A Defense of the Sabbath Day, Chapter 5 · Commentary · Section 3 · Argument 10
ARGVM. X.
My 10th Argument, to proue that the 7th day Sabbath mentioned in the law, is ſtill in force: is becauſe our Sauiour Christ ratified the very least thing commanded in the Law to endure for euer, Mat. 5.18. & thus it may be framed.
He that ratified the very leaſt thing commanded in the Law, vntounto the least letter, to laſt for euer; he ratified the 7th day Sabbath to be ſtill in force.
But Chriſt ratified the very least thing commanded in the Law, vntounto the least letter, to last for euer.
Therefore Chriſt ratified the 7th day Sabbath to be ſtill in force.
As for the Major or firſt propoſition, it is cleere of it ſelfe; for nothing therin can be doubted of: for admit that the 7th day Sabbath, be the leaſt thing commanded in the Morall Law; why then hee that ratified eueryevery thing commanded in the Law, vntounto the very leaſt thing therein (call it an accident, or a circumſtance of time, or what elſe diminutily you will) he did ratifie this litle thing alſo, the 7th day Sabbath: the argument is good a minori; for, if Christ would not hauehave a title of a letter in the Law altered, much leſſe an ordinance commanded in the Law, as is the 7th day Sabbath.
I come next vntounto the Minor or ſecond propoſition, and this is moſt cleerly proued by the words of our Sauiour Chriſt, For truly I ſay vntounto you vntill heauen & earth periſh, one iote, or one title ſhall in no wiſe paſſe from the Law, vntill all things be fulfilled Mat. 5.18. In which words, our Sauiour Chriſt plainly ratified, the very leaſt things commanded in the Law, to laſt for euer: for as Chemnitius ſaith vponupon this text, iote, is a letter of the Hebrew Alphabet of the leaſt value of all other letters in the Alphabet: & title, ſaith hee) is as a pricke to a letter, or as a comma to a ſē tence: whereby we ſee, that inaſmuch as Chriſt, would not hauehave one of the leaſt letters of the Law, no nor ſo much a title of a letter, as a pricke is vponupon the letter (i) in no wiſe to departe from the Law, hereby he ratified the very leaſt thing commanded in the Law: that Chriſt ratified the Law, vntounto a iot and title, extendeth to the very leaſt things in the Law, more emphatically, & more voide of exception, then if he had ſaid, nothing ſhall paſſe from the Law.
(Had the 7th day Sabbath bene to be aboliſhed a while after, Chriſt ſhould hauehave forknowne it well enough; & then remembring that, he would neuer hauehave here ratified the Law ſo vniuerſally vntounto a very iot and title of it)
This is plaine, if we looke but vponupon the very next verſe verſ. 19. Whoſoeuer therefore ſhall breake one of theſe leaſt commandements, and teach men ſo, he ſhall be caled the least in the Kingdome of heauen, Mat. 5.19. So here then in plaine words you ſee our Sauiour ratifieth the very leaſt cōmandement: yet further, Chriſt intended to ratify not onelyonly the leaſt comman. but alſo the leaſt branch of eueryevery commandement: for he ratified not onelyonly the 6th com. touching murther but alſo the leaſt thing therin conteined, as raſh anger, and caling an other foole v. 22. & the 7th com. hee ratified it to the leaſt iot & title of it, euen to the adultery of the heart, and to a luſtfull looke v. 28. & the ſeconp Table, of louelove, Chriſt ratified it to the vtmoſt, extending it, euen to the louelove of our enemies v. 44. by all which it is moſt apparent, that our bleſſed Sauiour, intended, to ratify this Diuine Law of his heauenly father, to the very vtmoſt, & vntounto the very leaſt thing therin commanded, neither can any man (I think) invent, ſhould he ſtudy 7 yeeres for it, how to expreſſe himſelfe in words more vniuerſally & emphatically, to comprize eueryevery thing, vntounto the very leaſt of all, ſo as his words ſhould be liable to no exceptions, then our Sauiour Chriſt hath expreſſed himſelfe heere: ſo emphatically, ſo vniuerſally, and ſo full are his words heere ſpoken to that end.
