The Christian Sabbath Vindicated, Part 1 · Chapter 5

The Christian Sabbath Vindicated · Part 1 · Chapter 5

p. 57CHAP. V.

Chriſt hath confirmed all the Commandements of the Decalogue, as perpetuall.

ANother Argument for the Moralitie, that is,I. Arg. 3. Chriſt hath confirmed the Decalogue. Mat. 5.17.Matt 5:17 the Perpetuitie of the Decalogue, may be raiſed from our Saviours own confirmation of it. His Authority (to be ſure) is beyond all queſtion. And we finde Him confirming it to continue to the end of the World, Mat. 5.17, 18, 19, 20. Thus we argue: [That Law which Chriſt himſelfe hath ratified to continue to the end of the World, is Morall and Perpetuall. But Chriſt hath ſo ratified all the Decalogue in the place forecited. Ergo.] The Minor is that alone which we are required to prove; which we conceive to be certain, from no leſſe then 6. Grounds laid down in that place for the Confirmation and Ratification of it.

1. He takes hainouſly, and cannot endure,II. The Text explained. that it ſhould be thought [He came to deſtroy the Law and the Prophets.] Where by the Law, He meanes the Morall Law, (of which the Decalogue was the ſum and ſubſtance) and by the Prophets, the Precepts and Doctrines of the Prophets, who were the Expoſitors of that Law, clearing the meaning of the Law in ſundry particulars, and backing it with applicatory reproofes, and particular threatnings and promiſes. That He came to deſtroy theſe, and make them of no force or obligation, 1. Libertines were willing to conceit of Him; And 2. The Phariſees were likely to impute to Him; 3. Weak ones might poſſibly from their ſpeeches conceit. Either, or any, who ſo ſpake or thought of Him, He here checks, and expreſly forbids them [To think that He came to deſtroy the Law or the Prophets] ſo as to looſen the bonds that men were tyed in by them. So the word foreign to diſſolve, properly notes.

2. In ſtead of this, He expreſly and peremptorily profeſſeth, [He came not ſo to deſtroy, to diſſolve them, but to fulfill them] Namely, in His own perſonall obſervation of them; and ſo to leave them ſtill in force for perpetuitie, for others alſo to obſerve after His example, which He often elſewhere propounds as an example p. 58for others to imitate and follow, even all that mean to be His Diſciples, and receive good from him.

3. Hereunto He further gives teſtimony, by adding (His wonted ſolemne Aſſeveration to confirme the waightieſt Truths) [Verily I ſay unto you.] And what is it that He ſaith further? [Till heaven and earth paſſe, one jot, or one title ſhall in no wiſe paſſe from the Law till all be fulfilled.] What would one thinke could be plainer than theſe words to confirme, That till heaven and earth were at an end, the Law and the Prophets (the Precepts of both, even the leaſt things of them) ſhould bind men to fulfill them? And this He himſelfe would doe for His part, while He lived upon Earth; (as the word [For] joyning this verſe to the former, ſhewes) And after leave to His Diſciples, to make conſcience alſo of fulfilling them.

4. And having ſo expreſſed himſelfe, for himſelfe, and laid down the doctrine of the Lawes perpetuitie to the Worlds end, generally; He growes (as we may ſay) more vehement, and proceeds to an application of it to His hearers, and that in a twofold gradation: 1. He denounceth a moſt ſevere threatning againſt all willing Tranſgreſſours, and ſo all willing Teachers of others to be Tranſgreſſours of any one of thoſe Commandements, even of ſeeming ſmalleſt importance, (as ſmall as a jot or title) [Whoſoever therefore ſhall break one of the leaſt of theſe Commandements, and ſhall teach men ſo, ſhall be called the leaſt in the Kingdome of Heaven.] Menacing them with the loſſe of Heaven, and forfeiture of any right they might ſeem to have in it, being willing breakers or teachers of others to break them; as the 20. verſe alſo confirmes.

5. Adding, ſecondly, a moſt gracious Promiſe to ſo many as ſhould carefully and conſcionably, by life and doctrine, honour every one of the Commandements.

6. And 3. Finally, He applies all to His Hearers particularly, with ſpeciall oppoſition to the doctrines and practiſes of the Scribes and Phariſees: [For I ſay unto you, that except your righteouſneſſe exceed the righteouſneſſe of the Scribes and Phariſes, you ſhall in no caſe enter into the Kingdome of Heaven.] The Scribes and Phariſees were outwardly exceeding ſtrict in obſerving the Letter of all the Commandements. But in their interpretations of them, and inward affections concerning them, they were too too looſe. Therefore Chriſt gives a ſevere comminatory warning, not only of matching p. 59them in outward obedience to the very words of the Commandements; but of exceeding them in the right acknowledgement of the latitude of them, and anſwerable care even of inward obſervance to them, (as His following Sermon expreſſeth many particulars) Or elſe they muſt never look for any ſhare in the Kingdome of Heaven.

