A Defense of the Sabbath Day, Chapter 1 – Chapter 2

A Defense of the Sabbath Day · Chapter 1 – Chapter 2

p. 1CHAP. I.

SECT. I.

THE ſcope, and principall drift of this Treatiſe (Chriſtian Reader) is the defence of the Lords Sabbathes; to wit, his ancient Sabbathes, the Saturday & ſeuenth dayes Sabbathes, the which are expreſly enioyned vsus in the fourth Com. in theſe wordes, Remember the Sabbath day, to ſanctify it &c. But the ſeuenth day, is the Sabbath of the Lord &c. Exod. 20.8.10.

Againſt this ancient and moſt ſacred ordinance of Gods, I find two profeſſed enemies, againſt whom I muſt bend my forces: the one, are they who deny the Law of God, the Morall Law, or 10 Commandements, to belong vntounto Chriſtians: and ſo conſequently they deny Gods Sabbathes alſo, commanded in the Law: and theſe are our Anabaptiſtes and our late ſprung vp Antinomianes: the other, are they who deny the Integrity and perfection of the Law: they embrace the Law of God indeed, but not the whole law: and theſe are both Protestantes and Papistes; for theſe reiect that ancient ordinance of Gods Sabbath day, properly ſo called, and expreſly p. 2commanded in the morall law, counting it for a ceremony and aboliſhed; by reiection whereof, they reiect ſome thing commanded in the Law; and ſo conſequently they are partiall in the law, and doe deny it in its integrity and perfection: vrge an Anabaptiſt or Antinomian to the obſeruation of the Sabbath day, and he will anſwere you, that the law is aboliſhed at the comming of Chriſt, as all thoſe legall Ceremonies were: vrge a Proteſtant or a Papiſt to ſanctify the Sabbath day, and your anſwere ſhall be, that this part of the law touching the Sabbath day, is a ceremonie and aboliſhed at the coming of Chriſt: thus Anabaptiſtes and Antinomians renounce the whole law; Proteſtants and Papiſts renounce the wholeneſſe of the law; the one would hauehave no law, the other would hauehave no perfect law: Againſt both theſe this booke is penned.

The partes of this booke are ſixe, diuided into ſo many Chapters alſo. The firſt parte or chapter is in defenſe of the Morall Law, and conſequently of Gods Sabbathes, againſt Anabaptiſtes and Antinomianes. (The other fiue partes or Chapters, are in defenſe of the integrity and perfection of the Law, and conſequently of Gods Sabbathes, againſt Proteſtantes and Papiſtes: for this purpoſe) the ſecond parte or Chapter, giueth the true ſenſe and Expoſition of the fourth Command. and vindicateth it from the common and corrupt gloſſes and expoſitions of it. The third Chapter, ſheweth the weakneſſe and inſufficiency of all thoſe Scriptures and arguments, which are vſually produced to proue the Lords day to be a Sabbath day. The fourth Chapter, ſheweth the inſufficiency and feebleneſſe of all thoſe Scriptures and arguments, which are vſually alleaged againſt the Lords Sabbath of the ſeuenth day, or Saturday, to make it an aboliſhed ceremony. The fifth Chapter, conteineth ſondry forcible and vndeniable arguments and Scriptures, prouing the morallity and perpetuity of the ancient Sabbath day. The ſixte and laſt Chapter, conteineth a Diſpenſation for a ſeaſon, touching the preſent practiſe, and obſeruation of the ſeuenth day Sabbath: together with an Exhortation, to a ſpeedy reformation. Thus p. 3you ſee my taske what it is; my aduerſaries who they are; and the partes of this Booke.

One thing more would be premiſed; for ſo much as we ſhall often hauehave occaſion to vſe theſe two words Morall and Ceremoniall, it is ſit that I here ſhew in what ſenſe I vnderſtand them. 1. I would vſe theſe words but for diſtinction ſake; for whereas there are two ſortes of Sabbathes; the wekly Sabbath and the yeerly Sabbathes: the Sabbath which God wrote, and the Sabbathes which Moſes wrote: the Sabbath which God ſpake, and the Sabbathes which Moſes ſpake: the Sabbath written in the Morall law Exod. 20.8. and the Sabbathes written in the Ceremoniall law Levit. 23.32. &c. for the diſtinguiſhing of theſe two ſortes of Sabbathes one from the other, I doe vſe theſe two words, calling the weekly Sabbath recorded in the Morall law, the Morall Sabbath; and the yeerly Sabbathes recorded in the Ceremoniall law, the Ceremoniall Sabbathes: theſe Sabbathes were alſo diſtinguiſhed in reſpect of time, the Morall Sabbath was firſt deliuered Exod. 20.8. yea, Gen. 2.2.3. the ceremoniall Sabbathes were afterwards deliuered Levit. 23.32. &c. neither did theſe ceremoniall Sabbathes euer come within the pale of the Morall law, or were written in the Tables of ſtone. 2. I ſee not but that I may call the weekly Sabbath, the Morall Sabbath properly: for 1. the ſeuenth day or weekly Sabbath, it conſerneth practiſe and manners, which is ſignified by the word Morall. 2. Since God ſpake all thoſe words Exod. 20.1. why ſhould not eueryevery thing he ſpake be called morall, as well as any thing he ſpake? and ſince the Sabbath day or ſeuenth day, is a thing that is expreſly commanded in the Morall law, and which may, I ſay which may be retained in the Church with great profit, why ſhould it be denied the name of morall? 3. GiueGive me a reaſon why the ſeuenth day Sabbath ſhould not be called a Morall, as well as the doctrine of the Trinity in the firſt Com? or as the doctrine of originall ſinne, or luſt Rom. 7.7. in the tenth Comm? 4. Since the dueties of the Sabbath, to wit, Reſt, and Holy exerciſes, are accounted Morall, why ſhould not the time or ſeuenth day alſo be accounted morall; p. 4for the time is a furtherance vntounto theſe morall dueties: now that which furthereth a morall ſhould me thinke be alſo called a morall. 5. Herevnto agreeth Doctour Ames in his Theologicall Theſis pag. 499. and alſo affirmeth it to be the iudgement of the best diuines, ſaying, It is receiued by all best diuines, that the Morales were differenced from the Ceremoniales, by this, that all (and onelyonly) the Morales, were wrote by God, in the Tables of stones &c. The Saturday and weekly Sabbath then, muſt needs be termed a morall Sabbath. In a word, why ſhould this be ſtrange? for as there is a ceremoniall law and a morall law, why may there not be likewiſe ceremoniall Sabbathes, and morall Sabbathes? and ſince God placed the ſeuenth day Sabbath in the morall law, among the morales, why ſhould it not be termed morall, and called the morall Sabbath?

