The Lords Day Vindicated, Tract · Section 5
SECT. V.
THis Queſtion he endeavours to prove Aſſirmatively, Page 29. That Chriſt did in the Fleſh, confirm the Ten Commands, without any Exception of the Fourth Commandment, or any part or tittle thereof. Which if we ſhould fully grant, without the leaſt Exception, it would make nothing for his Cauſe, nor againſt ours; for as long as Chriſt was in the World, ſo long we all agree, that the Seventh day of the Week was the injoyed Sabbath; and therefore ought to be obſerved; and ſo might have been commanded by Chriſt to be kept: And ſo we know he ratified the Ceremonial Law, by commanding the cleanſed Lepers to go and ſhew themſelves to the Prieſt, and offer the Gift which Moſes commanded for their cleanſing, Matt. 8.4. And ſo alſo the Judicial Law, by injoyning them to pay Tithe of all, even of Mint, Annis and Cummin, Matt. 23.23. (which I think few or none do hold to be purely Moral) and ſo the Brother's taking of his Childleſs Brother's Wife, he ſeems to confirm by a Tacit Approbation to the Sadducees, objecting that to him, to baffle and puzzle him about the Reſurrection, Matt. 22.23, 30. Yet nevertheleſs thoſe Laws were not permanent, but expired; the Ceremonial with himſelf, and the Judicial with the Judicial State and Polity. Withall we add, that our Saviour did for ever confirm the Moral Law, which is contained in the Ten Commandments: And ſo the Fourth, as far as Moral; and in all that it commands as ſuch: But withall we ſay, that ſome Paſſages of the Fourth Command are neither Moral, nor yet commanded therein as ſuch; or of the Subſtance thereof: Whereof the mentioning of the laſt, the Seventh Day of the Week, to be the Sacred Reſt; is one: (which here is but nakedly aſſerted, but we defer the Proof) and ſuch as was to expire at his Reſurrection. Wherefore we ſay that that Paſſage, Matt. 5.17. Till Heaven and Earth paſs away, one jot or one tittle ſhall in no wiſe paſs away, muſt refer only to the Moral Law, Quatenus Moral; and as it refers to, and obliges all Nations; which ſeveral Paſſages belonging to the Ten Commands do not; whereof this is one about the Seventh day; and I think th is may be cleared by this Argument: That which neither our Saviour himſelf, nor any of his Apoſtles, did command or enjoyn to be followed by his, or their, Diſciples and Followers, cannot be Moral: But neither he nor they did ever enjoyn the Seventh-day-Sabbath, therefore it's not Moral. Our Saviour in none of his Diſcourſes (that I remember) did ever expreſly or particularly command the Obſervance of the Sabbath-day; but ſpake and did things which ſeem to declare the Abolition of the Seventh day; neither do any of his Apoſtles, in any of their Writings, impoſe it upon, or command the Obſervance of it, from either Jews or Gentiles, to whom they write; and conſequently we may conclude, that they never preached it (for we truly hold, that the Sum and Subſtance of all their Sermons is in their Books.) Yea, their Writings have ſeveral weighty Paſſages againſt the Seventh-day-Sabbath. Now our Saviour in his Commiſſion which he gave his Apoſtles, after his Reſurrection, juſt as he was aſcending up to Heaven, expreſly commands them to teach all Nations to obſerve all things whatſoever he commandeth them, Matt. 28.19, 20. Wherefore ſeeing they commanded not the Nations to obſerve the Seventh-day-Sabbath, Chriſt never taught them that Doctrin, nor injoyned them to do it; and therefore this cannot be one of thoſe Jots or Tittles of the Law, which in this Authors Senſe, was not to paſs from the Law; but only what was Moral in it. We acknowledge that the Lord Chriſt alſo confirmed the Moral Law, by commanding the Lawyer to love the Lord God, &c. But withall, that whoever gives to God the ſeventh part of his time, though it be not the Seventh day of the week; does therein love God as to the Declaration, as to the Fruit and Effect of his Love, as much as if he did the Seventh day; becauſe it is as fully the Subſtance of that Command.
