The Christian Sabbath Vindicated, Part 1 · Chapter 2

The Christian Sabbath Vindicated · Part 1 · Chapter 2

p. 17CHAP. II.

Rules to know a Law to be Morall, though but Poſitive.

THat there are Lawes of GOD, Morall, or Perpetuall, I. What Poſitive Lawes are Morall.(which we henceforth take for one and the ſame thing) though but Poſitive, we ſuppoſe to have evinced in the former Chapter. Yet we grant withall, that ſundry Lawes in Scripture, being Poſitive, are not Morall; and thoſe not only, which were ſpeciall to a Perſon or Nation, but alſo ſome of them which were generall to the firſt Age of the World, namely, untill Chriſts comming. Divers of theſe we confeſſe aboliſhed, and of no obligation under the New Teſtament: Wherefore, that we may make uſe of our Diſtinction (and Aſſertion) of ſome Lawes Morall-Poſitive, as well as ſome Morall-Naturall; we muſt in the next place lay down, what kinde of Poſitive Lawes we hold to be ſtill in force; and upon what grounds we hold ſo of them: By giving ſome Rules, whereby it may be conceived, how far we ſtand obliged with conſcience of obedience to them. And they are theſe, or ſome of theſe, which follow.

Firſt,II. Rule 1. [Every Law of God (though but Poſitive) recorded in the Scripture, is Morall and Perpetuall, unleſſe it be afterward found Repealed by God, or Expired in the nature of it.] We will explaine this Rule, and then prove it. 1.Explained. This Rule is propounded of all the Lawes of God generally, as recorded in Scripture. 1. Becauſe the Fundamentall proofe of it, is equally for both Teſtaments. 2. Becauſe ſome Lawes, not only recorded in the New Teſtament, but ſeeming to be ratified there, (as that of not eating Blood, &c. of which Law we ſhall ſpeak ſomewhat anon) are taken to be afterward repealed. 3. Becauſe ſome Lawes or Precepts of the New Teſtament are eſteemed expired, though not repealed; as that, Joh. 13. of waſhing one anothers feet, Of anoynting the ſick with oyle, that they might recover, Jam. 5. And perhaps ſome others are of a like nature.

2. We ſay, All Lawes are perpetuall, except firſt God hath afterward repealed them: that we may reſerve to him the ſoveraignty of his Authority, particularly over Poſitive Lawes; which as they proceeded at firſt from his authority and pleaſure, ſo may any of p. 18them, or all of them, at any time, by his pleaſure and authority be taken away, and repealed againe. Or, 2. It be expired: of which by and by.

3. By Gods repealing of any Law, we underſtand, any ſentences of Scripture, particularly of Chriſt and his Apoſtles, declaring, that it is not the will of God, that ſuch Lawes ſhould any longer be counted in force; whether they be named expreſly (as in ſome places they are) or comprehended under thoſe generall expreſſions concerning the Jewiſh Ceremonies, calling them ſhadowes, and Worldly Rudiments, Col. 2. Weak and beggerly Elements, Gal. 4. Carnall Ordinances impoſed on them untill the time of Reformation, Heb. 9. and, a yoak which they were not able to beare, Act. 15. (which latter phraſe will fetch in alſo ſome of the Judicials perhaps, ſuch namely as cannot now be obſerved by particular Chriſtians without manifeſt prejudice, much leſſe be held up by any Chriſtian State without reall and ſpeciall inconveniences.) And whatſoever comes certainly under any of theſe Termes, we eſteem and reckon it repealed, though not expreſly named. But whatſoever is without the limits of thoſe Phraſes, and not particularly mentioned as aboliſhed, we account not repealed, though poſſibly it may be expired for all that; which therefore we adde.

4. By a Lawes being Expired in the Nature of it, wee meane, when it was manifeſtly given, and continued for ſome particular Reaſon, which Reaſon is now manifeſtly ceaſed, and ſo without any repealing of it, it is of it ſelfe at an end in reſpect of Obligation, (though if it have no reall inconvenience in it now, it may be freely continued ſtill: and if the reaſon of it ſhould (or could) be revived, ſo would the Law be in like ſort.) And thus expired are ſundry other of the Judiciall Lawes in the Old Teſtament, and thoſe forementioned in the New Teſtament.

III. Uſually allowed.And theſe Deſcriptions of a Law repealed or expired, ſeem to be ſo ſufficient, as that it is the uſuall practice of all conſcientious Chriſtians, ſpecially Divines, that when they ſpeak of any Law of the Old Teſtament, as Ceremoniall, or Judiciall, and ſo no longer in force (or any Precept of the New Teſtament not now binding us) they preſently propound either ſome expreſſe Text rejecting it now, or at leaſt ſome generall ſentence including it among thoſe that are now excluded, becauſe of ſome Typicall ſignification that it hath, and the burdenſomneſſe and inconvenience of it, if it ſhould be p. 19ſtill counted in force; or at leaſt, the manifeſt ceaſing of the reaſon for which they conceive it was at firſt given (or after continued for a while) and ſo that there is no reaſon now, why it ſhould be counted ſtill a Law of God. Which,N. B. before we goe any further to adde any ſpeciall Proofs of our Rule, ſeems a tacite confeſſion of it, (which we deſire may be well noted) in that none of them goes about, abſolutely or ſimply, to plead exemption from any particular Law, whether in the New or Old Teſtament, but only ſo far forth as he goes about to prove it to come under the compaſſe either of ſuch a Repeale, or an Expiration.

But yet for all this, we beleeve,IV. Yet excepted againſt. that this Rule doth already ſound harſhly in divers eares; and particularly, we are ſure that our Ante-Sabbatarians will not let it paſſe without Exception; for they proceed quite contrary, as well in affirming,B. of E. p. 171. [That a Precept Evangelical is of neceſſary obligation] which yet we cannot yield without the former Qualification; nor yet do they themſelves in other places: As alſo ſpecially, in that they ſeem peremptory,B. of E. p. 120. [That no Precepts of the old Law meerly Poſitive, are in force under the Goſpel, unleſſe the ſame be ratified and confirmed by the Goſpel] where they ſuppoſe it is not enough to keep an old Law in force, that it is not Repealed expreſly; but they require an expreſſe Ratification of it in the Goſpel or New Teſtament, otherwiſe they take it (Without more adoe) to be expired, though not repealed: which, by their leaves, we take to be an Errour, and that upon theſe grounds following.