In a word, before we come to the Exceptions,III. The Context conſidered. we deſire the Reader but to note the evident connexion of theſe 4 Verſes, by the word (for) v. 18. and (wherefore) v. 19. and againe (for) v. 20. and ſo the light which each of them afford to the other, to ſecure the whole from all cavills. And ſo,

1. What he ſtiles the Law and the Prophets, v. 17. He calls only the Law, v. 18. & v. 19. Theſe Commandements: and v. 20. Mentions Righteouſneſſe, namely of Practice and Converſation; which is in obedience to the Commandements of the Law.

2. That which He calls a jot or a title of the Law, v. 18. He calls one of theſe leaſt Commandements, v. 19.

3. That which he calls deſtroying of the Law, v. 17. He calls breaking of the Law, and teaching men ſo, v. 19.

4. That which He calls fulfilling, v. 17, 18. He calls doing and teaching, v. 19. and Exceeding the Righteouſneſſe of the Phariſees and Scribes, v. 20.

5. Laſtly, That which He calls being leaſt in the Kingdome of Heaven, v. 19. He calls, in no caſe entring into the Kingdome of Heaven, v. 20. And what now would, or could a man wiſh for more compleat, to ratifie the whole Decalogue, which was undoubtedly the principall part of the Law and Prophets: unleſſe He had named it in expreſſe words here? or after interpreted every one of thoſe Commandements ſeverally, as He doth divers of them in the following part of His Sermon, even beginning in the next verſe.

But yet this Argument and Text, as cleare as it ſeems,IV. Excep. 1. cannot eſcape their manifold Exceptions. In Anſwer whereunto, we ſhall neceſſarily make uſe of thoſe things which we have ſummarily laid down in the Explication of theſe verſes, without any juſt imputation of Tautologie, being forced to it by their quarrelſome Cavils.

Firſt, they ſay, [Here is mention made of the Prophets too;C. D. p. 12. And p. 60ſo the Law and the Prophets,B. of E p. 61. is as much as Moſes and the Prophets; which is a Periphraſis of the Old Teſtament, and contained the predictions of the holy Prophets, who lived before Chriſt: and theſe He came to fulfill.]

Solut.To this we anſwer firſt, with reſpect to the Predictions of the Prophets, pretended here to be alſo intended. There is not the leaſt Reaſon in the Text for this Pretence. For, 1. Who did ever doubt at that time, or make any queſtion, whether Chriſt came to deſtroy the predictions of the Prophets? 2. What ſenſe is there in this ſpeech, to ſay, I came not to deſtroy (or whoſoever ſhall deſtroy) the predictions of the Prophets, in the 19. verſe, and teach men to break them. But of the Lawes delivered by the Prophets, both thoſe may be congruouſly ſpoken. 3. That the Law and the Prophets are ſometime a Periphraſis of the Old Teſtament, in the Goſpel, is not to be doubted; and that it may be ſo taken here, in a right ſenſe, is not denied; That is, the Law expounded and confirmed by the Prophets. So that by Law and Prophets is meant in ſubſtance the ſame thing, that is, that part of the Prophets which was doctrinally practicall, namely, confirming and expounding the ten Commandements, and other ſubſtantiall Lawes of God, which are reducible to them. And this may more eaſily be received, if we conſider, that in the next verſes, 18, 19. in one He names only the Law, and in the other only the Commandements: One title of the Law (not the Prophets) ſhall not paſſe: and, whoſoever ſhall break one of the leaſt of theſe Commandements (not the Prophets.) 3. The Inſtances which our Saviour gives after, in his following diſcourſe, depending upon this, are all in Lawes, and not in any Predictions of the Prophets. To conclude: Though it be true, that Chriſt came to fulfill the Predictions of the Prophets, yet we cannot ſee the leaſt reaſon why this ſhould be intended here.

V. Excep. 2. Ibid. Prim. p. 174.But then it is more ſtrongly ſuggeſted [That by Law here is not meant only the Morall Law, but the Ceremoniall and Judiciall alſo, and all that is contained in the Books of Moſes, theſe be fullfilled alſo.]

Solut.To this we anſwer: That Chriſt came to fulfill the Ceremoniall and Iudiciall Lawes, is alſo true, But that he intended them in this place, we take to be moſt falſe, for theſe enſuing Reaſons.

1. The whole Sermon of our Saviour in the former part of this p. 61Chapter, and in the following part, the Inſtances which He gives, concerne Morall Duties, and Morall Lawes; and not one inſtance of a Ceremoniall or Judiciall Law can be ſhewn, (which had been requiſite, if Chaiſt had intended them) unleſſe it be to ſhew them now to be abrogated, that is, to be deſtroyed; as we ſhall ſee by and by. Now this is granted by one of themſelves,Prin. ibid. [That ſometimes, to wit, when a Morall matter is in hand, the Scripture by the Law and the Prophets underſtandeth only the Precepts of the Law and of the Prophets, pertaining to this Morality. As Mat. 7.12. [All things that ye would that men ſhould doe to you, do you even the ſame to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.] But ſometimes, when the ſpeech is of fulfilling of things foretold, or figured of old, by the Law and the Prophets, are to be underſtood only the Propheſies, and Typick Ceremonies of the Old Teſtament: as Mat. 11.13. &c.]

