Thomas Shepard (1605-1649)
The "soul-melting" Puritan, Preacher, Writer, Educator, Commentator, Pamphleteer, Diarist, Non-Conformist and Dissenter.
Writings About Thomas Shepard
(It is our intention to start by putting up a quick synopsis and overview of each work.
Our desire (Lord Willing) is to eventually put the entire "Works of Thomas Shepard" here on this site for reading and/or download)
THESES
SABBATICAE,
OR
THE DOCTRINE
OF
THE
SABBATH;
WHEREIN ARE CLEARLY DISCUSSED
THE
MORALITY, THE CHANGE,
THE BEGINNING, AND THE
SANCTIFICATION OF THE SABBATH,
DIVERS CASES OF CONSCIENCE RESOLVED,
AND THE MORAL, LAW, AS A RULE OF LIFE TO A BELIEVER, OCCASIONALLY AND DISTINCTLY HANDLED
_________________________________________
Neh. 13:17, 18. — "What evil thing is this that ye do, and
profane the Sabbath day? Did not your
fathers thus, and did not our God bring all this evil upon us, and upon this
city? yet ye bring more wrath upon
Jer.
THESES SABBATICAE.
I.
OF THE THESES CONCERNING THE MORALITY OF THE
SABBATH.
theses
1-6. God
is the superior Disposer of man's time,
7-9. Man, who is made next to God, and to
return to his rest at the end of the larger circle of his life, is to return to
him at the end of the lesser circle of every week,
10-13. What a moral law is not,
14-15. How a divine law may be said to be moral,
16. What a moral law is, strictly taken,
17-20. A moral law, considered in a strict sense,
is not good merely because commanded, but is therefore commanded because it is
good,
21-23. What is that goodness in a moral law for
which it is commanded,
24-25. By what rules may that goodness be known,
which are four, Divers consectaries flowing from the description of a moral law,
26-28. That divine determination of
something in a law doth not always take away the morality of it,
29-37. That those are not moral laws only, which
are known to all men by the light of corrupt nature,
38. That the whole decalogue, in all the
parts of it, is the moral law of God: Theses
30, where objections are answered to,
39-42. Three sorts of laws which were among the
Jews, moral, ceremonial, judicial,
43. The true state of the question whether
the Sabbath be a moral or ceremonial law,
44-45. The agreement on all hands how far the law
of the Sabbath is moral,
46. Something general is agreed on, and whether it lies under this general, viz., a seventh day,
47. The chief means of resolving this controversy in opening the meaning of the fourth commandment,
48-52. The things
which are moral in the fourth commandment are either primarily or secondarily moral. Those things which
are primarily and generally moral in the fourth commandment are three: 1. A
time of worship. 2. A day. 3. A seventh day determined,
53-55. Not the worship itself, hut only the solemn time of it is required in the fourth commandment,
56-58. How holy duties are for time,
59-62. Instituted worship is not directly required in the fourth, but in the second commandment, wherein the meaning of the second commandment is occasionally cleared against Wallaeus,
63. If the moral worship itself be not required herein, much less is the whole ceremonial worship,
64. Neither the
public worship only, nor Jewish holy days, required in this fourth cmmandment,
65. Not a part of a day, but a whole day, is moral, by the fourth commandment,
66-67. God's wisdom did rather choose a whole day together for special worship than borrow a part of every day,
68. The sin of
Familists and others who allow God no special day, but make all days equal.
69-71. How any day is said to be holy, and that though all places are alike holy, yet all days are not therefore alike holy,
72-78. Answer to such scriptures as seem to make all days alike holy under the New Testament,
79. The chief reason why some abolish the day of the Sabbath in the fourth commandment is because they abandon the whole decalogue itself as any rule of life unto his people,
80. An inward Sabbath may well consist with a Sabbath day,
81-85. The great controversy whether the law be a rule of life to a believer, discussed in sundry theses,
86-90. The Spirit is not the rule of life,
91-92. Not the will
of God's decree, but the will of his command, is the rule of life,
93. The fundamental error of Antinomians,
94. The
rule of the law is kept in Christ as matter of our justification, not sanctification,
95-96. How Christ is our sanctification as well as our justification,
97. Duties of Christian thankfulness to God were not performed by Christ for believers under that notion of thankfulness, but by way of merit,
98- 99. Whether a believer is to act in virtue of a command,
100. The sin of those who affirm that Christian obedience is not to be put forth by virtue of a command,
101. To act by virtue of a commandment, and by virtue of God's Spirit, are subordinate one to another,
102-104. Whether the law is our rule as given by Moses on
105-106. How works
and law duties are sometimes commended and sometimes condemned,
107. The new
creature, how it is under the law,
108-109. How the
children of God under the Old Testament were under the law as a schoolmaster,
and not those of the New,
110. How the gospel requires doing, and how not, and about conditional promises in the gospel,
111. Various
motives to obedience from the law and gospel, from God as a Creator, and from
Christ as a Redeemer, do not vary the rule,
112. Unbelief is
not the only sin,
113. Three evils arising from their doctrine who deny the directive use of the moral law,
114. The sin of such as deny the humbling work of
the law under gospel ministrations,
115-116. Their error who will not have a Christian pray for pardon of sin, or mourn for sin,
117. Whether sanctification be a doubtful evidence, and may not be a just evidence, and whether the gospel and all the promises of it belong to a sinner as a sinner, and whether sight of corruption be (by the gospel) the settled evidence of salvation, as some plead for,
118. Whether
the first evidence be without the being, or only the seeing of grace,
119. The true
grounds of evidencing God's love in Christ cleared,
120-122. Not only a
day, nor only a Sabbath day, but a seventh day determined, is the last thing
generally moral in the fourth commandment,
123-124. That which is particularly moral herein is this or
that particular seventh day,
125. The morality of a Sabbath may be as strongly and easily urged from the commandment of observing that particular seventh day from the creation, as the morality of a day,
126-129. It is not
in man's liberty to take any one of the seven days in a week to be the Christian
Sabbath,
130-131. A determined
time is here required, but not what nature, but what counsel, shall determine,
and consequently this or that seventh day,
132-133. The force of God's example in resting the seventh,
and working six days, how far it extends,
134-136. No reason that God must have a seventh year,
because he will have a seventh day,
137. How a
circumstance of time is capable of morality,
138. The law of
the Sabbath is a homogeneal part of the moral law, and is therefore moral; and
whether it be moral in respect of the letter,
139. Whether
the decalogue is said to be the moral law in respect of the greater part only,
140-150. The law of
the Sabbath hath equal glory with all the other nine morals, and hath therefore
equal morality,
151-161. The Sabbath was given as a moral law to man in innocency,
162-173. The Sabbath
said to be sanctified, (Gen. 2.,) not merely in a way of destination or
anticipation,
174-176. Adam in innocency might need a Sabbath,
177. No types of Christ given to man in innocency,
178-188. The Sabbath was no type in respect of its original institution,
189-193. The heathens, by the light of corrupt nature, had some kind of knowledge of the Sabbath,
194-197. The law of nature diversely taken, and what it is,
198. No argument to prove the Sabbath ceremonial, because Christ appointed no special day for the Lord's supper,
199. No
argument to prove the Sabbath ceremonial, because it is reckoned among the
ceremonials,
200. Christ is
not said to be the Lord of the Sabbath, because it was ceremonial,
201. Though the Sabbath be made for man, yet it is not therefore ceremonial,
202. A fond
distinction of the Sabbath in sensu mystico et literati,
203. Although
we are bound to rest every day from sin, yet we are not therefore to make every
day a Sabbath,
204-205. The Sabbath was not proper to the Jews, because they only were able (as some say) to observe the exact time of it,
206-207. An answer to M. Carpenter's and Heylin's new-invented argument against the morality of the Sabbath,
II. OF THE THESES
CONCERNING THE CHANGE
OF THE
SABBATH.
1. Sufficient
light in Scripture for change of the Sabbath,
2. Apostolical
unwritten traditions no ground for change of it,
3. Neither
church's custom, nor any imperial law, ground of the change of it,
4-6. How the
observation of the Christian Sabbath ariseth from the fourth commandment,
7-9. How the first day in the week may be called the seventh day,
10-12. The will of God the efficient cause, the resurrection of Christ the moral cause, of the change of the Sabbath,
13-15. The ascension no ground of the change of the Sabbath,
16- 17. The rest of God being spoiled in his first creation by the sin of man, hence the day of rest may be well changed,
18-19. Neither the three days' resting of Christ in the
grave, nor the thirty-three years of Christ's labor, the ground of our labor
and rest now,
20. Not only Christ's resurrection, but an affixed type to the first Sabbath, is the ground of the abrogation of it,
21-24. What the affixed type to the Sabbath is,
25. The mere
exercises of holy duties upon a day are not any true ground to make such a day
the Christian Sabbath,
26. How holy duties on a day may evince a Sabbath day,
27-29. The first day of the week honored by the primitive churches from the commandment of the Lord Jesus,
30-33. The apostle's preaching on the Jewish Sabbath doth
not argue it to be the Christian Sabbath,
34. The first day of the week proved to be the Christian Sabbath by divine institution,
35. The first place alleged for the Christian Sabbath (Acts 20:7) cleared by nine considerations,
36. The second
place (from 1 Cor. 16:1, 2) cleared from seven considerations,
37-39. The third scripture (Rev. 1:10) cleared by two
general branches,
40. How the
Christian Sabbath ariseth from the fourth commandment, although it be not
particularly named in it,
41. The error of
those, especially in the eastern churches, who observed two Sabbaths,
42-43. How the work of redemption may be a ground for all
men to observe the Sabbath,
44. How far the judgment of God upon profaners of the Lord's day is of force to evince the holiness of the Sabbath,
III. OF THE THESES CONCERNING
THE BEGINNING OF THE
SABBATH.
1-2. Five several opinions concerning the beginning of the Sabbath,
3-12. The time for beginning of the Sabbath not according to the various customs of divers nations,
13-27. The time of the artificial day not the beginning and end of the Sabbath, as it begins and ends,
28-47. The beginning of the Sabbath not
48-49. The morning doth not begin the Sabbath,
50-57. That place of Matt. 28:1, usually alleged for the beginning
of it in the morning, cleared,
58. The
resurrection of Christ not aimed at by the evangelists to be made the beginning
of the day, although it be of the change of it,
59-63. John 20:10, cleared,
64-67. Paul's preaching till
68. The various
acceptation of the word day and morrow to answer many proofs alleged
for beginning the Sabbath in the morning,
69-71. Some that hold
the beginning of the Sabbath was from even to even until Christ's resurrection,
and then the time was changed, confuted,
72. There is not
the like reason for the Sabbath to begin at the first moment of Christ's entrance
into his rest, as for the first Sabbath at the beginning of the Father's rest,
73-74. The reasons for the change of the day are not the
same for the change of the beginning of the day,
75. The conceived
fitness for the beginning of the Sabbath in the morning rather than in the
evening is a vanity,
76-77. The evening
begins the Christian Sabbath,
78-80. The place Gen.
1:2, cleared,
81-85. The darkness
mentioned Gen. 1:2 was not punctum temporis,
86-89. The separation of light and darkness (Gen. 1:2) cleared,
90-93. Levit. 23:32
proves the beginning of the Sabbath at evening,
94-96. Nehemiah an
exemplary pattern for beginning the Sabbath at evening,
97-99. Those that
prepared for the burial of Christ began their Sabbath in the evening,
100. Christ's lying three days in the grave,
101-102. Those northern countries who have the sun in view divers weeks together in a year yet know when to begin the day,
IV. OF THE THESES CONCERNING THE SANCTIFICATION OF THE SABBATH.
1. The word
Sabbath, what it signifies,
2. All weekly
labor for the rest of the Sabbath,
3. The rest of
the Sabbath the means for a higher end,
4-9. As strict a rest now required as was
formerly among the Jews, and those places cleared which seem contrary,
10. What
work forbidden on the Sabbath day,
11-13. Servile work forbidden, and what is a servile work,
14-19. The holiness required upon the Sabbath in five things,
20. A lamentation for profanation of the Sabbath,
PREFACE
OF
THE
AUTHOR TO THE
READER.
_______________________
THAT a
seventh part of time hath been religiously and universally observed both under
the law and under the gospel, is without all controversy; the great doubt and
difficulty which now remains concerning this time is the morality of it,
whether it was thus observed in the Christian churches by unwritten tradition, or by divine commission; whether from
the churches' custom, or Christ's command; whether as a moral duty, or as a human
law: for although some would make the observation of such a portion of time the
sour fruit of the Ebionites' superstitious doctrines, yet all the ancient and
best writers in the purest times do give such honor to it, that whoever doubts
of it must either be utterly ignorant, or willfully blinded in the knowledge of
the histories and doctrines of those times, and must desire a candle to show
them the sun and noonday. Clemens only seems to cast Borne stains on it by
making all days equal, and every day a Sabbath ; but upon narrow search, his
meaning may appear, not to deny the observation of the day, but only to blame
the froth and vanity of sundry Christians, who, if they externally observed the
day, they cared not how they lived every day after: nor is it to be wondered at
if Origen turn this day sometime into an allegory and a continual spiritual
rest day, who miserably transforms (many times) the plainest Scriptures into
such shapes, and turns their substance into such shadows, and beating out the
best of the kernels, feeds his guests with such chaff and husks; and although
many other festivals were observed by those times, which may make the Sabbath
suspected to be born out of the same womb of human custom with the rest, yet we
shall find the seventh day's rest to have another crown of glory set upon the
head of it by the holy men of God in those times than upon those which
superstition so soon hatched and brought forth; so that they that read the
histories of those times, in observing two Sabbaths in some places, Easter,
Whitsunday, yea, divers ethnic and heathenish days, will need no other comment
on those texts of Paul, wherein he condemns the observation of days; which,
beginning to fly abroad in the daylight of the apostles, might well outface the
succeeding ages, and multiply with more authority in darker times; yet so as
that the seventh day's rest (call it what you will) still kept its place and
ancient glory, as in the sequel shall appear.
When,
therefore, the good will of Him who dwelt in the burning bush of the afflicted
primitive churches gave princes and emperors to be their nursing fathers, pious
Constantine, among other Christian edicts, enjoins the observation of the
Lord's day; wherein (if he was bound by his place to be a nourishing father) he
went not beyond his commission, in swaddling and cherishing this truth and
appointment of Christ, and not suffering it to die and perish through the
wickedness of men; the power of princes extending to see Christ's laws
observed, though not to impose any human inventions and church constitutions of
their own. It is true, indeed, that this princely edict was mixed with some
imperfection and corruption, it falling too short in some things, and extending
too far in others; but there is no just cause for any to stumble much at this,
that knows the sick head and heart by the weak and feeble pulse and cross
temper of those clouded though otherwise triumphing times.
The
successors of this man child (born out of the long and weary throes of the poor
travailing church) were enlarged generally in their care and conscience to
preserve the religious honor due to this day, until the time of Charles the
Great, who, in the latter end of his reign, observing how greatly the Sabbath
was profaned, (especially by the continuance and lewdness of church men,) did
therefore call five national councils, (which I need not here mention,) in all
which the Sabbath is advanced to as strict observation to the full as hath been
of late years condemned by some in the Sabbatarian reformers, that it is a
wonder how any man should cast off all shame, and so far forget himself as to
make the Sabbath a device of Fulco, or Peter Bruis, Eustachius, or the Book at
Golgotha, and put the visor of novelty upon the aged face of it, as if it were
scarce known to any of the martyrs in Queen Mary's time, but receiving strength
and growth from Master Perkins, was first hatched and received life from under the
wings of a few late disciplinarian zealots.
And it can
not be denied but that the Sabbath (like many other precious appointments and
truths of God) did shake off her dust, and put on her comely and beautiful
garments, and hath been much honored and magnified, since the times of the
reformation; the doctrine and darkness of Popery (like that of the Pharisees)
not only obscuring the doctrine of faith, but also of the law and obedience of
faith, and so hath obscured this of the Sabbath ; only herein they did excel
their forefathers the scribes and Pharisees, for these added their own
superstitious resting from things needful and lawful to their merely external
observation of the day ; but they (unto their external observation of the name
of the day) added their abominable profanations to it, in May games, and May
poles, in sports and pastimes, in dancing and revelings, and so laid it level,
and made it equal, (in a manner,) to the rest of their holy days ; that as
they came to shuffle out the second commandment almost out of the decalogue, so
in time they came to be blinded with that horror of darkness, as to translate
the words of the commandment into some of their catechisms, remember to keep
the holy festivals; and therefore those worthies of the reformation who
have contended for all that honor which is due to this day are unjustly
aspersed for pleading for a Jewish and superstitious strictness, when the
cause they handle is no other, in truth, than to vindicate the Sabbath, both in
the doctrine and observation of it, from Papists' profaneness; and therefore
all the world may see, that under pretense of opposing in others a kind of
Judaizing upon this day, the adversaries of it do nothing else but maintain a
gross point of practical Popery, who are by law most ignorant and gross
profaners of this day; and therefore when many of Christ's servants are branded
and condemned for placing so much of religion in the observation of this day,
and yet Bishop White and some others of them shall acknowledge as much as they
plead for, if other festivals be taken in with it ordained by the church, (as
that they are the nursery of religion and all virtue, a means of planting faith
and saving knowledge, of heavenly and temporal blessings, and the profanation
of them hateful to God and all good men that fear God, and to be punished in
those which shall offend,) they do hereby plainly hold forth what market they
drive to, and what spirit acts them in setting up man's posts by God's pillars,
and in giving equal honor to other festivals and holy days, which those whom
they oppose do maintain as due to the Sabbath alone, upon better grounds.