Firſt, from the Authority of the Lawgiver, V. Proved by 4. Reaſons. 1. From the Lawgivers Authority.which is the ſame under the Old Teſtament, and under the New; requiring the obedience of Chriſtians now, as well as of his People of old: ſo that whatſoever Law is once delivered to the Church, and accordingly recorded in the Law-book, the holy Scriptures, even of the Old Teſtament; whoſoever will claime exemption from it, whether particular Perſon or Church, muſt produce ſomewhat to prove, that that Law is now (under the Goſpel) repealed, or at leaſt expired; more then bare ſaying, that it is no longer in force. It is ſo in the Statute-Law of our Kingdome (and of all Kingdomes) if a man can alleadge for himſelfe in point of Right or Priviledge, (or the Kings Councell, for the Kings Rights and Prerogatives) any Statute that was once made, it ſtands good for all purpoſes, unleſſe they who p. 20would gainſay it, can alledge and prove that ſuch a Statute is out of date, by expiration or repeale. So that the proof lyes originally upon the refuſer of the Law, and they that would maintain it and urge it, need plead nothing more then the enacting of it once, till the abrogation of it can be verified.

And if it be ſo in the Statutes of men, and the Poſitive Lawes of Kingdomes, much more in thoſe of God, whoſe Authority is unqueſtionably more abſolute, and whoſe Wiſedome, and Holineſſe, and Iuſtice, and Goodneſſe, is infinitely beyond that of all Princes and States in the World.

This we take to be a point meriting exceeding much conſideration, though we find cauſe to doubt, it is but little conſidered, even by many Chriſtians and Divines.

VI. 2. The Old Teſt. is part of the Canon.Secondly, we confirm our Rule therefore, and this firſt proof of it, by a ſecond or further illuſtration of it, in this manner. Becauſe the old Teſtament is a part of the Rule of our Lives, as well as the New, and Canonicall Scripture, not only by way of Story or Doctrine, but by way of precept and command, and binds us Chriſtians as well (though not ſo much) as it did the Iewes. Our Divines when they handle the Doctrine,If any ſay our Divines when they maintain the Law ſtill to be in force as a Rule, mean the Morall Law only. We ſay the ſame too, only we argue that all that are written are Morall to us till we have proved the contrary of any particular. of Chriſts delivering from the written Law (viz. In the old Teſtament, of which the only queſtition is) profeſſe continually that he hath delivered us. 1. From the curſe of the Law. 2. From the Lawes being a Covenant of works unto us, whereby we ſhould be Iuſtifyed; But not from the obedience of it, or obligation to it, as a Rule of our Practiſe, and that ſo it ſtill remains in force, and ſhall do to the worlds end. And the contrary is generally condemned in the Anabaptiſts, and Antinomiſts, whoſe proper opinion it is, that they make voyd all the Lawes of the old Teſtament, unleſſe in expreſſe words renewed and repeated in the New Teſtament, and whoſoever will not joyne with them, muſt be forced to acknowledge our Rule to be good, whether the Laws be Morall Naturall, or meerly Poſitive: as our adverſaries themſelves have confeſſed of ſome, and they cannot but confeſſe who hold the Lawes particularly againſt inceſtuous Marriages to be perpetuall, which yet are not ſo much as named (except having a mans Fathers Wife) in all the New Teſtament, the reaſon of which ſilence we ſhall give a touch of by and by.

Meane time we find a learned Biſhop of chiefeſt note in our p. 21Church after this manner to undertake to prove,Le… lata non irrita facta ian obligat Epiſ. Win opuſc. pag. 148. that Tythes are due by divine right. [this Law (ſaith he) did ſometimes oblige the Church, as cannot be denyed; but it is not now Abrogated, therefore it binds ſtill] in which argumentation he muſt needs take our Rule for a ground [A Law inſtituted in the old Teſtament not Abrogated in the New, is of perpetuall obligation, though it have no expreſſe ratification in the Goſpel] leaving therefore our adverſaries at home to anſwer him, we add yet a further proof of our Rule.

Thirdly, otherwiſe the Church of God, VII. 3. Elſe no Canon, till the New. T. written.immediately after the Death of Chriſt, for many yeers together, that is, untill the New Teſtament was written, had had no written Canon at all for their practice, either toward God, or toward men; but were left meerly to the Law of Nature: For the old Teſtament was, it ſeemes, quite diſanulled at the Death of Chriſt, at leaſt in regard of all Poſitive Lawes (that againſt Polygamie and all) and as for the Morall, they bound not the Chriſtians as written in the old Teſtament; or (as ſome ſay) as given by Moſes, but only as Lawes of Nature. All which we conceive a great inconvenience; in regard that Nature corrupted (which is now to be the Judge, as we ſaid before) is but a dimm Light, in thoſe in whom it is moſt clear. And whereas it may be pretended, that the Preaching of Chriſt and his Apoſtles might ſufficiently ſupply the want of the written Law; wee anſwer, that though it might to the Gentiles, who were ſtrangers to the Scriptures of the old Teſtament yet not to the Iewes (and thoſe that converſed with them) who could never have beene wrought upon to have embraced the Doctrine of the Goſpel, if it had not been grounded upon the Doctrine of the Law of the old Teſtament, that is, if they that Preached it had not called for Repentance for tranſgreſſions of the Law, and urged ſtill to the obedience of it, as indeed both Chriſt and his Apoſtles do upon all occaſions: and without it alſo, their Preaching would eaſily have been both forgotten and miſtaken, if there had been no grounds of Gods Law written, by and upon which to ſettle the conſciences of their hearers.