Thus you hauehave ſene this argument firmly proued, neither can I deuiſe, what ſhould be more plaine & pregnant, for the maintenāce of this ordinance of Gods morall Sabbath, then this text vttered by our Sauiour Chriſt: but by how much it is the cleerer, by ſo much the more, Sathan ſtirreth vp oppoſition againſtit; let vsus therefore ſee what trickes and quillets the wit of man can deuiſe againſt it; that ſo all rubbs being remoued, our faith may reſt vponupon this rocke of Chriſts word, the more firmly and ſecurly.
1. One anſwer brought againſt this argument is this, that by the word Law may be vnderſtod, both the morall and Ceremoniall Lawes. But this is an vnwarrantable enlargment of the word law: for it is a rule, that generall words, muſt be reſtrained vntounto the Subiect matter in hand; as in Heb. 7.12. if by the word Law there, we ſhould vnderſtand both morall and ceremoniall Lawes, we ſhould make foule worke; wherefore as the word Law in Heb. 7.12. is to be raſtained vntounto the Leuiticall ceremoniall Law, according to the matter there ſpoken of; ſo muſt we by the word Law in Mat. 5.18. vnderſtād onelyonly the morall Law, according to the matter here ſpoken of: for as you may ſe plainly by the context, our Sauior ſpeaketh of the morall Law, for our Sauiour hauing ratified the Law in generall in v. 18.19. then he deſcendeth vntounto particulars, giuinge examples in the 6th com. touching murther, as in v. 21. & in the 7th com. touching adultery, as in v. 27. & in the third com. touching ſwearing, as in v. 3. & the latter parte of the Chapter, is ſpent in dueties of louelove towards our neighbour, conteined in the ſecond Table, whereby we ſee our Sauiour ſpake onelyonly of the morall Law.
2. I proue that the ceremoniall Law cannot be here meante; for, Chriſt ſaid but in the verſe a forgoing, that he came not to deſtroy the (Law or the Pr…phets) which phraſe, our Saniour vſeth in this Sermon, for the Morall Law onelyonly Mat. 7.12. and neuer otherwiſe, Mat. 22.40. ſecondly, then ſhould Chriſt hauehave ratified the ceremoniall Law, vntounto the worlds end, in Mat. 5.18. which is contrary vntounto all Scriptures: and therfore Chriſt ſpake nothing of the ceremoniall Law in this place. 3. Since Chriſt ſpake here, of the duration & continuance of the Law, for euer; it is abſurd to thinke, that in this caſe, he would ioyne the Morall and the Ceremoniall Laws together, as if they were both of a like perpetuity & laſting nature: and therfore onelie the Morall Law was here meante. 4. Can it be thought that Chriſt ſhould make here in v. 17. an Apologie for the Ceremoniall Law, when elſwhere he preached againſt it? Ioh. 4.21. Beſids ſince Chriſt intended a little after, to aboliſh the Ceremoniall Law, he would rather hauehave bene ſilent now, then to ſay ought that might ratifye it.
2. An other anſwer made againſt this argument is, that the duration of the Law here ſpoken of by Chriſt, is but vntill Chriſt his paſſion; noted in thoſe words, vntill all things be fulfilled v. 18. for at Chriſt his paſſion all things were fulfilled. But this anſwer is very abſurd; for theſe words of Chriſt, are a prophecy of the continuance of the Law; which prophecy was ratified by a greate Aſſeueration, ſaying, verily, or truly I ſay vntounto you &c. Now the time when Chriſt made this prophecy, it was not aboue a matter of two yeeres before his paſſion or there about; now who could thinke, that Chriſt ſhould make a prophecy, & that in ſuch ſolemne a maner, with ſuch an Aſſeueration, that the Law ſhould laſt, & continue yet, two yeers longer? Further, if this anſwer & expoſition be iuſtifiable, then by the ſame anſwer may we now reiect, a greate parte of Chriſts ſermon in the mount, & eſpecially his expoſition vponupon the Morall Law; for whereas, our Sauiour ratifieth the very leaſt of the commandements in v. 19. & expoundeth the 6th Com. to forbid raſh anger, & calleing a mans brother foole, v. 22. and expoundeth the 7th Com. to forbid a luſtfull looke, ver. 28. and the 3d Com. to forbid ſwearing by the creature, v. 34.36. and the 2d table, to command louelove to our enemies v. 44. a man may at once cut off all theſe, from binding vsus; if he will but ſuppoſe, that theſe enlargments of the Law. being ſo ſtrict & rigorouſe were Iewiſh, and pertaine not vntounto Chriſtians; & for the better auoiding of them, he may anſwer, that Chriſt ratified the Law, thus expounded, but vntill his death & paſsion, were not this a goodly anſwer?
