The Christian Sabbath Vindicated, Part 1 · Chapter 4
CHAP. IV.
The Exceptions to the former Argument, Anſwered.
THere are many Evaſions attempted to ſcape the force of the Argument laid down in the former Chapter, from the peculiar Priviledges wherewith God was pleaſed to honour the Decalogue above all other Lawes. Herein the learned B. of Ely is moſt abundant; therefore we muſt principally encounter his. And his Exceptions lie againſt both Propoſitions. 1. Againſt the Minor he excepts two things.
I. Except. 1.[It is doubtfull (ſaith he) whether God himſelfe ſpake theſe Lawes, or an Angel, &c.]
Sol. 1 1. Moſes, who wrote the ſtory, makes no doubt of it: his words are expreſſe: [GOD ſpake all theſe words, Exod. 20.1.] And v. 22. [The LORD ſaid unto Moſes, Thus ſhalt thou ſay to the children of Iſrael: You have ſeen that I have talked with you from Heaven.] Accordingly ſo Moſes tells us againe, Deut. 5.4. [The LORD talked with you face to face, in the Mount, out of the midſt of the fire.] And ver. 22. [Theſe words the LORD ſpake unto all your aſſembly, &c.] Moreover, doth he not put a great deale of Emphaſis upon GODS ſpeaking, Deut. 4.32, 33. [Ask now of the dayes that are paſt, that were before thee, ſince the day that GOD created man upon the earth: and ask from one ſide of the Heaven to another, whether ever there hath been any ſuch thing as this great thing is? or hath been heard like it? Did ever people he are the Voice of GOD ſpeaking out of the midſt of the fire, as thou haſt heard, and live?
2. When did ever any Created Angell ſay, [I am Jehovah Thy God] ſaith not God himſelf (by the Prophet Eſa. 42.8.) [I am Jehovah, That is my Name, My Glory will I not give to another?] And as all the Prophets when they deliver their meſſages in Gods Name, ſay ſtill [Thus ſaith the Lord:] So do we not find the Angells exact in reſerving to God his Honour, and taking none of it to themſelves? (So the Angell that ſpake to Manoah, ſaith. If thou wilt offer a Burnt-offering, thou muſt offer it unto the Lord, Iudg. 13, 16.) But here he who delivers theſe Commandements, ſpeakes as from himſelfe.
3. Is not this inference ſtrong. If God himſelfe ſpake to Moſes the other Lawes, then himſelfe ſpake the Decalogue to all the people? As appears by the place forecited Exod. 20.22. where he begins to deliver other Lawes. And that this was God himſelf, ſeems undeniable from Exod. 23.20, 23. Where he promiſes to ſend an Angell, his Angell. Now an Angell ſends not an Angell, nor calls another Angell, mine Angell. But only God himſelfe doth. Alſo Divines uſually ſay, that Angell (of whom alſo Saint Stephen ſpeaks Act. 7.38.) was Chriſt, cald the Angel of the Covenant, Mal. 3.1. Now ſurely an Angell ſends not Chriſt. But God the Father only.
4. He who promiſeth to ſhake not the Earth only but alſo Heaven, Hag. 2. verſ. 6. as the Apoſtle relates it, Heb. 12.26. was the ſame, whoſe voice on Mount Sinai ſhooke the Earth. But that promiſe is Gods unqueſtionable. Therefore it was Gods voyce that ſhooke the Earth, at the delivery of the Law by him.
But he urges that Saint Stephen, Act. 7.38.II. Inſt. …, Speakes of an Angell being with Moſes in the wilderneſſe, and v. 53. of receiving the Law by the Diſpoſition of Angels, and Gal. 3.19. The Law was ordained by Angels, and Heb. 2.2. If the word ſpoken by Angels was ſtedfaſt, &c. All which places ſeeme to aſcribe the ſpeaking of the Law to Angells.
