whole Law, & ioyne hands with corrupt nature.
And further, hence it is, that he hath put vponupon the tope of thoſe leaues in his booke, this title, A Papiſt cannot goe beyond a reprobate. If then a Papiſt cannot goe beyond a reprobate, if he fruſtrateth but one point, of any one commandement; then tell me, how farre ſome Proteſtant Diuines, can goe beyond reprobates, who doe fruſtrat this ancient ordinance of Gods Sabbath, expreſly commanded in the 10 commandements, and that after ſufficient meanes of light afforded them, by my former booke? I wiſh thoſe tenn Miniſters, againſt whom eſpecially I write, to note this point: happily they will ſleite my iudgement, but M. Perkins iudgement, I know they reuerence: and further, if this be good Diuinity againſt Papiſts, I truſt it cannot be bade, when applied to Proteſtantes: theſe are not my collectiones, you ſee they are made by a man of their owne ſide.
VntoUnto the Teſtimony of M. Perkines, let me add the Teſtimony of Vrſinus who ſheweth ſondry differences, betwixt the Doctrine of the true Church, and the Doctrine of other Sectes & Religiones; one of the differences is this, In Eccleſia lex Dei integra & incorrupta retinetur: aliae Religiones & ſectae legem Dei mutilant vel corrumpunt. Vrſi. Catechiſ. Pag. 4. Jn the Church (ſaith he) the Law of God is preſerved intirly and vncorrupted, but other Sectes & Religiones doe lame or corrupt the Law of God. In which words as you ſee, Ʋrſinus doth lay it downe as a propertie of the true Church, to preſerue Gods Law in its integrity and perfection; & as a marke of a falſe Church to lame & detracte from Gods Law: By which words, hee plainly ratifieth all the 10 commandements, with whatſoeuer is therein commanded: Further, if it be a marke of a falſe Church, & of Sectaries, to lame Gods Law, what reproch & danger, doe ſuch Miniſters bring our Church, & ſpecially themſelues into, by denying, that all the things commanded in the 10 commandements are in force, binding vsus to obedience? doe they not what lieth in them, labour to make our Church noe true Church? & themſelues Sectaries?
Take alſo the Teſtimony of Polanus, in his Syntag. Theolog. lib. 6. cap. 10, de lege Dei. Pag. 353. who hauing to doe againſt Papists, that ſay, the 2d com. againſt Images, belonged onelyonly vntounto Iewes, not vntounto Chriſtians (as many Proteſtantes, ſay of the 4th com. touching the olde Sabbath) hee proueth the contrary, by this argument: quia ad Christianos totus Decalogus pertinet, becauſe the whole Decalogue appertaineth vntounto Chriſtianes. If this reaſon be good againſt Papiſts, it cannot be bad with Proteſtants.
In the 4th place, I will proue it from their owne mouthes: for theſe which are ſuch notoriouſe enemies, to the Lords Sabbaths, they doe frequently in theire pulpites, reproue the Adulterer, the thiefe, the falſwitneſſe bearer, the Blaſhemer of Gods name, & the reſt, by the Lawof the 10 commandements, ſaying, theſe deedes, are ſinnes, & liable to condemnation, and muſt be refrained &c. Becauſe they are forbidden in the Law of God: which kind of arguing, doth receſſarily imply thus much, that whatſoeuer thing is commanded or forbidden in the Law, is in force ſtill, & doth bind vsus now to obedience: the reaſon of this conſequence is, becauſe there is one and the ſame reaſon for all & for eueryevery thing, which there is for any one thing; for if Gods writeing & commanding any one thing in his Law, be a ſufficient reaſon to incline our hartes, vntounto the obedience thereof, then the ſame reaſon will moue vsus to the obedience of eueryevery thing, which is therein written; becauſe God hath as well written & commanded eueryevery thing therein, as any thing: and thus you ſee, how it neceſſarily followeth from their owne mouthes, that becauſe they cale for obedience now, vntounto ſome things which God hath commanded in his Law, becauſe hee hath commanded them; that therefore they muſt yeeld, that all things in Gods Law, muſt now be obeyed; becauſe hee hath commanded them all: wherefore, ſince they teach this vntounto the people, they muſt grant it me heere. Thus you hauehave heard this trueth confirmed, both by ſome particular perſones of note, & alſo by the mouthes of all my aduerſaries.