2. It is falſe which they ſay, that all things were fulfilled at Chriſt his paſſion: It is true indeed, that Chriſt vponupon the Croſſe, ſaid, it is finiſhed, Ioh. 19.30. that is, his death & paſſion was finiſhed, but yet all things were not finiſhed; for the Reſurrection was behind. Wherefore the truer ſenſe, is by theſe words (till all things be fulfilled) to vnderſtand, euen all things, whatſoeuer Chriſt was to doe for his Church; and all things, which were any way prophecied of him, or of his Church militant: as this for one, Chriſt tarrieth now at the right hand of God, vntill his enemies be made his footeſtoole, Hebr. 10.12.13. This one thing, is not yet fulfilled: ſee 1 Cor. 15.25. an other thing is, that the heauens muſt containe Chriſt, vntill the time that all things be reſtored, Act. 3.21. this other thing is not yet fulfilled, to wit, Chriſt his ſecond comeing, and the reſtauration of all things. A third thing is, that the Church ſhall ſing A triumphant ſong, ouer death, the graue, & ſinne, 1 Cor. 15.55.56. & this thing is not yet fulfilled neither: now ſince all theſe things, ſhall not be fulfilled, vntill the worlds end, therfore the Law is to laſt vntounto the worlds end; for it muſt laſt, vntill all things be fulfilled.
Yet further, the ſame is euident and apparent in the Text it ſelfe; for our Sauiour ſaith, that the Law ſhall laſt vntill heauen & earth periſh, or paſse away: that is, vntill the end of the world: for then ſhall the heauens, & the earth paſſe away, and be diſſolued, as ſaith S. Peter, the heauens ſhall paſſe away with a noiſe, & the elements ſhall melt with heate, and the earth with the workes that are therein, ſhall be burnt vp &c. 2. Pet. 3.10. ſo long therfore as the heauens & the earth laſt, ſo long ſhall the Law, & eueryevery iot, and title of it laſt: the ſame is ratifyed by S. Luk, ſaying, It is more eaſy that heauen & earth ſhould paſſe away, then that one title of the Law ſhould fall, Luk. 16.17.
Laſtly, ſuppoſe we that in this text, there were no Prophecy at all, touching the duration & continuance of the Law, yet foraſmuch as we imbrace this Sermon, which Chriſt preached vponupon the Mount, as concerning vsus & our times; we muſt therefore imbrace this parte of his Sermon, wherein he preached and taught, that the Law, with the leaſt commandement thereof, yea & eueryevery branch of this Law, vntounto a iot & title, muſt goe together; for, Chriſt did not onelyonly preſſe the Law vponupon his Diſciples, but alſo eueryevery title of it: wherefore by the ſame right that we imbrace the other partes & paſſages of Chriſts Sermon, by the ſame right we muſt imbrace alſo the Law, & eueryevery iot and title of the Law: this Diuine Sermon of Chriſt, it is iij Chapters long, it begane Mat. 5.1.4. It laſted vntounto Mat. 8.1. If you may reiect ſome partes of this Sermon, as not belonging vntounto vsus, then may you reiect all the Sermon; & if you imbrace ſome partes, then muſt you imbrace all: & thus you ſee, their anſwer is vaine, in goeing about to confine the duration of the Law, vntounto the time of Chriſts liuing vponupon the earth, or vntounto his death and Paſſion onelyonly.