But we aſſume; In this place there is ſpeech only of Morall matters, and not of fulfilling things foretold or figured. Therefore by Law and Prophets, is underſtood here only the Precepts of the Law and Prophets, pertaining to this Moralitie. Yet ſee how faine he would elude his own grant: Thus he ſayes. [I ſay,VI. Inſt. 1. that by Law and Prophets here, are to be underſtood not only the Precepts concerning the Morall Duties of this life, but alſo the Ceremonies of the Law; as may be clearly ſeen by thoſe words of our Saviour, which are generall, I am not come to deſtroy the Law and the Prophets, but to fulfill them. Now the Ceremonies are a part of the Law of Moſes, &c. The conjunction of them in a generall matter, ſuch as this is, ſhewes, that by the Law we muſt underſtand all that is contained in the book of Moſes.Solut.] But we deſire him to conſider whether this be not a flat contradiction to what he ſaid before: That when a Morall matter (that is, a generall matter) is in hand, the Scripture underſtands by Law and Prophets, only the Precepts of both, tending to this Morality. And beſides, might not a caviller plead the ſame againſt his former Inſtance, Mat. 7.12. and ſo caſt off that Law as Ceremoniall? The ground of this Errour lies in this, that he fallaciouſly concludes thus: Chriſt came to fulfill the Ceremoniall Lawes, and the Predictions of the Prophets, therefore Chriſt intended both theſe in the verſes before cited: which is a flat inconſequence; and he p. 62goes not about to prove it;VII. Inſt. 2. And yet he peremptorily goes on to adde, [That the Predictions, Types, and Promiſes are here as much, nay much more to be underſtood, then Morall Duties; as may be evidently ſeen in the words of our Lord, Till Heaven and Earth paſſe, &c. It is certain that theſe words, jot, title, or prick, cannot be taken properly, becauſe not capable of accompliſhment; but by them Chriſt underſtandeth the leaſt things propounded in the Law.Sol.] But here is no evidence at all, though much confidence: For we ſay not, that Iota or Title are properly taken, but by Chriſt meant of the leaſt things propounded in the Law and Prophets: but we adde, in the Law Morall, of which he only ſpeaks before and after. And exdreſly, v. 19. [The leaſt of theſe Commandements] not theſe Ceremonies, or theſe Predictions, or Promiſes: and that was our Saviours meaning by thoſe words, Iota, or Title. Yet ſomething more he addes.VIII. Inſt. 3. [This ſenſe; The heaven and earth ſhall paſſe, rather then whatſoever hath been figured, promiſed, and foretold by the Law and the Prophets ſhall not be effected and fulfilled; is manifeſtly more ſutable to the words, then this; The heaven and the earth ſhall rather paſſe, then the Morall Commandements ſhall not be kept and executed.Sol.] It is, we confeſſe, an eaſie thing for witty men to put pretty faire Gloſſes upon Texts of Scripture, which were never there intended. The meaning of our Saviour is thus to be conceived [I am ſo far from comming to deſtroy the Law, that I came to fulfill it to the utmoſt title: and heaven and earth ſhall ſooner paſſe away, then I ſhall break the Commandements in my own perſon, or teach or allow others to break them, which were to deſtroy them.] And that this is His meaning, the 19. verſe doth manifeſt: [Whoſoever therefore ſhall break one of the leaſt of theſe Commandements, and teach men ſo, &c.] As if He ſhould ſay, I may not break or deſtroy the Law my ſelfe, nor doe I teach men ſo to doe; Let others take heed they doe not. Now if Chriſt had meant it of the Ceremonials, which were preſently after his death to expire: would he have ſaid thus; I came not to deſtroy the Ceremoniall Law, and woe be to him that ſhall break it, and ſhall teach men ſo? We cannot believe it. Yet ſtill He labours to make good his own Interpretation, by Luk. 16.17. [Where the ſame words are uſed;IX. Inſt. 4. and the Evangeliſt ſheweth of what points of the Law Chriſt did ſpeak, to wit, of the Types and p. 63Propheſies: for in the 16. verſe He had ſaid, the Law and the Prophets were untill John: where we muſt underſtand the word (Propheſied) which St. Matthew addeth, chap. 11.13. And after this, S. Luke addeth theſe words as ſpoken by Chriſt to that purpoſe; And it is eaſier for heaven and earth to paſſe, &c. Where by one title are to be underſtood all the Figures and Predictions contained in the Law and Prophets.] But to this we ſay two things.