Sol. 1 Jun Paral. 92. Lib. 1. In diſpoſitionibus. 1. in mediis agminibus, ſive inter mediis acies angelorum ſtipantium honoris et officij cauſa imperator…m ſinon, &c.We anſwer 1. For the place Act. 7.38. we have already toucht it, and it mentions nothing of giving the Law by that Angell. (Whether Chriſt, or a Created Angell) but the promiſe of him was after the Decalogue delivered, as the place expreſly ſhewes. 2. for verſ. 53. The Originall Words are [foreign.] Which the learned Junius renders, [You have received the Law in the midſt of the ranks of Angels] namely who accompanyed God their Soveraigne Lord when himſelf came to deliver the Law; which as it agrees with the ſpeech of Moſes, Deut. 33.2. and Pſal. 68.17. and ſo with the Truth of the ſtory. So hath it nothing incongruous to the Words, and reconciles the ſeeming difference between Stephen and Moſes. 3. For Gal. 3.19. the ſame anſwer may be made, as it is by the ſame learned writer, [foreign] is to be rendered, [Among Angels] they attending God when he Ordained and Delivered it. 4. That of Heb. 2.2. is not ſpoken of the Law of the Decalogue, neither is the Word Law mentioned, (nor any circumſtance that may fetch in that Law as neceſſarily meant there) but it is underſtood of the ſeverall meſſages which the Angels delivered to ſeverall Perſons under the Old Teſtament. So that there is no neceſſity to aſcribe the delivery of the Law of the Decalogue to Angels: viz. that their voices were uſed in the delivery of it. To which purpoſe alſo, may be added, that it ſeems improper that Angels in the Plurall Number ſhould have been imployed in ſpeaking the Law: For without an extraordinary guidance of God, many ſpeakers at once, would have bred confuſion of ſounds, and by an extraordinary guidance, one would have ſufficed, and why then ſhould many have been imployed? Specially when the Iſraelites took no notice of any imployed at all (if any were) but took it as the immediate voice of God.
III. Inſt. 2.And whereas the B. of E. urges further. [That Chriſt tells the Iewes Iohn 5.37. Speaking of the Father, you have neither heard his Voice nor ſeen his Shape.]
Sol. 1 It is eaſily anſwered, This is ſpoken to the Iewes, that at that time contended with Chriſt. He ſaith not, Your Fathers heard not his Voyce, But You. For it is alſo moſt certain, that at Chriſts Baptiſme, Iohn Baptiſt heard the Voyce of God the Father, and ſo the three Apoſtles at Chriſts Transfiguration; ſaying, This is my beloved Sonne in whom I am well pleaſed. Who elſe could ſay ſo? There is nothing then to diſprove Gods ſpeaking with his owne Voyce, when the Decalogue was given.
After all, if any be not ſatisfied, but that they ſtill conceive that Sol. 2 the Decalogue was not ſpoken by Gods immediate Voyce, but by the mediate Miniſtration of Angels, we yet further adde, that this being granted, there remains yet ſo remarkable a difference between the ſpeaking of theſe Lawes of the Decalogue, and all others, as is undeniably evident by what hath been in the former Chapter diſcourſed of it, and Moſes, as we ſaid in the beginning of this, puts ſuch a marvellous weight upon the very manner of delivery and ſpeaking of them: As that we cannot judge otherwiſe, but God ſo Honouring theſe Lawes above all others, He meant to make them ſharers in perpetuity with the moſt laſting of all his other Lawes, which he delivered to Moſes alone with none of all this ſtate.
2.IV. Except. 2. [He denyer that the Decalogue was the only thing in the Ark] ſaying, that the Pot of Manna, and Aarons rod that budded, were placed there alſo; and that the Book of Deuteronomy, was placed in the ſide of the Ark, Deu. 31.26. For the latter, the Iewiſh Maſters Sol. 2 tell him, It was placed by the ſide of the Ark, in a cofer, not Sol. 2 (in) the ſide of the Ark, that is, not within it. But for the former; not only he, but his Authors cited are miſtaken, for the Scripture expreſly ſayes, twice at leaſt, that there was nothing in the Ark, but the two Tables 1 Kings 8.9. and 2 Chron. 5.10. And the places that are cited for the particulars, ſay no more, but that the Manna was layd up before the Teſtimony, Exo. 16 35. and that Aarons rod was laid up before the Teſtimony. Num. 17.15. That is, by the Ark, within the vaile, as all the twelve Rods had been v. 4. but not within the Arke.