The morall Sabbathes, together with whatſoeuer elſe is commanded in the morall law, I doe defend; the Ceremoniall Sabbathes, with all other Ceremonies, I doe reiect: It is the Decalogue, and nothing elſe, which I defend; and this I ſtand to maintaine, in the integrity and perfection thereof, vntounto a iott and title. Theſe things premiſed, I come vntounto the firſt thing propounded, namely the Defenſe of the Morall law, againſt Anabaptiſtes, Libertines, and Antinomianes.

SECT. II.

TOuching the defenſe of the morall law, and conſequently of Gods Sabbathes therein conteined, be pleaſed to note, that both Anabaptiſtes beyond the ſea, and Antinomians on this ſide the ſea, all of them that euer I hauehave ſpake withall, doe freely confeſſe it, that if any day muſt be a Sabbath day, it muſt be, not the Lords day, but Saturday the ould Sabbath day: now, that this Sabbath day is now in force they deny; becauſe they ſuppoſe the whole law to be aboliſhed, and ſo the Sabbath day therein alſo: wherefore, if I ſhall proue vntounto theſe, that the law is ſtill in force, I hauehave obtained my deſire with them, to wit, that the ſeuenth day Sabbath is ſtill in force.

p. 5Firſt then, as touching theſe who deny the morall law, I can but wonder, how any heart that hath the feare of God in it, can without trembling and aſtoniſhment admit ſo blaſphemous a thought as this, to enter it; as to thinke, that that moſt holy and righteouſe Law of God, hath nothing to doe with him, to command him, and to direct him how to order his liefe: Moſes ſpeaketh thus in commendation of this Law, ſaying, And what Nation is ſo great, that hath ordinances and lawes ſo righteous, as all this law, which I ſet before you this day? Deuteru. 4.8. and is it ſo righteous a law? how is it then that theſe men will attempt to aboliſh it? and deny obedience vntounto it? our Sauiour telleth vsus, that the ſumme of this Law, is to louelove the Lord our God with all our hearts, ſoules, and might: and to louelove our neighbour as our ſelues, Matt. 22.37. Can they ſhew vsus any other law in ſteade of this, that is better, more holy, or more iuſt? LoueLove, is the ſumme of this law; and louelove, is the law we ſhall vvalke by in the kingdome of heauen, 1. Corint. 13.8.13. and vvill they reiect that lavv on earth, vvhichwhich vve ſhall vvalke by in the kingdome of heauen?

It may be they vvill ſay for themſelues, but the Morall lavv it is Moſes lavv, novv vve hauehave forſaken Moſes, vve cleaue vntounto Chriſt, and vntounto his Lavves in the Nevv Teſtament &c. But, 1. the ceremoniall lavv being vvritten by Moſes, it may be termed Moſes lavv, but the Morall Lavv being vvritten by the finger of God, it muſt be called Gods Lavv. 2. Make they a difference betvvixt the lavv vvritten in Exod. 20.1. &c. and the ſame lavv ratified by Chriſt in the Nevv Teſtament? let them then ſhevv me a difference betvvixt theſe tvvo; Honour thy father & thy mother &c. Ex. 20.12. and, Children obey your parentes &c. Eph. 6.1. and betwixt theſe tvvo: Ex. 20.13, & Thou ſhalt not kill Ro. 13.9. If there then be no difference of the Morall lavv, vvhither in the ould or nevv Teſtament, in vaine doe they reiect the one to embrace the other.

Happily they vvill ſay againe, I but the lavv is of a compulſiue nature, compelling men to obedience: but Chriſtianes are indued vvith a free ſpirit, doeing things of louelove: the louelove p. 6of Chriſt conſtraineth them &c. it is true indeed, Chriſtians are ſet at liberty, and are indued vvith a free ſpirit, but not vvith ſuch a freedome, as freeth them from being the Lords ſeruantes, and exempteth them from obedience vntounto his Commandements, Rom. 6.18.22. nor are vve ſo perfectly free here, but that vve ſtand in neede of the ſpurr, to quicken our dulneſſe, ſee for this purpoſe Matt. 10.28. Matt. 6.15. Ierem. 32.40. Phil. 2.12.

But they will hauehave no commandements: No? why then did Chriſt giuegive Commandements? ſee Ioh. 13.34. 1. Cor. 7.19. Ioh. 14.15. Matth. 6.9.15.

Furthermore, they ſay, the louelove of Chriſt conſtraineth them 2. Corin. 5.14. and this louelove may and doth compell them to the obedience of the commandements of Chriſt, Ioh. 14.15. Joh. 13.34. well, and why then may not the louelove of God likewiſe conſtraine them, to obey his commandements in Exod. 20.1. &c.? will they louelove Chriſt, and will they not louelove God? if conſtraint in reſpect of Chriſts commādements, will ſtand with the libertie and freedome of Chriſtianes, why may it not ſtand alſo in reſpect of Gods commandements?