1. The place of Luke and Matthew are not Paralell, The place with Mat. 11.7. &c. is Luk. 7.24.Matt 11:7Luke 7:24nor were Sol. 1 they ſpoken at the ſame time, or of the ſame matter, as is evident to any eye that compares them together. Therefore it is not neceſſary that the word Propheſied, muſt be underſtood, in St. Luke the word (were) added by our Tranſlation, being ſufficient.

2. The matter of which our Saviour ſpake before in St. Luke Sol. 2 was Morall, viz. to beat down the Coveteouſneſſe, and Pride, and Scorne of the Phariſees, therefore by his owne former grant by the Law and Prophets Luke 16.17. muſt be underſtood only the Precepts of the Law and Prophets concerning that Morality. Nor is there the leaſt Colour for any Ceremoniall Law, or Prediction, or promiſe to be intended in this place, Luk. 16.16, 17. &c.

But here is one Exception more to our firſt generall anſwer:Inſt. 5. Prim. 176. and others. [That (forſooth) the inſtances made by our Soviour in the following part of the Chapter are not all Morall Lawes. For in the 23, 24. ver. He ſpeakes of Sacrifices and Altars: in the 31. ver. He brings and expounds a Law Iudiciall concerning Divorce, and ver. 38. another Iudiciall of retaliation.

This we ſhall thus diſcharge: Firſt, in the 23, 24 ver. He ſpeaks Sol. 1 indeed occaſionally, of Sacrifices, and the Altar. But doth not bring or Expound any Law concerning thoſe things, much leſſe any confirmation of them; but they are brought in by way of alluſion to the Practiſe of thoſe Times: by the Legall Expreſſing the Evangelicall ſervice. A thing uſuall with the Prophets, and uſefull for their underſtanding to whom he ſpake, who knew as yet no other.

For the reſidue, We ſay, 2. There is yet no inſtance of any Ceremoniall Sol. 2 Law Expounded by Chriſt, much leſſe confirmed, nor of any Propheticall Prediction.

3. As for Judicialls inſtanced in, If we granted them both ſuch, Sol. 3 we could eaſily anſwer; That thoſe which are produced are not brought in for their own ſakes, but for the Explication of the Morall p. 62duplicate page p. 63duplicate page p. 64Commandements to which they did belong. And then one of them, to begin with (which we deſire him ſeriouſly to conſider) mentioned, not to be confirmed, but rather to be deſtroyed from this time forth. For the Law of Divorce mentioned ver. 31. Is by our Saviour quite diſallowed and diſannulled. [It hath been ſayd (viz. by the Moſaicall Law by way of indulgence) whoſoever ſhall put away his wife. Let him give her a bill of Divorce; But I ſay unto you, whoſoever puts away his wife, except for fornication, cauſeth her to commit adultery, and he that marrieth her that is put away, commits adultery.]

As if he had ſayd, I now put an end to that Law, and bring you to the Law of the Decalogue.

XI. The Law of Retaliation why here alledged.As for the Law of Retaliation, If it were certainly a Judiciall Law, underſtanding by Judiciall, a Law of the Jewiſh commonwealth, (contradiſtinguiſht from Morall and Perpetuall) we muſt yet deny that it is alleadged formally in this place by our Saviour: But rather, the words he cites were from a prophane tradition of the Scribes and Phariſees (whom he undertakes to confute in all this part of his Sermon) that under colour indeed of Gods Law of Retaliation, did teach the people, that it was lawfull for them, to be their owne carvers in private revenge; So long as they went not beyond the bounds of Retaliation; and withall, that they might at leaſt without ſcruple at all times purſue thoſe that had wronged them, and require the Majeſtrate to deale with their adverſary, as he had dealt with them. Both which malicious gloſſes, derived from that Law, our Saviour at once confutes, (as contrary to the Morall Law, both of reſerving the Majeſtrates place to himſelfe, and of not revenging ones ſelfe, nor bearing grudge, Lev. 19.18.) By ſaying ["But I ſay unto you, reſiſt not Evill, &c.] So that Chriſt doth neither ſpeake againſt, nor for the Law of Retaliation, nor indeed of it directly and primarily in this place, But only forbids private retaliating, or at the moſt, malicious purſuit of another, to have the Law of Retaliation executed upon him by the Majeſtrate. And not at all Expounding that Law, but only occaſionally mentions it, as perverted by them. So ſtill it will remaine that all the Lawes that Chriſt Expounds are Morall, and ſo no other are meant in thoſe verſ. 17, 18, 19.Proved Morall 1. by Teſtimonies. whence we fetch our argument. But if this will not ſatisfie our diſputers, we muſt then further tell them, p. 65that we cannot grant the Law of Retaliation not to be Morall. Even themſelves dare not deny it, of one branch. Life for life, in caſe of wilfull murther. Learned interpreters ſhall ſpeake for us in this point. Kemnitius, Muſculus, Pareus, Cartwright, upon the place.