5. I will proue it vntounto you by the Teſtimony of our Church: In the order for the Adminiſtration of the Lords Supper, or holy communion, ſet downe in the booke of Common prayer, it is thus ordered by our Church, Then ſhall the Miniſter rehearſe distinctly all the tenn commandements, & the people kneeling ſhall after eueryevery commandement, aske God mercy, for their tranſgreſſion of the ſame: & againe, after that all the 10 commandements be rehearſed by the Miniſter, it is ordered, that the people ſhall all conclude, with this holy prayer, Lord hauehave mercy vponupon vsus, and write all theſe, thy lawes in our hearts, wee beſeech thee. In which holy ordinance of our Church, we may obſerue theſe things; 1. that our Church maintaineth the Law of Gods 10 commandements, as now in force; becauſe we are to aske God mercy for the tranſgreſſion of them; and becauſe we deſire God to write them in our heartes. 2 obſerue, that our Church ratifieth, not ſome onelyonly of the 10 com. but all of them, euen eueryevery commandement which was written in Tables of ſtone: for the Miniſter muſt rehearſe diſtinctly, all the tenn commandement; and the people are taught to pray to God, to write all theſe lawes in their heartes. Thus you ſee, our Church doth ratify and confirme, all the lawes of God, written in the Tables of ſtone, as they are rehearſed by the Miniſter, without mutilating or curtailing of any of them: they are no children of the Church therefore, who deny my Major, and thus I hauehave abundantly proued the point, by humane Teſtimony, and ſo I come to proue it alſo by Diuine Teſtimony.
But me thinke, euer & anone as I am writing, that ſome body ſhould wonder at me, that I ſhould ſpend ſo many words, to proue a point ſo plaine as this, that all Gods commandements are now to be obeyed: why may they ſay, it is a point we neuer till now heard doubted of, we euer tooke it as an Article of our faith, that all things commanded in the Morall Law, did binde vsus to the obedience thereof; and is it now become a queſtion amongſt Diuines? if this principle be doubted of now, we ſhall ſcarce know what to doe in Religion, & what not to doe, what to beleeue, & what not to beleeue; but ſurely Sir you are miſtaken, thers no Miniſter that hath any feare of God before his eyes, that will doubt of this point; and for common people, they are as farre from doubting of it, as the heauens are from the earth. Wherevnto I anſwer, that when I ſeriouſly enter into the conſideration of it, it maketh my very heart to tremble within me, to thinke that any man that profeſſeth godlineſſe, ſhould be ſo farre in louelove with old errour, as to deny ſo cleere a trueth as this; neuertheleſſe, not onelyonly Miniſters, but puritane Miniſters goe about to doubt of and deny this trueth; for by their diſtinctiones, they will deny, that all the commandements written in the Decalogue, doe binde vsus to obedience: which if they did not deny, I ſhould ſaue this labour; &, they muſt imbrace that moſt ancient ordinance of Gods Sabbath day; wherefore good Reader wonder not at me, but rather wonder at ſuch your Miniſters, who are become ſo vnfaithfull to God, as that rather then they will confeſſe an old errour, they will ſtifly deny a manifeſt trueth.
My firſt argument then, of Diuine authority is this, that eueryevery thingonce commanded in the Morall Law, ſtandeth ſtill vnrepealed, & is therefore ſtill in force. For theſe enemies to Gods Sabbaths, they cannot proue, that any one thing, once commanded in the Decalogue, was euer ſince reuoked & aboliſhed: now whatſoeuer thing, God hath once commanded, in his 10 comman, that thing is to ſtād euerlaſtingly, vnleſſe it can be ſhowne, that God hath reuoked & reuerſed it: like as Statute Lawes in our Realme, though made long ſince, are neuertheleſſe in force ſtill, vnleſſe it can be ſhowne, that they hauehave bene repealed ſince, by the ſame Authority that firſt inacted them.
For the further ſtrengthening of which argument, let theſe Scriptures be perpended, What ſoeuer things are written aforetime are written for our lerning, that we through patience & comforte of the Scriptures might hauehave hope, Rom. 15.4. and againe, For the whole Scripture is giuē by inſpiratiō of God, & is proffitable to teach, to convince, to correct, & to inſtruct in righteouſneſſe &c. 2. Tym. 3.16. In which two portiones of Scripture, you ſee, the Apoſtle doth ratify, an vninerſallity of things written in the old Teſtament, and an Integrity and wholeneſſe of the Scriptures of the old Teſtament; now if we ſhall not apply theſe ij. textes to the maintenance of the Morall Law, or 10 commandements, to maintaine the vniuerſallity of all things written in the 10 commandements, and to maintaine the Integrity perfection & woleneſſe of the 10 commandements, then wherevnto ſhall we apply them? for what portion of Scripture is there, beſids this Law, in all the old Teſtament, whereof it cane beſaid, that all things therin written, concerne our practiſe? & that, that whole Scripture is proffitable to teach vsus, to convince vsus, to correct vsus, and to inſtruct vsus? What ſcriptures of the old Teſtament (I ſay) can be the adaequate Subiect or Obiect, of theſe ij. Scriptures, but the morall Law?