Fourthly,VIII. 4. Confirmed by Chriſt, and his Apoſtles. to all which we may in the laſt place adjoyne this conſideration, that if thoſe places in the New Teſtament be obſerved (ſome of them at leaſt, if not all) where it is pretended, that Chriſt, p. 22or any of his Apoſtles do ratifie any of the Lawes of the Old Teſtament, it will be found that they containe no ſuch ratification as our adverſaries pretend in this queſtion. For they will appear not to be ſpoken by way of ſuch confirmation, without which thoſe Lawes ought to have been no longer accounted in force, which in propriety of ſpeech is a new impoſition of them. As when a King by his Proclamation confirms his former Proclamation which was voyd by the death of his Predeceſſor, this is properly a new impoſition of the ſame things by his Authority, which after the former Kings death were not of any validity at all. We ſay, that the confirmation that the New Teſtament gives unto the Lawes of the Old Teſtament will not be found to be of this Nature, but rather teſtifications of thoſe Lawes ſtanding in force; and ſo alledging them to confirm their own Doctrine, or to be a ground of it. As our Saviour evidently Alledges a Text out of Gen. 2. to ground and confirm his Doctrine againſt divorce, Mat. 19. and the Apoſtles in like manner, as we ſhall give ſome other inſtances hereafter, rather fetching their Authority (in part at leaſt) from the books of the Old Teſtament in matters of practiſe (as well as of Faith) then lending ſtrength to them by their owne Authority.

IX. So that the very ſilence of the N. T. rather confirmes any Law, then Abrogates it.And ſo we ſuppoſe we may, upon juſt reaſon inferre, that the ſilence of the New Teſtament concerning a Law, expreſſely and cleare-livered in the Old Teſtament, is a confirmation rather then an abrogation of it, or an intimation that it is expired; judicious Divines giving this for a reaſon of the ſilence of the New Teſtament in diverſe points, which are moſt vehemently urged in the old, as againſt inceſtuous marriages fore noted (and that others are but ſlightly, and as it were occaſionally mentioned, as the Lawes about Tythes and uſury, &c.) becauſe they are ſo clearly and importunately preſſed in the old. And therefore till we ſee better reaſons to the contrary, then any we have yet met with in all our diſputers books, we muſt needs hold, that all the Lawes of the Old Teſtament are perpetuated to this day, if there be nothing againſt them in the New Teſtament by way of repealing them: or at leaſt in reaſon, which might plead for an expiration. And if any one think, that by this aſſertion, ſundry of the Lawes which are uſually counted judaicall will prove to be in force ſtill; we anſwer, that perhaps it may prove ſo indeed. And, if we may have Liberty to expreſſe our apprehenſion p. 23of the Caſe in generall, we muſt needs confeſſe, that as we beleeve it lies upon our Conſciences in particular, to prove any particular Law, this or that, (which we hold to be Ceremoniall or Judaicall) to be ſuch; or elſe we cannot juſtly (nor ſafely) plead it to be Repealed or Expired, if it be not named among ſuch expreſly in the New Teſtament: So we are afraid, that many Divines, (not to ſay ſome Churches and States now adayes) have been a little too bold in rejecting ſundry Lawes as meerly Judaicall, which upon further adviſement might perhaps be found Morall and Perpetuall. To which our next Rule will ſpeak ſome what more fully.

But before we proceed to that,X. The Text Act. 15.28, 29. expoundedActs 15:28Acts 15:29 we will (as we intimated before a promiſe in our Margent) ſpeak a little of that place Act. 15. for 3 cauſes ſpecially: One is, that The things there mentioned to be Neceſſary to be obſerved, when all the reſt of the Jewiſh Ceremonies were diſcharged, are not all of one kinde, but one of them is Morall, the other three Ceremoniall. 2. Becauſe not only ſome perſons are yet tender in the point of eating Blood, but alſo the Greek Church generally hold that Prohibition in force. Therefore we will ſay ſomewhat at leaſt toward the clearing of both theſe, as alſo why the Ceremonies mentioned were continued then, if they be not now in force. 3. For that ſome light alſo may perhaps from hence be afforded to judge of ſome other Lawes. But all briefly, that we may not be held too long in any Digreſſion from the main Intendment.

We find in that place Act. 15.XI. 1. Why Fornication forbidden there, being Morall. four Laws by name recommended to the Chriſtian Gentiles: whereof one is againſt Fornication, (to begin with that firſt) And of this we ſay, that it is indeed a Morall Law, and perpetuall, (though if Polygamie, and the Law of Mariage be but Poſitive Lawes, as was argued before, this alſo is but Poſitive) and the Morality and Perpetuity of it appeares undeniably by ranking of it every where, in St. Pauls Epiſtles, and other places of the New Teſtament, among the moſt heynous ſins which exclude out of Gods Kingdome, and ſo Damnation being threatned to it more then ten times in the New Teſtament. Yet becauſe many of the Heathens, who acknowledged Adultery to be a grievous ſin, made light of ſingle Fornication, and thought it a matter of nothing, and ſcarce any ſin at all; Therefore the Apoſtles, to give an p. 24Antidote for the preſent to this conceit, and to prevent ſuch miſchiefe, doe here rank it among thoſe things which they call neceſſary to be avoyded, though the reſt but Ceremoniall: intending afterward more fully to diſcover the abomination of that in it ſelfe, and ſo perfectly to root it out from among Chriſtians, as St. Paul afterward doth (as much as any one thing) labour upon all occaſions to doe, as we touched before; and makes it a matter of abſolute neceſſity to flie from it.

XII. 2. Things ſacrific…d to Idols being Ceremoniall, forbidden.A ſecond thing mentioned was Ceremoniall, Namely, The abſtaining from things offered in ſacrifice to Idols; which St. James calls in his ſentence, Pollutions of Idols. Theſe were forbidden in the Ceremoniall Law by way of Document, to teach them to abominate Idols. Now that this is repealed, in point of Conſcience, appeares undeniably (notwithſtanding this ſentence here, Act. 15.) beſides other places, by that, 1 Cor. 10.25, 27. where he bids them eat any thing that is ſold in the Market, or that was ſet before them at a Heathens houſe, asking no queſtion for Conſcience ſake, even though the thing perhaps be thought to have been offered in ſacrifice to Idols, as the next verſe implies. Yet was the reſtraint of eating thoſe things neceſſary for a while, for a double or treble ſcandall which elſe might enſue.

The firſt, (and chiefly intended in this place, Act. 15.) was in reference to the Jewes, leſt they ſhould deteſt Chriſtians as favourers of Idols.

A ſecond, in regard of weake Chriſtians, who not informed of their Liberty fully, might have judged thoſe that did eat ſuch things, unconſcionable; as alſo ſome of them be drawn to eat in like ſort, even againſt their Conſciences, by others example.