3. For the Apoſtles words Heb. 9.4. which ſeems to place theſe Sol. 3 three in the Arke, the ſcruple is ſomewhat greater. Some there are that ſay, that the Pot of Manna, and the…of Aaron, … at the firſt placed within the Arke, by Moſes, and after taken out by Solomon, and that the Apoſtle ſpeaks of it, as it was at the firſt placed within the Arke. But theſe are over-bold conjectures, and contra fidem hiſtoriae. Others therefore reconcile this difference better thus. That in the Apoſtles words, (foreign wherein) the Relative being Faeminine, it may and muſt agree to the remoter Antecedent (foreign Tabernacle) and not to the neerer (foreign the Arke) and ſo it is to be read, in the Tabernacle, were thoſe and thoſe things named. And that the Greek may be ſo taken, Junius, in his Paralels, gives inſtances: to which we may adde this undeniable one, 2 Theſ. 2.9. foreign whoſe comming, &c. where the Relative muſt of neceſſity be referred to the remoter Antecedent, unleſſe we will confound Chriſt and Antichriſt. So that to us it is undoubted, that Nothing at all was ever in the Arke, but the two Tables of the Covenant; which Moſes put in the Ark at Horeb, as the above cited Texts have it, and ſo thoſe Laws were moſt ſingularly kept by God, and withall, ſheltered by Chriſt the Propitiatory, as figuring, that He ſhould confirme all, (and not aboliſh any of) the Lawes written in thoſe two Tables; as we ſhall heare more afterward, that He hath expreſly done.
V. Except 3.There are other Exceptions taken to the Major, and they are theſe which follow. 1. Concerning Gods ſpeaking. [But grant the thing, ſaith he, that God himſelfe did proclaime the Decalogue, yet this will not confirme thoſe Precepts to have been ſimply Morall: For what ſufficient reaſon can be rendred, why God himſelfe may not deliver a Poſitive Precept by his immediate voyce, as well as a Precept ſimply Morall: He ſpake to Abraham, to Job, to Moſes, face to face; yet that made not all his Dictates ſimply and eternally Morall.
Solut. 1 To this we anſwer: Firſt, we doe not ſay (nor need we ſay) that Gods immediate voice doth make all the Precepts of the Decalogue ſimply Morall, that is, Morall-Naturall; It is enough for us, if it make (or ſhew) them to be Poſitively Morall.
Solut. 2 2. We ſtand not ſo much upon Gods ſpeaking, as his manner of ſpeaking, to all the people at once, and in ſo glorious a manner.
Solut 3 3. Nor yet is all the ſtrength of our Argument put only upon Gods ſpeaking, but upon his writing alſo, and putting into the Arke theſe Lawes, and no other. Of which we cannot conceive any ſufficient reaſon can be rendered, why He would (as we may ſay) take all this paines, and ſhew all this State and Majeſtie about theſe Lawes, ſingled out by themſelves, but that he intended a great deale of difference, between all theſe Lawes ſo graced, and at leaſt ſome of thoſe he vouchſafed none of this honour unto, which what it ſhould be, but Perpetuity, we cannot imagine.
For whereas it is further ſaid concerning Gods writting.VI. Except. 4. [That Gods writing of ſome Lawes, and Moſes writting of other Lawes, made not a Formall difference, between thoſe Lawes, for many Lawes written by Moſes, were Properly, and Perpetually Morall, as [Thou ſhalt not hate thy Brother in thy heart] Lev. 19.17. and divers of the ſame kind.
We anſwer firſt, We do not ſay that God alone wrote Moralls, Sol. 1 and Moſes only Ceremonialls, and ſo that God wrote all the Morall Lawes; for it is not denied, but Moſes wrote ſome Moralls: But this we ſay, that God wrote only Moralls: not any Ceremonialls.
The Force or Emphaſis, lyes not ſimply in Gods writing them Sol. 2 (though all writing, both by God and Man, is intended for continuance of the matter written, viz. Hoſ. 1.12. Ier. 22.30. Ioh. 19.27.) but alſo in that he wrote them upon Tables of Stone, the durableſt matter, and alſo reſerved them, and none of the other Lawes in the Arke, which we eſteeme too Great a Dignity for a periſhing Law. Since then among the other Lawes, written but by Moſes, in a Book, together with theſe, ſome were to be Perpetuall; we muſt needs think that God ſo ſingularly, Speaking, Writing, and Reſerving Theſe, meant they ſhould continue, as long as any other Lawes whatſoever.