The daystar
from on high visiting the first reformers in Germany, enabled them to see many
things, and so to scatter much, yea, most, of the Popish and horrible darkness
which generally overspread the face of all Europe at that day ; but divers of
them did not (as well they might not) see all things with the like clearness,
whereof this of the Sabbath hath seemed to be one: their chief difficulty lay
here; they saw a moral command for a seventh day, and yet withal a change of
that first seventh day, and hence thought that something in it was moral in
respect of the command, and yet something ceremonial, because of the change;
and therefore they issued their thoughts here, that it was partly moral and
partly ceremonial, and hence their observation of the day hath been
(answerable to their judgments) more lax and loose ; whose arguments to prove
the day partly ceremonial have (upon narrow examination) made it wholly ceremonial
; it being the usual unhappiness of such arguments as are produced in defense
of a lesser error to grow big with some man child in them, which in time grows
up, and so serve only to maintain a far greater; and hence by that part of the controversy
they have laid foundations of much looseness upon that day among themselves,
and have unawares laid the corner stones of some gross points of Familism, and
strengthened hereby the hands of Arminians, malignants, and prelates, as to
profane the Sabbath, so to make use of their principles for the introduction
of all human inventions under the name and shadow of the church, which if it
hath power to authorize and establish such a day of worship, let any man living
then name what invention he can, but that it may much more easily be ushered in
upon the same ground; and therefore, though posterity hath cause forever to
admire God's goodness for that abundance of light and life poured out by those
vessels of glory in the first beginnings of reformation, yet in this narrow of
the Sabbath it is no wonder if they stepped a little beside the truth ; and it
is to be charitably hoped and believed, that, had they then foreseen what ill
use some in after ages would make of their principles, they would have been no
otherwise minded than some of their followers and friends, especially in the
churches of Scotland and England, who might well see a little farther (as they
use to speak) when they stood upon such tall men's shoulders.
It is easy
to demonstrate by Scripture and argument, as well as by experience, that
religion is just as the Sabbath is, and decays and grows as the Sabbath is
esteemed: the immediate honor and worship of God, which is brought forth and
swaddled in the three first commandments, is nursed up and suckled in the bosom
of the Sabbath. If Popery will have gross ignorance and blind devotion
continued among its miserable captives, let it then be made (like the other
festivals) a merry and a sporting Sabbath ; if any state would reduce the
people under it to the Romish faith and blind obedience again, let them erect
(for lawful pastimes and sports) a dancing Sabbath ; if the God of this world
would have all professors enjoy a total immunity from the law of God, and all
manner of licentiousness allowed them without check of conscience, let him
then make an every-day Sabbath. If there hath been more of the power of
godliness appearing in that small inclosure of the British nation than in those
vast continents elsewhere, where reformation and more exact church discipline
have taken place, it cannot well be imputed to any outward means more than
their excelling care and conscience of honoring the Sabbath; and although
Master Rogers in his Preface to the 39 Articles, injuriously and wretchedly
makes the strict observation of the Sabbath the last refuge of lies, by which
stratagem the godly ministers in former times, being driven out of all their
other strongholds, did hope in time to drive out the prelacy, and bring in
again their discipline, yet thus much may be gathered from the mouth of such an
accuser, that the worship and government of the kingdom and church of Christ
Jesus is accordingly set forward as the Sabbath is honored. Prelacy, Popery,
profaneness must down, and shall down in time, if the Sabbath be exactly kept.
But why the
Lord Christ should keep his servants in England and Scotland to clear up and
vindicate this point of the Sabbath, and welcome it with more love than some
precious ones in foreign churches, no man can imagine any other cause than
God's own free grace and tender love, whose wind blows where and when it will; Deus
nobis haec otia fecit, and the times are coming wherein God's work will
better declare the reason of this and some other discoveries by the British
nation, which modesty and humility would forbid all sober minds to make mention
of now.
That a
seventh day's rest hath (therefore) been of universal observation, is without
controversy; the morality of it (as hath been said) is now the controversy. In
the primitive times, when the question was propounded, Servasti Dominicum?
(Hast thou kept the Lord's day?) their answer was generally this: Christianus
sum ; intermittere nonpossum, (ie., I am a Christian; I can not neglect
it.) The observation of this day was the badge of their Christianity. This was
their practice; but what their judgment was about the morality of it is not
safe to inquire from the tractates of some of our late writers in this
controversy; for it is no wonder if they that thrust the Sabbath out of paradise,
and banish it out of the world until Moses' time, and then make it a mere
ceremony all his time till Christ's ascension. If since that time they bring it
a peg lower, and make it to be a human constitution of the church, rather than
any divine institution of Christ Jesus, — and herein those that oppose the
morality of it by dint of argument, and out of candor and conscience, propose
their grounds on which they remain unsatisfied, — I do from my heart both
highly and heartily honor, and especially the labors of Master Primrose and
Master Ironside, many of whose arguments and answers to what is usually said in
defence of the morality of the day, whoever ponders them shall find them heavy;
the foundations and sinews of whose discourses I have therefore had a special eye
to in the ensuing theses, with a most free submission of what is here returned
in answer thereto, to the censure of better minds and riper thoughts; being
verily persuaded, that whoever finds no knots or difficulties to humble his
spirit herein, either knows not himself, or not the controversy. But as for
those whose chief arguments are reproaches and revilings of imbittered and
corrupt hearts, rather than solid reasons of modest minds, I wholly decline the
pursuit of such creatures, whose weapons is their swell, and not any strength,
and do leave them to His tribunal who judgeth righteously, for blearing the
eyes of the world, and endeavoring to exasperate princes, and make wise men
believe that this doctrine of the Sabbath is but a late novelty ; a doctrine
tending to a high degree of schism; a fanatic Judaizing, like his at Tewksbury;
Sabbata sancta colo, i.e., a piece of disciplinary policy to advance
Presbytery; a superstitious seething over of the hot or whining simplicity of
an over-rigid, crabbed, precise, crackbrained, Puritanical party. The righteous
God hath his little days of judgment in this Me to clear up and vindicate the
righteous cause of his innocent servants against all gainsayers; and who sees
not (but those that will be blind) that the Lord hath begun to do something
this way by these late broils? The controversy God hath with a land is many
times in defense of the controversies of his faithful witnesses ; the sword
maintains argument, and makes way for that which the word could not; those
plants which (not many years since) most men would not believe not to be of
God's planting, hath the Lord pulled up. The three innocent firebrands so fast
tied to some foxes' tails are now pretty well quenched, and the tails almost
cut off. This cause of the Sabbath, also, the Lord Jesus is now handling; God
hath cast down the crowns of princes, stained the robes of nobles with dirt and
blood, broken the crosiers, and torn the miters in pieces, for the controversy
of his Sabbath. (Jer. 17:27.) He hath already made way for his discipline also,
(which they feared the precise Sabbath would introduce again,) by such a way as
hath made all hearts to ache, just according to the words, never to be
forgotten, of Mr. Tidal, in his Preface to the
“Demonstration of Discipline.” The Council of Matiscon imputed the
irruption of the Goths into the empire to the profanation of the Sabbath.
But while I
am thus musing, methinks no measure of tears are sufficient to lament the
present state of times; that when the Lord Jesus was come forth to vindicate
the cause and controversy of Zion, there should rise up other instruments of
spiritual wickednesses in high places, to blot out the name and sweet
remembrance of this day from off the face of the earth. The enemies of the
Sabbath are now not so much malignant time-servers and aspiring brambles, whom
preferment principally biased to knock at the Sabbath; but those who have eaten
bread with Christ (a generation of professing people) do lift up their heel
against his Sabbath. So that, what could not formerly be done against it by
angels of darkness, the old serpent takes another course to effect it, by
seeming angels of light; who, by a new device, are raised up to build the
sepulchers of those who persecuted the prophets in former times, and to justify
all the books of sports, and the reading of them; yea all the former and
present profanations; yea, scoffs and scorns against the Sabbath day. For as in
former times they have ceremonialized it out of the decalogue, yet by human constitutio
have retained it in the church; so these of later times have spiritualized
it out of the decalogue, yea, out of all the churches in the world. For by
making the Christian Sabbath to be only a spiritual Sabbath in the bosom of God
out of Heb. 4., they hereby abolish a seventh-day Sabbath, and make every day
equally a Sabbath to a Christian man. This I hope will be the last, but it is
the most specious and fairest color and banner that ever was erected to fight
under against the Christian Sabbath ; and is most fit to deceive, not only
some sudden men of loose and wanton wits, but especially men of spiritual, but
too shallow minds. In times of light, (as these are reputed to be,) Satan comes
not abroad usually to deceive with fleshly and gross forgeries and his cloven
foot, (for every one almost would then discern his haltings,) but with more
mystical, yet strong delusions, and invisible chains of darkness, whereby he
binds his captives the faster to the judgment of the great day. And therefore
the watchword given in the bright and shining times of the apostle was, to try
the spirits, and believe not every spirit. And take heed of spirits, who indeed
were only fleshly and corrupt men, yet called spirits, because they pretended
to have much of the Spirit, and their doctrines seemed only to advance the
spirit; the fittest and fairest cobwebs to deceive and entangle the world, in
those discerning times, that possibly could be spun out of the poisonful bowels
of corrupt and ambitious wit.
The times
are now come, wherein, by the refined mystical divinity of the old monks, not
only the Sabbath, but also all the ordinances of Christ in the New Testament,
are allegorized and spiritualized out of the world. And therefore it is no
marvel, when they abolish the outward Sabbath, because of a spiritual Sabbath
in Christ, if (through God's righteous judgment blinding their hearts) they be
also left to reject the outward word, because of an inward word to teach them;
and outward baptism and Lord's supper, because of an inward baptism by the Holy
Ghost, and spiritual bread from heaven, the Lord Christ Jesus; and all outward
ordinances, ministries, churches, because of an inward kingdom and temple. And
the argument will hold strongly, that if because they have an inward Sabbath of
rest in the bosom of Christ, (which I deny not,) that they may therefore cast
away all external Sabbaths, they may then very well reject all outward baptism,
Lord's supper, all churches, all ordinances, because herein there is also the
inward baptism — spiritual feeding upon Christ, and inward kingdom and temple
of God. But thus they wickedly separate and sever what God hath joined and may
well stand together, through the madness of which hellish practice I have long
observed almost all the late and most pernicious errors of these times arise;
and those men who have formerly wept for God's precious Sabbaths and ordinances,
and have prayed for them, and pleaded for them, and have offered their lives in
sacrifice for them, and fought for them, yea, that hath felt perhaps the
comfort, sweetness, and blessing of God's Sabbaths, yea, the redeeming and
saving power of God's ordinances to their own souls, yet through pretenses of
more spiritual enjoyments above, and beyond, and without all these, they can
part with these their old friends without weeping, and reject them as polluted
rags, and fleshly forms, and dark veils and curtains which must be drawn aside,
that so they may not hinder the true light from shining in them.
This,
therefore, is the reason why the love of many at this day is grown cold toward
the external Sabbath, because the internal and spiritual Sabbath is now all in
all. And therefore many men walk either with bold consciences, and will observe
no Sabbath, or else with loose consciences, thinking it lawful to observe it,
(if men will enjoin it,) but not thinking that they are tied and bound
thereunto from any precept of God. That place of Heb. 4. which they so much
stick to, wants not light to demonstrate that the Sabbatism there may well
agree not only with the internal, but the outward Christian Sabbath. But some
of the ensuing theses will serve to clear up these things. This only I fear,
that because of these indignities done thus to God's Sabbaths, even by the
underworkings of some of God's own people, that the time hastens, wherein if
no man should speak, yet the right hand of the sore displeasure of a provoked
God, by plagues and confusion upon the glory of all flesh, will plead for his
own name, and for that in special which is engraven upon the forehead of his
holy Sabbaths.
1. Concerning the morality.
2. The change.
3. The beginning.
4. The sanctification of the Sabbath.
Being fully persuaded that whosoever shall break one of the
least commandments, and teach men so, shall be called least in the
1. Suspending his judgment concerning the truth
and validity of any part or of any particular thesis until he hath read over
the whole ; for they have a dependence one upon another for mutual clearing of
one another; and lest I should bis coctum apponere, and say the same
thing twice, I have therefore purposely left out that in one part, and one
thesis which is to be cleared in another, either for proof of it, or resolution
of objections against it; and although this dependence may not so easily
appear, (because I have not so expressly set down the method,) yet the
wise-hearted, I hope, will easily find it out, or else pick out and accept what
they see to be of God, in such a confused heap; for it was enough to my ends if
I might lay in any broken pieces of timber to forward this building, which
those that are able to wade deeper into this controversy may please to make use
of (if there be any thing in them, or in any of them) in their own better and more
orderly frame; for it hath been, and still is, my earnest desire to heaven,
that God would raise up some or other of his precious servants to clear up
these controversies more fully than yet they have been, that the zeal for God's
Sabbaths may not be fire without light, which perhaps hath hitherto been too
little, through the wickedness of former times, encouraging the books one way,
and suppressing those of most weight and worth for the other.
2. To consider that I do most willingly give way to the publishing of these things, which I could in many respects have much more readily committed to the fire than to the light; when I consider the great abilities of others ; the need such as I am have to sit down and learn; the hazards and knocks men get only by coming but into the field in polemical matters, and the unusefulness of any thing herein for those in remote places, where knowledge abounds, and where to cast any thing of this nature is to cast water into the sea. I confess I am ashamed therefore to be seen in this garment; and therefore that I have thus far yielded, hath been rather to please others than myself, who have many ways compelled me hereunto. The things for substance contained herein were first preached in my ordinary course, upon the Sabbath days, in opening the commandments. The desires of some students in the college, and the need I saw of resolving some doubts arising about these things in the hearts of some ordinary hearers among the people, occasioned a more large discussing of the controversy; to which I was the more inclined, because one among -us (who wanted not abilities) was taken away from us, who had promised the clearing up of all these matters. When therefore these things were more plainly and fully opened and applied to the. consciences of some more popular capacities as well as others, I was then put upon it to reduce the doctrinal part of these, sermons upon the fourth commandment into certain theses, for the use of some students desirous thereof; when being scattered, and coming to the view of some of the elders in the country, I was by some of them desired to take off some obscurity arising from the brevity and littleness of them, by greater enlargements, and a few more explications of them; which promising to do, and then coming to the hearing of many, I was then desired by all the elders in the country, then met together, to commit them to public view; which hitherto my heart hath opposed, and therefore should still have smothered them, but that some have so far compelled me, as that I feared I should resist and fight against God in not listening to them; in which many things are left but, winch perhaps might be more useful to a plain people, which then, in the application of matters of doctrine, were publicly delivered; and some few things are added, especial in that particular, wherein the directive power of the moral law is cleared against the loose wits of these times. We are strangers here (for the most part) to the books and writings which are now in Europe; but it is much feared that the increase and growth of the many tares and errors in England have been by reason of the sleepiness of some of the honest husbandmen; and that those who are best able to pluck them up have not seasonably stood in the gap, and kept them out by a zealous convicting and public bearing witness against them by word and writing; and that, therefore, such as have with too much tenderness and compliance tolerated errors, error will one day grow up to that head that it will not tolerate or suffer them to speak truth. We have a proverb here, that “the devil is not so soon risen but Christ is up before him;” and if any of his precious servants have slept and lain longer abed than their Master hath done, and have not spoken or printed soon enough for Jesus Christ in other matters, yet O that in this matter of the Sabbath God would betimes awaken, and that these weaknesses might stir up their strength; for I much fear and foresee that if it be not done, there is an hour and a nick of temptation in such a juncture of times approaching, wherein the enemy will come in like a flood, and rise up from all quarters against the doctrine of the Sabbath, and then farewell all the good days of the Son of man, if this be lost, which then men shall desire to see, and shall not see them. I have therefore been the more willing to let my own shame and weakness appear to the world, (if so it be found,) if this might be any means of doing the least good for keeping up the price of God's Sabbaths in the hearts of any. I have therefore spent the more time about the morality of the Sabbath, because the clearing up of this gives light to all the rest.
THE
MORALITY OF THE SABBATH.
________________________
Thesis 1.
time is one of the most precious blessings which worthless man in this world
enjoys; a jewel of inestimable worth; a golden stream, dissolving, and, as it
were, continually running down by us, out of one eternity into another, yet
seldom taken notice of until it is quite passed away from us. Man (saith
Solomon) knows not his time. (Eccl. 9:12.) It is, therefore, most just and meet
that He who hath the disposing of all other things less precious and momentous
should also be the supreme Lord and Disposer of all our times.
Thesis 2.
He who is the Disposer of all our times is the sovereign Lord of our persons
also, and is therefore the utmost and last end of both; for if our persons and
all our times be of him, they are then to be improved for him, as he sees most
meet.
Thesis 3.
Now, although all creatures in the world are of God, and for God, so that,
being of him, they receive their being from him as their first efficient, and
being for him, are therefore preserved and governed by him as their utmost end;
yet no other inferior visible creature is set so near to God, and consequently
is not in that manner for God, as man is.
Thesis 4.
For although all inferior creatures are made lastly for God, yet they are made
nextly for man; but man, having nothing better than himself, between him and
God, is therefore made both lastly and nextly for God; and hence it is that no
inferior creature, which comes out and issueth from God, hath such a reflux
and return again back unto God, as man hath; because, in and by this reflux and
return into him, man's immortal being is eternally preserved, like water
running into the sea again, from whence it first came.
Thesis 5.
For whatever is set next, and, as it were, contiguous to eternal, is eternal: Omne
contiguum aeterno spirituali est aeternum, (say some,) and hence it is that
the soul is eternal, because it is made nextly for God, and as it were
contiguous to him. The body also shall be eternal, because contiguous to the
eternal soul. But no other inferior creatures are thus eternal; for although
they be made nextly for man, yet so as that they are firstly for the body,
which is of itself mortal, and not eternal, and therefore, not being contiguous
to that which is spiritually eternal, are not so themselves ; and the reason of
this is, because all inferior creatures, as they come out from God, so their
motion is toward man, for whom they are nextly made, and they go out
straightforward from God, as it were, in a straight line toward man, to the
last end and term of which straight line when they are come, in the service of
man, they then can not proceed any farther, and do therefore perish and cease
to be, without reflecting, or returning back again immediately unto God. But
man, being made immediately and nextly for God, hath therefore his motion so toward
God as that he returns immediately unto him again, and is not led in a
straight line, but led (as it were) about in a circular motion, and hence
returning immediately to him, he is hereby eternally preserved in him, for whom
he is immediately made, and unto whom he is nextly contiguous, as hath been
said.
Thesis 6.
Now, although, in this return of man to God, (supposing it to be internal,
regular, and spiritual,) man's blessed being once lost is hereby recovered and
preserved in God, yet when man is left unto himself, the motions of his soul
out of this circle, in straying from God, are innumerable, and would be endless,
if God, who set him next unto himself, did not some time or other recall,
return, and lead him back again (as it were in a heavenly circle) into himself.
Thesis 7.