A third, in regard of the Heathen Idolaters themſelves, who thereby might he hardened in their Idolatrous Worſhip, as thinking that Chriſtians did in ſome ſort allow of it, ſince they would vouchſafe to eat of their Sacrifices. And in all theſe reſpects, even S. Paul, who in the place before mentioned allowes the eating of ſuch things ſimply, without ſcruple of Conſcience; yet both in that Chapter (and Rom. 14. and 1 Cor. 8. though reſpecting weak Chriſtians) enjoynes ſtill a forbearance, ſo long as the eating might be ſcandalous to any. And now to us, this particular Law is not only p. 25repealed, as I ſaid before, but expired alſo, there being now no ſuch things among us, as any meat offered in ſacrifice to Idolls, only the generall reſpects of ſcandall, bind us ſtill, according as occaſion may be, as thoſe places do abundantly urge.

A third thing was, not eating things ſtrangled, XIII. 3. Things ſtrangled.and this was alſo Ceremoniall, being ſpecially forbidden, becauſe the bloud was not powred out of it, Lev. 17.13. and the repeale of it may be clearly evidenced, not only from the former place, 1 Cor. 10.25, 27. Which is generall, but alſo from the 1 Tim. 4. and Col. 2. which allowes plainly all kind of meat; yet this alſo was neceſſary to be forbidden, ſo long as bloud was forbidden, of which we come now in the laſt place to ſpeak.

The fourth thing then here mentioned,XIV. 4. Eating of Bloud. Repealed, as appears by foure reaſons. was the not eating of Bloud, the moſt antient of all the other, being as old as Noahs age, immediately after the floud. Gen. 9. and oftimes urged by Moſes, and mentioned in the Prophets with all earneſtneſſe, and ſevere threatnings, and gracious promiſes. Yet that this alſo is repealed, may appear; not only,

Firſt, Becauſe bloud, having a nouriſhing quality, and being by God, in Nature, made fit for meat (as appears by experience) it comes fairly within the compaſſe of thoſe Generall ſentences, allowing all kinds of meat, mentioned before. But ſpecially, becauſe,

Secondly, it was, at the very firſt inſtitution, a document of a ſpirituall thing, namely, to teach them to abhorre ſhedding the Bloud of men, and accordingly it is joyned with it, Gen. 9. as if God had ſaid more plainly, Becauſe I will inure you, not to ſhed the bloud of men, I do forbid you to eate the bloud of any Beaſt, or Foule, or other Creature, the fleſh of which I ſhall allow you to eate: like that Law, afterward given to the Jewes. That they ſhould not muzzle the mouth of the Oxe, that treads out the corn, which (ſayes the Apoſtle) 1 Cor. 9. was written altogether for our ſakes; that the Miniſters ſhould be maintained. Seeing then the forbidding of Bloud was a part of the Pedagogy, of the Infant-Church, of the Old Teſtament, it is fairly argued, that it is now ceaſed when that Church is come to age.

Thirdly, becauſe, Bloud was alſo expreſſely made a Type of the Reconciliation of Chriſt, by his Bloud ſhedding, and in that reſpect was forbidden to be eaten or drunk, God would reſerve it from common p. 26uſe, Lev. 17.11. &c. therefore Chriſt being now come, and having fulfilled the Type of Reconciliation; that reſtraint ſeems to be taken away, and Liberty granted to eat Bloud now, as well as we may eat the fat or ſuet which yet was alſo forbidden to be eaten under the Law, for the very ſame reaſon, becauſe it was reſerved for ſacrifice, Lev. 3.16, 17. Lev. 17.23. &c.

Fourthly, whiles Bloud remained forbidden it ſeemed neceſſary to draw with it, the prohibition of things ſtrangled, as was noted before: Now all things ſtrangled being allowed (as was noted) bloud ſeemes to be ſo too.

XV. The reaſon of its preſent reſtraint.But for the preſent reſtraint of this, there was ſpeciall reaſon, above any of the other Iewiſh Ceremonies: becauſe of the antiquity of the Law mentioned; and Gods importunity to have it obſerved, ſo oft as he doth mention it, which is often, in the books of Moſes. And Saint Iames expreſſes that to be the reaſon of his propounding that Sanction for the continuance of theſe things, Acts 15.21. becauſe Moſes was read in every City, and ſo a ſudden taking Liberty in theſe things, would have been greatly ſcandalous to the Iewes, who, while their Common wealth ſtood intire, and they were nationally yet the people of God, were to be ſpecially reſpected, by the Gentiles, that lived among them, any where. And this, above all the reſt, would have been ſcandalous to them, becauſe they held all Nations, to be tyed to the Precepts given to Noah, and abhorred them that obſerved them not, more then they did for the Ceremonies given by the hand of Moſes, or even for circumciſion it ſelf, though given to Abraham. But now the Jewes Common wealth being deſtroyed, and God having rejected them from being any more his people, and that Doctrine of Chriſtian Liberty being fully publiſhed, Chriſtians that underſtand their Liberty, need no longer forbear the eating of it; It being repealed upon the grounds forenoted.

XVI. Second Rule of a Morall Law, though Poſitive.And ſo having diſpatched this not unuſefull digreſſion to our main purpoſe, We return to the proſecution of that: and ſo for the yet better and more clear diſcerning of Morall Lawes, though but Poſitive, We propound this ſecond Rule [Every Law of God, though but Poſitive, which is Subſtantially-profitable for all men in all Ages to be obliged unto, is Morall, that is, Vniverſall and Perpetuall, unleſſe a clear and certain repeale of it can be ſhewed in Scripture.] p. 27The ſenſe of this Rule is delivered by great Divines, in thoſe uſuall ſentences of ['Tale Praeceptum, qualis Ratio Praecepti.] And,Epiſc. Winton. op…ſc. p. 145. ["Ratio immutabilis facit Praeceptum immutabile.] But becauſe thoſe Expreſſions are liable to Exceptions, and have been excepted againſt by divers Diſputers in this Queſtion: We rather chuſe to deliver our ſelves otherwiſe, and as we have ſet our Rule down: whereby we conceive, the uſuall Objections againſt thoſe Sentences are ſufficiently prevented, or may be readily anſwered. And this, as we ſuppoſe, will be cleare, when we have a little explained the Termes of this Rule alſo, and added a few grounds for the confirmation of it.