3. Thoſe Moralls which Moſes wrote, were but Comments Sol. 3 upon Gods, and moſt of them plaine Deductions from thoſe Originalls; All of them being reduced to the Decalogue, as ſubordinate Lawes to their Heads in every kind; as the Schoole-men have long agoe acknowledged, and our Divines do uſually expreſſe.
Againe it is excepted [There can be no ſufficient Reaſon rendered wherefore a Temporary Precept, VII. Except. 5.may not as well be written with Gods finger, as delivered by his internall Inſpiration.
Our anſwer to this is ready; There can no Reaſon be given, Solut.why God would write any Precept at all, but his owne good pleaſure: But this we ſay ſtill, there is not any inſtance to be given, of a Precept written with Gods Finger, but only the Decalogue; (Nor yet any other part of the Scripture, whether of the old, or New Teſtament, but his Prophets and Diſciples wrote all) and why then did He write theſe? But that He would hereby declare, the Perpetuity of all theſe Lawes. The rather, becauſe there are ſome other Poſitive Lawes, (as we have noted before) acknowledged Perpetuall, which yet were not written by God in Tables of ſtone. How much more thoſe, that partake in this priviledge with other Lawes, to be written by God himſelfe, in Tables of ſtone, &c.
VIII. Except. 6.It is further pretended [Gods writing was His Framing, and creating by his Power, the Externall Letters, and Characters of the Tenne Commandements: But it appears by the example of Ionah his Gourd, and many other things immediately formed, that all ſuch things are not Eternall.]
Solut.To this we anſwer briefly thus: This is nothing to the purpoſe, For we do not think, the world ſhall be eternall, becauſe immediately Framed by Gods Power; much leſſe Ionah his Gourd: But it is another matter to frame the Characters of Lawes, which inevitably note out ſome intention of continuance; and to frame ſo the Characters of theſe Lawes (and none other) by his immediate Power in Tables of ſtone: may well argue that none other Lawes ſhould be more Perpetuall then theſe; and that is enough for us. [To note out (as one of themſelves hath told us) their dignity above others, and the Perpetuity of Obſervance, which was due unto them.]
IX. Except. 7.[Writing in Stone was to note out the hardneſſe of the Peoples Hearts, not the Perpetuall Obligation of the Lawes, ſee Ezek. 11.36. 2 Cor. 3.14. and Ioſhua had Moſes Law (wherein were many Ceremonialls and Iudicialls) upon ſtone. Ioſ. 8.32.]
Solut.Againe we muſt ſay, not writing ſimply in ſtone; but the Lords writing in ſtone, argues the Perpetuity of it; what men writes in ſtone may be periſhing, like themſelves, even though it ſhould out laſt the writer. But doubtleſſe if we ſhould ſee a King, or State, command to have ſome Lawes, and not others written upon ſtones, or like durable matter, we could not but thinke, that they meant to have thoſe Lawes to be (and be accounted) among the cheifeſt of their Perpetuall Lawes; How much more when God ſhall doe it himſelfe? The rather ſtill, becauſe theſe Lawes, were not like thoſe, by Ioſhua written in ſtone, for every one to read them; But layd up in ſecret, in Gods Privy Cabinet, his ſacred Arke. So though the writing of them in ſtone, might partly note the hardneſſe of the Peoples Hearts: yet the writing them by God himſelf, in ſtone, and laying them ſo up, may appear to be ſpecially to note out their Perpetuity.
But he ſtill goes on, and we follow him.X. Except. 8. [If Gods immediate ſpeaking, and writing, argues ſuch Precepts, to be Perpetually Morall, Then, his not ſpeaking, and writing argues others to be Temporary: For proper ſignes and affections, conclude both Affirmatively and Negatively: But the conſequence is falſe; Ergo the Antecedent.