One thing I would adde more, and it is an admonition vntounto any fearing God, and honouring his Sabbathes, who be leaning and but ſomewhat inclining vntounto this wicked opinion, that as they louelove and reuerence Gods Sabbathes, ſo they would beware of and ſhune this dangerous opinion, of aboliſhing the law of God: for this I dare confidently affirme, take away this morall law, and away goeth all Sabbathes alſo: now take away Gods Sabbathes, and what a floud of iniquity and prophanneſſe will forth with flovv in vponupon vsus, I leaue to be conſidered of by all the Godly wiſe: happily they may thinke to find ground and warrant enough in the New Teſtament, for a Sabbath, as namely for the Lords day, though the fourth comman. were abollſhed; but, that herein they are much miſtaken, and that no day can be vrged to be ſanctified for a Sabbath, vnleſſe it be by and from the fourth comm. ſhall abundantly appeare hereafter. Vnleſſe therefore you intend to turne Anabaptiſtes, and keepe no Sabbath, auoid this peſtilent opinion.

p. 7I come now to the profe of the point: but firſt for the ſtate of the queſtion: Theſe Anabaptiſticall-Antinomianes hould, that the law is not in force to beleeuers, and ſuch as are in Chriſt: And wee hould, that the law is in force to beleeuers, and men in Chriſt. Furthermore, whereas the law may be conſidered two wayes, either with reſpect vntounto Iuſtification, or vntounto obſeruation; vvee doe not defend the lavv to be in force vntounto Iuſtification: for, by the workes of the law ſhall no fleſh be iustified, Rom. 3.20. we defend the lavv to be in force only vntounto obſeruation, and for direction of vsus how to walke, and to pleaſe God. Now then, that the law is in force vntounto beleeuers, as a rule of obſeruation and direction, I proue it by theſe inſuing arguments and Scriptures.

1.

For verely I ſay vntounto you, vntill heauen and earth paſſe, one iote, or one title, ſhall in no wiſe paſse from the law, vntill all things be fulfilled, Matt. 5.18. In which words, our Sauiour prophecieth of the duration and continuance of the law, euen vntounto the worlds end. 2. By the law here he vnderſtandeth the morall law: for the ſame it is which he expoundeth in the following verſes, as the ſixt comm. in v. 22. the ſeuenth comm. in v. 27. the third comm. in v. 33. laſtly, note that all this is preſſed vponupon beleeuers for obſeruation, as you may ſee v. 14.20.45.48. where our Sauiour directeth his ſpeech vntounto thoſe which were the light of the world: and to thoſe whom God is called their father: and therefore theſe were beleeuers. Wee ſee then, that the law belongeth vntounto Chriſtians, as well as anciently vntounto Ievves: yea, our Sauiour teſtifieth in an other place, that it is more eaſie for heauen and earth to paſſe away, then that one title of the law ſhould fall, Luk. 16.17. ſooner then ſhall the earth be remoued, and the ſunne fall from heauen, then this law be aboliſhed.

2.

Children, obey your parents in the Lord &c. Honour thy father and thy Mother; which is the first commandement with promiſe &c. Eph. 6.1.2. Here wee hauehave one branch of the lavv, vrged, to wit, the fifth comm. and it is vrged with reſpect to p. 8obſeruation and obedience: yea, it is alſo vrged vponupon the Children of Chriſtians, or Chriſtians Children: for as this whole Epiſtle to the Epheſians, was directed vntounto the Saintes, Epheſ. 1.1. ſo this whole ſixt chapter is likewiſe. I know they are ready to ſay, that theſe exhortations were ſent vntounto the multitude, as Sermons are preached vntounto a mixed company of good and bad: but this precept is vrged vponupon the good, to wit, beleevers; for as the duety of children, is a branch of the fifth comm. ſo is the duety of ſeruants: now the Apoſtle in v. 5. ſpeaketh vntounto beleeuing ſeruants; for he vrgeth them to obedience to their maſters as vntounto Chriſt: implying thereby, that they did obey Chriſt; and now he exhorteth them to like obedience vntounto their maſters, as they did performe vntounto Chriſt (Eph. 5.24.) now if they did obey Chriſt, then ſurely they were beleeuers, and did beleeue in Chriſt: and ſuch as theſe ſeruants were, on whom this fifth command, was vrged, ſuch wee are to thinke the children were, to whom the ſame comm. was vrged, at the ſame time, in the ſame place, and all in one breath as it were.

3.

Doe wee then make the law of none effect through faith? God forbid; yea, wee establiſh the law, Rom. 3.31. In the former parte of this chapter, the Apoſtle had diſputed of faith, and the faith of Ieſus, and of remiſſion of ſinnes, and iuſtification by faith in Chriſt; for theſe he ſtood a maine; but as for the lavv, and iuſtification by the workes of the law, theſe he ſtood againſt ſtifly: theſe things being laid downe, the Apoſtle, foreſeeing ſome Anabaptiſticall ſpirit, ready to ſnach and to abuſe this his doctrine, to the ſubuertion of the lavv, he vviſely preuenteth it, by a God forbid. As if he had ſaid, doe you thinke that becauſe I deny iuſtification by the law, and affirme it to be by faith, that I intend thereby to aboliſh the law vtterly? no; God forbid: for I eſtabliſh the law; the law muſt ſtand ſtill in force &c. that is, for obſeruation, though not for iuſtification; for Paul muſt be vnderſtood ſo to aboliſh the lavv in ſome ſenſe, as for all that he ratifieth the lavv in another ſenſe. Hereby we ſee then, that the doctrine of faith, and p. 9iuſtification by faith, doe not aboliſh the law: yea, ſo much the Apoſtle ſaith expreſly; doe wee then, ſaith he, make the law of none effect through faith? Whence I thus argue, that if faith doth not make void the law, what ſhould make it voide? for our Antinomians ſay, that it is faith, and being in Chriſt, that freeth vsus from the law: the law (ſay they) is a ſcholemaſter to bring vsus vntounto Chriſt, and being in Chriſt once, which is by faith, then we are no longer vnderunder this ſchoolmaſter of the law in any reſpect; we are freed from the law wholly and altogether: but the cleane contrary S. Paul affirmeth here, namely, that faith doth not aboliſh the lavv, that is, in all reſpects. Furthermore, if faith doeth not aboliſh the law, then the faithfull man is not freed from the lavv. So thē, when the Apoſtle ſaith that he eſtabliſhed the lavv, it followeth, that he eſtabliſhed it to the faithfull; yea, they were the perſones of whom Paul ſpake, as you may ſee by Rom. 3.30. for there circumciſion of faith, is put for the circumciſed and faithfull.

4.

