The Doctrine of the Sabbath, Thesis 30 – Thesis 32
Thesis 30.
If lastly, those things which are thus commanded because they are good, be morall, then the whole Decalogue may hence appeare to be the morall law of God, because there is no one law in it, which is therefore good onelyonly because 'tis commanded, but is therefore commanded, because it is good and suitable to humane nature: When I say, suitable to humane nature, I doe not meane humane nature considered absolutely, but relatively, either in relation to God, or relation unto man: for not onelyonly the light of nature, but of common sense also, beare witnesse that every precept of the second Table, wherein man is considered in relation to man, is thus farre good: for how comely and good is it to honour Parents, to be tender of other mens lives and comforts, to preserve ones selfe and others from filthy pollutions, to doe no wrong but all the good we can to other mens estates? &c. Nor doe I thinke that any will question any one Commandment of this Table to bee good and suitable to humane nature, unlesse it be some Nimrod or Brennus (that professed he knew no greater justice than for the stronger, like the bigger fishes of the Sea, to swallow up the lesser in case they bee hungry) or some Turkish Tartar or Caniball, or some surfetted Professor, transformed into some licentious opinionist, and so growne Master of his owne Conscience, and that can audaciously out-face the very light of nature and common sense, through the righteous judgement of God blinding and hardning his heart: And if the Commandments of the second Table be thus farre good in themselves, are not those of the first Table much more? Is love to man (when drawne out into all the six streames of the second Table) good in it selfe, and shall not love to God, drawn out in the foure precepts of the first Table, as the Spring from whence all our love to man should flow, much more? Are the streams morally sweet, and is not the spring it self of the same nature? Love to God, and love to man are the common principles (saith Aquinas truely) of the law of nature; and all particular precepts (saith hee perhaps unawares) are conclusions flowing from these principles, out of Matth. 22. And are the principles good in themselves, and suitable to humane nature, and doe not all the conclusions participate of their nature? For what are all particular precepts, but particular unfoldings of love to God, and love to man? If all the precepts of the second Table be morall, which doe onelyonly concerne man, why should any of the first fall short of that glory, which doe immediately concerne God? Shall man have six, and all of them morally good, and God have but foure, and some one or more of them not so? Is it comely and good to have God to be our God in the first Commandment, to worship him after his owne minde in the second, to give him his worship with all the highest respect and reverence of his Name in the third, and is it not as comely, good and suitable, that this great God and King should have some magnificent day of state to be attended on by his poore servants and creatures, both publikely and privately, with speciall respect and service, as oft as himselfe sees meer, and which we cannot but see and confesse to be most equall and just, according to the fourth Commandment? If mans life must bee divided into labour and rest, is it not equall and good if wee have six dayes, that God should have a seventh? If the bruit beasts could speake they would say that a seventh dayes rest is good for them, Exod. 23.12. and shall man (who hath more cause and more need of rest, even of holy rest) say that it is not good for him even to rest in the bosome of God himselfe, to which he is called this day? Take away a Sabbath, who can defend us from Atheisme, Barbarisme, and all manner of Devilisme and prophanesse? And is it evill thus to want it, and shall it not be good to have it? I confesse if God had commanded a perpetuall Sabbath, it had not then been good but sinfull to observe any set Sabbath: but if God will have man to labour for himselfe six dayes, and this labour be morally good being now commanded; why is it not then as good to observe a seventh in rest to God, being also commanded of him?
Thesis 31.
It is therefore at least an indigested assertion of those who affirme that the Decalogue sets out the precepts of the law of Nature,Aqui…. 1, 2, q. 98. Art. 5. Zanchy in 4. Praec. and yet withall doth superad certaine precepts proper to the Jewish people; in which last respect they say all men are not bound to the observance thereof (and they produce the fourth Commandment for proof) but in respect of the first they are: But although in the application of a law, something may bee proper to the Jewish people, yet (with leave of the learned) there is never a law in it but it is morall and common to all: for to make any law in the Decalogue proper, is an assertion springing from a false and blinde principle, viz. That that law onelyonly is morall which is naturall; not naturall, as suitable to humane nature, but which is seene and knowne by the common light of corrupt nature without the helpe of any externall usher or teacher. If also any lawes in the Decalogue be proper, how will any finde out and discerne morall lawes which concerne all, from proper laws which appertaine onelyonly to some? For if God hath made such a mingling, and not severed morall lawes by themselves, then man hath no law or revelation by any dictinct and severed lawes left unto him to discerne lawes proper and peculiar, from laws morall and common, which how pernicious it may bee to mens soules to bee left to such uncertainty, as also how injurious to God and crosse to his maine ends in discovering morall lawes, let the wise consider; for if they say that wee must flye for help herein to the light of corrupt nature, then as hath been shewn, an imperfect light, and a blinde guide, and a corrupt judge must be the chief rule of discerning that which is morall, from that which is peculiar and proper, for doubtlesse such a kinde of light is the light of corrupt nature.
Thesis 32.
Some thinke that those commandments onelyonly are morally good, which the Gospel hath declared and confirmed to be so: and by this shift they thinke to avoid the absurdity of flying to the blinde guide of corrupt nature to judge of these colours, viz. what is morall and what is not, Mr. Primrose therefore excludes the fourth Commandment from being morall, the other nine being ratified by the light of the Gospell, which this (he saith) is not: but if his meaning be that there must be a generall ratification of lawes morall by the verdict of the Gospell, then the fourth Commandment cannot be excluded from being morall, because it hath a ratification in generall from the Gospell: for therein wee read that the morall law is holy, just and good, Rom. 7. and that Christ came not to destroy the least jot or tittle of the law, Matth. 5. much lesse a whole law of the fourth Commandment. In the Gospel also God promiseth to write his Law upon our hearts, wherein the fourth Commandment is not excepted. But if his meaning be… this, that the Gospell must particularly mention, and so make a particular ratification (as it were) by name of every morall law, then his assertion is unsound; there being many judiciall lawes of Moses, of which some are wholly morall, others containing in them something of common and morall equity, which we have no expresse mention of in the blessed Gospell: and let him turne over al the leaves of the Gospell, hee shall not finde that proportion of time which himselfe affirmes to be morall in the fourth Commandment, to bee expressely and particularly mentioned in the Gospell; and therefore that also must be excluded from being morall upon his owne principles, as well as what we contend for in this Commandment so to bee.