To this we anſwer firſt, By denying the ſequell: God may write Sol. 1 Morall Precepts, and command others to write Morall Precepts alſo, and yet God may write only Moralls; There is a clear difference, between theſe two Propoſitions: Only God writes Moralls; and God writes only Moralls: The latter may be true; The former is certainly falſe.
2. The confirmation of the ſequell, is Petitio Principij, taking Sol. 2 it for granted, that Gods writing is made a Proper ſigne, or Affection of a Morall Law: A ſigne it is, not ex natura Rei, but by the good Pleaſure of God, who never was pleaſed to write any other, &c. and therefore it will not hold both wayes: God writ this, Ergo it is Morall, God writ not this, Ergo it is not Morall. It is ſufficient that God would give us this, as a ſigne of the Decalogues Perpetuity, that himſelfe did honour it, with his owne voyce, to all the people, wrote it with his owne Finger in ſtone, and commanded this alone to be put in the Arke; which priviledges, were never afforded, to any other Lawes Ceremoniall, or Judiciall; nor the reſt of the Moralls, and therefore theſe to be taken to be Morall, at leaſt as much as any that wanted all theſe Priviledges.
Others doe thus except againſt this Rule [If the Propoſition be of the ſound, and ſyllables of the Decalogue,XI. Except. 9. G. Ironſ. p, 81. ſo that whatſoever is written in the letter thereof, is affirmed to be Morall; it is utterly untrue, for what thinke you of thoſe words in the very front of the Decalogue, I brought thee out of the land of Egypt, &c. are they Morall? If any ſay theſe words are a Preface, not a Law, he ſpeaketh nothing to the purpoſe,pag. 83. for the Propoſition is Vniverſall of whatſoever was written in the Tables of ſtone with Gods owne Finger, &c. Our adverſaries confeſſe the taxation of the Seventh day to be Ceremoniall, though in the very heart of the Commandement, and written with Gods own Finger.]
Solut. 1 But to this we ſay, 1. Our Propoſition is not ſo univerſall of whatſoever is written in the Tables of ſtone: But thus, all the Commandements of the Decalogue written in Tables of ſtone, are Morall; not all the Reaſons of thoſe Commandements. A Morall or generall Commandement may be preſſed on ſome, to whom it is given by a Ceremoniall or ſpeciall Reaſon, & contra, without any alteration of the nature of the Commandement.
Solut. 2 2. The difference of Lawes which we now ſeek, reſpects not only us Chriſtians, but the Iewes alſo, that God would have them know, and us alſo, that thoſe Lawes were the principall, and moſt reſpected by himſelfe, and moſt carefully to be obſerved by them, and us. The Preface and Promiſe, at moſt, can but intimate, That thoſe Lawes were in a ſpeciall manner given to the Iewes, which is not denied: but the manner of ſpeaking, writing, keeping, may ſtrongly argue, God meant them for Perpetuall.
Solut. 3 3. And this is acknowledged by C. D. (as we ſhewed above) one of his own ſide, [The writing in Tables of ſtone, &c. was to ſignifie their perpetuity and dignity above the reſt.]
Solut. 4 4. We take what himſelfe grants, for the preſent, in his firſt Anſwer: [All the Commandements of the Decalogue are Morall, but every one in his proportion and degree, and ſo is that of the Sabbath.] We adde, in the letter of it, viz. for one day in ſeven. As for the proportion and degree, whether Naturall or Poſitive, we now contend not; Only we let him know, that his Adverſaries (as he calls them) doe now deny, that the taxation of the ſeventh day (or laſt of ſeven) to be in the heart of the Commandement, or written by the finger of God.
XII. Except. 10.Another Exception is, That the Ark it ſelfe was loſt at the Captivitie; therefore the Argument is not good: The Decalogue was put and reſerved in the Ark; Ergo, perpetuall.
Solut.To this we ſay, we did never imagine, that the Ark and Tables muſt neceſſarily be preſerved till the end of the world; but it was ſufficient to denote and ſignifie their precedencie and perpetuitie, that God was ſo carefull to ſpeak, write, and reſerve thoſe Lawes. Though this be no convincing Demonſtration to a Caviller, yet to Reaſonable men it will, no doubt, paſſe for more than probable.