Owe nothing to any man, but to louelove one another: for hee that loueth another hath fulfilled the law: for this, Thou ſhalt not commit adultery, Thou ſhalt not kill, Thou ſhalt not ſteale, Thou ſhalt not beare falſe witneſſe, Thou ſhalt not couet: and if there be any other commandement, it is briefly comprehended in this ſaying, Thou ſhalt louelove thy neighbour as thy ſelfe. Rom. 13.8.9. Behold, hovv the Apoſtle preſſeth the obſeruation of the law; and hovv that he repeateth 5 or 6 of the ſeuerall commandements thereof, one after an other: yea further, that all this is vrged vponupon beleeuers, is plaine in v. 11. vvhere the Apoſtle vſeth a reaſon, to moue to the obſeruation of theſe commandements, ſaying, for now is our ſaluation neerer, then when wee beleeued it: therefore he ſpake to them vvhichwhich beleeued: vnleſſe abſurdely you vvill ſay, the queſtion vvas concerning one ſorte of people, and the argument concerned an other.

5.

For brethren, yee hauehave bene called vntounto liberty: only vſe not your liberty as an occaſion vntounto the fleſh, but by louelove ſerue one an other: for all the law is fulfilled in one word, which is this, Thou ſhalt louelove p. 10thy neighbour as thy ſelfe. Gal. 5.13.14. In theſe words, the Apoſtle preſſeth the duty of louelove, vvhichwhich is the ſumme of the lavv: and hee preſſeth it for obſeruation: and that he doth by this reaſon, becauſe in ſo doing the lavv ſhall be fulfilled: now vvhy ſhould the Apoſtle moue the Galatians to the duety of louelove, becauſe of or in reſpect of the lavv, if the lavv did not at all appertaine to theſe beleeuing Galatians? Furthermore the Apoſtle preſſeth the lavv here vponupon beleeuers: for hee calleth them brethren: and ſuch brethren alſo, as had obtained a liberty by Chriſt: ſtand faſt therefore in the libertie wherewith Chriſt hath made vsus free, Gal. 5.1. of this liberty by Chriſt, he ſpeaketh againe in v. 13. ſaying, brethren, yee hauehave bene called vntounto libertie &c. Wherefore, ſince they to vvhom the Apoſtle ſpake, had abtained, & vvere called vntounto a liberty by Chriſt, it is more then manifeſt, that they vvere beleeuers to vvhom he ſpake (here then it is plaine, that they that had obtained liberty by Chriſt, from the ceremoniall lavv, ſtood yet bound ſtill vntounto the Morall lavv.) In a vvord, it is manifeſt that Paul ſpake here vntounto beleeuers: for he ſpake vntounto them that did runne well v. 7. & who were they that did runne vvell, but the beleeuers: and he ſpake vntounto them that did waite for the hope of righteouſneſse, by faith, v. 5. and who were they but beleeuers? and he ſpake vntounto them, in vvhom vvas the combate betvvixt the fleſh and the ſpirit v. 17. and vvere not theſe beleeuers?

6.

But if yee fulfill the royall law according to the ſcriptures, which ſaith, Thou ſhalt louelove thy neighbour as thy ſelfe, yee doe well, Iam. 2.8. So ſpeake yee, and ſo doe, as they that ſhall be iudged by the law of libertie, Iam. 2.12. Was not Abraham our father iuſtified through workes, when he offred Iſaack his ſonne, &c. yee ſee then, how that of workes a man is iuſtified, and not of faith only, Iam… 2.21.24. But wilt thou vnderſtand, O thou vaine man, that the faith which is without workes, is dead, Iam. 2.20. The lavv vvhichwhich S. Iames vrgeth here, it is the morall lavv, as is plaine by his inſtances in the ſeuenth and eigth commandements, v. 11. and by laying done the ſumme of the ſecond Table in p. 11v. 8. Moreouer, that this lavv is vrged vponupon beleeuers is plaine by theſe reaſons, 1. Becauſe the Apoſtle ſtileth them Brethren to vvhom he ſpake, v. 1. yea, and his beloued Brethren, v. 5. ſecondly S. Iames vrgeth the lavv vponupon ſuch as ſhall be iuſtified by faith: for he affirmeth, and that by the example of Abraham, that a man that hath faith, he muſt alſo hauehave vvorkes, for his iuſtification: Yee ſee then how that of workes a man is iuſtified, and not of faith only. By vvorkes here, the Apoſtle meaneth the vvorkes of the lavv, and of that lavv before ſpoken of in the former parte of the chapter v. 8.11. now chooſe vvhat ſenſe of this text to fly vntounto you pleaſe, either of Proteſtants or Papiſtes, both, or either of them vvill make ſtrongly for vsus, and againſt Anabaptiſts, vvho deny the lavv: for if ſuch as hauehave faith, muſt alſo bring vvorkes vvith them vntounto iuſtification, be they as cauſes, or as ſignes and fruites of iuſtification, either vvayes the beleeuer is bound to doe the vvorkes of the lavv: for vvorkes are as vvell required of him vntounto iuſtification, as faith is: ſo ſaith S. Iames; finally, ſince the faith that hath not vvorkes, to vvit, the vvorkes of the lavv, v. 8.11. is a dead faith, hence it followeth, that the beleeuer is bound to the obſeruation of the lavv, and to doe the vvorkes of the lavv, or elſe his faith, his Anabaptiſticall faith vvill proue but a dead faith; as many therefore, as renounce the lavv, and the vvorkes of the lavv, and vvill liue by faith only, S. Iames counteth thoſe mens faith but a deade faith.

7.

And that thou haſt knowne the holy Scriptures of a child which are able to make thee wiſe vntounto ſaluation, through the faith which is in Chriſt Ieſus: for the whole ſcripture is giuen by inſpiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reprofe, for correction, for inſtruction in righteouſneſse; that the man of God may be abſolute, being made perfect vntounto all good workes, 2 Tim. 3.15.16.17. In theſe vvords, the Apoſtle declareth vntounto Timothie, the vſe of the Scriptures of the old Teſtament; and in ſpeciall, that ſome of them are fit to reproue, and to correct, &c. novv of all the Scriptures in the old Teſtament, vvhichwhich p. 12doe reproue, correct, & inſtruct, are they not the lavves of God, both affirmatiue and negatiue? and of all Gods lavves in the old Teſtament, vvhichwhich are either morall or ceremoniall, noue can thinke S. Paul ſent Timothie vntounto the ceremonial lavv: it muſt therefore be the morall lavv, vvhichwhich Paul doth here commend vntounto Timothie. In the laſt place, that this lavv belongeth vntounto beleeuers, is plaine enough (it being made by Paul a direction vntounto Timothie) vnleſſe you vvill ſuppoſe Timothie no beleeuer.