TheaaKomnit. Har. p. 575. Eſt enim naturalis etiam aequitatis ne paene ſit maior delicto. Et paulo poſtca. Manifeſtiſſimum igitur et centiſſimum eſt; Legem Dei, de publica vindicta Magiſtratui Mandata, h…c Loco a Chriſto non Abeleri aut Damnar…. Firſt of theſe having quoted the text, Exod. 21. Lev. 24. and Deut. 19. where this Law is found, addes, [That it is alſo Naturall Equity, that the puniſhment be not greater then the fault.] And then recites a ſaying of Ariſtotle in his Ethicks lib. 5. Deſcribing the Juſtice of Rhadamanthus in this old verſe [foreign. Si quae fecerunt, eadem patiantur et ipſi. If what they have done they be made to ſuffer.] And a little after he ſaith, [It is moſt manifeſt and certaine, that the Law of God concerning publike puniſhment of offenders commanded to the Magiſtrate, is not in this place Aboliſhed nor Condemned by Chriſt.]

ThebbMuſc. p. 111. Lex iſta omnino neceſſaria erat, et, etiam num eſt, ad coercendos reprobos, &c. and p. 112. Chriſtus non Legi ipſi, qua nihil poteſt eſſe Iuſtius, ſed perverſae Phariſeorum opinioni repugnans, &c. Second is yet more plaine. [This Law was altogether Neceſſary, and is ſo ſtill, to keepe reprobates under, and take away evill from Gods people.] and a little after; [Chriſt doth not contradict that Law it ſelfe, then which nothing can be more juſt, but the perverſe opinion of the Phariſees.]

TheccPareus pag. 121. Non ſuſtulit Chriſtus in judicijs Chriſtianis talionem. Third no leſſe expreſly. [Chriſt did not take away Retaliation, in Chriſtian judicatures.

TheddCartwright, Part 1. Harm. pag. 399. Iuſtiſſimum legem iniquiſſimam reddiderunt, et mel Legis in abſynthiam converterunt. Fourth ſaith that [Chriſt ſhewes, that the Scribes and Phariſees had drawne the Magiſtrates duty to every private mans Power,] and ſo he ſaith, [They had made a juſt Law to be moſt unrighteous,] and afterward he wiſhes to conſider the juſtice of the Law moſt accurately fitted to ſuppreſſe and keepe under violence; And againe, [As by all mens conſent, he is to be puniſhed with death, that hath cauſed anothers death, ſo it is for a hand or eye—And if this Law were now put in execution before all men, Men would be ſlower to maime or diſmember others.]

Theſe Proofes are not bare aſſertions of the Authors,XII. 2. By reaſon. but backed with Perpetuall Reaſons. To which we know not what, beſides mens contrary cuſtomes, can be alledged to diſprove them.

p. 66In concluſion, whatſoever men talke of the Ceremonialls and Iudicialls included in verſ. 17. we would deſire them but to remember that (as we ſhewed) Chriſt doth even now deſtroy the Law of divorce, and then let them make ſence of this if they can [Till Heaven and Earth paſſe, one jot or tittle of the Law ſhall not paſſe, and yet I now deſtroy the Law of Divorce] which is to put upon Chriſt a flat contradiction, beſides that which reflects upon ver. 19. of which by and by. Therefore we muſt conclude, if Chriſt in this Sermon Expound no Ceremoniall or Iudiciall, and one Judiciall he plainely deſtroys; XIII. The ſecond proofe of the generall anſwer.Then ver. 17. He only ſpeaks of the Morall Law.