Look, therefore, as when man hath run his race, finished his course, and passed
through the bigger and larger circle of his life, he then returns unto his
eternal rest, so it is contrived and ordered by divine wisdom, as that he shall
in a special manner return unto and into his rest once at least within the
lesser and smaller circle of every week, that so his perfect blessedness to
come might be foretasted every Sabbath day, and so be begun here; that look, as
man standing in innocency had cause thus to return from the pleasant labors of
his weekly paradise employments, (as shall be shown in due place,) so man
fallen much more from his toilsome and wearisome labors, to this his rest
again. And therefore, as because all creatures were made for man, man was
therefore made in the last place after them; so man being made for God and his
worship, thence it is that the Sabbath (wherein man was to draw most near unto God)
was appointed after the creation of man, as Peter Martyr* observes, for
although man is not made for the Sabbath merely in respect of the outward rest
of it, as the Pharisees dreamed, yet he is made for the Sabbath in respect of
God in it, and the holiness of it, to both which, then, the soul is to have its
weekly revolution back again, as into that rest which is the end of all our
lives, labor, and in special of all our weekly labor and work.
Thesis 8.
As, therefore, our blessed rest in the fruition of God at the end and period of
our lives is no ceremony, but a glorious privilege and a moral duty, it being
our closing with our utmost end to which we are called, so it can not be that
such a law which calls and commands man in this life to return to the same rest
for substance every Sabbath day, should be a ceremonial, but rather a moral
and perpetual law; unless it should appear that this weekly Sabbath, like the
other annual Sabbath, hath been ordained and instituted principally for some
ceremonious ends, rather than to be a part, and indeed the beginning of our rest
to come; there being little difference between this and that to come, but only
this, that here our rest is but begun, there it is perfected; here it is
interrupted by our weekly labors, there it is continued; here we are led into
our rest by means and ordinances, but there we shall be possessed with it
without our need of any help from them; our God, who is our rest, being then
become unto us immediately all in all.
Thesis 9. Were it not for man's work and labor ordained and appointed for him in this life, he should enjoy a continual Sabbath, a perpetual rest. And therefore we see that when man's life is ended, his sun set, and his work done upon earth, nothing else remains for him but only to enter into his perpetual and eternal rest. All our time should be solemn and sacred to the Lord of time, if there were no common work and labor here, which necessarily occasions common time; why, then, should any think that a weekly Sabbath is ceremonial, when, were it not for this life's labor, a perpetual and continual Sabbath would then be undoubtedly accounted moral. It is hard for any to think a servant's awful attendance of his Lord and Master at certain special times not to be morally due from him, who, but for some more private and personal occasions allowed him to attend unto, should at all times continually be serving of him.
* Tu hic ordinem considera,
alia creantur propter hominem, ideo post ilia conditur homo. Homo vero ad Dei cultum ideo statim post illius
creation em Sabbathi benedictio et
sanctificatio inducitur. — Pet. Mart, in Praec. 4 m.
Thesis 10. The word
is ἀγραφον, and no Scripture
phrase, and therefore not proper fitly and fully to express the question in
controversy, to wit, whether the fourth commandment be a moral precept. The
best friends of this word find it slippery, and can hardly tell what it is, and
what they would have to be understood by it, and hence it is become a bone of
much contention, a fit mist, and swamp for such to fight in, who desire so to
contend with their adversaries as that themselves may not be known, either
where they are or on what ground they stand. Yet it being a word generally
taken up and commonly used, it may not therefore be amiss to follow the market
measure, and to retain the word with just and meet explications thereof.
Thesis 11. They who
describe a moral law to be such a law as is not typically ceremonial, and
therefore not durable, do well and truly express what it is not, but they do
not positively express what it is.
Thesis 12. Some
describe and draw out the proportions of the moral law by the law of nature,
and so make it to be that law which every man is taught by the light of
nature. “That which is morally and
universally just, (say some,) which reason, when it is not misled, and the
inward law of nature dictateth, by common principles of honesty, or ought to dictate
unto all men without any outward usher. It is that (say others) which may be
proved not only just, but necessary, by principles drawn from the light of
nature, which all reasonable men, even in nature corrupted, have still in
their hearts, which either they do acknowledge, or may at least be convinced
of without the Scriptures, by principles still left in the hearts of all men.”
But this description seems too narrow ; for, 1. Although it be true that the law natural is
part of the law moral, yet if the law moral be resolved into the law of nature
only, and the law of nature be shrunk up and drawn into so narrow a compass as
what the principles left in corrupt man only suggest and dictate, then it will
necessarily follow, that many of those holy rules and principles are not the
law of nature, which were the most perfect impressions of the law of nature in
man's first creation and perfection, but now, by man's apostasy, are
obliterated and blotted out; unless any shall think worse than the blind Papists,
either that man's mind is not now corrupted by the fall, in losing any of the
first impressions of innocent nature, or shall maintain, with them, that the
image of God (of which those first impressions were a part) was not natural to
man in that estate. 2. It will then
follow that there is no moral discipline, (as they call it,) that is, nothing
moral by discipline informing, or positively moral, but only by nature dictating,
which is cross not only to the judgments, but solid arguments, of men judicious
and most indifferent. 3. If that only is
to be accounted moral which is so easily known of all men, by the light of nature
corrupted, then the imperfect light of man's corrupt mind must be the principal
judge of that which is moral, rather than the perfect rule of morality
contained in the Scripture, which assertion would not a little advance corrupt
and blind nature, and dethrone the perfection of the Holy Scripture.
Thesis 13. They who
define a moral law to be such a law as is perpetual and universal, binding all
persons in all ages and times, do come somewhat nearer to the mark, and are not
far off from the truth, and such a description is most plain and obvious to
such as are not curious; and in this sense our adversaries in this cause affirm
the Sabbath not to be moral, meaning that it is not a law perpetual and
universal. Others, on the contrary, affirming that it is moral, intend thus
much — that it is perpetual and universal, a law which binds all persons, all
times, and in all ages; and herein lies the chief matter of controversy at this
day. Now in what respect and how far forth the law of the Sabbath is perpetual,
shall be hereafter shown; meanwhile it may not be amiss to inquire more
narrowly into the nature of a moral law. For though a law primarily moral is
perpetual, yet perpetuity seems to be an adjunct rather than of the essence of
a moral law, and the difficulty will still remain untouched, viz., to know when
a law is perpetual, and what is internal and intrinsical to such a law as makes
it perpetual, or moral; whereinto I would not search, lest I should seem to
affect curiosity, but that our critical adversaries put us upon it, with whom
there is nothing lost in case we gain nothing by wrestling a little with them
upon their own grounds, where for a while we shall come up to them.
Thesis 14. A divine
law may be said to be moral two ways. 1.
More largely and generally moral. 2. More strictly and specially moral.
Thesis 15. A law
generally moral is this—that the whole sovereign will of the Lord be done and
submitted unto by every creature; and in this large sense, every law of God,
whether ceremonial, judicial, or for special trial, may be said to be moral,
because the sovereign will of God is in all these laws to be adored. It is a moral
duty that God's will be done; and hence it is that so far forth as the will of
God is in them, so far forth to yield obedience to them is a moral duty; but
the question is not about this morality, nor what things are thus moral.
Thesis 16. A law
more strictly and specially moral, which concerns the manners of all men, and
of which we now speak, may be thus described; viz., it is such a law, which is
therefore commanded, because it is good, and is not therefore good merely
because it is commanded.
Thesis 17. This is
Austin's description of it long since, whom most of the schoolmen follow; which
learned Cameron, with sundry late writers, confirms, and which our adversaries
in this controversy plead hard for, and unto which the evidence of Scripture
and reason seems to incline; for laws merely judicial and ceremonial are good
laws, (Deut. 6:18, 24;) but this was merely because they were commanded, and
therefore it had been simply evil to burn incense, offer sacrifice, or perform
any ceremonial duty in the worship of God, unless they had been commanded. What
is there therefore in moral laws which is not in those laws? Verily, this
inward goodness in them which others have not, and because of which goodness
they are therefore commanded; for to love God, to honor parents, to preserve
the life of man, to be merciful, and bountiful, and just in all our dealings,
etc., are inwardly good, and are therefore commanded, and are therefore moral
laws; and hence we see that when the apostle would set forth the glory and
excellency of the moral law, (for of no other law can he speak, Rom. 7:7,12,)
he gives these titles to it — that it is holy, just, and good; which holiness,
justice, and goodness he opposeth to his own moral (not ceremonial) wickedness.
I am carnal, (saith he,) but the law is holy, just, and good. And look, as it
was evil in itself for to have a nature contrary to the law, so the law which
was contrary to that nature was good in itself, and was therefore commanded;
and therefore in this thing moral laws are in a higher degree good than such as
were only ceremonial, which were therefore good merely because commanded. The
prophet Micah therefore perceiving how forward many were in ceremonial duties
and sacrifices, in opposition hereunto, he tells them, “The Lord hath showed thee, O man, what is
good,” (speaking of moral duties, of showing mercy, and walking humbly with
God, Micah 6:8.) Were not sacrifice and offerings good, as well as mercy and
walking humbly? Yes, verily; but herein lies the difference, (as our most
orthodox generally make it,) sacrifice and offerings were not per se and
in themselves good, but only as commanded for higher ends, and to further moral
obedience, (Jer. 8:22, 23, and 6:19, 20. Is. 1:14, 16. Ps. 1:13-15;) but such
moral obedience as the prophet mentions, viz., to show mercy and to walk
humbly, were good in themselves, and were therefore commanded of God, and here
called by the prophet good. The sum of moral obedience is love to God and man.
(Matt. 22 .) But what love is this? Surely
it is in such things as are in themselves lovely, and consequently in
themselves good; for otherwise ceremonial obedience should be a part of moral
obedience, because in performing such obedience as is merely ceremonial, we
show our love to God also, it being a branch of love to have respect unto all
God's commandments. (Deut. 6:1-3, with 5:6.) Only herein our love toward God
appears in ceremonial duties, because these laws are commanded; our love
appears in the other, because the things commanded are also lovely in
themselves. The image of God is good in itself, as God himself is good in
himself. Now, the moral law is an exact rule of nothing else but God's image,
as is evident, Eph. 4:24, where the image of God is made to consist in holiness
and righteousness, the first table being the rule of the one, the second table
being the rule of the other; and hence it follows undeniably, that moral laws,
respecting only God's image, have respect only to such things as are good in
themselves, and wherein we resemble and are made like unto God. Some things
(saith Cameron) are good in themselves, viz., such things wherein God's image
shines forth, as he is holy, just, and good. (
Thesis 18. God, out
of his absolute sovereignty, could have made laws binding all persons in all
ages, (and in this respect moral,) without having any more goodness in them
than merely his own will; but it is his will and good pleasure to make all laws
that are moral to be first good in themselves for all men, before he will
impose them upon all men. And hence it is a weakness for any to affirm, that a
moral law is not such a law which is therefore commanded because it is good,
because (say they) it is not the goodness of the thing, but the sovereign will
of God, which makes all things good; for it is the sovereign will of God (as is
proved) to make every moral law good, and therefore to command it, rather than
to make it good by a mere commanding of it.
Thesis 19. The will
of God is indeed the rule of all goodness, and consequently of all moral laws;
but we know there is voluntas decreti and voluntas mandati, the
first of which is, viz., the will of God's decree, (as it appears in the
execution of it,) makes a thing to be good, whether it be creature or law; the second
of these, viz., the will of God's command, enjoins the practice of such a duty,
the rule and law to guide which is first made good (if it be a moral law) by
the wisdom and power of the will of God's decree ; so that the will of God
appearing in both these (viz., God's decreeing and commanding will) is the
complete rule of every moral law ; so that as no law is morally good merely
because it is commanded, so neither is it thus good unless also it be
commanded. God's will in all moral laws is first to make them good, and then to
command them, when they are thus far made good; both which together make up a
moral law.
Thesis 20. It is
true that sin is the transgression of God's law. There is nothing, therefore,
sinful but it is the transgression of some law; and hence there is no obedience
good but what is conformable unto some law. But we must know that as transgression
of any law doth not make a thing morally sinful, (for then to break a
ceremonial law would be a moral sin,) so also obedience to every law doth not
make a duty morally lawful and good, (for then obedience to a ceremonial law
must be a moral obedience.) Moral
transgression, therefore, is a breach of such a law which forbids a thing
because it is evil, as moral obedience is our conformity to such a law which
commands a thing because it is good; not that any thing is morally evil in
itself before it be forbidden, for then there should be a moral sin before,
and without any law to forbid it, which is most absurd; but because a thing is
evil in itself, and is therefore forbidden, it is therefore morally evil. God
may and doth make it fundamentally evil before it be forbidden, but it is not
morally
evil until it be forbidden. The
like may be said concerning moral obedience according to any moral law. No man
should therefore think that this description given of a moral law should give
occasion to any to imagine that some things are morally good or evil, before
any law pass upon them, and that therefore there are some duties, and some
sins, which are so without, and before, any law of God. For we see that things
good in themselves must be commanded, else they are not moral duties; yet
withal they are therefore commanded, because they are good in themselves. It
is true that, by the verdict of some of the schoolmen, some duties are morally
good before any law commands them, (as to love and magnify God,) and that some
sins (as to curse and blaspheme God) are morally evil, before any law forbids
them; but (to omit other answers) if such suppositions may be rationally made,
(which some deny,) yet it may be upon good grounds denied that any duty can be
morally good, or any sin morally evil, until some law pass upon them either to
command or forbid the same. It is indeed suitable and meet in nature for man to
love God, and unsuitable and unmeet to blaspheme and hate God; but such
suitableness or unsuitableness, as they make things fundamentally good or
evil, so they can not make any thing morally good or evil, unless we suppose
some law; for it would be, in this case, with man as it is in brute creatures,
who do many things unnatural, (as to eat up and destroy their own young,) which
yet are not morally sinful, because they are not under any moral law; and one
of the most ancient and best of the schoolmen, though he thinks that the
observance of the Sabbath before Moses' time was not secundum rationem praecepti,
or debite fieri, ie., was not actually commanded, yet that it was secundum
rationem honesti, hoc est digne fieri ; ie., it was congruous,
and a thing meet and worthy to be observed, even from the first creation. But
will any of our adversaries hence say, that because it was meet and worthy to
be observed, that therefore it was a moral law from the beginning of the world,
while it had no command (as is by them supposed) to be observed ? For it must
be something meet and congruous, and worthy to be observed of man, which, when
it is commanded, makes it to be a moral law; for then the law commands a thing
that is good, and because it is good it is therefore commanded ; which goodness
we must a little more narrowly now inquire into.
Thesis 21. If it be
demanded therefore, What is that goodness in a moral law for which it is
therefore commanded? the answer is given by Vasques, Suarez, Smisinga, and most
of the schoolmen, and sundry of our own writers, that it is nothing else but
that comely suitableness and meetness in the thing commanded unto human nature
as rational, or unto man as rational, and consequently unto every man. When I
say as rational, I understand as Master Ironside doth, viz., as right reason,
neither blinded nor corrupted, doth require. When I say as suitable to man,
and consequently to every man, I hereby exclude all laws merely judicial and
evangelical from being moral; the first of which are suitable to some men only;
the other are not suitable to some men as men, but to man as corrupt and
fallen, and therefore bind not all men, but only those among whom they are sufficiently
and actually promulgated, as is evident. (Rom.
Thesis 22. But here
let it be observed, that although all moral laws are thus suitable to man's
nature, yet they are not all alike suitable thereunto, and consequently not
equally good in themselves; for some laws are more immediately suitable and
good, others mediately. And as Wallaeus well observes, out of Scotus, that there
is a double morality: “The first is de
lege naturae stricte sumpta, ie., such laws as are so deeply engraven upon
nature as that these principles can not be blotted out but by abolishing of
nature; the second is de lege naturae late sumpta; and these laws do
much depend upon the will of the Lawgiver, but yet they are very congruous and
suitable to human nature, even from the light of those principles of nature.”
And hence I suppose it will follow, that the law for a seventh part of time to
be dedicated to God, may well be a moral law, although it depends much upon the
will of the Lawgiver, and is not so immediately written upon man's heart, nor
so equally suitable to human nature, as the law of love and thankfulness to God
our Creator is. For (as Cameron well observes) that some things which are good
of themselves have more of God's image stamped upon them, some have less of it;
and hence it is, that though all moral laws are good in themselves, yet not
equally so: there is more unsuitableness to hate and curse God than to lust
after another man's house or servant; and yet both are evil in themselves, and
breaches of moral rules.
Thesis 23. Hence,
therefore, it follows, that because moral precepts are of such things as are
good in themselves, they are therefore perpetual and unchangeable, and because
they are in this respect good in themselves, to wit, because they are suitable
and comely to man's nature as rational, hence also they are universal: so that
perpetuity and universality seem to be the inseparable adjuncts, rather than
the essence of a moral law: yet when they are called perpetual and
unchangeable, we must understand them in respect of God's ordinary
dispensation; for he who is the great Lawgiver may, and doth sometimes extraordinarily
dispense with moral laws. Abraham might have killed his son by extraordinary
dispensation: Adam's sons and daughters did marry one another by special
commission, which now to do ordinarily would be incestuous, and consequently
against a moral law, as is evident. (Lev. 18.) Only let it be here remembered,
that when I call moral laws perpetual and universal, that I speak of such laws
as are primarily moral, which do firstly and originally suit with human
nature; for laws as are at second hand moral, and as it were accidentally so,
may be changeable, as hereafter shall appear.
Thesis 24. How these
things may evince the morality of a seventh part of time will be difficult to
conceive, unless further inquiry be made; to wit, when and by what rules may it
be known that any law is suitable and agreeable unto human nature, and
consequently good in itself? For resolution of which doubt, there is great
silence generally in most writers: Bishop White endeavors it by giving three
rules to clear up this mist; but (pace tanti viri) I much fear that he
much darkens and obscures the truth herein, and muds the streams. For, 1.
Because the Sabbath is not simply moral, but hath something positive in it, he
therefore makes it temporary, as appears in his conclusion of that discourse;
when as it is evident, by his own confession, that some laws positively moral
are general and universal. “For laws
positively moral (he saith) are either personal only, as was Abraham's coming
out of his own country. (Gen. 12:1.) Some are for one nation or republic only.