My 2d argument, to proue that all the 10 commandements, and eueryevery commandement therin, doe bind vsus ſtill to the obedience of them, is this: that the Apoſtle S. Paul doth ratifie this Law, in the new Teſtament; ſaying, Doe we then make the Law, of none effect through faith? God forbid, yea, wee eſtabliſh the Law, Rom. 3.31. Where you ſee the Apoſtle affirmeth, that hee did eſtabliſh the Law: now the word Law in this text, is not to be reſtrained to ſome partes of it onelyonly, but to be taken in the largeſt ſenſe, ſeeing thers nothing in the context to hinder it, now this Law is knowne to containe 10 commandements, Then he wrote vponupon the Tables, according to the firſt writing, the tenne commandements Deut. 10.4. the which were numbered by God, leaſt the number thereof ſhould be diminiſhed by mē: & againe, Curſed is eueryevery man, that continueth not in all things which are written in the booke of the Law, to doe them Gal. 3.10. Here againe, all things written in the Law, are ratified.
Furthermore, S. Iames thus writeth, whoſoeuer ſhall kepe the whole Law, & yet faileth in one point, hee is guilty of all. Iam. 2.10. In which words, S. Iames ratifieth all the Law, or the whole Law. ſo then S. Paul hath ratified the Law in its generality; & S. Iames in its Integrity, yea, S. Iames goeth further, & ratifieth all and eueryevery parte & pointe of the Law, in as much as, he would not hauehave vsus faile, in any one point of it, as the text ſpeaketh: yet further, ſee what our Sauiour Chriſt ſaith touching this matter, whoſoeuer therefore ſhall breake one of theſe least commandements, & teach men ſo, he ſhall be caled the leaſt in the Kingdome of heauen, Mat. 5.19. Here then our Sauiour ratifieth, & that to the worlds end, as you may ſee in the verſe before, v. 18. the very leaſt thing commanded in the 10 commandements.
In all which Scriptures you hauehave ſeene. 1. That the Law is ſtill inforce, 2. That all things written in this Law, are ſtill in force. 3. That the wholl Law is ſtill in force 4. That the very leaſt thing commanded in the law is ſtill in force; what can be deſired more?
My 3d argument, to proue that eueryevery commandement in the Decalogue, doth bind vsus to obedience is becauſe God hath ioyned the commandements togeather: now that which our Sauiour ſaith in an other caſe, is true in this alſo, Let no man put a ſunder that, which God hath coupled together, Mat. 19.6. Now behold, how God hath coupled all theſe 10 commandements together. 1. They were c…upled together when God ſpake them all together; Then God ſpake all theſe words, ſaying. Exod. 20.1. 2dly they were coup…ed together when God wrote them together, in the Tables of ſtone Deut. 10.4. 3dly they were coupled together by number, Thus God Almighty coupled them, when he teld vsus, that wrote Tenn cōmandements Deut. 10.4. 4thly Our Sauiour Chriſt coupled them together, when he rekoned the commandementes to be two in number, as louelove to God, and louelove to our neighbour, on theſe two commandements (ſaith he) hangeth the Law & the Prophets Mat. 22.40. 5thly The Scripture, eueryevery where coupleth all theſe commandements together, and that by binding them vp all together, in this one word LoueLove. wherefore ſince God hath coupled all the 10 commandements thus together, with eueryevery commandement therein contained, it followeth, that all & eueryevery of theſe commandements, muſt goe together; take one, and take all, aboliſh one and aboliſh all: and further it followeth, that ſince God hath ioyned eueryevery one of them together, that therefore it is vnſufferable, that any man ſhould by any diſtinctiones ſeparate them, & make any diuiſion amongſt them, to imbrace ſome & to reiect other ſome of them: vnleſe you will hold, that man may put a ſunder what God hath ioyned together.
For the further ſtrengthening of this my 3d argument, let me relate vntounto you, a notable obſeruation of lerned Iunius, which I find recorded by D. W…llet on Exod. 20. pag. 317. touching the ſpeciall manner of accenting and writing, which God obſerued in writing of the Decalogue, more then in any part of the Scriptures beſids. Ordinarily (ſaith he) eueryevery word in the Originallhath but one accent: But eueryevery word in the Decalogue excepting the 7. …. & 17. verſes hauehave a double accent: one ſeruing for the accenting and prolation of the word: The other ſhewing the coniunction & coherence of the matter. The thing of note to be obſerued, in this obſeruation of learned Iunius is this, that God hath added one accent, to the writing of eueryevery word, in the 10 commandements extraordinarily, ſo as the like is not found in the Scriptures beſides, which is a moſt remarkable thing: now the vſe of this rare & extraordinary accent is, as ſaith the ſame Iunius, to ſhew vntounto vsus, that the matters & things conteined in thoſe ſeuerall words, are conioyned and coupled together by God, as well as the words.