Our 2^d. Proofe of our generall anſwer is taken from verſ. 19. thus. If our Saviour ſpeake in the 17. and 18. verſes, of the Ceremoniall Lawes, as well as of the Morall, then the Diſciples of Chriſt (and the Church ſucceeding) muſt needs run under his ſentence in the 19 verſe, for breaking, and teaching men to breake ſome part of the Law, of which he ſpake. For it is evident the Apoſtles, St. Paul eſpecially, did breake, that is Abrogate, pull downe, deſtroy the Ceremoniall Lawes, preſently after his Death. [If I build againe the Things foreign which I have deſtroyed] ſpeaking of the Ceremonialls;Gal. 2.18.Gal 2:18 and many more ſuch places. If it be ſaid, Chriſt came to fulfill the Ceremoniall Lawes in his owne Perſon, and ſo came not to deſtroy them in his practiſe. This indeed is moſt true, but nothing to the purpoſe, for he did come to deſtroy them by his Death and Doctrine; by himſelfe or by his Apoſtles, who (as we ſaid) did both break, deſtroy, and abrogate them, and alſo teach men ſo to doe. But take it of the Morall Law only; and he did come, not to deſtroy it, as well as to fulfill it in his owne Practiſe, that is to confirme it, not only by his Perſonall obedience to it, but alſo by his Doctrine, as the vindication of it, from the falſe gloſſes of the Phariſees, doth clearly manifeſt. Now let a reaſonable man judge, whether it is likely that Chriſt ſpeaking before of the Morall Law, or meerly Morall matters, would ſo ſuddenly, without any juſt cauſe, digreſſe to ſpeake of the Ceremoniall Lawes, and that in ſuch a frame of words, as are, as well falſe as true. Falſe in one ſenſe, and true in another. Or that he would ſay, I came not to deſtroy the Ceremonials, and preſently threaten thoſe that ſhould breake one of the leaſt of thoſe Commandements, and teach men ſo; whereas the Ceremonials were ere long to be Aboliſhed p. 67and deſtroyed. And then on the otherſide, commend and promiſe much to them, that ſhould keep them, and teach men to keep them, even thoſe Commandements which were certainly and neceſſarily to vaniſh, and paſſe away. So that this 19 verſe alone, had our Saviour ſaid no more, had been ſufficient to confirme the Morall Law (whereof the Decalogue is the ſumme, called often, and in eſpeciall manner the tenne Commandements) to be in force to the worlds end, ſaying, [Whoſoever ſhall breake one of the leaſt of theſe Commandements, and teach men ſo, ſhall be called the leaſt in the Kingdome of Heaven,] & contra. For we would aske of what Commandements ſpeaks our Saviour here? Of Ceremoniall? Or Morall? Not of Ceremonialls for certaine; for they were to be broken and to be preached downe, and the threatning would rather fall upon them that ſhould obſerve them, and teach them to be obſerved as neceſſary Commandements ſtill in force. Therefore he ſpeakes of Morall Lawes only, the leaſt whereof might not be broken, or taught to be voyd, till the worlds end. This ſentence therefore alone is ſufficient to confute, and falls heavy upon Antinomiſts, who fear not for to teach, that Chriſt came to deſtroy, and hath deſtroyed the Decalogue or Morall Law, as well, and as much as the Ceremonials, whereas he ſayes expreſly [whoſoever ſhall breake one of the leaſt of theſe Commandements, and teach men ſo, ſhalbe called leaſt, that is, none, in the Kingdome of Heaven] And let them, who in part comply with them, in affirming the fourth Commandement, to be Ceremoniall, and conſequently, aboliſhed, conſider how they will avoyd, the ſame cenſure of our Saviour. Let us heare what they ſay.

Thus one would avoyd it [Granting them,XIV. Excep. 3. that Chriſt in thoſe words had regard to the Decalogue only, I anſwer, that he ſpeaks of diſſolving and overthrowing of thoſe Commandements,Prim. p. 178. and condemnes all that dare to doe it. But to abrogate the Sabbath Day, injoyned by the fourth Commandement, ſeeing it was a Figure and Type, and that by fulfilling it in himſelfe, and in his faithfull ſervants, the truth thereof figured by the outward Sabbath, to free them from the neceſſitie of the obſervation thereof, was not a diſſolving of i…, &c.]

But we reply 1. We ſay not,Solut. Chriſt in theſe words had regard to the Decalogue only, but to the Decalogue primarily, and to all p. 68other ſubſtantiall precepts, explicatorie of it, whether in Moſes, or in the Prophets. 2. If you grant (what we have proved) that Chriſt means it of the Decalogue only, or chiefly, (we now adde, If he ſpeake of it at all) you are one of thoſe, that dare to diſſolve and overthrow one of the Commandements, and teach men to breake them. For what is to diſſolve or overthrow a Law, but to make all the words of the Commandement voyd? Otherwiſe the Lawes of the Paſſeover, and all the Ceremoniall Sabbaths, are not to this day diſſolved, nor did the Apoſtles teach men to break them. The contrary whereunto, is evident to all the world. Now do not you your ſelfe, and others of your ſide hold the fourth Commandement to be one of the leaſt Commandements, and even wholly Ceremoniall, in the ſubſtance and letter of it? and teach men expreſly [That it is no inconvenience to ſay,Prim. p. 138. that of ten Commandements in the Decalogue there are but nine Morall, that oblige us now.] Can you then in reaſon deny, that you breake one of the leaſt Commandements, and teach men ſo? If not, then we deſire you, in the feare of God, to conſider well, how you will eſcape our Saviours condemnation, by your owne confeſſion.

XV. Inſt. 1. pag. 179.Thus you goe about it. [Of neceſſitie, the broachers of this argument muſt avow, that Chriſt doth not in this place blame all inobſervation of the Sabbath, nor eſtabliſh the obſervation thereof abſolutely and for ever; Therefore this limitation muſt bee added, that Chriſts intention is to forbid the tranſgreſſion, and to command for ever the obſervation of the Commandement, touching the Sabbath, as far as it may and ought to oblige us, according to the termes of the Goſpel, that is, (ſay you) ſo farre only, as it commandeth that Gods publike worſhip be practiſed for ever, as it ſhalbe eſtabliſhed by him, and that an ordinary day be appointed for that purpoſe.]