3. A third anſwer is, that not eueryevery iot & title of the Law is now in force; for there be ſome things in the Law, that be not in force, as in the preface to the commandements; I am the Lord thy God, that brought the out of the Land of Egypt: this deliuerance out of Egypt, belongeth not vntounto vsus Chriſtians; for we neuer were in bondagein Egypt: & alſo the reaſon annexed vntounto the 5th com. that thy dayes may be longe in the Land which the Lord thy God giueth thee: this Land was Canaan, & therefore the promiſe of this Land, cannot belong vntounto vsus Chriſtians. Herevnto I anſwer, that the Apoſtle doth apply this promiſe vntounto Christianes, that liued not in Canaan, as you may reade Eph. 6.1.2.3. neither doth the Lord ſay, that thy dayes may be long in the Land of Canaan: but generally thus, that thy dayes may be long in the Land, which God ſhall giuegive thee, that is, any Land, into which God ſhould bring them: wherefore the promiſe to the 5th com. is not to be reſtrained vntounto Canaan onelyonly, but may belong vntounto any Land. And as for the preface touching the deliuerance out of Egypt, this belongeth to this day, vntounto thoſe people vntounto whome it did at any time belong, that is vntounto the Iſraelites
Furthermore, I giuegive one anſwer ſeruing vntounto both theſe, which is this, admit that there be ſome titles of the Law, that doe not belong vntounto vsus, as theſe two reaſones annexed to the Law, yet they cannot ſhew any titles of the Law, that doe not belong vntounto vsus, which are partes of the Law: for we muſt diſtinguiſh betwixt the law, & the appurtenāces belonging to the law: the law, is that parte of the Decalogue, which command. or forbiddeth ſomething; the appurtenances of this Law, are the preface to the Law; & the motiues or reaſones to perſwade to the obedience of this Law; & theſe are not deliuered in commanding or forbiddeing termes: now I ſtand to defend by my argument, nothing more in the Law, then what is Law, & expreſly commanded or forbidden: neither doe I expound Chriſts words Mat. 5.18. Any larger then ſo; howbeit Iiudge, that Chriſt his words ought to be extended, not onelyonly vntounto the Law, but alſo to the appurtenances of the Law, if poſſiblie they may, & where neceſſity & abſurdety doe not hinder. To conclud, ſince my argument ſpeaketh onelyonly of ſuch iotes in the Law, as are Law, & deliuered in commanding or forbidding termes, their obiection is impertinent & beſids the matter in queſtion, to bring exceptiones of ſuch iotes as are no law, nor parte of Law, bur onelyonly appendixes to the Law: for all the appurtenances belonging to the Law, might poſſiblie be of no force, & yet the law it ſelfe may ſtand ſafely ſtill; like as a mans apparell may be worne out, or burned, & yet his body may be ſafe ſtill.
For a concluſion, let me add one thing in generall, which maketh againſt all their 3 anſwers, which is this, All Orthodox and ſound Diuines, when they hauehave to deale againſt the enemies, of Gods law, who would aboliſh the whole law, as Libertines, Anabaptists, & our new vpſtart Eatoniſts, they doe defend Gods law to be Morall & perpetuall by this text for one Math. 5.18. Nay I know not any text we hauehave in all the new Teſtament, that is more auailable for this purpoſe, thē is this one text: but if now our diuines, will ſtand to defend theſe 4 anſweres, which I hauehave confuted, then why may not any of theſe Libertines or the reſt, make the ſame anſwers to them, when they produce this Text, Mat. 5.18. to defend the perpetuity of Gods Law? as firſt, why may not theſe Libertines anſwer, ſaying, by the word Law, in Mat. 5.18. may be meant both the Morall & the Ceremoniall Laws; and ſo Chriſt ſhould ratify the Morall Law no more then he did the Ceremoniall Law? 2. And why may they not anſwer alſo, that the duration of the Law here ſpoken of by Chriſt, is but vntill Chriſts paſſion? 3. And why may they not anſwer you alſo, that there are ſome iotes & things in the Law, that belong not vntounto vsus Chriſtianes? as in the preface to the Commandements, Gods deliuerance of the Iſraelites out of Egypt: And the reaſon to the 5th com. that thy daies may be long in the Land that the Lord thy God giueth thee, that is, in the Land of Canaan? that ſo you ſhall not from this text, defend all and eueryevery of the tenn commandemēts. Wherefore, either they muſt withdrawe & renounce theſe 3 anſwers made to mee, or elſe they muſt receiue them at the hands of Libertines, Anabaptiſts, & Antinomians.
Thus much for my 10th Argument, whereby I hauehave proued, that our Sauiour Chriſt ratified the 7th day Sabbath, cōmanded in the Morall Law: becauſe hee ratified the very leaſt things commanded in the Morall Law.