(Ex. 22:1, 3, 7.) Some are common and general for all mankind, as the law of
polygamy.” 2. He seems to make laws
simply and entirely moral to be such as are in their inward nature morally
good, before and without any external imposition of the Lawgiver. Now, if by
external imposition he means the external manner of Mosaical administration of
the law, there is then some truth in what he affirms; for doubtless before
Moses' time the patriarchs had the law revealed after another manner; but if by
external imposition be meant external revelation, whether immediately by God
himself unto man's conscience, or mediately by man, then it is most false that
any thing can be morally good or evil, much less entirely and simply so, before
and without some such law: for though it may be good and suitable to man before
a law pass upon it, yet nothing can be morally good or evil without some law,
for then there should be some sin which is not the transgression of a law, and
some obedience which is not directed by any law, both which are impossible and
abominable. 3. “He makes moral laws by
external imposition and constitution only to be such as, before the external
imposition of them, are adiaphorous, and good or evil only by reason of some
circumstance.” When as we know that
some such laws as are most entirely moral, yet in respect of their inward
nature generally considered, they are indifferent also; for not to kill and
take away man's life is a moral law entirely so, yet, in the general nature of
it, it is indifferent, and by circumstance may become either lawful or unlawful;
lawful in case of war or public execution of justice; unlawful out of a private
spirit and personal revenge. In one word, the whole drift of his discourse
herein is to show that the Sabbath is not moral; and this he would prove
because the Sabbath is not simply and entirely moral, (which is a most feeble
and weak consequence;) and this he proves
“because the Sabbath day hath (in respect of its inward nature) no more
holiness and goodness than any other day, all the days of the week being
equally good by creation.” But he might
well know that the day is not the law of the fourth commandment, but the keeping
holy of the Sabbath day, which is a thing inwardly good, and entirely moral, if
we speak of some day. Nay, (saith the bishop,) the law of nature teacheth that
some sufficient and convenient time be set apart for God's worship; if,
therefore, some day be moral, although all days by creation be indifferent and
equal, according to his own confession, what then should hinder the quota
pars, or the seventh part of time, from being moral? Will he say because
all days are equally holy and good by creation? Then why should he grant any
day at all to be entirely moral in respect of a sufficient and convenient time
to be set apart for God? If he saith the will and imposition of the Lawgiver
abolisheth its morality, because he binds to a seventh part of time, then we
shall show that this is most false and feeble in the sequel.
Thesis 25. There
are, therefore, four rules to guide our judgments aright herein, whereby we may
know when a law is suitable and agreeable to human nature, and consequently
good in itself; which will be sufficient to clear up the law of the Sabbath to
be truly moral, (whether in a higher or lower degree of morality it makes no
matter,) and that it is not a law merely temporary and ceremonial.
1.
Such laws as necessarily flow from natural relation, both between God and man,
as well as between man and man: these are good in themselves, because suitable
and congruous to human nature; for there is a decency and sweet comeliness to
attend to those rules to which our relations bind us. For from this ground the
prophet Malachi calls for fear and honor of God as moral duties, because they
are so comely and seemly for us, in respect of the relation between us. If I be
your Lord, and Master, and Father, where is my fear? where is my honor? (Mal. 1:6.)
Love also between man and wife is pressed as a
comely duty by the apostle, from that near relation between
them, being made “one flesh.” (Eph. 5:28,
29.) There are scarce any who question the morality of the duties of the second
table, because they are so evidently comely, suitable, and agreeable to human
nature, considered relatively, as man stands in relation to those who are or
should be unto him as his own flesh; and therefore he is to honor superiors,
and therefore must not kill, nor steal, nor lie, nor covet, nor defile the
flesh, etc.; but the morality of all the rules of the first table is not seen
so evidently, because the relation between God and man, which makes them
comely and suitable to man, is not so well considered; for if there be a God,
and this God be our God, according to the first commandment, then it is very
comely and meet for man to honor, love, fear him, delight, trust in him, etc.;
and if this God must be worshiped of man in respect of the mutual relation
between them, then it is comely and meet to worship him with his own worship,
according to the second commandment, and to worship him with all holy
reverence, according to the third commandment; and if he must be thus
worshiped, and yet at all times (in respect of our necessary worldly
employments) can not be so solemnly honored and worshiped as is comely and meet
for so great a God, then it is very fit and comely for all men to have some set
and stated time of worship, according to some fit proportion, which the Lord
of time only can best make; and therefore a seventh part of time which he doth
make, according to the fourth commandment.
2. Such
laws as are drawn from the imitable attributes and works of God are congruous
and suitable to man's nature; for what greater comeliness can there be, or what
can be more suitable to that nature which is immediately made for God, than to
be like unto God, and to attend unto those rules which guide thereunto? Hence
to be merciful to men in misery, to forgive our enemies and those that do us
wrong, to be bountiful to those that be in want, to be patient when we suffer
evil, are all moral duties, because they are comely and suitable to man, and
that because herein he resembles and is made like unto God. Hence to labor six
days and rest a seventh is a moral because a comely and suitable duty, and that
because herein man follows the example of God, and becomes most like unto him.
And hence it is that a seventh year of rest can not be urged upon man to be as
much moral as a seventh day of rest, because man hath God's example and pattern
in resting a seventh day, but not in resting any seventh year; God never made
himself an example of any ceremonial duty, it being unsuitable to his glorious
excellency so to do, but only of moral and spiritual holiness; and therefore
there is somewhat else in a seventh day that is not in a seventh year; and it
is utterly false to think (as some do) that there is as much equity for the
observation of the one us there is of the other. “And here, by the way, may be
seen a gross mistake of Mr. Primrose, who would make God's example herein not
to be morally imitable of us, nor man necessarily bound thereunto, it being not
naturally, and in respect of itself, imitable, but only because it pleaseth
God to command man so to do; as also because this action of God did not flow
from such attributes of God as are in their nature imitable, as mercy, bounty,
etc., but from one of those attributes as is not imitable, and which we ought
not to imitate, viz., his omnipo-tency. But suppose it did flow from his
omnipotency, and that we ought not to imitate his omnipotency, and that we, who
are weakness itself, can not imitate omnipotent actions, yet it is obvious to
common sense, that such acts which arise from such attributes as can not be
imitated of us, in respect of the particular effects which are produced by
them, yet in the actings of such attributes there may be something morally good
which is imitable of us; as, for example, though we are not to imitate God in
his miraculous works, (as in the burning of Sodom, and such like,) yet there
may be that justice and wisdom of God shining therein which we ought to
imitate; for we ought to see, before we censure and condemn, as God did in
proceeding against Sodom. So it is in this extraordinary work of making the
world, wherein, although we are not to go about to make another world within
that time, as God did, yet therein the labor and rest of God was seen, which is
imitable of man; which labor and rest, as they are moral duties, so they are
confirmed by a moral example, and therefore most seemly and comely for man to
imitate from such an example; and whereas he affirms that this example was not
moral, because it was not in itself imitable, being grounded only upon God's
free will.” The reason is weak; for to labor in one's calling is, without
controversy, a moral duty, (as idleness is a moral sin;) yet if one would ask
why man is to labor here, and not rather to lead a contemplative life in the
vision and fruition of God immediately, I suppose no reason can be given but
the good pleasure of God, who, in his deep wisdom, saw it most meet for man to
spend some proportionable time in labor for himself, and some in rest for God;
whereunto he gave man such an eminent example from the beginning of the world.
Master Primrose can not deny but that a convenient time for labor and rest, in
general, is moral. “But,” saith, he, “if
God had not declared his will by a commandment particularly to labor six days,
and rest the seventh, the Jews would not have thought themselves bound to this
observation from God's example only; which shows that there is no morality in
it to bind the conscience forever.” But it may be as well doubted whether
acts of bounty and mercy (to which he thinks we are bound merely from God's example)
in respect of the particular application of these acts to enemies of God and of
ourselves, as well as to friends, be of binding virtue merely by God's example,
unless we had a commandment thereunto; for in moral precepts, as the thing is
commanded because it is good, so it is not morally good unless it be
commanded: but suppose that God's example of labor six days, and rest the
seventh, should not have been binding as other examples, unless there had been
a commandment for so doing; yet this is no argument that this example is not
moral at all, but only that it is not so equally moral, and known to be so, as
some other duties be; for man may spend too much time in labor, and give God
too short or too little time for rest. If, therefore, he wants the light of a
commandment or rule to direct and guide him to the fittest and most meet
proportion of time for both, is he not apt hereby to break the rule of
morality, which consists (as hath been shown) in that which is most suitable,
comely, and convenient for man to give to God or man? The commandment, therefore,
in this case, measuring out and declaring such a proportion, and what time is
most convenient and comely for man to take to himself for labor, or to give to
God for rest, it doth not abolish the morality of the example, but doth rather
establish and make it. It sets out the most comely and meet proportion of time
for labor and rest, and therefore such a time as is most good in itself,
because most comely and proportionable, which, being therefore commanded, is a
moral duty in man, and the example hereof morally binding in God.
3. Such
laws, which man's reason may see, either by innate light or by any other
external help and light, to be just, and good, and fit for man to observe, such
laws are congruous and suitable to human nature. I say by any external help, as
well as by innate light; for neither internal nor external light makes a thing
just and suitable to man, no more than the light of the sun, or the light of a
lantern, makes the king's highway to the city; but they only declare and
manifest the way, or that which was so in itself before. Hence it comes to
pass, that although man's reason can not see the equity of some laws, antecedenter,
by innate light, before it be illuminated by some external light, yet if by
this external light the mind sees the equity, justice, and holiness of such a
law, this may sufficiently argue the morality of such a law, which was just and
good, before any light discovered it, and is now discovered only, not made to
be so, whether by internal or external light. “And hence Aquinas well observes, that moral
laws (which he makes to be such as are congruous to right reason) sometimes are
such as not only command such things which reason doth readily see to be comely
and meet, but also such laws about which man's reason may readily and easily
err, and go astray from that which is comely and meet.” And hence it is, that
although no reason or wit of man could ever have found out the most just and
equal proportion of time, or what proportion is most comely and suitable, or
that a seventh part of time should have been universally observed as holy to
God, yet if any external light and teaching from above shall reveal this time,
and the equity and suitableness of it, so that reason shall acknowledge it
equal and good, that if we have six days for ourselves, God should have one
for himself, this is a strong argument that such a command is moral, because
reason, thus illuminated, can not but acknowledge it most meet and equal; for
though reason may not, by any natural or innate light, readily see that such a
division of time is most suitable, and yet may readily err and misconceive the
most suitable and convenient proportion and division of time, it is then a
sufficient proof of the morality of such a command, if the congruity and equity
of it be discerned consequenter only, (as we say,) and by external
light.
4. Whatever
law was once writ upon man's heart in pure nature is still suitable, and
congruous, and convenient to human nature, and consequently good in itself and
moral. For whatever was so writ upon Adam's heart was not writ there as upon a
private person, but as a common person, having the common nature of man, and
standing in the room of all mankind. Hence, as nothing was writ then but what
was common to all men, so such things thus writ were good for all men, and
suitable to all men, it being most injurious to God to think that any thing
evil should be imprinted there. If, therefore, it be proved that the law of the
Sabbath was then writ upon man's heart, then it undeniably follows that it is
meet and suitable to all men still to observe a Sabbath day; and indeed to the
right understanding of what is suitable to man as man, and consequently moral,
there is nothing more helpful than to consider of our primitive estate, and
what was suitable to our nature then; for if that which is moral in marriage is
to be searched for in the first and ancient records of our first creation by
the appointment of our Saviour, I then know no reason (whatever others object)
but morality in all other laws and duties is there to be sought also; for
although our original perfection is now defaced, and lost, and in that respect
is a merum non ens, (as some call it,) yet it had once a being, and,
therefore, in this controversy, we may lawfully inquire after it, considering
especially that this being which once it had may be sufficiently known by the
contrary being of universal corruption that is in us now, as also by the light
of the Scriptures, in which the Searcher and Maker of all hearts declares it
unto us; and, indeed, there are many moral duties which will never appear good
and suitable to man, but rather hard and unreasonable (because impossible)
until we see and remember from whence we are fallen, and what once we had.
Thesis 26.
If, therefore, a moral law command that which is suitable to human nature, and
good in itself, then it follows from hence, (which was touched before,) that
divine determination of something in a law doth not always take away morality
from a law; for divine determination is many times no more but a plain and
positive declaration of that which is suitable, just, and good, and
equal for man to observe. Now, that which points out and declares unto us the
morality of a law can not possibly abolish and destroy such a law. For a moral
law commanding that which is suitable and good, (as hath been shown,) it is
impossible that the commandment which determined! and directeth to that which
is good, that by this determination it should overthrow the being of such a
good law, nay, verily, particular determination and positiveness (as some call
it) is so far from abolishing, as that it rather adds to the being, as well as
to the clearing up and manifestation, of such a law. For if it be not
sufficient to make a moral law, that the thing be good in itself, but that also
it must be commanded, then the commandment which many times only determines to
that which good (and consequently determination) doth add unto the being of a
moral law.
Thesis 27.
There is scarce any thing but it is morally indifferent, until it falls under
some divine determination; but divine determination is twofold: 1, Of such things which are not good, fit, or
needful for man to observe without a command, as sacrifices and sacraments, and
such like: now herein, in such laws, positive determination may be very well
inconsistent with morality; and it may be safely said, that such a law is not
moral, but rather positive; and thus the learned sometimes speak. 2. Of such things as are equal, good in
themselves, needful, and suitable for man; and here particular deter-mination
and morality may kiss each other, and are not to be opposed one to another; and
hence it is, that if God's commandment positive determines us to observe any
part of instituted worship, (suppose sacraments or sacrifices,) yet such laws
are not moral, (although it be moral in general to worship God after his own
will,) because the things themselves are not good in themselves, nor needful:
but if God shall determine us to observe a Sabbath day, this determination doth
not take away the morality of the command, because it being good in itself to
give God the meetest and fittest proportion of time for holy rest, and the
commandment declaring that this seventh part, or so, is such a time, hence it
comes to pass, that this time is good in itself, and therefore determination,
by the commandment in this case, doth not abolish the morality hereof. It is a
moral duty to pay tribute to Caesar, to give to Caesar that which is Caesar's:
hence because a man may give too much or too little to him, that determination
which directs us to that particular which is Caesar's due, and most meet for
him to receive and us to give, that is best in itself, and is therefore moral:
so prayer is a moral duty; but because a man may be tempted to pray too oft or
else too seldom, hence determination of the fittest, and this fittest season,
makes this or that moral. So it is here in the Sabbath. I do willingly and
freely profess thus far with our adversaries of the morality of the Sabbath;
that it is a moral duty to give God some time and day of holy rest and worship,
as it is moral to give Caesar his due, and to pray to God : but because we may
give God too many days or too few, hence the determination of the most meet and
fittest proportion of time, and particularly of this time, makes this and that
to be also moral. If no day at all in general was good and fit for man to give
to God, and God should, notwithstanding, command a seventh day, then the commandment
of such a day with such positive determination could not be moral any more than
the determination of sacrifices and such like. But every day, (say some of our
adversaries,) some day, (say others of them,) being acknowledged to be equal,
just, and good, and most meet to give God, hence it is that determination of a
seventh day doth not abolish, but clear up, that which is moral, because it
points out unto man that which is most meet and equal. Hence, therefore, it
follows that a seventh day is therefore commanded, because it is good, and not
good merely because commanded. Determination, also, declaring what is most
meet, declareth hereby that this commandment is also moral, and not merely
positive and ceremonial; which not being well considered by some, this fourth
commandment (having some more positiveness and determination than divers of
the rest) hath therefore been the chief stumbling stone and rock of offense to
many against the morality of it, by which they have miserably bruised
themselves, while they have endeavored to destroy it, upon so gross a mistake.
Thesis 28.
It is true that God, out of his absolute sovereignty and good pleasure of his
will, might have determined us to observe a fourth, a ninth, a twentieth part
of our time in holy rest, more or less, as well as to a seventh; yet let us
consider of God as acting by counsel, and weighing and considering with himself
what is most meet and equal, and what proportion of time is most fit for
himself; and then (with leave of better thoughts, when I see better reason) I
suppose no man can prove (unless he be made privy to the unknown secrets of the
wisdom of God) that any other proportion had been as meet as this now made by
the actual determination of God; there was not, therefore, the mere and
sovereign will of God which thus determined of this seventh part of time, but
also the wisdom of God, which, considering all things, saw it most meet and
suitable for man to give, and God to receive from man, and therefore, being commanded,
and thus particularly determined, becomes moral.
Thesis 29.
If that commandment be moral which is therefore commanded because it is good,
then hence it follows, in the second place, that such laws only are not moral
laws, which are known to all men by the light of corrupt nature. For, as hath
been already said, a law may be holy, just, good, suitable, and meet for all
men to observe, whether the light of corrupt nature, by awakening or sleeping
principles, (as some call them,) know it or no, and such a comeliness and suitableness
in such a law is sufficient to make it moral. There were many secret moral sins
in Paul, which he never saw, nor could have seen by the light of corrupt
nature, until the law fell upon him with mighty efficacy and power, (Rom. 7;)
for God is not bound to crook his moral laws to what our corrupt minds are
actually able of themselves to see, any more than to what our corrupt wills are
actually able to do. If the light of nature be imperfect in us since the fall,
(which no wise man doubts of,) then there may be many things truly moral, which
the light of nature now sees not, because it is imperfect, which in its
perfection it did see; and this consideration of the great imperfection of the
light of nature is alone sufficient forever to stop their mouths and silence
their hearts, who go about to make an imperfect light and law of nature the
perfect rule and only measure of moral duties, and who make so narrow a
limitation of that which is moral to that which is thus imperfectly natural. It
is not now lex nata, but lex data, which is the rule of moral
duties: the whole Scriptures contain the perfect rule of all moral actions, whether
man's corrupted and imperfect light of nature see them or no. It is a common,
but a most perilous, and almost groundless mistake of many in this controversy,
who, when they would know what is moral, and what is not so, of such things as
are set down in the Scriptures, they then fly to the light of corrupt nature,
making it to be the supreme judge hereof, and there fall to examining of them,
whether they are seen by the light of nature or no, which is no less folly than
to set up a corrupt and blind judge to determine and declare that which is
moral, to make the perfect rule of morality in Scripture to bow down its back
to the imperfection and weakness of nature, to pull out the sun in heaven from
giving light, and to walk by the light of a dim candle, and a stinking snuff in
the socket almost gone out; to make the hornbook of natural light the perfection
of learning, of the deepest matters in moral duties; to make Aristotle's ethics
as complete a teacher of true morality as Adam's heart in innocency; and, in a
word, to make man fallen, and in a manner perfectly corrupt and miserable, to
be as sufficiently furnished with knowledge of moral duties, as man standing,
when he was perfectly holy and happy. Imagine, therefore, that the light of
nature could never have found out one day in seven to be comely and most meet
for man to give unto God; yet if such a proportion of time be most meet for man
to give to God, and it appears so to be when God reveals it, it may and should
then be accounted a moral law, although the light of nature left in all men
could never discern it. The schoolmen, and most of the Popish generation, not
considering these things, (which, notwithstanding, are some of their own
principles,) have digged pits for themselves, and made snares for some of their
followers, in abolishing the fourth commandment from being (in the true sense
of it) moral, because they could not see how such a special part of time, viz.,
a seventh part, could be natural, or by the light of corrupt nature
discernible; which things so discernible they sometimes conclude to be only
moral. But how far the light of corrupt nature may discern this proportion
shall be spoken to in its proper place.