Now howeuer there is an exception, in three verſes, as in v. 7.12.17. that is, in the third, fifth, & tenth commandements, yet in the 4th com. thers no exception; for he giueth inſtances in the 4th com. for one of thoſe, which hauehave this double accent: the conſideration whereof, is of notable vſe for our purpoſe: for, whereas the aduerſaries to Gods Sabbaths, could be content to allow, all things in the 10 commandements, to be euer laſtingly coupled together, ſo they might caſt away that ſacred time, ſanctified by God, the 7th day, heere therefore it hath pleaſed God, to be mindfull of his 4th com: & of his ſacred time, aboue the 3d, 5th, & 10th commandements: for this 4th com. hath its double accent, as well as any other: wherefore, ſuch Miniſters as would diuide betwixt the time, in the 4th com. and the dueties in the time; imbracing the one, reiecting the other, they are hereby corrected by God: for the Almightie hath ſhowne vntounto vsus, by this rare & extraordenary accent, that the things ſpecified in his 4th com. ſhould goe hand in hand euerlaſtingly together; ſo as he that imbraceth the dueties in the time, he muſt imbrace alſo the time with the dueties.
My 4th & laſt argument, to proue that eueryevery commandement in the Law doth binde vsus now to the obedience thereof is, becauſe God ſpake eueryevery cōmandement in the Law, as well as any one therein: ſee Exod. 20.1. God ſpake all theſe words &c. Now wherefore is this praeface ſet before all the commandements, but to giuegive aequall authority vntounto them all? & to this end, that whoſoeuer, wherſoeuer, or whēſoeuer any of theſe commandements are receiued, then, & there, & by the ſame perſones, all of them muſt be imbraced? becauſe God ſpake them all; and gaue alike authority, vniuerſality, perpetuity, & morality, vntounto all: to this purpoſe, M. Dod ſpeaketh excellently, in his worke vponupon the commandements, in his expoſition of theſe words of the preface (all theſe words) pag. 9, God (ſaith hee) ſpake not the firſt commandement onelyonly, nor the ſecond, or third, & left there: But hee ſpake them all; & gaue as ſtrict a charg to keepe eueryevery one, as any one; & no one was vttered by Gods voyce, or writte with his owne finger, more then the other: whence is to be learned, that whoſoeuer will hauehave any true comfort by his obedience vntounto Gods Law, he muſt not content himſelfe to looke to one, or to two; but muſt make conſcience, and hauehave a care to keepe thē all & eueryevery one: becauſe he that is the Author of one, hee is the Author alſo of all the reſt &c. Where you ſee, M. Dod collecteth this, that obedience muſt be giuen to eueryevery thing commanded, becauſe they all had one & the ſame Authour: God ſpake them all.
Furthermore, that this kind of arguing is ſound, I proue it by S. Iames, who vſeth the ſame kind of arguing: for hee, in convincing men of the ſinne of reſpect of perſones, and endeauoring to proue, that he that faileth in one point of the Law, he is guilty of all the points in the law, fetcheth his argument (as I conceiue of it) from the preface to the commandements, God ſpake all theſe words Exod. 20.1. & thus he argueth, for he that ſaid, thou ſhalt not commit adultery, ſaid alſo; thou ſhalt not kill: now though thou doeſt none adultery yet if thou killest, thou art a tranſgreſsour of the Law. Iam. 2.11. In which words you ſee, S. Iames argueth thus, that he that faileth in one precept of the tenn, he is guilty of all the reſt; & his reaſon is, becauſe God ſpake them all; or, becauſe he that ſaid the one precept, hee it was that ſaid the others alſo: now if this his reaſon, had not bene generally true of all the things commanded in the Decalogue, it had bene inſufficient to proue what he would: for an inſtance to the contrary might hauehave bene brought thus: it followeth not Iames, that if one offend in one point, he is guilty of all; becauſe God ſpake all: for example, God ſpake that parte of the 4th com. but the 7th day is the Sabbath, & yet he that offends in ſome other point is not guilty of this: becauſe this is abrogated. Wherefore, either we muſt graunt S. Iames to be of iudgement, that eueryevery thing inioyned in the Decalogue is ſtill in force; or elſe his argument is vaine.
For concluſion of this argument, I make mine Appeale, vntounto the conſcience of my Reader, & vntounto the conſcience alſo of the aduerſaries of Gods Sabbath, if they doe not finde the Spirit of God, ſecretly mouing them to thinke, that all things commāded among the Morales, ſhould be morall; & that all precepts which God ſpake, & wrote, ſhould be more laſting & durable in the Church, then thoſe precepts which Moſes ſpake, & wrote: & if they find it thus, as I verily beleeue they cannot but find it thus, then let them beware of quenching the Spirit, & to ſay or doe ought againſt the light of conſcience: for, at the day when God ſhall iudge the ſecretes of men, their conſciences will beare witneſſe, & their thoughtes accuſe or excuſe them Rom. 2.15.