1. Then, by Profitable, we underſtand that,XVII. Explained, 1. What is meant by a Profitable Law. All the Lawes of Nature are undoubtedly profitable. And ſome may become ſo, which are but Poſitive. XVIII. 2. How it becomes profitable. 1. As a ſupply of Wiſdome. which being practiſed, not only poſſibly or probably may, but certainly and infallibly doth tend to the ſecuring and advancing, either 1. of the glory of God, and the good of Soules, (which goe ever together) or 2. the generall good of humane ſocietie: or 3. even a mans own perſonall good, in regard of his body, and outward condition: According as the concernment of the Law looks at any one, or more of theſe; and the more of theſe it looks to, the more profitable it is, and the more certainly Morall and Perpetuall.

2. It is to be conſidered, how a Law, that appeares not to be of abſolute Neceſſity, and ſo not properly Morall-Naturall, in the ſpecialty of it, may come to be ſo profitable to any of the ends forementioned: and that we conceive may be in a three-fold reſpect.

1. As it may be a happy ſupply of Wiſdome to men, in limiting or bounding thoſe things, that (even neceſſarily) muſt be limited ſome way, and which Mans wiſdome, ſpecially as now corrupted, is greatly, if not altogether, unſufficient to ſet the bounds of; and wherein yet, if there be not a wiſe determination, there may be a very great prejudice to ſome or other of thoſe important ends. Herein now, the wiſedome of God, being uncontrollable, interpoſing it ſelfe by a Law, both makes that Law, and aſſures it to be undeniably profitable.

2.XIX. 2. As a remedy of Unwillingneſſe. As it may be a ſufficient remedy of mens unwillingneſſe to practiſe that which is ſo profitable. Experience ſhewes, that our want of Zeale to God, and our own Soules good, and want of Charity one to another, or even of conſtant reſpect to our own true Naturall p. 26duplicate page p. 27duplicate page p. 28good, betrayes us to ſundry faults, where we are left at liberty, without any expreſſe Law of God. The Lawes of Men, even though Penall, being not ſtrong enough to hold us in, in many things; and not able to reach to many others. And though it be true, that God hath given a generall command to obey Superiors in lawfull things; yet is that Command ſo agitated by Diſputes of men of all ſorts, that in concluſion it is exceeding little practiſed any where, unleſſe it be in thoſe things which a mans own mind conſents to be every way profitable for himſelfe, which very rarely happens. Therefore the unqueſtionable Authority of GOD, giving out a Law in any particular, not only ſilences all Diſputes, but awes all Conſciences, (far more ſtrongly, and immediately, then the beſt Law of Man can doe) even of thoſe that are unwilling, if they be not altogether hardned, or aſleep: and ſo ſecures the Practice, to the fulleſt advantage, according to the nature of the Profitableneſſe of the Law.

XX. 3. As ſecuring liberty to the willing.3. As it may be a ſufficient ſecuring of a deſirable Liberty or Priviledge to the willing, to practiſe that which may be profitable in any of the reſpects fore-noted: or to forbeare the contrary. And in this alſo, experience ſhewes abundantly, That when things are left more at large, many are interrupted, and many altogether hindered from thoſe things which they greatly deſire to doe, and which would be really profitable to be done; and are oftentimes not only tempted, but even forced, in a ſort, to doe contrary to what were ſo profitable to be done, if they had cleare liberty, from ſufficient Authority. Therefore, here againe, the undeniable Soveraigne Authority of God the Lord of all, comes graciouſly to authorize by that Law, ſuch to enjoy their deſired freedome, and to plead his pleaſure for their liberty to ſo good purpoſes; and withall, gives them aſſurance, that if they doe ſuffer any outward inconvenience from men, or otherwiſe, himſelfe will recompenſe it to them againe, at leaſt unto their ſoules: and ſo the Law is ſtill moſt undoubtedly profitable.

XXI. 3. What is meant by Subſtantially Profitable, To difference it.Thirdly, Now by ſubſtantially-profitable, we underſtand ſuch a Law, whoſe utility flowes not meerly from the abſolute and almighty pleaſure of GOD the Lawgiver; though his Wiſdome and Authority be the prime and principall cauſe of all profitableneſſe of any Law, (and ſo of theſe, as we diſcourſed but even now.) But it p. 29ariſeth partly from the nature of the Practice or Forbearance, and ſo from the matter of the Law, in it ſelfe, according to Reaſon, and humane judgement. And ſo by putting in this word, we difference the Lawes we now ſpeak of.

1. From all the Ceremoniall Types and Documents foreſpoken of,XXII. 1. From Ceremoniall Types, &c. even that of not eating blood, &c. For we deny not, but in as much as God appointed thoſe for a time, they were for the time, in that conſideration, profitable unto thoſe Typicall ends, and ſo (reductively) to his Honour, and Soules good. But this was not in the nature of the Obſervances themſelves, or the ſubſtantiality of the matter of thoſe Laws towards Gods honour; but meerly in regard of his Pleaſure, appointing them for that time. And therefore the Apoſtle ſpeaking of them generally, and giving a reaſon of their change and abrogation, ſaith, [It was for their weakneſſe and unprofitableneſſe, Heb. 7:18.] But the Lawes we ſpeak of, and of which our Rule proceeds, are only ſuch as may be found to have in themſelves, and the nature of the things, (if warrantably practiſed, though not peremptorily commanded) ſome ſubſtantiality and reality of Profitableneſſe: But much more being commanded by God himſelfe, for the Reaſons expreſſed.