Thesis 30.
If, lastly, those things which are thus commanded because they are good be
moral, then the whole decalogue may hence appear to be the moral law of God,
because there is no law in it, which is therefore good only because it is
commanded, but is therefore commanded because it is good and suitable to human
nature. When I say, suitable to human nature, I do not mean human nature
considered absolutely, but relatively, either in relation to God, or relation
unto man; for not only the light of nature, but of common sense also, bears
witness that every precept of the second table, wherein man is considered in
relation to man, is thus far good; for how comely and good is it to honor
parents, to be tender of other men's lives and comforts, to preserve one's self
and others from filthy pollutions, to do no wrong, but all the good we can to
other men's estates! etc. Nor do I think that any will question any one
commandment of this table to be good and suitable to human nature, unless it be
some Nimrod or Brennus, (that professed he knew no greater justice than for the
stronger, like the bigger fishes of the sea, to swallow up the lesser in case
they be hungry,) or some Turkish Tartar or cannibal, or some surfeited
professor, transformed into some licentious opinionist, and so grown master of
his own conscience, and that can audaciously outface the very light of nature
and common sense, through the righteous judgment of God blinding and hardening
his heart. And if the commandments of the second table be thus far good in
themselves, are not those of the first table much more? Is love to man (when
drawn out into all the six streams of the second table) good in itself, and
shall not love to God, drawn out in the four precepts of the first table, as
the spring from whence all our love to man should flow, much more? Are the
streams morally sweet, and is not the spring itself of the same nature? Love to
God and love to man are the common principles (saith Aquinas truly) of the law
of nature; and all particular precepts (saith he, perhaps unawares) are
conclusions flowing from these principles, out of Matt. 22. And are the
principles good in themselves and suitable to human nature, and do not all the
conclusions participate of their nature. For what are all particular precepts
but particular unfoldings of love to God and love to man? If all the precepts
of the second table be moral, which do only concern man, why should any of the
first fall short of that glory, which do immediately concern God? Shall man
have six, and all of them morally good, and God have but four, and some one or
more of them not so? Is it comely and good to have God to be our God in the
first commandment, to worship him after his own mind in the second, to give him
his worship with all the highest respect and reverence of his name in the
third; and is it not as comely, good, and suitable that this great God and King
should have some magnificent day of state to be attended on by his poor
servants and creatures, both publicly and privately, with special respect and
service, as oft as himself sees meet, and which we can not but see and confess
to be most equal and just, according to the fourth commandment? If man's life must be divided into labor and
rest, is it not equal and good, if we have six days, that God should have a
seventh? If the brute beasts could speak, they would say that a seventh day's
rest is good for them, (Ex. 23:12;) and shall man, who hath more cause and more
need of rest, even of holy rest, say that it is not good for him even to rest
in the bosom of God himself, to which lie is called this day? Take away a
Sabbath, who can defend us from atheism, barbarism, and all manner of devilism
and profaneness? And is it evil thus to want it, and shall it not be good to
have it? I confess, if God had commanded a perpetual Sabbath, it had not then
been good, but simple, to observe any set Sabbath; but if God will have man to
labor for himself six days, and this labor be morally good, being now
commanded, why is it not then as good to observe a seventh in rest to God,
being also commanded of him?
Thesis 31.
It is therefore at least an indigested assertion of those who affirm that the
decalogue sets out the precepts of the law of nature, and yet withal doth
superadd certain precepts proper to the Jewish people; in which last respect
they say all men are not bound to the observance thereof, (and they produce the
fourth commandment for proof,) but in respect of the first they are. But
although, in the application of a law, something may be proper to the Jewish
people, yet (with leave of the learned) there is never a law in it but it is
moral and common to all; for to make any law in the decalogue proper is an
assertion springing from a false and blind principle, viz., that that law only
is moral which is natural; not natural, as suitable to human nature, but which
is seen and known by the common light of corrupt nature, without the help of
any external usher or teacher. If also any laws in the decalogue be proper, how
will any find out and discern moral laws which concern all, from proper laws
which appertain only to some? For if God hath made such a mingling, and not
severed moral laws by themselves, then man hath no law or revelation by any
distinct and severed laws left unto him, to discern laws proper and peculiar
from laws moral and common, which how pernicious it may be to men's souls to
be left to such uncertainty, as also how injurious to God, and cross to his
main ends in discovering moral laws, let the wise consider; for if they say
that we must fly for help herein to the light of corrupt nature, then, as hath
been shown, an imperfect light, and a blind guide, and a corrupt judge must be
the chief rule of discerning that which is moral from that which is peculiar
and proper, for doubtless such a kind of light is the light of corrupt nature.
Thesis 32. Some think that those commandments only are morally
good which the gospel hath declared and confirmed to be so; and by this shift
they think to avoid the absurdity of flying to the blind guide of corrupt
nature to judge of these colors, viz., what is moral and what is not. Mr. Primrose therefore excludes the fourth
commandment from being moral, the other nine being ratified by the light of the
gospel, which this (he saith) is not; but if his meaning be, that there must be
a general ratification of laws moral by the verdict of the gospel, then the
fourth commandment can not be excluded from being moral, because it hath a
ratification in general from the gospel; for therein we read that the moral law
is holy, just, and good, (Rom. 7,) and that Christ came not to destroy the
least jot or tittle of the law, (Matt, 5.,) much less a whole law of the fourth
command-ment. In the gospel also God promiseth to write his law upon our
hearts, wherein the fourth commandment is not excepted. But if his meaning be
this, that the gospel must particularly mention, and so make a particular
ratification (as it were) by name of every moral law, then his assertion is
unsound; there being many judicial laws of Moses of which some are wholly
moral, others containing in them something of common and moral equity, which we
have no express mention of in the blessed gospel; and let him turn over all
the leaves of the gospel, he shall not find that proportion of time, which
himself affirms to be moral in the fourth commandment, to be expressly and
particularly mentioned in the gospel; and therefore that also must be excluded
from being moral upon his own principles, as well as what we contend for in
this commandment so to be.
Thesis 33. Some of those who maintain the law of the
Sabbath to be ceremonial affirm that every law in the decalogue is not moral,
upon this ground, to wit, because the law is called God's covenant, which
covenant they show, from sundry instances, not only to comprehend morals, but
also ceremonials; for they make it the excellency of the decalogue to
comprehend, as a short epitome, all God's ordinances, both moral and
ceremonial, which epitome is more largely opened in the writings of Moses,
where not only moral, but also ceremonial laws are expressed and dispersed.
And hence they think, that as the other nine are the summary and epitome of all
moral ordinances, so the fourth commandment, which was kept with the practice
of ceremonies, was the summary and epitome of all the ceremonial ordinances,
and hence the fourth commandment becomes ceremonial. But for answer to this
wily notion, unjustly fathered upon Austin and Calvin by some, it may thus far
be granted, that as the word law is sometimes taken more strictly for
the decalogue only, (Rom. 3:20; James 3:8,) and sometimes more largely, for the whole doctrine
contained in all the writings of the Old Testament, wherein the gospel also is
comprehended, (Ps. 19:7 ; 119:1, 51, 57,) so the word covenant is
sometimes taken more strictly for the covenant of works, which is contained
compendiously in the decalogue only, writ by the finger of God in two tables,
(Deut. 4:13, 14; Ex. 34:38,) and sometimes more largely for all the holy
writings of Moses. (Ex. 24:7, 8, and 34:10. Lev. 26:14. Jer. 34:13.) Now,
although all the writings of Moses may be called the covenant, as it is largely
taken, and so the covenant comprehends not only moral but ceremonial laws, yet
they are never called that covenant which was writ by the finger of God in two
tables of stone, and given to Moses; and in this strict sense the word covenant
comprehends no other laws but moral, nor can the places and texts which
they allege evince the contrary, for, in that place of Ex. 24:7, it is not said
that the tables of the covenant, but the book of the covenant, was read in the
audience of all the people; which book we readily acknowledge to comprehend
ceremonials as well as morals, but not the tables of the covenant, of which
the question now is. So also when the Lord saith (Ex. 34:10) that he will make
a covenant, his meaning is, that he will revive his covenant by writing, (as it
is there set down in the same chapter,) in which writing it is very true that
there is mention made of many ceremonial laws; but suppose this covenant
written by Moses comprehends sundry ceremonial laws, will it therefore follow
that the tables of the covenant written with the finger of God did the like? No
such matter; and therefore there is an express difference put in the same
chapter, (ver. 27, 28,) between the covenant written by Moses, and the ten
commandments written by the finger of God. But secondly, let it be granted that
the decalogue comprehends summarily all the laws which are particularly
dispersed here and there in the writings of Moses, yet it doth not follow that
there must be one ceremonial law written by the finger of God, and lifted up in
the decalogue to be the epitome and summary of all ceremonial laws elsewhere
explained in the writings of Moses. For all laws, whether ceremonial or
judicial, may be referred to the decalogue, as appendices to it, or
applications of it, and so to comprehend all other laws as their summary. But
such a summary will no way enforce a necessity of making any one of them the
epitome of ceremonials, and the other nine of them of the morals, for we know
that many judicial laws are comprehended under moral laws, being referred as
appendices thereunto by Calvin, Martyr, Chemnitius, Ames, and sundry others;
and yet it will not follow from hence, that one of the laws in the decalogue
must be a judicial law as the summary of all judicials, which are branches of
the covenant, as well as Master Primrose's ceremonials.
Thesis 34.
It should not seem strange that that law, which in the general nature of it is
moral, may, in the particular application of it, be unto a thing ceremonial;
and in this respect it can not be denied, that the moral law may comprehend all
ceremonial laws; but it will not hence follow, (as Mr. Primrose infers,) that
one law in the decalogue must be ceremonial as the head and summary of all
ceremonial laws, because, we say, ceremonial laws may be comprehended under
some moral law, as special applications thereof; e.g., it is a moral law to
worship God according to his own will, and not after man's inventions, as the
second commandment holds it forth. Now, in the application of this law, the
Lord points out his own instituted worship in sundry significant ceremonies,
sacrifices, sacraments, etc.; which particular institutions (though
ceremonial) are to be referred unto, and are comprehended under, the second
commandment, which is a moral law; for if God will be worshiped with his own
worship according to this commandment, then it is necessary for the Lord to
show (and that under his commandment) what those institutions be, wherein he
will be worshiped, many of which are ceremonial, which are therefore-directly
comprehended here.
Thesis 35.
There is therefore no necessity of making one law in the decalogue to be
ceremonial, that it may be the summary head of all ceremonials, viz., because
ceremonials are branches of the covenant, which is the decalogue; for upon the
like ground, there must be one judicial law also as the summary of all
judicials, nay, one evangelical law also as the head of all evangelicals,
sprinkled here and there in Moses' writings, of which we read, (John 5:43 ;
Rev. 10:6-8, with Deut. 30:12, 13 ; Gal. 3:8, with Gen. 12:3 ;) for judicials
and evangelicals are branches of the covenant as well as ceremonials, if Mr.
Primrose's principle be true; but if, by his own confession, nine of them are
morals, and one of them only the head of ceremonials, how shall judicial and
evangelical summaries come in? which either he must make room for in the
decalogue, or acknowledge his foundation to be rotten, upon which he hath
built one ceremonial law among the nine morals.
Thesis 36.
It is true, that among men the same body of laws may be framed up of divers articles,
as Mr. Primrose pleads; but that the decalogue was such a body as had
ceremonials mixed with morals, it can never be made good by any color of proof,
except it be that which we have shown will as strongly enforce an introduction
of some one judicial and another evangelical law into the decalogue, as well as
one ceremonial; but such a confusion of law and gospel, evangelicals and
judicials, ceremonials and morals, the blessed God abhors; for it neither suits
with God's wisdom and end in giving the law, nor yet with man's weakness,
(which God pities,) to make such a jumbling and confusion of things together;
for who can then tell what law is moral, and what evangelical, and what
ceremonial, unless it be (as was shown) by flying for light to the dictates and
instinct of nature, to show unto poor deceitful man what laws are moral and
what not, wherein the remedy would have been as bad as the disease.
Thesis 37.
If “there must be one law in the
decalogue ceremonial, that so the more authority may be procured hereby (as
Mr. Primrose pleads) unto all God's ordinances, and therefore one of the
ceremonials was written in the decalogue with God's own finger, and honored
with the like prerogatives as the moral laws were, which were immediately
spoken by God himself,” then (if this reasoning be solid) why was not one
judicial and another evangelical precept alike honored also? For was there not
as much need to procure authority to this as well as to ceremonials? And yet
we see their authority was sufficiently procured without being shuffled into
the decalogue, and so might ceremonials also.
Thesis 38.
There were three sorts of laws which are commonly known, and which were most
eminently appearing among the Jews: 1.
Moral. 2. Ceremonial. 3. Judicial.
Thesis 39.
The moral respected their manners as they were men, and are therefore called
moral. The ceremonial respected them as a church, and as such a kind of church.
The judicial as a commonwealth, and as that particular commonwealth. Moral laws
were to govern them as a human society, ceremonial as a sacred society,
judicial as a civil society. Thus the learned speak, and being candidly
understood, are true.
Thesis 40.
The moral law, contained in the decalogue, is nothing else but the law of
nature revived, or a second edition and impression of that primitive and
perfect law of nature, which in the state of innocency was engraven upon man's
heart, but now again written upon tables of stone, by the finger of God. For
man being made in the image of God, he had therefore the law of holiness and
righteousness, in which God's image consisted, written in his heart; but having
by his fall broken this table, and lost this image, neither knowing nor doing
the will of God through the law of sin now engraven on it, hence the Lord hath
in much pity made known his law again, and given us a fair copy of it in the
two tables of stone, which are the copy of that which was writ upon man's heart
at first, because the first table contains love to God in holiness, the second
love to man in righteousness ; which holiness and righteousness are the two
parts of God's image which was once engraven upon man's soul, in his primitive
and perfect estate. (Eph. 4:24.) Nor indeed do I see how that Popish argument
will be otherwise answered, pleading for a possibility in man to keep the law
perfectly in his lapsed and fallen estate in this life, for, say they, God
makes no laws of impossible things, it being unjust for God to require and
exact that of a man which he is not able to do; to which it is commonly and
truly answered, that man had once power to keep the law in his innocent estate,
and hence, though man be not able to keep it now, yet God may require it,
because he once gave him power to keep it; and that therefore it is no more unjust
to exact such obedience which he can not perform, than for a creditor to require
his money of his broken debtor, or spendthrift, who is now failed, (as they
say,) and not able to repay. Man, therefore, having once power to keep the law,
and now having no power, this argues strongly that the law of the decalogue
contains nothing but what was once written as a law of life upon his heart in
his innocent estate; for I see not how God's justice can be cleared, if he
exacts such obedience in the decalogue which is impossible for man to give,
unless the very same law and power of obedience was written upon his heart at
first; and therefore it is a wild notion of theirs who think that the covenant
of works which God made with Adam is not the same for matter with the covenant
of works expressed in the moral law; for we see that there is the same image of
holiness and righteousness required in the tables of stone, as the condition of
this covenant, which was once written upon man's heart, and required in the same
manner of him. Now, this law, thus revived and reprinted, is the decalogue,
because most natural and suitable to human nature, when it was made most
perfect; therefore it is universal and perpetual; the substance also of this
law being love to God and man, holiness toward God, and righteousness toward
man. (Matt. 22:37, 39. Luke 1.) Hence also this law must needs be moral, universal,
and perpetual, unless any should be so wicked as to imagine it to be no duty of
universal or perpetual equity, either to love God or to love man, to perform
duties of holiness toward the one or duties of righteousness toward the other.
Hence, again, the things commanded in this law are therefore commanded because
they are good, and are therefore moral, unless any shall think that it is not
good in itself to love God or man, to be holy or righteous; and which is still
observable, there is such a love required herein, and such a loveliness put
upon these laws, as that, by virtue of these, all our obedience in other things
which are not moral becomes lovely; for there were many ceremonial observances,
in which and by which the people of God expressed their love to God, as M.
Primrose truly concludes from Deut. 6:1-6, and Matt. 22:37, 38, 40; but yet
this love did arise by virtue of a moral rule, for therefore it was lovely to
worship God in ceremonial duties, because it was lovely to worship God with his
own worship, (of which these were parts,) which is the moral rule of the second
commandment. And hence M. Primrose may see his gross mistake in making one law
of the decalogue ceremonial, because the summary of the decalogue being love to
God and love to man, and our love to God being shown in ceremonial as well as
in moral duties, because our love is seen and shown in our obedience to all the
commandments of God, ceremonial as well as moral. For though there be love in
ceremonial duties, it is not so much in respect of themselves as in respect of
some moral rule, by virtue of which such duties are attended.
Thesis 41.
The ceremonial law, consisting chiefly of types and shadows of things to come,
(Heb. 8:5,) and therefore being to cease when the body was come, (Col. 2:17,)
was not therefore perpetual, (as the law moral,) but temporary, and of binding
power only to the nation of the Jews and their proselytes, and not putting any
tie upon all nations, as the moral law did. Every ceremonial law was temporary,
but every temporary law was not ceremonial, (as some say,) as is demonstrable
from sundry judicials, which in their determinations were proper to that
nation, while the Jewish polity continued, and are not, therefore, now to be
observed.
Thesis 42.