Sol.To this we ſay. 1. Wee doe not avow, that Chriſt, in this place, doth blame all or any inobſervation of the Seventh Day Sabbath, much leſſe eſtabliſh it for ever; For we hold, even from this place, (and ſhall maintaine in time convenient) that the Seventh Day Sabbath, was not the ſubſtance of the fourth Commandement, but the obſervation of one day in ſeven, and this we ſay, Chriſt doth, in this place, eſtabliſh for ever. 2. Wee adde to your limitation, that the publike ſervice is not commanded by the fourth Commandement (that is another of your miſtakes, as ſhall in time be p. 69manifeſted) but by other Commandements, though the time of the fourth Commandement, in part, and chiefly, if it may be, is to be imployed in publique worſhip. And therefore when you yield, that Chriſt ſpeaks of the Decalogue only, it is, in your interpretation, to confeſſe, that Chriſt hath made void and deſtroyed one whole Commandement of the Decalogue; which yet Himſelfe denies, and threatens them that ſhall dare to doe it. You cannot avoid this, by ſaying, He fulfilled in himſelf the truth of the thing figured by the outward Sabbath, For if He deſtroyed the old Sabbath, which you ſay was the ſubſtance of that Commandement, and Ceremoniall; ſtill it will follow, that He deſtroyed the Commandement, although He did fulfill the Figure. Think on it.

But it is further ſaid,XVI. Inſt. 2. [That our Lord Chriſt paſſeth moſt conveniently from the Ceremonies, which the Scribes and Phariſees accuſed him falſly to deſtroy, to the Moralities which they deſtroyed in effect. Therefore I ſay unto you, Except your righteouſneſſe exceed, &c. v. 20.]

But 1. This ſenſe is very prepoſterous; for the whole preceding Sol. 1 diſcourſe was of Morall matters, and therefore He muſt rather paſſe from Morals to Ceremonials, then contra.

2. True it is, in the 20. verſe He ſpeaks of the Scribes and Phariſees, Sol. 2 but not as accuſing Him of the breach of Ceremonials, but rather as accuſing them of the breach of Morals, with reference to the 19. verſe, ["Whoſoever ſhall break one of the … of theſe Commandements, and teach men ſo.] q.d. The Scribes and Phariſees are inſtances of what I mean; For they by their corrupt Gloſſes of the Decalogue, doe both deſtroy and break the Commandements, and teach men ſo: however they were exact in Ceremonials, and their own Traditions. Except therefore your righteouſneſſe exceed theirs, you cannot enter into the Kingdome of Heaven.

3. It cannot be ſhewed, that the Phariſees did accuſe our Saviour Sol. 3 as yet for breaking any Ceremoniall Lawes, except it was for breaking ſome Ceremonials belonging to the fourth Commandement, in doing ſome miracles on the Sabbath day. Chemnitius, in his moſt learned and judicious Harmony upon the Goſpels, ſheweth that the Conteſts John 5. and Mat. 12.1. &c. and v. 9.10. &c. were all before this Sermon upon the Mount: which being granted, then is the Argument more ſtrong for the confirmation of the p. 70fourth Commandement. Think not that I am come to deſtroy the Law; I am come to fulfill it, and confirme it. Therefore whoſoever ſhall break one of the leaſt of theſe Commandements, (be it the Fourth, or any other) and teach men ſo, ſhall be called the leaſt in the Kingdome of Heaven.

XVII. Excep. 4. C. D. p. 12.There are yet ſome other Exceptions, as this for one; [If we grant them, that by the Law is meant only the Decalogue, and that our Saviours fulfilling, and not deſtroying the Law, was the ratifying and perpetuating of it; we ſhall condemne the Chriſtian Church, for altering the day, from the ſeventh, to the firſt day of the week: which cannot ſtand with our Saviours ſpeech, who ſaith, that not one jot or title ſhall paſſe from the Law.]

Solut.To this we anſwer, 1. They that make the ſubſtance of the Commandement to be the ſeventh day, cannot juſtifie by any meanes the altering of it to the firſt, but muſt needs make void the Commandement, contrary to our Saviours aſſeveration, [That till heaven and earth paſſe, one jot or title of the Law ſhall not paſſe.] For it is a certain Rule in Lawes, When the ſubſtance of a Law is aboliſhed, the whole Law is quite aboliſhed. Let him conſider it. 2. But if we hold, that the fourth Commandement commands only one day in ſeven to be our Sabbath, not one jot or title of the Law is paſſed. And the Church is juſtified in her altering of the day, having ſufficient Authority going before her in deſigning of the day. Of which more hereafter.

XVIII. Excep. 5. B. of E. p. 64.But it is further excepted, [Our Sabbatizers muſt firſt of all make remonſtrance, that the fourth Commandement of the Decalogue is ſimply and formally Morall, before they preſume to affirme, that the ſame is a part, jot or title of the Eternall Law, which Chriſt commanded to be obſerved to the worlds end.]