2. This word Subſtantiall, differences Lawes of this kind,XXIII. 2. From any annexed Circumſtance. (viz. Morall-Poſitive) in regard of their Subſtance, from any Circumſtance annexed to them, even though it were at their firſt delivery, and namely from the Particularity or Individuality of the Object of them (as ſuppoſe, the Law of Tithes to be of this kind, the Particularity or Individuality of it, in reſpect of Cattell, (Lev. 27.) was the 10^th. or laſt of 10. that paſſed under the Rod) which in reference to the nature of the Law, is plainly but a meer Circumſtance, and no wayes of the Subſtance of it, nor conducing to that univerſall and perpetuall Vtility, which flowes from the Matter and Subſtance, (which in that of Tithes, was the paying God a tribute or rent of their eſtates, multiplied by his bleſſing; and was afterward by Him applied to the maintenance of his Miniſters, Num. 18. Unto which ends, the Proportion, viz. a tenth part, was plainly profitable, but the Order, the tenth under the Rod, not at all, but meerly at Gods pleaſure.) And therefore, while that Particularity or Individuality, being a meer Circumſtance, comes to be aboliſhed or changed, the Law it ſelf, in its ſubſtance, may be perpetuall, as being perpetually profitable.

p. 30XXIV. 4. Vnleſſe a cleare Repeal be ſhewed in Scripture.4. We adde in the laſt place, Ʋnleſſe a cleare and certaine Repeale of it can be ſhewed in Scripture. This we put in, 1. That we may eternally reſerve to God the honour of his Soveraigntie, in taking away, as well as in making any ſuch Poſitive Lawes, at his pleaſure: and of his infinite Wiſdome, who may ſee cauſe for that, which we ſee none for; and ſo if he declare any Law repealed, though we ſhould otherwiſe have thought it ſubſtantially profitable, yet we will not argue it perpetuall, contrary to his expreſſe pleaſure manifeſted unto us. 2. But then, we mention a cleare and certaine Repeale, that ſuch Lawes, as we ſpeak of, may not be rejected upon ſlight and eaſie pretences, or ſuch generall intimations only, which (according to the manner of interpreting Scripture) may well beare another ſenſe; and ſo may leave ſuch Lawes ſo ſubſtantially profitable, wholly untoucht. In a word, if the pretended Repeale be queſtionable upon grounds from other places of Scripture, We conceive, that the Subſtantiall-Profitableneſſe of the Law in controverſie, being perpetuall for all men in all Ages (as we ſay) doth argue, that ſuch a Law is not included in the Repeale, N. B.but remaining in its ſtrength, among the Perpetuals. 3. We here make no mention of Expiration, as we did in the former Rule; becauſe the Perpetuall Subſtantiall-Profitableneſſe of the Law, doth directly contradict the Expiration. It muſt then be in force as Perpetuall, unleſſe (as we ſaid) a cleare and certaine Repeale of it can be ſhewed in Scripture. And ſo theſe things, being thus explained, we ſuppoſe a few words may ſuffice to confirme this Rule, conſidering the Proofes formerly laid down to ſtabliſh the foregoing Rule.

XXV. 2. The ſecond Rule proved, 1. by the former Rule.For if every Law written be Perpetuall (though Poſitive) which is not after found repealed by God, or expired in the nature of it; and the ſubſtantialitie of the Profit of the Law evinces it not to be expired, and withall diſtinguiſhes it from the Ceremoniall Types and Documents, (which are the maine, if not the only ſubjects of a Repeale) what can be pretended, why we ſhould conceive it to be repealed, unleſſe it be clearely and infallibly mentioned in Scripture to be no longer in force? Let a man ſtudy to ſay what he will, or can, if it be to the purpoſe, to ſhew any Law (contended for by others to be Morall) not to be Perpetuall; It muſt argue it ſome way inconvenient and prejudiciall, as a reall (and unneceſſary) burden to us now: And this then will diſcharge it out of the rank of the p. 31Lawes we argue for, which we all ſubſtantially-profitable for all men in all ages: for inconvenient and prejudiciall are contradictory to ſubſtantially-profitable. If therefore any who excepts againſt a Law as not perpetuall, can prove it really inconvenient and prejudiciall to be obſerved, we diſpute not for it in this Rule, but relinquiſh it, as out of out intention. But on the contrary, if we can prove any Law ſo ſubſtantially-profitable, as we have diſcourſed; then all allegations of its Inconvenience and Prejudice will be frivolous and vain, and the Law will be found perpetuall, as the Profit of it is.

Only we muſt a little carefully obſerve,XXVI. And cautioned. [That if the ſubſtantiall-profitableneſſe of any Law, argued thereby to be perpetuall, doe concerne Religion, that is, Gods honour, and the good of Soules: A worldly inconvenience, or ſome outward difficulty attending the obſervation of it, will not be ſufficient to diſcharge it from being of perpetuall obligation:] For as much as God and our Soules are undoubtedly to be preferred before any worldly convenience or inconvenience: And likewiſe by reaſon of our preſent corruption, there is ſcarce any Law of God (even of theſe that are Morall-Naturall) but the obſervation of it is often, if not perpetually, attended with ſome outward difficulty and worldly inconvenience; which is one main reaſon that makes ſelf-denyall (namely in carnall and worldly reſpects) to be the firſt leſſon of Chriſtianitie and Godlineſſe. 2. In like ſort, [If the profit of the Law concerne the generall good of Humane ſocietie, even in worldly reſpects; then a mans particular worldly inconvenience or difficulty, (or burden) in the obſervation of it, is not ſufficient to diſcharge that Law neither from being of perpetuall obligation:] For as much as a private and perſonall convenience or benefit muſt give place to a generall or publike; and one, or a few, muſt be contented to ſuffer ſome inconvenience, rather then put many (or all) to a like, or greater prejudice. 3. Withall, that though God in his gracious indulgence hath allowed the intermiſſion of ſome of his ſervices, (and ſo diſpenſed with ſome of his Lawes that concerned himſelfe) in a particular caſe of Neceſſitie, for the good of mens bodies; and ſo allowed to doe ſuch things, in theſe caſes, as in a Direct and Naturall (that is, Phyſicall) conſideration, are neceſſary for the Bodies ſafety and good, (or even for the preſervation of the lives of Cattels, and ſhewing them mercy; p. 32Or ſaving from preſent, and otherwiſe inevitable deſtruction of any of a mans goods.) Yet [The hazard, or even certainty of Perſecution, though to the loſſe of all a mans ſubſtance, or even of his life, is no ſufficient ablegation to diſcharge any profitable Law concerning God, and the Soule: ſo as the pretence of ſuch inconvenience of Perſecution, to be undergone in or for the obſervation of that Law, ſhould argue that Law not to be in force now.] For as much as 1. even all the undeniably Perpetuall Lawes, (thoſe that are moſt Morall-Naturall) whether belonging to the firſt or ſecond Table, as the not worſhipping other Gods, or the not murthering an innocent, or not committing Adultery, Inceſt, or Sodomy; might be, and would be made voyd, upon this pretence, That they were inconvenient Lawes, and prejudiciall to mens lives, in ſuch and ſuch caſes. 2. We find alſo, that Daniel, in that caſe of Teſtimony, and hazard of Perſecution to extremity, would not forbeare his three times a day ſolemne Prayers, and that upon his knees, in his Chamber, and his windows open toward Hieruſalem; though he knew his enemies might by that meanes ſurpriſe him, and accuſe him, and cauſe him to be caſt into the den of Lyons: yet did he hold himſelfe bound to the Law of Outward Worſhip, daily, and even in that open manner, (though the looking toward Hieruſalem was but a Ceremony ordained by God upon Solomons prayer, 1 King. c. 8.9.) 3. Alſo the Maccabees did not think that Perſecution did (or could) diſcharge even the Ceremoniall Law of not eating Swines fleſh; but for it endured all extremitie of Torments, as the Story relates, (and for it they are ranked among the Worthies of the Old Teſtament, who lived and dyed in Faith, Heb. 11.) Much leſſe then can any ſuch hazard, or even the enduring of Perſecution, be counted ſuch an inconvenience, as ſhould ſuffice to diſprove a Law ſubſtantially-profitable (for Gods honour (ſpecially) and Soules good) from being Morall and Perpetuall, unleſſe (as we ſaid at the firſt mentioning of the Rule) God have clearely and certainly repealed it in his Word. XXVII. 2. By further Reaſons Men continue profitable Lawes.The further proofe whereof we thus briefly lay down:

1. We find, that among men, nothing moves a wiſe, and juſt, and gracious King or State to take away any Law (though not made by themſelves, but by their Anceſtors, and ſpecially if made by themſelves) that they find ſtill profitable for the honour of the Soveraigne, and the reall good of the Subjects. And that as the Imbecility of p. 33Humane wiſedome to foreſee all future conveniences or inconveniences, makes all Humane Lawes mutable in themſelves: So only the emergent or ſeeming appearances of ſuch inconveniences, as were not when the Law was made, makes them be taken away actually, by ſuch as are not Tyrannous nor unwiſe. Therefore we cannot imagine (unleſſe we find it ſyllabically and undeniably expreſt) that God ſhould doe otherwiſe then perpetuate thoſe Lawes, which according to that wiſdome he hath (from Reaſon and Scripture together) vouchſafed unto us, we cannot but judge ſubſtantially profitable for us and all men now, as well as they were for his people of old. We know he can never be deceived, ſo as to miſtake the profitableneſſe of any Law: neither can he ever faile in his love to his own honour, or the good of his Church in any generation. Though therefore we ſtill grant, that if it be infallibly certain, that He hath repealed any Law, We are deceived, if we ſtill think it ſubſtantially profitable: and muſt conclude, that by ſuch Repeale he hath pronounced the contrary of it, according to his unſearchable wiſdome, infinitely exceeding ours. Yet ſtill (upon the ſame grounds of his infallible wiſdome, and never failing love to his own honour, and his Churches good) we cannot believe any ſuch Repeale, unleſſe it be undoubtedly cleare and undeniable: The rather, becauſe,—

2.XXVIII. 2. Lawes not ſubſtantially-profitable, yet clearly repealed. We find ſuch cleare and undeniable expreſſions in the New Teſtament, of the Repeale of ſundry Lawes of the Old Teſtament, which had apparently no Subſtantiality of Profitableneſſe, (according as we have deſcribed it) but their ſervice and profit depended meerly upon Gods particular appointment; as Circumciſion, and the forbearing of Meats, and the offering of Sacrifices for Sin, and many ſuch like; which alſo had a reality of burden in them, which God was yet pleaſed to impoſe upon them, till Chriſt the promiſed Seed would come. Yet, I ſay, God vouchſafed clearely to declare by his Apoſtles, (and in his Word, in their Acts and Epiſtles) that he hath repealed theſe, as now no longer profitable, and as burdenſome. Therefore we conceive, that His not expreſly naming, nor undeniably including under any generall ſentence of Repeale, any ſuch Law, as our beſt and moſt ſerious conſideration cannot but ſtill eſteem ſingularly profitable, (particularly for His honour, and our own Soules good) is a certain and undeniable intimation to us, p. 34that He would have us eſteeme them ſtill in force, and not repealed.

XXIX. 3. The Objection of Chriſtian Liberty, prevented.3. We conceive, that the moſt uſuall Objection and Pretence of Chriſtian Liberty under the Goſpel, purchaſed by the death of our bleſſed Redeemer the Lord Jeſus Chriſt, is ſo contradicted by the Explication we have made of Subſtantially Profitable, that we cannot imagine how it can any way ſerve to diſcharge or diſprove our Rule: For can that be properly called Chriſtian Liberty, to be looſe from the Bond of thoſe Lawes, which to obſerve, is undeniably ſingularly profitable for the advancement of Gods honour, and the ſalvation of men, or for a generall good to Humane Societies, or the like? What is Licentiouſneſſe, if that be Chriſtian Liberty? Or is it imaginable, that He who dyed properly to procure all good to his people, and chiefly to their Soules, ſhould intend by his death to diſſolve the obligation of any ſuch Law, which is ſubſtantially profitable for their ſpirituall good? Were not this rather to bring prejudice to them, and inconvenience, then ſpirituall benefit? And on the contrary, it is certainly a happy Priviledge, and a true Spirituall and Chriſtian Liberty, (worthy to be ſued for to God and Chriſt with all importunity, if it were a matter liable to be prayed for) to have the bonds of ſuch profitable Lawes ſtill tying us faſt, how willing ſoever the carnall heart of any would be to be rid of them. And this is the cauſe, as we conceive, why St. James, ſpeaking of the Law generally which Chriſtians are ſtill bound unto, calls it twiſe, the Law of Liberty, ch. 1.25. & 2.12. And ſo a matter of thanksgiving rather, that we are ſtill partakers of the benefit of it, then of complaint of it, or quarrell or diſpute againſt it, or refractorineſſe to obey it.