The judicial laws, some of them being hedges and fences to safeguard both moral
and ceremonial precepts, their binding power was therefore mixed and various,
for those which did safeguard any moral law, (which is perpetual,) whether by
just punishments or otherwise, do still morally bind all nations; for, as
Piscator argues, a moral law is as good and as precious now in these times as then,
and there is as much need of the preservation of these fences to preserve these
laws in these times, and at all times, as well as then, there being as much danger
of the treading down of those laws by the wild beasts of the world and brutish
men (sometimes even in churches) now as then; and hence God would have all
nations preserve their fences forever, as he would have that law preserved
forever which these safeguard; but, on the other side, these judicials which
did safeguard ceremonial laws which we know were not perpetual, but proper to
that nation, hence those judicials which compass these about are not perpetual
nor universal; the ceremonials being plucked up by their roots, to what purpose
then should their fences and hedges stand? As, on the contrary, the morals abiding,
why should not their judicials and fences remain? The learned generally doubt
not to affirm that Moses' judicials bind all nations, so far forth as they
contain any moral equity in them, which moral equity doth appear not only in
respect of the end of the law, when it is ordered for common and universal
good, but chiefly in respect of the law which they safeguard and fence, which
if it be moral, it is most just and equal, that either the same or like
judicial fence (according to some fit proportion) should preserve it still,
because it is but just and equal that a moral and universal law should be
universally preserved; from whence, by the way, the weakness of their
reasonings may be observed, who, that they may take away the power of the civil
magistrate in matters of the first table, (which once he had in the Jewish
commonwealth,) affirm that such civil power then did arise from the judicial,
and not from any moral law; when as it is manifest that this his power in
preserving God's worship pure from idolatrous and profane mixtures, according
to the judicial laws, was no more but a fence and safeguard set about moral
commandments; which fences and preservatives are therefore (for substance) to
continue in as much power and authority now as they did in those days, as long
as such laws continue in their morality, which these preserve; the duties of
the first table being also as much moral as those of the second, to the preserving
of which latter from hurt and spoil in respect of their morality, no wise man
questions the extent of his power.
Thesis 43.
If, therefore, the question be now made whether the law of the fourth
commandment be moral or no, we must then remember that the true state of the
question is not in this, to wit, whether the law of the Sabbath be a principle
of the light of nature, known and evident of itself, or at least such as every
man that hath the use of reason may readily find out without some external
revelation, (as Mr. Ironside injuriously states it, wrestling herein with his
own shadow, with many others of his fellowship in this con- troversy.) For
morality (as hath been declared) is of larger extent than such a naturality.
But the question is, whether it is one of those laws, which is therefore
commanded because it is holy, just, and good in itself, whether man see it by
any previous light of corrupt nature, ay or no; and being thus commanded as
such a law, whether it be not therefore of perpetual and universal obligation,
binding all nations and persons in all ages, in their hearts, lives, manners,
to the observance thereof, as a part of that holiness we owe to God, and which
God requires of men according to rules of moral equity; or, on the contrary,
whether it be not rather a typical, ceremonial, figurative, and temporary
precept, binding only some persons, or that one nation of the Jews for some
time, from the obedience of which law Christians (in respect of any law of God)
are now exempted.
Thesis 44.
For clearing up whereof it may not be amiss to take notice of the agreement (at
least in words) herein, on all hands, even by those who oppose that morality of
the Sabbath which we plead for. All sides agree in this, viz., that the law of
this fourth commandment concerning the Sabbath is moral. But as the differences
about the meaning of Tu, es Petrus are many, so here the difficulty lies
to know how, and in what sense and respect, it may be called moral; for M.
Ironside expressly consents in this, viz.,
“that all the commandments of the decalogue are moral, but every one in
his proportion and degree, and so (saith he) is that of the Sabbath”; it is
moral for substance, but not for circumstance.
Master
Primrose also (when he is awake) expressly confesseth thus much, viz., that the
Sabbath is moral in its foundation, end, marrow, and principal substance; and
that a stinted time is moral, and grounded on the principles of nature; and
therefore the Gentiles (saith he) had their set days of religion; and this (he
tells us) is ratified by the gospel, which commendeth to the faithful the
assembling of themselves together for word and sacraments, and consequently
that they have appointed times to attend
upon them, wherein the word of God be read and preached as under the Old
Testament every Sabbath day; nay, he yields yet more, viz., that not only
stinted times, but that also there should be a convenient proportion and
suitable frequency of time for God's service, now under the gospel as under
the law; and therefore affirms that the Jewish annual feasts and new moons,
being but once a year or once a month, and so being rare and seldom, could not
teach us the convenient and most suitable frequency of God's public service, as
the Sabbath did, which returned weekly; and therefore he saith that the commandment
runs not thus, viz., Remember to keep the new moons, but, Remember to keep holy
the Sabbath day. So that by M. Primrose's concession, not only a time, but a
stinted time, not only a stinted time, but also such a convenient proportion
and suitable frequency of time, as is once in seven days, is morally holy by
virtue of the fourth commandment.
“Gomarus
also concludes that the public worship of God, required in the fourth
commandment, calls for observation, not only of certain, but also of sufficient
days for worship; and what these sufficient days be, is to be gathered from the
fourth commandment, viz., that they be not more rare and less frequent than
the weekly Sabbaths of the Israelites, because, if God (as he shows) challenged
a weekly Sabbath of a stiff-necked people laden with the burden of many other
festivals and ceremonies, how then should Christians, freed from their yokes
and burdens, have them less frequent?”
Master
Breerwood also to the like purpose professeth, that Christians should not be
less devout and religious in celebrating the Lord's day than the Jews were in
celebrating their Sabbath; and his reason (laboring with some spice of a
contradiction) is this, viz., because the obligation of our thankfulness to God
is more than theirs, although the obligation of his commandment to us in that
behalf is less; for I confess it is beyond my shallowness to conceive how the
thankfulness should be more, and the commandment less, unless he will imagine
some such Popish work as exceeds the command.
Wallaeus
comes almost quite over the threshold unto us, and maintains, upon solid
arguments, “that, by the force and analogy of this fourth commandment, all the
true worshipers of God are bound to the exact observation of one day in the
circle and compass of seven;” and then he produceth a cloud of witnesses, both
ancient fathers and the chief of our late reformers, testifying to the same
morality of one day in seven, which himself maintains; that whoever shall read
him herein would wonder how it should ever enter into the hearts of learned
men (as White, Rogers, Dow, the historian, and many others) to imagine and go
about to befool the world, as if the morality of a seventh day was the late and
sour fruit growing out of the crabbed and rigid stock of some English Puritans
and reformers, wherein they are forsaken of all their fellows, whom in all
other things they so much admire in other reformed churches. It being therefore
confessed on all hands that the Sabbath is moral, (though I confess at other
times our adversaries unsay this, at least in their arguments,) the controversy
therefore only lies in this, viz., how and in what respect it should be so.
Thesis 45.
The general consent herein also is this, to wit, that the morality of the
Sabbath chiefly is in respect of some generality, or in respect of something
which is more general in this commandment, rather than in respect of that
particular day which the commandment doth also point at; for if the morality of
it did lie in observing that particular day only, how could there be a change
of that day to another? For if the morality of a Sabbath was limited unto a
particularity, or to that one particular day, it is then impossible that any
other day to which that first is changed should be moral by virtue of the same
commandment; but we shall show in fit place, that the day is lawfully changed,
and morally observed, and therefore that which is in this commandment firstly
moral must of necessity be somewhat more general.
Thesis 46.
The general which we acknowledge to be moral in this command (rightly
understood) is a seventh day. Our adversaries would make it more general, and
resolve it into a day or some day for solemn worship; yet when they are forced
to see and acknowledge, by the dint of argument, that this is too general,
because thus the com-mandment may be observed, if one day in a thousand, or
once in one's life it be sanc-tified, they do, therefore, many times come
nearer to us, to somewhat less general than a day, viz., to a stinted, fixed,
and appointed day, and to such an appointed day as contains such a sufficient
proportion of time for God, with convenient frequency, no less frequent than
theirs in the Old Testament, which was every seventh day, as may be seen Thess. 1:44; and truly,
thus much being acknowledged by them, one would think that the controversy
(with this sort of men) was brought unto a comfortable and quiet issue and full
agreement; but it is strange to see how contrary the language is of these men
sleeping, from what it is when they are awake. They strike fiercely at a
seventh day, and a determinate time, as impossible to be moral, when they meet
with them in the dark, and yet we see acknowledge them (in effect) to be moral,
when they meet with them sometimes in the light.
Thesis 47.
But because a seventh day may be accounted convenient by some, and moral by
others, and because the determination of it may be made by some either more
lax or narrow, viz., either to any in seven, which man or the church may
appoint, or to such a seventh day as God shall determine, it is, therefore,
needful, for the clearing up of this controversy, to seek out, with an
impartial and sober mind, the true meaning of the fourth commandment, and to
inquire more particularly and exactly what is required in it, and what is
commanded by virtue of it, which some able men, not taking a right observation
of in the dark and tempestuous times of controversy, have therefore made miserable
shipwreck, not only of the truth, but
also of themselves, and souls of others.
Thesis 48.
The things which are morally enjoined in this commandment are these two : —
1. Some
things are Primario, i.e., primarily, firstly, and more generally moral.
2. Some
things are Secundario ; i.e., secondarily, derivatively, and
consequently moral.
A time, a
day, a seventh day of rest are in the first respect moral, but in the other
respect this or that particular seventh day may be said to be moral. Things
primarily moral are perpetual; things secondarily moral are not necessarily
so. As, for example, to honor superiors and fathers, whether of commonwealth
or family, is primarily moral; but to honor these or those particular superiors
is secondarily moral, because our honoring of them ariseth from that primary
and general law of moral equity, viz., that if our fathers are to be honored,
then, in the second place, it follows, that these and those particular persons,
being our lawful fathers, are to be honored also. To honor our fathers whom God
hath set over us is perpetual; to honor these or those particular fathers is
not perpetual, because themselves are not perpetual, but changeable. It was a
moral duty to honor this particular King David, but it was not perpetual; for
when David was taken away, they were not bound to honor King David any more,
when King Solomon, his son, became his successor: nor was it a ceremonial duty
to honor this or that particular king, because it was changeable from one to
another, but it was a moral duty so to do; wherein the law and rule is not
changed, (it being primarily moral,) but only the object, which we are bound to
honor secondarily in respect of the general rule. So it is in this law of the
Sabbath. To keep a day, a seventh day's Sabbath, is perpetual, it being
primarily moral; but to observe this or that particular day is of itself
changeable, being secondarily moral; for if it be a moral duty to sanctify a
seventh day which God shall appoint, then it is moral, (as it were,) in the
second place, to sanctify this or that seventh interchangeably which God doth
appoint; and yet it doth not follow that this or that particular seventh is in
itself ceremonial, because it is changeable ; for in such a change the moral
rule is not changed, but the moral object only, to which it is morally applied:
the duty is not changed, but only the day; and in this respect it should not
seem hard to make some things moral which are not perpetual; for laws primarily
moral are properly perpetual, but laws secondarily moral, not necessarily so,
but changeable, because, as hath been said, herein there is no change of the
rule, but only of the object or application of the rule, which may be variously
and yet morally observed.
Thesis 49.
This distinction of things primarily and secondarily moral is taken from the
truth of things, and which those who study this controversy will see themselves
forced unto by the shifts and fallacies of the adversaries of the truth herein;
the com-mandments of God are exceeding broad, according to David's measure,
(Ps. 119:96,) and very comprehensive, and hence the generals include many
particulars, and sometimes the particulars have a special respect to things
more general, as is evident in the second and fifth commandments, which
synecdoche Mr. Broad acknowledgeth to be in all other commands except the
Sabbath, wherein he will have no general understood, but only a commandment to
observe that particular day only, that so he may go one step farther than some
of his betters, and utterly abolish the morality of this command: but whether
this commandment is so narrowly restrained, will appear more fully in showing
the truth of this distinction out of the commandment more particularly.
Thesis 50.
Those things first which are primarily and more generally moral, and morally
commanded, are these three: —
1. That
there be some solemn convenient time set apart for God's worship.
2. That
this time be not any small pittance of time, but a solemn day of worship,
bearing the most meet proportion to those days man hath for himself.
3. That
this day be not any day indefinitely which man sees meet, but (as it is in the
commandment) the Sabbath or rest day, which God himself interprets and
determines to a seventh day.
Some of our
adversaries in this controversy will not acknowledge any set time or day to be
moral by virtue of this commandment, because they think that that particular
seventh day from the creation is only commanded, but now abolished under the
gospel; and it only is commanded (they say) because it is only expressed and
made mention of in the commandment. I confess that that particular seventh is
expressed and pointed at, but not only expressed, (as we shall show in fit
place;) but suppose it were granted, that that seventh only is expressed, yet
it will not follow that therefore a seventh day, and conse-quently a day, and
consequently a time of worship, is excluded: for look, as it is in the second
commandment, we see the worship of a graven image is particularly forbidden,
and yet that which is more general is also herein forbidden, viz., the worship
of God by human inventions: and why may not the like general be enjoined by
commanding that particular seventh in the fourth commandment? Others of our
adversaries, on the contrary, acknowledge, therefore, that in this particular
seventh (which they make ceremonial) something more general and moral is
herein required; but this general they limit to a time or some day of worship,
but a seventh day which is more general than that particular seventh, yet less
general than a day or time, they fly from this as from some serpent or bugbear,
and will not admit it as any thing generally moral in this command-ment. But
it is very observable in this controversy, that upon the same grounds on which
they would exclude this general of a seventh from being moral, they may as well
exclude their own generals, viz., a time or a day, from being moral; for if
they think it irrational, that because a particular seventh day is required,
that therefore a seventh day more general can not be commanded, why is it not
as irrational, upon the same ground, to exclude a time, a day, also? Surely a
seventh day lies nearer the bosom of a particular seventh, and is of nearer kin
to it than a day. And I marvel that they should gather a solemn time and day of
worship, which is more general, rather than a seventh out of that particular
day, as not possibly to be intended, although in a manner expressed in the
commandment itself. I know there are some who think that there is nothing
generally moral in this commandment but a seventh day ; which unless it be well
and warily explicated, I then crave leave to concur thus far with our
adversaries, viz., that a solemn time, and a day of worship, are generally
moral in this command, but not only moral, but that a seventh day also which
God shall determine is generally, yea, principally moral also, in this
commandment.
Thesis 51. First, therefore, that which is most
generally moral in this command is that which is called tempus cultus, or
the time of worship: now, this time must either be indeterminate time, which
necessarily attends all acts of worship and duties of piety, or else
determinate and solemn time. Indeterminate time is not required here, because
to make a special commandment about such a time would be both needless and
ridiculous; for if it be impossible that any duty should be performed without
such time, then wherever that duty is required, the time which necessarily
attends it must be supposed and enjoined in the same commandment. Some
determinate and solemn time is, there-fore, herein generally, though not only,
commanded.
Thesis 52. It is a scruple to some to know to what
commandment solemn time should be referred; to which the answer is easy—that
the same things may be referred in several respects unto several commandments,
and so may this. Solemn time may be referred to the second commandment, where
solemn worship (in respect of the means of worship) is required, in some
respect to the first commandment, which requiring us to acknowledge God as our
sovereign Lord and happiness, he would have us therefore to have some full
scope of time to be serious and solemnly taken up in the worship of him. But it
is referred to this fourth commandment as it stands in a general reference and
relation to a seventh day's Sabbath, wherein this general of solemn time is
swallowed up and preserved; and, verily, if the six days' labor be required in
the fourth commandment, in case it be done in reference to the seventh day's
rest, much more all solemn time of worship, as it stands in reference to a
Sabbath day.
Thesis 53.
The worship itself therefore is not required in this commandment, if only the
time of worship be enjoined; and if ignorance or prejudice did not bias and
sway men's judgments from the naked and genuine meaning of each commandment, it
would soon appear that the whole worship of God itself is contained in the
three first commandments, and therefore nothing left that .could possibly be
enjoined by the fourth, but only the time. I know a time of worship may in some
respect be called worship, but the worship itself in all other respects is not
required in this, but in other commandments; for if in the first commandment
we are to have God to be our God, by love of him, trust to him, delight in him,
etc., (which nature, as it were, calls for, if God be our God,) then all that
which we call natural worship is required here; and if devised forms of
worship be forbidden in the second commandment, which are of human invention
and institution, then all God's instituted worship must be commanded herein;
and if vain and irreverent manner of worship be forbidden in the third
commandment, then all common worship, as some call it, or rather all that holy
and reverent manner of worship which we owe to God, is required in the same
command; and if all natural, instituted, and common worship, or holy manner of
worship, be required in the three first commands, I marvel then how any
worship (any further than as a time of worship may be called worship) can be
required in this fourth command. The time, therefore, and not the worship
itself, is required herein; for if any worship be required, it is either the
whole worship of God, or some special kind of worship; if the whole worship,
then there should be no worship of God required directly in the three first
commandments, but the very same which is commanded in the fourth also, which
gross tautology is most absurd to imagine in the short sum of these ten words;
but if any special kind of worship should be required, and not the whole, then
the Sabbath day is sanctified to some one kind of worship, rather than to the
exercise of all kind of worship, which is most false and profane; for who will
affirm that the Sabbath is to be sanctified, suppose by that kind of worship
which is public, and not private also; by external, and not by internal worship
also ; by natural worship in love and fear of God, etc., and not with
instituted in the use of all God's ordinances, and that with all holy
preparation and reverence also?
Thesis 54.
The exercise of worship is one thing, the worship itself is another; it is most
true that the holy exercise of all worship is here required, but most false
that the worship itself is so. The worship itself is required in the three
first commands, but the special exercise of all this worship at such a time is
required in the fourth command: the exercise of holiness and holy duties is here
required as the end, and a holy rest as a means thereunto ; and in this respect
it is true which Wallaeus observes, viz., that it is not a bare and naked
circumstance of time, but the rest itself from labor, and the application of
the day to holy uses, which is here enjoined; but doth it therefore follow that
the worship itself, and the holy duties themselves, are here directly
commanded? which he seems to maintain. No, verily, no more than that works of
mercy in the second table are required in this fourth command of the first
table, because the exercise of mercy and love, as well as of piety and
necessity, is required also in this command.
Thesis 55.
It is generally and frequently affirmed by those who seek to support the
morality of the Sabbath, to wit, that the exercise of worship and holy duties,
at this time, is required for the duties' sake, as, at other times, the time is
required for the time's sake; by which words they seem to make the bare circumstance
of time to be required here; but this assertion had need be understood with
much candor, and the true explication of it; for in some sense it is most true
which our Saviour affirms, that man is not made for the Sabbath or the time of
it. (Mark
Thesis 56.