8.

Speake not euill one of an other, Brethren: he thath ſpeaketh euill of his brother, or he that condemneth his brother, ſpeaketh euill of the law, and condemneth the law; and if thou condemneſt the law, thou art no obſeruer of the law, but a iudge, Jam. 4.11. In theſe words, the Apoſtle S. Iames, reproueth the ſinnes againſt the ninth comm. to wit, ſlanderouſe ſpeeches: this ſinne he diſſvvadeth from by theſe reaſons. 1. He that ſpeaketh euill of his brother, he ſpeaketh euill of the Law of God, and he that condemneth his brother, he condemneth the Law of God. 2. Hence follovveth an other miſchiefe, to wit, that if a man condemneth the law, then hee is no obſeruer of the law, but is become a iudge; vvhere vve ſee, the Apoſtle counteth it as a miſchiefe and a vice, for a man to be no obſeruer of the law: of this vice are our Antinomians guilty: for they will be no obſeruers or doers of the law: and here we hauehave the very word in queſtion betvvixt vsus rarified, to wit, the word obſerue, and obſeruation: for we vrge the law vntounto obſeruation.

9.

Thus I reaſon againſt them; they that hold and ſay, that the morall lavv is aboliſhed, they muſt hold this abſurd and wicked opinion, that no parte of the Old Teſtament is now in force, but that it is wholly aboliſhed in all the partes thereof, vntounto beleeuers: the reaſon hereof is, 1. becauſe all the lawes and precepts in the old Teſtament, and all the directions to leade a godly liefe, from the beginning of Geneſis to the end of Malachie, are referred to one of theſe lawes, the Morall, p. 13Iudicall, or Ceremoniall: if then they reiect the morall law, much more will they reiect the Iudicall and Ceremoniall lawes: and if they reiect the morall law, then will they reiect all the expoſitions and branches thereof, deliuered by the Prophets; and ſo they reiect the whole old Teſtament, the law and the Prophets: for they reiect all the three lawes, the Morall, Iudiciall, and Ceremoniall, with all their appurtenances. 2. So much they do imply by ſaying, they are not vnderunder Moſes, but vnderunder Chriſt: not to be gouerned by the law, but by the Goſpell; and the like. Now that it is a moſt abſurd and wicked opinion, to hold that all the partes of the old Teſtament are aboliſhed, and no rule of our liues, ſhall appeare by this, that the Apoſtles doe eueryevery where ſend vsus for direction; into the old Teſtament: ſee theſe places Rom. 14.11. Rom. 15.4. 1. Cor. 9.8.9.10. 1. Cor. 10.11. 1. Cor. 14.21. Heb. 13.5. Iam. 2.8.10. Iam. 5.10.11. 1. Pet. 1.16. 1. Pet. 3.5.6.

10.

An other abſurdety let me adde, to ſhew the vanity of their deſtinction, holding the law to belong vntounto, and to bind ſuch as are yet vnregenerated and want faith, but not to belong vntounto, nor to binde ſuch as are regenerated and hauehave faith: this diſtinction is very abſurd; for it produceth greate confuſion and diſorder in the Church; and no leſſe inconvenience in the family; for if it be ſo, that beleeuers are not bound to the obſeruance of the law, then when the Sabbath day cometh, theſe men are not bound to ſanctify it, it being a parte of that law, from which they are freed; but others, that doe not yet beleeue, they are bound to keepe the Sabbath day, it being enioyned in that lavv vntounto vvhichwhich they are ſtill bound: ſuppoſe we then, the maſter and the miſtris of the family be beleeuers, the children and the ſeruants as yet vnbeleeuers; why then, the maſter and the miſtris may goe to their workes priuate or publike; the ſeruants and children muſt then goe to the Church: what diſorder will this be, to hauehave families thus rent and diuided? ſome goeing to church, other ſome of the ſame body going to worke? yea, what a poore Sabbath (thinke you) will be kept by the inferiours, p. 14when they ſhall ſee ſo bade an example before their eyes, as their ſuperiours, either idle doeing nothing, or following their ſeruile laboures? yea, what an aduantage may Sathan get vponupon younglings by this diſtinction, to hold them ſtill faſt in his clavves; for may they ſay with themſelues, ſo long as we beleeue not, not remaine in our vnregeneracy, it goeth well with vsus: for now we hauehave an holy day allowed vsus once a weeke, wherein we are freed from our toileſome labours, but did we beleeue as doe our Maſter and Miſtris, then ſhall we hauehave no holy day at all, then ſhall we moile and toile day by day vnceſſantly, like horſe in a carte: who vvold be a beleeuer? who wold be regenerated? Furthermore, if on the Sabbath day, it pleaſeth the Maſter or Miſtris to ſet vponupon any vvorke vvherein they cannot proceede, vvithout the helpe of ſome of their ſeruants or children, they muſt in ſuch caſe keepe holy day too of neceſſity: For they may not command their ſeruants to helpe them: but in caſe, they vvill ſet vponupon ſome workes, vvhichwhich themſelues can doe alone, then loe what a diſordered family is here! the Maſter and Dame vvorking, the ſeruants and children ſiting by, vvithout any vvorke in their hands, this makes me call to mind that vve read of Eccl. 10.7. I hauehave ſene ſeruants on horſes, and Princes walking, as ſeruants on the ground. Furthermore, vvhereas the ſeruants and children, muſt ſanctify the day vvhileſt they are at home, by reading, conference, ſinging of Pſalmes, calling to minde vvhat they vvere taught in the Chureh, and meditating diuine things, they ſhall not onelyonly ſee and behold their gouerners, exerciſed about ſeruile labours, to their great diſtraction, but alſo heare them talking in the houſe of worldly affaires, asking for this, calling for that; hovv poorely ſhall theſe younglings ſanctifie the Sabbath, vvhen they hauehave ſuch diſturbances? and vvhen they that ſhould goe before them in example to dravv them on, are their onelyonly hinderers and pulbackes? Surely, God is not the authour of this confuſion, nor of their diſtinction, the ground of it: God vvould as well hauehave beleeuers as vnbeleeuers to ſanctify his Sabbath.