XXX. 4. Some Laws profitable perpetuated for ſubſtance, though ſome circumſtance about it repealed.4. To all this we may add, that we find God ſo carefull of the perpetuating of ſome Subſtantially Profitable Laws, that even when he hath thought good to take away ſome particularity & circumſtance about them, and namely the individuall object of them, and to abrogate and aboliſh that; yet he vouchſafed to continue the Subſtance of thoſe Lawes ſtill under the New Teſtament: and for that purpoſe, himſelfe ordained new Particularities, new Individuall Objects, whereby thoſe Lawes ſhould ſubſiſt; and made only a change in the Circumſtances, and no diminution nor alteration at all of the Subſtance of thoſe profitable Lawes. Of this I have a double undeniable p. 35inſtance to produce; one of the Miniſtery, the other of the Sacraments. 1 It cannot be denyed,XXXI. 1. In the Miniſtery. but it is a Subſtantially Profitable Law for all men in all Ages, [That there ſhould be ſome men ſet apart to miniſter between GOD and his People; and the People ſubmit to them, being appointed of GOD to that office, and depend upon them ſo far as GOD ordaines.] Accordingly, (beſides Melchiſedek mentioned to be a Prieſt of the moſt High GOD, Divines generally hold, that before the Leviticall Law was given, every Father of a Family had the office of a Prieſt or Miniſter of God to his Family, even from Adams time.in Abrahams time, Gen. 14.) GOD, as ſoon as ever he took Iſrael to be his people, had firſt the firſt-borne to be his Prieſts, (Exod. 24.5. & Num. 3. &c.) and afterward the Tribe of Levi; and the Family of Aaron, (beſides alſo his raiſing up extraordinary Prophets, for part of that office.) But theſe Levites and Aaronites, though he hath under the New Teſtament taken away from being Hereditary Miniſters of his, and ſo aboliſhed their Order: yet hath he not left his Church without Miniſters; But Chriſt himſelfe upon Earth, choſe, and ſent ſome in that imployment, and appointed them to ſend others in ſucceſſion, which accordingly they did, (as the Acts and Epiſtles ſhew) and likewiſe continually gives gifts to men to that end (Epheſ. 4.) and ſo upon thoſe, who are according to his Word ordained to that Office, lies the Subſtantiall Duty of GODS Miniſters, even the ſame for ſubſtance that was from the beginning, namely to teach, and pray, and judge the People in things pertaining to GOD, according to his Word: And Gods people are bound to ſubmit to them, and depend upon them, (anſwerable to the rules of the Word) as well, and as much, as they of old were to his Miniſters in thoſe times. And all this, becauſe of the ſubſtantiall profit of thoſe Lawes for Gods honour, and mens ſoules; as the termes of Embaſſadors, Watchmen, Shepheards, Husbandmen, Builders, Fiſhers, and the like, doe abundantly teſtifie. So that a ſubſtantially profitable Law appeares to be perpetuated, even where God makes ſome change about it. And if we conſider, that God did once ſpeak to his people generally by his own Majeſtick voyce, (Exod. 20.) and oftentimes of old to Particulars, by Dreams, and Revelations, and by apparitions of Angels: There was no neceſſity, neither on Gods part, nor Mens, that ſuch Lawes ſhould be made, or any ſuch Office of Men eſtabliſht; But it was only the pleaſure of God, and a Poſitive Law of his, (deſired alſo by the people, as we find Exod. 20. after they had heard that dreadfull voyce: and in anſwer thereunto, p. 36He promiſed a ſucceſſion of Prophets,Vide Calv. in locum. and ſpecially Chriſt the great Prophet, Deut. 18.) Yet for the ſubſtantiall profitableneſſe of it, perpetuated by God throughout all Ages; and acknowledged and practiſed even by all the Heathens. Yet by no Argument can it be proved Morall-Naturall, as I ſuppoſe.

XXXII. 2. In the Sacraments.2. The other Inſtance is yet more (if need be) undeniable, for a Poſitive Law to be perpetuated, becauſe ſubſtantially-profitable for all men in all ages. And that is the Law of the Sacraments, of being Seales for confirmation of a Covenant between God and men. Of this it cannot be ſaid there is any neceſſity in regard of God, who knowes all mens hearts, before, and without this: nor yet abſolutely in regard of Men; For all Orthodox Divines hold, men may be (and are) ſaved without them, if they be not willing contemners of them: They are then neceſſary, only neceſſitate Praecepti, not Medii. And the nature of them is ſuch, as that God himſelfe muſt appoint them, or elſe they are ſo far from being neceſſary or profitable to advance his honour, and Soules good, that they are unlawfull to be uſed: (Men may not make or appoint Religious ſeales of the Covenant between God and them.) The uſing then of any ſuch, comes from Gods Poſitive Law. Yet becauſe in his Wiſdome and Grace he ſaw it would be profitable for his Church to have ſuch Seales of the Covenant between him and them: And accordingly, we are able to diſcourſe of a ſubſtantiall profit of ſuch ſeales of Gods appointment, to ſtrengthen our faith, and engage us the more ſolemnly and ſtrongly to him, and that from time to time. Therefore God not only gave to Adam in innocencie the Tree of Life for a Sacrament, as Divines generally hold: But after his fall, Sacrifices, which had certainly the nature of Sacraments & ſeals of Gods covenant: And now under the New Teſtament, though he hath aboliſhed the old ſeales of Circumciſion, and the Paſſeover, (and Sacrifices) yet he hath not aboliſhed the Law of Sacraments, of Seales in generall, (though alſo that Law be no where expreſly laid down in the generall, but under the particular Seales of each Age) But hath only changed the former Individuall Objects, and ſet up (himſelfe) new ones, Baptiſme, and the Lords Supper: Unto the Lawes of which (even the generall Lawes of Seales, to be gathered from the Old, as well as the New Teſtament) All his people are ſtill bound, becauſe of the ſubſtantiall profitableneſſe, as well, and as much as they p. 37of old were, Though not to the ſpecialties which appear peculiar to the old Seals. Still then, we find God Perpetuating, Subſtantially-Profitable Lawes, even although he change ſome circumſtance about them.

We will therefore conclude this diſcourſe (and this Chapter) with this Epiphonema from both our Rules. That,XXXIII. An Epiphonema for conculſion. as we being Subjects of the great Lawgiver, dare not pleade our ſelves looſe from any Law of his which we ſhall find in his Word; and ſpecially not from any ſuch ſubſtantially-profitable Law, without we can be ſure he hath diſcharged us of it, (according as we have diſcourſed of expirations and repeale.) So upon this ſuppoſition, We ſhall not need be overcurious in diſtinguiſhing Morall-Naturall, from Morall Poſitive, for both will come to one effect to us.