This time therefore may be considered two ways: 1. Abstractly. 2. Concretely. 1. Abstractly, for the bare circumstance of
time, abstracted and stripped from all other considerations ; and so it is
very absurd to imagine all the holy duties of the Sabbath to be for the time,
as if God and all his holy worship should give homage unto, and attend upon, a
naked, empty circumstance. Time, in this respect, is rather for the worship's
sake. 2. Concretely, as it is wholly
sanctified and set apart for God, or as it is a holy time, set apart for holy rest, that so man might attend upon
God; and in this respect all holy duties are for this time, because in this
respect they are for God, who is all in all in holy time. And therefore
Wallaeus need not put us upon search to see whether the holy rest of the day be
required in the second or any other command, for it is not affirmed by any,
that the naked circumstance of time is here only required, without any holy
rest; but that a holy time of rest is herein commanded, and therefore to be
referred to this command; hence also it is most false which some affirm, viz., “that
the rest from ordinary labors on this day, as it is connected with holy duties
of worship, without which they can not be performed, is as necessary now as
when the Jewish Sabbath was in being; but otherwise out of these duties there
is no holy time of rest commanded.” For
such a restraint of time to holy duties as makes the time holy for the duties'
sake, so that no time is holy but in the performance of holy duties, and these
duties (upon narrow examination) only public duties, doth but open a gap for
licentiousness, voluptuousness, sports, May poles, and dog markets, and such
like profaneness, out of the time of holy public worship, or what private
worship each man shall think most meet. For in this sense holy duties are for
the time, because, the whole day being sanctified, holy duties are therefore to
attend, and in this respect are for this time, and not the time for them, viz.,
that when the time of the exercise of some holy duties doth cease, the time of
holy rest or holy time must then cease also.
Thesis 57.
Nor should it seem strange that holy duties should attend holy time, and be for
the sake of such time; because, although it be true that this time is
sanctified, that man may perform holy duties, yet man is now called to the
performance of all holy duties, that he may lastly honor God in all holiness in
such a special time; which time, if any human power only should put any
holiness in, and it therefore should be attended on, what would it be else but
an observing of days and times? condemned by the apostle, (Rom. 14.; Gal. 4.;)
which dirty ditch of observing times they unawares fall into who plead against
a determined Sabbath, sanctified of God, and yet would have some time and day
observed by the appointment of men; for the observation of such days which God
shall appoint can not be condemned as an observing of times; but the
observation of days, which human wisdom shall think fit may be quickly reduced
to such a transgression.
Thesis 58. If any think that there is a peculiar
manner of holiness and of wor-shiping God herein required, which is not
required in any other commandment, it may be readily granted, if by peculiar
manner of sanctification be meant a more special degree and manner of
exercising the whole worship of God, in respect of such a time; but it doth not
therefore follow, that any new kind of worship (which Wallaeus hence pleads
for) is required herein; for this higher degree and special manner of worship
is not the substance of any new worship, it being only a peculiar degree of
worship, and therefore varies not the kind. And if the three first commandments
enjoin the worship itself, then they do command the highest measures and
degrees also severally; for where any duty is required the highest degree and
extension of it is also therewithal required. Hence, therefore, it still
follows, that this peculiar manner of exercising holy duties upon this day is
chiefly with reference and relation to the time which God hath sanctified, that
herein he might be in a special manner worshiped and served; and, verily,
Wallaeus, foreseeing the blow, had no other way to expedite himself from making
the three first commandments either to be mere ciphers, or the fourth
commandment from laboring with a needless tautology, but by flying for refuge
to this peculiar manner of holiness, which he thinks is required herein, and not
in any of the rest;* but what hath been said may be sufficient to clear up the
ungroundedness of this mistake.
Thesis 59.
A little error is a great breeder, and begets many more; and hence it is that
Wallaeus, among many others, that he might make the worship itself to be
required in the fourth commandment, disputes therefore against those who place
the instituted worship of God directly under the second commandment, which if
he could make good, he had then the fairer probabilities to show that the worship
itself was required directly in the fourth command; which principle, if it was
granted, would expose the morality of the Sabbath to sorer blows and bruises
than perhaps appears at first blush. It may not there-fore be amiss, but be
rather of special use for the clearing up both of the meaning and morality of
the fourth command, to demonstrate that the instituted worship of God (which
Wallaeus calls cultus externus et instrumentalis salutis nostra per auditum
verbi et sacra- mentorum usum, etc.,) is directly required in the
affirmative part of the second command.
* In hoc quarto praecepto
aliquem peculiarem sanctificationis modum mandari quae in aliis praeceptis non
mandatur, a nobis quoque extra controversiam debet collocari, cum in bis decem
verbis tautologia supervacua noa committatur.— Wal., Dissert, de 4 Praec. c. 6.
Thesis 60.
The clearing up of this depends much upon a right and true understanding of two
things in the second commandment: 1.
What the graven image and likeness is. 2.
What is meant by those words, “Love me and keep my commandments.
Thesis 61.
First. Graven images, after which the whole world almost hath been enticed, and
gone a-whoring from the true worship of God, were worshiped two ways: 1.
Terminative, i.e., when people terminated their worship upon the dumb idols
themselves, as if they were gods, without looking any farther to any God more
supreme and glorious. This is the sin of many of the ignorant sort of Papists,
by Bellarmin's own confession, as also many of the brutish sort of the blind
heathens. And this kind of worship and idolatry is directly forbidden, not in
the second, but in the first command-ment; and that appears upon this
undeniable ground, to wit, that if the first commandment expressly enjoins us
to have no other God but Jehovah, to trust in, pray to, love, fear no other God
but Jehovah, then for any to have and worship such images as their gods which
are not Jehovah, is directly forbidden here. Hence, therefore, it undeniably
follows, that by the making to ourselves a graven image, in the second
commandment, somewhat else must be understood than the worshiping of images
terminatively as gods. 2. Or else they
were worshiped relative, i.e., relatively, or in reference to the true God, as
means and helps, in which, at which, and by which the true God was worshiped.
And thus the learned and well-instructed Papists maintain their abominable
worship of images, whether graven or painted, crosses, crucifixes, etc., to be
good and lawful; for, say they, we do not worship, nor are we so senseless as
to honor the image or crucifix itself, but only as helps to devotion, to carry
our hearts to God and Christ, resembled by these images. Thus, also, the Jews
of old, they did never worship the images themselves, but God in them and by
them. They were not grown so soon so extremely sottish as to think that the
golden calf was the true God himself which brought them a few weeks before out
of the
Thesis 62.
It is true that the exercise of public worship of many together is to be at
this time upon the Sabbath; but
doth it follow that therefore this public worship itself falls directly under
this command? For if public assemblies be (as some think) a part of natural
worship, so as that the light of nature directs all men dwelling together, as
creatures, to worship God together publicly as Creator, then this worship falls
directly under the first (not fourth) commandment, where natural worship is
directly commanded; but if public assemblies be considered as distinct
churches politically united and combined, publicly to worship God, then such
churches, considered thus as political, not mystical assemblies, do fall
directly under the second command, as parts of instituted worship; for as all
devised forms of churches, whether diocesan, provincial, national, universal,
(being the inventions of man to further the worship of God,) are condemned
directly in the second command, so all such churches as are framed into a
spiritual polity, after the fashion and pattern of the word and primitive
institution, are (with leave of Erastus and his disciples) enjoined in the same
commandment, and therefore not in the fourth. Gomarus and Master Primrose,
therefore, do much mistake the mark and scope of the fourth commandment, who
affirm, “that as, in the three first commandments, God ordained the inward and
outward service, which he will have every particular man to yield to him in
private and severally from the society of men every day, so in the fourth commandment
he enjoineth a service common and public, which all must yield together unto
him, forbearing in the mean while all other business.” But why should they
think that public worship is more required here than private? Will they say that the Sabbath is not to be
sanctified by private and inward worship, as well as by public and external
worship? Are not private preparation, meditation, secret prayer, and converse
with God, required upon this day, as well as public prayer and hearing the
word? If they say that these are required indeed, but it is in reference to the
public, and for the public worship's sake, it may be then as easily replied,
that the public worship is also for the sake of the private, that each man secretly
and privately might muse and feed upon the good of public helps; they are
mutually helpful one to another, and therefore are appointed one for another,
unless any will think that no more holiness is required upon this day than
while public worship continues; which we hope shall appear to be a piece of
professed profaneness: in the mean while, look, as they have no reason to think
that private worship is required in this command, because the exercise of
private worship is at this time required, so they have as little reason to
think that the public worship itself is herein enjoined, because the exercise
of it is to be also at such a time. It is therefore the time, not the worship
itself, either public or private, which is here directly commanded; although
it be true, that both of them are herein indirectly required, viz., in relation
to the time.
Thesis 63.
If, therefore, the moral worship itself, whether public, external, or private,
be not directly required in this fourth command, much less is the whole
ceremonial worship here enjoined, as Master Primrose maintains; for the whole
ceremonial worship, both in sacrifice, ceremonies, types, etc., was
significant, and were, as I may so say, God's images, or media cultus, means
of worship, by carrying the mind and heart to God, by their special
significations, and therefore were instituted worship, and therefore directly
contained under the secondhand therefore not under the fourth command: “And if there be but nine commandments which
are moral, and this one (by his reckoning) is to be ceremonial, and the head of
all ceremonials, and that therefore unto it all ceremonial worship is to
appertain,” then the observation of a Sabbath is the greatest ceremony,
according as we see in all other commandments, the lesser sins are condemned
under the grosser, as anger under murder, and lust under adultery; and
inferior duties under the chief and principal, as honoring the aged and
masters, etc., under honoring of parents; and so if all ceremonials are
referred to this, then the Sabbath is the grossest and greatest ceremony one of
them; and if so, then it is a greater sin to sanctify a Sabbath, at any time,
than to observe new moons and other festivals, which are less ceremonial, and
are therefore wholly cashiered, because ceremonial; and if so, why then doth
Master Primrose tell us “that the
Sabbath is moral for substance, principal scope and end, and that it is unmeet
for us to observe fewer days than the Jews, in respect of weekly Sabbaths”? Why is not the name and memorial of the
Sabbath abandoned wholly and utterly accursed from off the face of the earth,
as well as new moons and other Jewish festivals, which upon his principles are
less ceremonial than the weekly Sabbath? It may be an audacious Familist, whose
conscience is grown iron,, and whose brow is brass, through a conceit of his
immunity from, and Christian liberty in respect of, any thing which hath the
superscription of law or works upon it, may abandon all Sabbaths together with
new moons equally: but those I now aim at, I suppose, dare not, nor I hope any
pious mind else, who considers but this one thing, viz., that when the Lord
commands us to remember to keep the Sabbath holy, he must then (according to
this interpretation) command us that, above all other commandments, we observe
his ceremonial worship, (which they say is here enjoined,) rather than his
moral worship, which they acknowledge to be enjoined in all the other nine
commandments, at the gate of none of which commands is written this word remember;
which undoubtedly implies a special attendance to be shown unto this, above
any other; for as we shall show, keep this, keep all; break this, slight this,
slight all; and therefore no wonder if no other command hath this word remember
writ upon the portal of it, which word of fence denotes special affection
and action, in the Hebrew language: but I suppose it may strike the hardest
brow and heart with terror and horror to go about to affix and impute such a
meaning to this commandment, viz., that principally above all other duties we
remember to observe those things which are ceremonial; for although the observation
of ceremonies be urged and required of God, as Master Primrose truly observes
from Ps. 118:27; Jer. 17:26; Joel 19:13; Mal. 1:7, 8, 10, 13, 14, yet that God
should require and urge the observation of these above any other worship, is
evidently cross to reason, and expressly cross to Scripture. (Is. 1:11-15; 66:3.
Ps. 50:13. Jer. 6:20. Amos 3:21. Micah :7.) To remember therefore to keep the
Sabbath is not to remember to observe ceremonial duties.
Thesis 64.
Nor should it seem strange that Jewish holy days are not here enjoined, where a
holy time, a Sabbath day, is commanded; for those Jewish holy days were
principally instituted (as Wallaeus well observes) for signification of Christ
and his benefits, (as may appear from 1 Cor. 5:7; Luke 4:19; Heb. 10:5,) and
therefore, being significant, were parts of instituted worship, belonging to
the second, not fourth command, but the Sabbath day (as shall be shown) is in
its original institution and consecration of another nature, and not
significant; yet this may be granted, that ceremonial holy days may be referred
to the fourth command, as appendices of it; and if Calvin, Ursin, Danaeus, and
others aim at no more, it may be granted, but it will not follow from hence
that they therefore belong to the second command indirectly, and directly to
the fourth, (which Master Primrose contends for,) but rather directly to the
second, and reductively and
indirectly as appendices to the fourth ; which appendices, as they may be put
to, so they may be taken off again, the moral commandment remaining entire :
even as we know Calvin refers many ceremonial duties as appendices to such
commands, concerning the morality of which Master Primrose doubts not; and
therefore for him to think that the Sabbath comprehends all Jewish festival
days upon this ground, viz., because the Sabbath is joined with and put in
among the reckoning of such festivals, (Lev. xxiii.; Is. i. 13, 14,) hath no
more force in it, than by retorting the argument, and upon the like ground
prove it to be moral, because it is joined with moral commandments, as honoring
of parents (Lev. xix. 3) and prayer, (Is. i. 19,) and by his own confession
with the other nine, which are all of them moral also.
Thesis 65. Secondly, not only a solemn time, but more
particularly a solemn day, a whole day of worship, is here also required by
virtue of this fourth command; and the Lord gives us good reason for it, that
if he gives us many whole days for our own work, then, not some part of a day,
but a day, a whole day, according to the reason and express words of the
commandment, should be marked out and set apart for his work and service. If
that place, Is. Ivi. 6, 7, will not demonstrate a seventh day's Sabbath under
the New Testament, yet it sufficiently and fully clears the point in hand,
viz., that a Sabbath day is to be observed by the sons of the stranger or
Gentiles, who are called strangers to the commonwealth of Israel, (Eph. ii.
12;) and indeed Wallaeus freely confesseth and proveth, that a whole day is
here required; and if a whole day, I hope none will think that the time out of
public assemblies is common and profane, if a whole day be holy; and therefore
Master Primrose tells us that the Gentiles, having no other law but the light
of nature, have appointed set days for the exercise of their religion, and that
as the Jews had their set days, (which we know were whole days,) so should
Christians have theirs for their public assemblies under the gospel; which I
hope must be therefore whole days also: it is also considerable that if the
three first commandments requiring God's worship do consequently require some
time for that worship, (as being a necessary adjunct to all actions, whether
moral or civil, and without which they can not be performed,) then the fourth
command must require somewhat more particularly than a time of worship : and
therefore they that place the morality of the fourth command in requiring only
a time of worship (because, say they, a time of worship is necessary) may, upon
this ground, wholly and perfectly abolish the fourth command as superfluous and
needless, because such a time of worship is required in all other commandments
necessarily. They may also imagine as great a morality in the command of
building the temple the place of worship, because a place of worship is a
necessary as well as a time: it is not, therefore, a time, but such a time as
is preserved in a day, even in a whole day, for worship, which is here
commanded.
Thesis 66.
The wise God could have appointed some part of every day to be kept holy,
rather than a whole day together; but his wisdom saw this proportion of time
every day to be more unmeet, in respect of man's daily cumbers, which do so
easily entangle man's thoughts and affections, so as within some small piece of
a day he can not ordinarily nor easily recover and unloose himself to find the
end of a Sabbath service, which is most sweet and full rest in the bosom of his
God, as he may within the compass of a whole day set apart for that end: or suppose
he could do so in a piece and part of a day, yet God's name should lose by it,
if he should not have the honor of some solemn day, which we see do serve to
advance the names of idol gods, and men on earth: it is meet and just that
God's name should be magnified by us commonly every day, by setting apart some
time which we may well spare (as whet to the scythe) out of our callings, for
God, and this doth honor him, but a day much more.
Thesis 67.
They, therefore, who maintain that a seventh day is not moral, because it is
but a circumstance of time, may as well abolish time to be moral, or any day to
be moral, because a day (let it fall out when it will) is but a circumstance of
time; which notwithstanding they account to be moral in this command; but we
know that much morality lies in circumstances, and why a day sanctified may not
be as much moral as a duty, I yet see not.
Thesis 68.
The Familists and Antinomians of late, like the Manichees of old, do make all
days equally holy under the gospel, and none to be observed more than another
by virtue of any command of God, unless it be from some command of man to which
the outward man they think should not stick to conform, or unless it be pro
re nata, or upon several occasions, which special occasions are only to
give the alarums for church meetings and public Christian assemblies — an
audacious assertion, cross to the very light of nature among the blind
heathens, who have universally allowed the Deity whom they ignorantly
worshiped the honor of some solemn duties; cross to the verdict of Popish
schoolmen and prelatists, whose stomachs never stood much toward any Sabbath at
all; cross to the scope of the law of the Sabbath, which, if it hath any
general morality, (not denied scarce to any of Moses' judicials,) surely one
would think it should lie in the observation of some day or days, though not in
a seventh day, for which now we do not contend; cross also to the appointment
of the gospel, foretold by Isaiah and Ezekiel, (Is, 56:4, 6 ; Ezek. 43:27,)
made mention of by our Saviour to continue long after the abolishing of all
ceremonies by his death, (Matt, 24:20,) who therefore bids them pray, that their
flight may not be in the winter, nor on the Sabbath day, which, whether it be
the Jewish or Christian Sabbath, I dispute not; only this is evident, that he
hath an eye to some special set day, and which was lastly ordained by Christ,
and observed in the primitive churches, commonly called the Lord's day, as
shall be shown in due place, and which notion, under pretense of more spiritualness,
in making every day a Sabbath, (which is utterly unlawful and impossible,
unless it be lawful to neglect our own work all the week long, and without
which there can be no true Sabbath,) doth really undermine the true Sabbath, in
special set days; and look, as to make every man a king and judge in a
Christian commonwealth would be the introduction of confusion, and consequently
the destruction of a civil government, so to crown every, day with equal honor
unto God's set days and Sabbaths which he hath anointed and exalted above the
rest, this anarchy and confusion of days doth utterly subvert the true
Sabbath; to make every day a Sabbath is a real debasing and dethroning of God's
Sabbath.