Thus hauing bewraied the abſurdety of this Antinomian p. 15opinion, and alſo firmly proued it, that the law belongeth vntounto beleeuers, as touching obſeruation; I come now to anſwer to their obiectiones brought againſt this trueth; and here I will not ſpend time in anſwering vntounto all their obiections, I will only cull out the chiefe, and thoſe wherein they place the moſt confidence, and anſwer them.

OBIECT. I.

It is obiected that we are freed from the law: becauſe the Apoſtle ſaith plainly, yee are not vnderunder the law, but vnderunder grace, Rom. 6.14. And againe, If ye be led by the ſpirit, yee are not vnderunder the Law, Gal. 5.18.

How euer many anſwers might be giuen to theſe textes, yet I will content my ſelfe with one: ye erre (ſaid our Sauiour Chriſt) becauſe you know not the Scriptures, the ſame I might apply vntounto thoſe who thus abuſe theſe Textes: did they but vnderſtand the Apoſtles ſcope, and vſe of this phraſe (to be vnderunder the law) they might hauehave ſpared vsus this labour: who ſo will but obſerue the ſcope and drifte of S. Paul, ſhall eaſily find it, that he diſputed only againſt iuſtification by the law, Rom. 3.20. Rom. 9.31.32. Gal. 5.4. And that he might the better diſſwad his aduerſaries, from ſeeking iuſtification by the Law, and ſo from being vnderunder the lavv in that reſpect, he ſheweth the danger of being vnderunder the law, and ſeeking righteouſneſſe by the lavv: for, by the law (ſaith he) comes the knowledge of ſinne, Rom. 3.20. and, the law cauſeth wrath, Rom. 4.15. and, as many as are of the workes of the law, are vnderunder the curſe, Gal. 3.10. and this is the condition of all ſuch as will be vnderunder the Law, and wil be iuſtified by the Law, where as they ſeeke for iuſtification by it, they ſhal find the cleane contrary, namely wrath, the curſe, and condemnation: On the contrary, when the Apoſtle ſpeaketh to the faithfull, who ſought iuſtification by grace and by Chriſt, and renounced the law, he ſpeaketh vntounto them, as vntounto men ſet at liberty, ſaying, yee are not vnderunder the law: that is, yee beleeuers are not vnderunder the law now, as once yee were before yee beleeued, and as thoſe vnbeleeuing Iewes are, that is, you are not vnderunder the law for iuſtification, and conſequently, you are not vnderunder the law, p. 16as cauſing wrath, and as being vnderunder the carſe: thus you ſee, the Apoſtle freeth the faithfull, from being vnderunder the law; as thos vnbeleeuing Iewes were, that is, as touching the curſe of the law; but hers not a word of freeing the faithfull, from the obſeruation of the law, and from being vnderunder the law in this reſpect.

2. This may further appeare, by that other phraſe ioyned with it and oppoſed to it, (vnderunder grace) whereby is no thing elſe ſignified, but the free iuſtification of a beleeuer by the mercy of God, for the merite of Chriſt; as you may ſee, Rom. 3.24. Rom. 5.15.17.21. Rom. 6.1. Gal. 2.21. Gal. 5.4. wherfore, as this phraſe (to be vnderunder grace) hath reſpect only vntounto iuſtification, ſo its oppoſite (not to be vnderunder the law) hath only reſpect vntounto iuſtification; the one phraſe expreſſing hovv beleeuers are iuſtified; the other how they are not iuſtified: beleeuers are iuſtified by the grace of God, not by the workes of the law; by being vnderunder grace, not by being vnderunder the law: as if the Apoſtle had ſaid, yee beleeuers are not vnderunder the law for Iuſtification, but are vnderunder grace for Iuſtification. So ſtill the Apoſtle freeth not the faithfull from being vnderunder the Lavv, for obſeruation, but only for iuſtification.

3. That by this Phraſe, vnderunder the law, S. Paul meante a being vnderunder the law for iuſtification, I proue it in his Epiſtle to the Galatians; for in Gal. 4.21. he vſeth this phraſe ſaying tell mee, yee that will be vnderunder the law, &c. The which Phraſe, him ſelfe by and by in the next chapter expoundeth, by expreſing, the ſame thing, in other and more perſpicuouſe words, ſaying, ye are aboliſhed from Chriſt: whoſoeuer are iuſtified by the law, Gal. 5.4. ſo then to be vnderunder the law, is nothing elſe then to be juſtified by the law: for the Apoſtle ſpeaketh againſt the law, in one and the ſame ſenſe, in the fourth and fifth chapters, his diſcourſe being continued as about one and the ſame matter: ſo then, this phraſe being rightly vnderſtood, it maketh againſt the vſe of the law for iuſtification, but not at all for obſeruation.

I remember I hauehave heard ſome of them reply againſt this diſtinction, and ſay, that the law was not made to iuſtifie p. 17any; neither did God euer intend to iuſtify any by the law. Where to I anſwer, that God propounded the law, either for iuſtification or for condemnation, ſee Luk. 10.28.27. Gal. 3.12. Rom. 10.5. but admit that God neuer intended to iuſtify any man by the law, yet many men there were, that ſought iuſtification by the law, ſee Mat. 19.16, 17. Rom. 9.31.32. Gal. 4.21. Gal. 5.4. And therefore, there is ground enough for vsus to ſay, that S. Paul diſputed againſt the law, as vrged by ſome vntounto iuſtification.

OBIECT. II.

It is further obiected, the law is aboliſhed; for S. Paul ſaith of it, if that which is done away, was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious, 2 Cor. 3.11. here the Apoſtle ſpeaketh of the Morall Law, for he ſpeaketh of that law, which was ingrauen in ſtones, v. 7. and of this law he ſaith, that it is aboliſhed or done away.