The ſame anſwer will ſerve to Mark 12.28, 31. (Page 30.) with this Addition, That the change of the Seventh-day-Sabbath into that of the firſt day, is no more laying aſide of the Morality of the Fourth Command; than the change of Circumciſion, the Paſſover, and other Ceremonial Ordinances of the Old Teſtament into Baptiſm, the Lords Supper, and other Evangelical Adminiſtrations under the New. Theſe being as really included in, and commanded by, the ſecond Command at that time, as the Seventh-day-Sabbath is in and by the Fourth. And therefore as the change of thoſe Rites and Modes of Worſhip by our Lord Chriſt and his Apoſtles, was not the laying aſide of the ſecond Command, but rather a perfect Obedience thereto, and practical Confirmation thereof; ſo the change of the weekly-day-Sabbath was no Infringement, but rather an Eſtabliſhment of the Fourth Commandment.
In the ſame Page he Inſinuates, that we take away thoſe words [The Seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God] which yet we neither do in Letter, nor Senſe, for we leave the words in the Command, and obey them in their purport and meaning: For they do not ſo much enjoyn the Seventh day in order, as in number, not ſo much the laſt day of the week, as one day of the week, to be obſerved and ſanctified by us (as I ſuppoſe we may have an opportunity to prove.)
Page 31. He ſhews from Scripture that one great Article of the New Covenant, is Gods writing his Law upon the Hearts of his People, which he, with us, expreſly acknowledges to be the Moral Law: How then can the Seventh-day-Sabbath (as ſuch) be part of that Law, which is not written upon the Hearts of Thouſands, to one of Gods People. I judge this to be a clear Demonſtration againſt the Morality thereof.
He could never have ſhewn, that the Seventh-day-Sabbath was a part of the Law of Nature in Adam,) though the ſubſtance of the Ten Commands was it) and therefore it was inſtituted by God as before.
Page 32. He ſhews us (for ſo I have a Belief he intends) that he had a mind to prove, that Set Forms of Prayers, or other parts of Worſhip under a Form, though never ſo Excellent, though in expreſs words of Scripture; are the Peſel or Graven Image, that is forbidden in the ſecond Command, which is a Notion, I am ſure, alien from the Reſentments of the moſt Grave, Prudent, Learned and Experienced Chriſtians of former and Modern Ages, and very few of them have thought ſo uncharitably and rigorouſly of them, as to brand them with the groſſeſt Idolatry; though many judge them fit to be lain aſide by them, to whom God hath given a good and competent Gift; but yet much rather to be u ſed, and that comfortably and profitably too, where ſuch a Gift may be denied. And I think by this Rule, that everly Man that joyns with another in Prayer is guilty of Idolatry againſt the ſecond Command; for he makes the words of the Miniſter, or private Chriſtian, to be the Set Form of his Prayer: And why a Prayer written as a Form, ſhould be more an Idol than a Prayer ſpoken as a Form, I do not yet underſtand.
In the ſame Paragraph he alſo hints, that the Lords Prayer ought only to be uſed in ſecret and alone; not in publick, no, nor in private, with any others; becauſe of thoſe Expreſſions in Matt. 6.6, 9. When thou prayeſt, enter into thy Cloſet and ſhut thy Door and Pray, &c. Whereas the Form of that Prayer in the plural Number, the very matter of that Prayer, being the univerſal Concern of the Univerſal Church, and of every Congregation and Society of Chriſtians, as well as of every private Chriſtian; and our Saviour commanding his Diſciples to uſe it without any ſuch Limitation: Of a ſecret Perſonal Retirement, Luke 11.2. are ſufficient proofs, that it may be as well uſed Socially as Solitarily; with others as lawfully and conveniently as by ones ſelf.
In the following Paragraph he ſeems to be of the Opinion, that it would be better to have Mens or Miniſters own Inventions in ſinging of Pſalms, than the Divine Inſpirations of David and other Authors in Scripture. And when I can believe, that theirs can be better than thoſe in Scripture; or can be convinced that there is neither Pſalm nor Hymn in the Bible that can fit a preſent Condition, either for Prayer, or Praiſes, or Gratitude, &c. I will think ſo: but as to the former of theſe two, I hope I ſhall never believe; and as to the latter, I think it is not likely to fall out in my days. Theſe things ought as curiouſly to be replied, as the Author has ſtarted theſe Notions; and when he ſees fit to endeavour a more large Explication and Vindication of them, then we may alſo ſee what may be diſcourſed agianſt them. And I heartily wiſh, he had but hinted this of his Seventh day; and ſo ſaved all this labour in anſwering of it; for it is juſt another ſuch Opinion as the former, and deſerved only to be mentioned: Indeed not to be mentioned at all, at leaſt not in Print, not in publick: But of this in the Preface.