Solut.This is eaſily anſwered: 1. It is not neceſſary to prove it ſimply and formally, that is, Naturally Morall: It is enough, if we can prove it poſitively Morall; for himſelfe hath confeſſed, that there are ſome Lawes poſitively Morall, which are univerſall, and bind all mankind, p. 27. as that againſt Polygamie, and wedlock in ſome degree. And therefore he plainly contradicts himſelfe, when p. 63. he ſaith, [That Chriſt hath freed and delivered the Chriſtian Church from the Eternall obſervation of all ſuch Legall precepts as were not ſimply and formally Morall.] But thoſe Poſitive Laws p. 71aforementioned, he ſaith, are univerſall, and bind all mankind. And now we infer, If Chriſt did not deſtroy, or free men from ſome other Poſitive Lawes, how is it probable, that He came to deſtroy or free men from the obedience of any Poſitive Law of the Decalogue, which is confeſſed to be meant, at leaſt in ſome part, by the Law, in our Saviours diſcourſe.

2. It concerns our Anti-Sabbatizers more, to prove that the fourth Commandement is Ceremoniall in whole, or in part, or elſe we feare they will fall under the heavy cenſure of our Saviour, for making void more then a jot or a title of a Commandement, even a whole Commandement of the Decalogue, both breaking it themſelves, and alſo teaching others ſo to doe. We wiſh them ſadly to conſider it.

And whereas it is excepted by ſome,XIX. Excep. 6. [That Chriſt in all this long Sermon of three whole Chapters, makes not the leaſt mention of the Sabbath, or fourth Commandement, and ſo ſeems to exclude that out of the number of thoſe Lawes He profeſſes to ratifie.]

We briefly anſwer, 1. That there is no expreſſe mention of the Sol. 1 firſt Commandement, nor the ſecond, nor the fifth; yet no man thinks they are excluded.

2. It is too much boldneſſe in any to preſcribe words to Chriſt, Sol. 2 that unleſſe He mention this or that, they will not grant that He meanes it, when yet they heare Him ſpeak of the leaſt Commandements, even of a jot, or title. Lawyers warne, not to except, where the Law excepts not. And a man would think, Chriſt had here ſufficiently warned men not to exclude any of the Commandements: But it is not enough with them, it ſeems; At their perill then be it. We dare not be ſo witty.

3. We may ſee reaſon why He now mentions not the Sabbath, Sol. 3 or fourth Commandement: His ſcope now was (in this Chapter particularly) to correct the ſcanty and curtail'd Gloſſes of the Phariſees againſt the Law. Whereas in point of the Sabbath, their fault was Superſtition. This He thought good to encounter elſewhere, as He doth on divers occaſions. But now He was in another way, and ſo contents himſelfe with the generall, including it under the Law and the Prophets, which who ſo reads, will hardly miſſe, reckoning it a Commandement, and none of the leaſt neither.

We have but one thing more to note,XX. An Animadverſion. and we have done with p. 72this Argument: and that is, to conſider a little ſome words by one let fall,C. D. p. 14. in reſolution of this Text of Scripture. Thus he ſayes: [Chriſt fulfilled the whole Law by his actuall and perſonall obedience to it, and by ſupplying the defects of it, that it being unable to juſtifie us in it ſelfe, might by the help of His grace, and acceſſion of faith in Him, be able to performe that which otherwiſe it could not.] To which we ſay, That the Law ſhould be able, even by the help of Chriſts grace, and acceptation of faith in Him, to juſtifie us, Is a Doctrine new and ſtrange to the Reformed Churches, and derogatory greatly to the ſatisfaction of Chriſt in his death. The Apoſtle ſayes expreſly, [All men are ſinners, and are juſtified freely by Gods grace, through the redemption that is in Chriſt Jeſus, Rom. 3.24.] And elſewhere he is ſo far from ſaying, that Chriſt enables the Law to juſtifie us, that he ſaith, [If Righteouſneſſe be by the Law, Chriſt died in vain, Gal. 2. ult.] But it hath been ordinary with theſe Diſputers to let fall now and then ſuch drops of Popiſh Doctrine as this is, to what end, the World will judge.

XXI. The Concluſion, by way of Recapitulation.And now we will draw up the ſumme of this Chapter, in a few briefe ſentences. 1. It is cleare, that Chriſt by not deſtroying the Law, means, not abrogating it, not preaching it to be void. 2. That He ſpeaks not at randome of an uncertainty of a Law, about which one might diſpute what Law He meant; but of the known Law of God, that is, the Law written, and of the words of it. 3. That He means not the whole Law written by Moſes; for a great part of that He did come to deſtroy, to abrogate and make void: And his Diſciples preached it to be void, and Himſelfe, now at this very time, doth ſo about the Law of Divorce. 4. Therefore He means it properly and undoubtedly of the Decalogue, which was moſt properly called the Law; though alſo withall, of thoſe other Precepts which are ſubſtantiall and apparent explications of it, which the Prophets likewiſe confirmed, in their practicall Sermons, by exhortation, reproofe, promiſe, and threatning. Which then amounts plainly to our Concluſion, [That Chriſt in this place confirmes the whole Decalogue, and every one of the Commandements of it, in the very words of it, as Morall and Perpetuall.]