Herevnto I anſwer. 1. That howbeit the text ſpeaketh, as if the law were quite aboliſhed in all reſpectes, yet that the Apoſtle muſt be vnderſtood here, to aboliſh the law only in ſome reſpect, and to let it ſtand ſtill in ſome other reſpect, our aduerſaries them ſelues doe and muſt hold: for they ſay, that the law is aboliſhed in deed to a beleeuer, but it ſtands ſtill to an vnbeleeuer and one vnregenerated: for the law ſerues ſtill to be a ſcholemaſter, to bring men to Chriſt, Gal. 3.24. yea, they hauehave no other euaſion from all our Scriptures, whereby we proue the law to be ſtill in force, ſaue this, to anſwer that thoſe Textes were ſpoken to a mixed congregation of beleeuers and vnbeleeuers, and ſo the Textes are ſay they to be vnderſtood of the vnbeleeuers: …t is plain therefore, that they vrge not this Text for the vtter aboliſhing of the law; wherefore, ſince them ſelues doe diſtinguiſh of the law, in what ſenſe it ſtands ſtill, and in what ſenſe it is aboliſhed, they muſt giuegive vsus leaue to diſtinguiſh alſo.

I anſwer then vntounto this text, the law is to be conſidered, either as it (through our weakneſſe) tendeth vntounto condemnation, or as it ſheweth vsus light for obſeruation: now the Apoſtle ſpeaketh of the law in the former ſenſe: and that this is ſo, is p. 18manifeſt, in that the Apoſtle termeth the law a killing letter, v. 6. and, the miniſtration of death, v. 7. and, the miniſtration of condemnation, v. 9. ſo then, the Apoſtle ſpeaketh of the law as aboliſhed, only as it is a killing letter, the miniſtration of death, and the miniſtration of condemnation; but not a word here againſt the law for obſeruation, and as a rule for our liues.

OBIECT. III.

Yet further they obiect to vsus the text, Gal. 5.22.23. But the fruit of the Spirit is louelove, ioy, peace, long ſuffering, gentleneſſe, goodneſſe, faith, meekneſſe, temperance, againſt ſuch there is no law: here the Apoſtle freeth the faithfull from the law.

For anſwer hereto, we muſt know that as in the poenall lawes of men there are two things, the matter of the law, and the poenalty of the law, ſo may we conſider alſo two things in Gods law, the matter, and the poenalty: if we reſpect the matter of the law, it is againſt all vngodlineſſe & vnrighteouſneſſe of men, and againſt all vngodly and vnrighteous men, for it forbiddeth all ſinne, and ſo is againſt all ſinners, and againſt none but ſinners: wherefore, the Apoſtle conſidering the faithfull here, as righteous men, walking in louelove, peace, meekneſſe and temperance, might well ſay, there is no law againſt ſuch: for the law doth not forbid ſuch things, but command them rather; the law is not againſt ſuch perſones but for them rather. Now in al this, the Apoſtle doth not free theſe faithfull ones, from the obſervation of the lavv as a rule of liefe; he ſpeaketh of no ſuch matter, he ſaith only, that the lavv doth not ſet it ſelfe againſt, or forbid men louelove, peace, meekneſſe, and temperance, &c. 2. The Lavv may be taken, for the poenalty of the lavv, Ioh. 19.7. 2 Cor. 3.6.7.9. Gal. 3.10.12.21. For it threateneth death: and ſo is called a killing letter and the miniſtration of condemnation: novv in this ſenſe, as the law is conſidered in reſpect vntounto the poenalty therof, ſo the faithfull are freed from the lavv indeed; and in this ſenſe there is no lavv againſt the faithfull: for, there is no condemnation to them which are in Chriſt Ieſus, which walke not after the p. 19fleſh but after the ſpirit, Rom. 8.1: ſo ſtill here is nothing brought againſt the Lavv, for obſeruation as a rule of liefe, and as a light vntounto our feete, and lanthorne to our pathes, Pſ. 119.105.

OBIECT. IV.

Againe they obiect that text, 1 Tim. 1.9. The law was not made for a righteous man, but for the lawleſſe and diſobedient, &c.

For anſvver vntounto this text, firſt me muſt knovv vvho is a righteous man in S. Pauls accompt: this vve ſhall find in his Epiſtle to the Romans, Abraham beleeued God, and it was counted vntounto him for righteouſneſse, Rom. 4.3. Rom. 5.1. ſo then, a beleeuer is accounted for a righteous man: and this righteous man is freed from condemnation by Chriſt: now then there is no condemnation to them that are in Chriſt Jeſus, Rom. 8.1. Theſe things premiſed, I anſvver to this text by the former diſtinction, to vvit, that by the lavv, is ſomtime meant the matter of the lavv, and ſomtime the poenalty of the law, as hath bene proued: now in this place, the Apoſtle may be vnderſtood, to ſpeake only of the lavv in reſpect of the poenaltie thereof, as it cauſeth wrath, as it is a killing letter, & as it is the miniſtratiō of condemnation; now in this ſenſe, the law is not giuen to a righteous man: for hee is freed from the poenalty and curſe of the law by Chriſt, who is made a curſe for vsus, Gal. 3.13. and in this ſenſe, the lavv is giuen only to the lawleſſe and diſobedient, to the vngodly and to ſinners, to murtherers of fathers and mothers, &c. as the Apoſtle ſpeaketh.

Or, if by the lavv you vvill vnderſtand the matter of the lavv, then I anſwer, that the Apoſtle ſpeaketh of the law with reſpect vntounto iuſtifiation by it, and not with reſpect of obſeruation of it: for the lavv is not giuen to a righteous man to iuſtifie him: becauſe he is iuſtified an other way, that is by faith, in Chriſt, and ſo he is become to a righteous man, not by the lavv, but by faith. Thus, this text rightly vnderſtood, it maketh nothing at all againſt a righteous mans obſeruation of the lavv: it only freeth him from condemnation by the p. 20Lavv; or ſheweth, that he obtaineth not his iuſtification and righteouſneſſe by the Lavv.

OBIECT. V.

Againe they obiect an other text, Rom. 10.4. Chriſt is the end of the Law for righteouſneſſe, vntounto eueryevery one that beleeueth: Here (ſay they) is an end put vntounto the lavv, by Chriſt, vntounto all beleueers.

I anſwer, it is true indeed, there is an end put vntounto the lavv, for beleeuers; but note withall, in what reſpect S. Paul ſaith an end is put there to: for he ſaith not abſolutely', an end is put to the lavv, but reſpectiuely, an end is put vntounto the law, for righteouſneſſe: that is, for iuſtification: for, beleeuers are not to ſeeke for righteouſneſſe & iuſtification, by the law any more, but by Chriſt: this text then putteth an end to the law, for iuſtification, but not for obſeruation.

OBIECT. VI.

One text more they obiect Rom. 7.6. But now we are deliuered from the law, &c. as a vvoman is from hir husband vvho is deade &c.

I ſhall giuegive none other anſvver vntounto this text, then vntounto the former, to wit, that by the law is vnderſtood the penalty of the law, & the curſe of the law; or the law in reſpect of the penalty and curſe thereof: that this is the Apoſtles meaning, I make it appeare by two reaſons from the context. 1. See v. 4. So ye my brethren, are dead to the law, by the body of Chriſt: by the body of Chriſt, that is by the ſufferings of Chriſt in his body: now if Chriſt hath freed vsus from the law, by his ſuffering of death, what can this intimate, but that the law, from which he freed vsus by death, was conſidered, in reſpect of the penalty and curſe, and as holding vsus in bondage vntounto death. For by death, Chriſt freed vsus from death: wherefore, when the Apoſtle ſaith, we are dead to the law, or freed from the lavv, he conſidered the law as a killing letter, and as it held vsus in bondage vntounto death. 2. See v. 5. When we were in the fleſh, the affections of ſinnes which were by the law, had force in our members to bring forth fruit vntounto death: To bring forth fruit vntounto death: here the Apoſtle, ſpeaketh of the law, not ſimply, but of the law, as (together with our corruption) fructifying vntounto p. 21death: wherefore, ſeeing the Apoſtle ſpake of the lavv, as tending vntounto death, it follovveth, that vvhen in the very next vvords, he ſaid, We are deliuered from the law, v. 6. he meant, that vve are deliuered from the poenalty and curſe of the lavv, or from the lavv as it reſpecteth the curſe, to vvit, eternall death and deſtruction: ſo then, here is nothing yet proued, againſt the lavv, for obſeruation as a rule of liefe.

It vvas not for nothing, that S. Paul added theſe vvords for righteouſneſſe; ſaying, Chriſt is the end of the law (to wit) for righteouſneſſe &c. Rom. 10.4. Shevving thereby, that he diſputed againſt the lavv, not ſimply, but conſidered as the meanes of iuſtification and obtaining righteouſneſſe. Neither is it to be paſſed by vvithout ſpeciall obſeruation, that S. Paul diſputing in another place againſt the law, doth it not againſt the lavv ſimply, but againſt the lavv conſidered as tending to the curſe to thoſe vvho ſought righteouſneſſe thereby, and therefore he ſaid not, Chriſt hath redeemed vsus from the law, Gal. 3.13. but Chriſt hath redeemed vsus from the curſe of the law. Yea, it is remarkable, that eueryevery where, where S. Paul diſputeth againſt the lavv, his maine queſtion is about iuſtification by the law: denying iuſtification by the law, ſaying, By the works of the law, ſhall no fleſh be iuſtified, Rom. 3.20. Gal. 2.16. So that S. Paul diſputeth againſt the lavv, onelyonly with reſpect had vntounto obtaining righteouſneſſe and iuſtification thereby, and in reſpect of the curſe of the lavv. But it is no vvhere found, that Chriſt is the end of the lavv, for obſeruation and for a rule of an holy liefe: nor is it any vvhere found, that Chriſt hath redeemed vsus, from obſeruation of or obedience to the lavv: nor yet is it any vvhere ſaid, By the lavv, ſhall no fleſh be directed, or guided in their liues and conuerſation: vvherefore, for time to come, if Anabaptiſts and Antinomians vvill obiect againſt the law, by way of oppoſition to vsus, let them not proue that the lavv is aboliſhed in reſpect of iuſtification, and as a curſe &c. For all this, vve ſtedfaſtly beleeue and teach; but let them remember to proue vntounto vsus, that the lavv is aboliſhed as a rule of liefe, & for obſeruation; for this is that vvhichwhich vve deny onelyonly; that Chriſt p. 22hath aboliſhed the poenalty of the lavv, vve beleeue it, but that he hath aboliſhed the matter of the law, this we deny, and this as yet they hauehave not proued, nor euer ſhall be able: if we will be S. Pauls ſchollers, we muſt learne of him, ſo to diſpute againſt the law, as that we doe not for all that make it of none effect: and ſo to aboliſh the law, as yet for all that we doe eſtabliſh it: For ſo he ſaith, Doe we make the law of none effect &c? God forbid; yea, we eſtabliſh the law, Rom. 3.31. but our aduerſaries hauehave learned of Paul to aboliſh the law, but not to eſtabliſh the law.

We hauehave novv made anſwer vntounto the moſt and chiefeſt of their Scriptures, which they alleage againſt the law, others they hauehave alſo, but they are ſuch as will admit of the ſame anſwere giuen to ſome of theſe, or elſe are ſo triuiall, as they deſerue no anſwer: to conclud then, ſince I hauehave firmely proued it, that the law is ſtill in force, and that to all men, beleeuers and vnbeleeuers for obſeruation; and ſince they can neither anſwer our Textes, nor yet proue the contrary, it remaineth, that the Morall law is ſtill in force; which being ſo, Gods ancient Sabbath commanded in this law is ſtill in force alſo: for both Anabaptiſtes and Antinomians hauehave confeſſed this vntounto me, that if it can be proued, that the Morall law is ſtill in force, then it muſt and doeth vndeniably follow, that the Saturday Sabbath is ſtill in force, as well as any other thing commanded in the law. Thus we hauehave vindicated Gods Sabbathes, from Anabaptiſtes and Antinomians, in the next place we muſt vindicate them, from Proteſtants and Papiſts.

CHAP. II.

An expoſition of the fourth Commandement; together with a diſcouery of the manifold, lamentable, ſhamfull, and abhominable corruptions and abuſes, of this diuine Law of God, by many Miniſters of theſe times, through their falſe gloſſes, idle anſwers, and abſurd expoſitions of it.