Thesis 69.
It is true that every day, considered, materially and physically, as a day, is
equally holy; but this is no argument to prove that therefore every day is
morally and theologically holy; for those things which of themselves are common
may by divine appointment superadded to them become holy (witness the dedicated
things of the temple,) and so it is in days and times; under the Old Testament
we see some days were more holy by God's appointment than others, and yet all
days then were materially and alike holy.
Thesis 70.
It is true that, under the New Testament, all places (in a safe sense) are
equally holy; but it doth not follow from hence (as our adversaries would
infer) that therefore all times are so; and Wallaeus himself confesseth the
argument to be invalid; for it was not easy nor meet, but very dissonant from
divine and heavenly wisdom, to appoint in his word all particular places where
his people should meet, their meetings being to be in so many thousand several
countries, and various situations, which places are indeed for their general
nature commanded and necessary, but in respect of application to circum-stances
of this and that place and country, the variation of them is almost endless,
and therefore very incongruous and useless to set them down in the word; but it
was not so in respect of solemn time, or a solemn day of worship, for herein
the Lord might easily appoint a particular day to be observed, according to the
rising and setting of the sun proportionably throughout all the world; and the
Scripture hath expressly foretold in respect of place, that neither in
Jerusalem, Judea, nor Samaria, but that in every place incense should be
offered up to God, (Mal. 1:11;) but it hath not so spoken, but rather the
contrary, in respect of time.
Thesis 71.
Nor is any time morally holy, in this sense, viz., instrumentally holy, or as
an instrument and means by which God will convey any spiritual and supernatural
grace, (as sacraments now do, and sacrifices of old did;) but being sanctified
of God, they are holy seasons, in which God is pleased to meet and bless his
people, rather than at other times and days of our own devising, or of more
common use; reserving only the Lord's prerogative to himself, to work at other
times also more or less, as he sees meet. Indeed, it is true that by our
improvement of our time, and of such times, the Lord sweetly conveys himself to
us, yet still it is not by time itself, nor by the day itself; but as he
conveys himself to us by holy things, and at holy places, (as the ark and
temple,) so in holy times.
Thesis 72.
There are, indeed, sundry scriptures, which, to one who is willing to have all
days equal, may carry a great breadth, and make a specious show; and I
ingenuously confess that, upon a rigidum examen of them, they are more
weighty and heavy than the disputers in this controversy usually feel them, and
therefore they do more lightly cast them by and pass them over; and it is to be
wished, that those who do not think that all days are equal, yet will not
acknowledge a seventh day to be moral, had not put weapons unawares into the
hands of others, strengthening them thereby to destroy the morality of any day,
and so to lay all days level; for I scarce know an argument or scripture
alleged, by any German writer, against the morality of a seventh day, but it
strikes directly against the morality of any day, which yet they acknowledge to
be moral.
Thesis 73.
The fairest color and strongest force from Gal.
Thesis 74.
To both these places, therefore, a threefold answer may be given. First, admit
the gradation in them both; yet by days (Gal. 4:10) is not necessarily meant
all weekly Sabbath days, for there were other days ceremonial which the Jews
observed, and which the Jewish teachers urged, besides the Sabbath; to
instance only in circumcision, which they zealously pressed, (Gal. 5:3,) which
we know was limited unto the eighth day, and which they might urge as well as
circumcision itself. However, look, as the apostle when he condemns them for observing
times, καιροι, which signifies fit
seasons, he doth not therein condemn them for observing all fit seasons, (for
then we most not pray nor hear the word in fit seasons,) but he condemns the
Jewish ceremonial times and seasons; so when he condemns the observation of
days, the apostle doth not condemn the observation of all days, (for then days
of fasting and feasting must be condemned, as well as days of resting under the
New Testament,) but the observation of ceremonial days, which the Jews
observed, and false teachers urged; and indeed the apostle speaks of such days
as were beggarly elements and rudiments. Now, James speaking of the moral law,
which comprehends Sabbath days, he doth not call it a beggarly law, but a royal
law, (James 2:8, 12;) nor doth he make subjection thereunto to be the bondage
of servants, (as that was, Gal. 4:9,) but the liberty of children, and
therefore called a royal law of liberty.
Secondly,
suppose the weekly Sabbath be here comprehended under days, as also that by
Sabbath is meant weekly Sabbaths, (Col. 2:16;) yet hereby can not be meant the
Christian Sabbath, but the Jewish Sabbath; for the apostle condemns that
Sabbath and those Sabbath days which the Jewish teachers pleaded for among the
Colossians. Now, they never pleaded for the observation of the Christian
Sabbath, but were zealous and strong proctors for that particular seventh day
from the creation, which the Jews, their forefathers, for many years before
observed, and for the observation of which some among us of late begin to
struggle as at this day. Now, as was said, admit the gradation; we do not observe
the Jewish Sabbath, nor judge others in respect of that Sabbath, no more than,
for observing new moons or holy days, we do utterly condemn the observation of
that Sabbath. If it be said, Why do we not observe new moons and holy days, as
well by substituting other days in their room, as we do a Christian Sabbath in
the room of that Jewish Sabbath? we shall give the reason of it in its proper
place, which I mention not here, lest I should bis coctam apponere. These
places therefore are strong arguments for not observing that seventh day which
was Jewish and ceremonial, but they give no sufficient ground for abandoning
all Christian Sabbaths under the gospel.
Thirdly,
there is a double observation of days, (as Wallaeus and Davenant well observe:)
1. Moral. 2. Ceremonial. Now, the apostle, in the places
alleged, speaks against the ceremonial and pharisaical observation of days, but
not moral; for days of fasting are to be observed under the gospel, (the Lord
Christ our Bridegroom being now taken from us, when our Saviour expressly tells
us, that then his disciples, even when they had the greatest measures of
Christ's spiritual presence, should fast.) (Matt. 9:15, 16.) But we are to
observe these days with moral, not ceremonial observation, such as the Jews
had, in sackcloth, ashes, tearing hair, rending garments, and many other
ceremonial trappings; we are to rend our hearts, and cry mightily unto God
upon those days, which is the moral observance of them. So it is in respect of
the Sabbath; no Sabbath day, under the gospel, is to be observed with
ceremonial or pharisaical observation, with Jewish preparations, sacrifices,
needless abstinence from lawful work, and such like formalities; but doth it
hence follow, that no days are to be observed under the gospel with moral
observation, in hearing the word, receiving the sacraments, singing of psalms
? etc. There was no morality in the new moons, by virtue of any special commandment,
and therefore it is in vain to ask why new moons may not be observed still, as
well as Sabbaths, provided that it be observatione morali; for there is a morality in observing the
Sabbath, and that by a special command, which is not in new moons and holy
days; and therefore, as we utterly abandon all that which was in the Sabbath
ceremonial, so we do and should heartily retain and observe that which is moral
herein, with moral observance hereof.
Thesis 75.
There were among the Jews days ceremonially holy, as well as meats ceremonially
unclean; now, in that other place which they urge against the observation of
any days under the gospel, (Rom. 14:5,) therein days ceremonial are compared
with meats ceremonial, and not moral days with ceremonial meats. It is
therefore readily acknowledged that it was an error and weakness in some to
think themselves bound to certain ceremonial days, as well as it was to abstain
from certain ceremonial meats; but will it hence follow, that it is a part of
Christian liberty and strength to abandon all days as ceremonial? and that it
is a part of Christian weakness to observe any day under the gospel? This
verily hath not the face of any reason for it from this scripture, wherein the
apostle (doubtless) speaks of ceremonial, not moral days, as (shall appear) our
Christian Sabbaths be. And, look as it is duty (not weakness) sometimes to
abstain from some meats, as in the case of extraordinary humiliation, as we
see in Daniel, (Dan. 9 and 11.,) so it may be duty (not weakness) still to
observe some days; I say not the seventh day, for that is not now the question,
but some days are or may be necessary to be observed now.
Thesis 76.
If any man shall put any holiness in a day which God doth not, and so think one
day more holy than another, this is most abominable superstition, and this is
indeed to observe days; and of this the apostle seems to speak, when he saith, “Ye
observe days;” but when the Lord shall put holiness upon one day more than upon
another, we do not then put any holiness in the day, but God doth it, nor do we
place any holiness in one day more than in another, but God placeth it first;
and this is no observation of days, which the apostle condemns in those that
were weak, but of the will of God which he every where commands.
Thesis 77.
There is (as some call it) Sabbathum internum et externum, i.e., an
internal and external Sabbath; the first (if I may lawfully call it a Sabbath)
is to be kept every day in a special rest from sin; the second is to be observed
at certain times and on special days; now, if that other place (Is. 66:23) (which
is much urged for the equality of all days) be meant of a continual Sabbath, so
that those words, “from Sabbath to Sabbath,”
if they signify a constant, continual worship of God indefinitely, then the
prophet speaks of an internal Sabbath, which shall in special be observed under
the gospel; but this doth not abolish the observation of an external Sabbath
also, no more than in the times before the gospel, when the people of God were
bound to observe a continual Sabbath and rest from sin, and yet were not
exempted hereby from external Sabbaths, only because more grace is poured out
upon the people of God under the New Testament than under the Old, and under
some times and seasons of the New Testament, and some people, more than at and
upon others: hence this prophecy points at the times of the gospel, wherein
God's people shall worship God more spiritually and continually than in former
times. But if by this phrase, “from Sabbath to Sabbath,” be meant succession,
i.e., one Sabbath after another successively, wherein God's people shall enjoy
blessed fellowship with God from Sabbath to Sabbath, successively in the
worship of him, one Sabbath after another, then this place is such a weapon in
their own hands against themselves, as that it wounds to the heart that
accursed conceit, that all days should be abandoned by those under the New
Testament. But suppose that by Sabbath is not meant the weekly Sabbath, (for
then, say some, what will you understand by new moons, which are conjoined
with them?) yet these two things are evident: 1. That Sabbaths and new moons were set times
of worshiping God under the Old Testament. 2. That it is usual with the prophets to vail
(and not always to type out) the worship, and so .the times of worship which
were to be under the New Testament, under the ordinances of God observed in the
Old, as may appear. Is. 19:19; Mal. 1:11; as also by Ezekiel's temple, and such
like: hence, then, it follows, that although this place should not evict a
seventh day's Sabbath, yet it demonstrates at least thus much, that some set
times and days, shadowed out under the name of new moons and Sabbaths, are to
be observed under the New Testament; and this is sufficient to prove the point
in hand, that all days are not equal under the gospel.
Thesis 78.
The kingdom of heaven, indeed, doth not consist in meat and drink, as the
apostle saith, (Rom. 14:17,) i.e., in the use of external indifferent things,
as those meats and drinks, and some kind of days, were; or if in some sense it
did, yet not chiefly in them, as if almost all religion did chiefly consist in
them: but doth it from hence follow, that it consists not in things commanded,
nor in any set days of worship, which are commanded? If because the kingdom of
God consists in internal peace, and righteousness, and joy of the Holy Ghost,
that therefore all external observances of times and duties of worship are not
necessary to be attended by gospel worshipers, (as some secretly imagine,) then
farewell all external preaching, sacraments, profession, and confession of the
name of Christ, as well as Sabbaths: and let such artists of licentiousness
bring in all profaneness into the world again, by a law from heaven, not condemning
the acts of the outward man, though never so abominable, in abstinence from
which (by this rule) the kingdom of heaven doth not consist. Is it no honor to
the King of glory (as it is to earthly princes) to be served sometimes upon
special festivals, in special state, with special and glorious attendance by
his people, as well as after a common and usual manner every day? We have seen
some, who have at first held community of days only, to fall at last (through
the righteous judgment of God blinding their hearts) to maintain community of
wives; and that because the kingdom of God hath (as they have thought) consisted
no more in outward relations, (as that is between husbands and wives) than in
the observation of external circumstances and days.
Thesis 79.
But this is not the ordinary principle by which many are led to maintain an
equality of days under the gospel: but this chiefly, viz., that the moral law
is not to be a Christian's rule of life; for we acknowledge it to be no
covenant of life to a believer, that either by the keeping of it he should be
justified, or that for the breach of it he should be condemned; but they say,
that when a believer hath life by the covenant of grace, the law is now not so
much as a rule of life to such a one; and then it is no wonder if they who blow
out the light of the whole moral law from being a light to their feet and a
lamp to their paths, if they hereby utterly extinguish this part of it, viz.,
the commandment of the Sabbath. This dashing against the whole law is the very
mystery of this iniquity, why some do cashier this law of the Sabbath: and they
do but hide themselves behind a thread, when they oppose it by their weapons,
who therefore abandon it, because it alone is ceremonial, above any other law.
Thesis 80.
“The Sabbath” (saith one) “is perpetual and moral, but not the Sabbath day; the
Sabbath” (which some make continual and inward only) “is perpetually to be observed, but not the
Sabbath day; a Sabbath is by divine ordination, but a Sabbath day is to be
observed only as a human constitution.” But they should do well to consider,
whether that which they call an inward continual Sabbath be inconsistent with a
special day; for I am sure that they under the Old Testament were bound equally
with us to observe a continual Sabbath in resting from all sin, and resting in
God by Jesus Christ, (Heb. 4:1, 2;) yet this did not exempt them from observing
a special day. A special day is a most powerful means to Sabbatize every day;
why then may not a Sabbath and a Sabbath day consist together? An every day
Sabbath is equally opposite to a time occasionally set, as to a set day, which
the commandment enjoins; and therefore, if it exempts a Christian from
observing a set day, it sets him free also from all observation of any such set
time; for if, because a Christian Sabbath ought to be continual, and that
therefore there ought to be no set days, then there should not be any occasionally
set times for the worship of God, because these neither can be continual; and
if there ought to be no such set times, we may then bid good night to all the
public worship and glory of God in the world, like the man with one eye to him
who put his other eye quite out. And if any here reply, that there is not the
like reason, because holy time and days are not necessary, but holy duties are
necessary, and therefore require some occasional set time for them, I answer,
that, let the difference be granted, yet that which I now dispute on is this
ground and supposition only, viz., that if all set days are to be abandoned,
because a Christian's Sabbath ought to be continual and inward, then all
occasional set times also are to be abandoned upon the same ground, because
these can not be continual and inward no more than the other: as for them who
think no holy day necessary, but holy duties lawful every day, we have already,
and shall hereafter clear up more fully in its proper place. Meanwhile it is
yet doubtful to me whether those who follow Master Saltmarsh and some others
will acknowledge the lawfulness of any occasional set times for public worship,
of hearing the word and prayer, etc. For he makes the bosom of the Father to be
the Christian Sabbath, typified in the seventh day of the first creation, and
he makes the six days of work to be a type, not only of the Lord Jesus in his
active and fulfilling administrations while he was in the flesh, but also to be
a figure of the Christian in bondage, or (to use his own words) of a Christian
under active and working administrations, as those of the law and gospel are,
as all forms of worship, duties, graces, prayer, ordinances, etc. From whence
it will follow, (from his principles, for I know not his practice,) that all
forms of worship, duties, graces, prayer, ordinances, are then to cease, as
types, and shadows, and figures, when once the substance is come, to wit, when
they come in this life to the highest attainment, which is the bosom of the
Father, which bosom is the true Sabbath of a Christian man. Now, I confess that
the bosom of God in Christ is our rest, and our all in all in heaven, and our
sweet consolation and rest on earth, and that we are not to rest in any means,
ordinances, graces, duties, but to look beyond them all, and to be carried by
them above them all, to Him that is better than all, to God in Christ Jesus;
but to make this bosom of God a kind of canker worm to fret and eat out the
heart and being, not only of all Sabbaths and ordinances of worship, but also
of all duties and graces of God's Spirit, nay, of Christ Jesus himself, as he
is manifested in the flesh, and is an external Mediator, whom some lately have
also cast into the same box with the rest, being sent only (as they think) to
reveal, but not to procure the Father's love of delight, and therefore is, little
else than a mere form, and so to cease when the Father comes in the room of all
forms, and so is all in all. This, I dare say, is such a high affront to the
precious blood of Christ, and his glorious name, and blessed spirit of grace,
that he who hath his furnace in Zion, and his fire in Jerusalem, will not bear
it long, without making their judgments and plagues (at least spiritual)
exemplary and wonderful, and leading them forth in such crooked ways, with the
workers of iniquity, when peace shall be upon Israel. Are these abstracted
notions of a Deity (into the vision and contemplation of whose amazing glory —
without seeing him as he is in Christ — a Christian, they say, must be
plunged, lost, and swallowed up, and up to which he must ascend, even to the
unapproachable light) the true and only Sabbath? Are these (I say) the new and
glorious light breaking out in these days, which this age must wait for? which
are nothing else (upon narrow search) than monkish imaginations, the goodly
cobwebs of the brain-imagery of those idolatrous and superstitious hypocrites,
the anchorites, monks, and friars; who, to make the blind and simple world
admire and gaze upon them, gave it out hereby, like Simon Magus, that they were
some great ones, even the very power and familiars of God. Surely, in these
times of distraction, war, and blood, if ever the Lord called for sackcloth,
humiliation, repentance, faith, graces, holiness, precious esteem of God's
ordinances, and of that gospel which hath been the power of God to the
salvation of thousands, now is the time; and must God's people reject these
things as their A, B, C? and must the new light of these times be the dreams,
and visions, and slaverings of doting and deluded old monks? Shall the
simplicity of gospel ministry be rejected, as a common thing, and shall Harphius,
Theologia, Mystica, Augustinus Eluthe-rius, Jacob Behmen, Cusanus, Raimundus
Sabund, Theologia Germanica, and
such like monk-admirers, be set up as the new lights and beacons on the
mountain of these elevated times? Surely (if so) God hath his time and ways of
putting a better relish to his precious gospel, and the cross of Christ, which
was wont in Paul's time to be plainly preached, without such Popish paintings,
and wherein God's people knew how to reconcile their sweet rest in the bosom of
the Father, and their Sabbath day.
Thesis 81. If sin (which is
the transgression of the law) be the greatest evil, then holiness (which is our
conformity to the law) is our greatest good. If sin be man's greatest misery,
then holiness is man's greatest happiness: it is therefore no bondage for a
Christian to be bound to the observance of the law as his rule, because it
only binds him fast to his greatest happiness, and thereby directs and keeps
him safe from falling into the greatest misery and woe; and if the great design
of Christ, in coming into the world, was not so much to save man from
affliction and sorrow, (which are lesser evils,) but chiefly from sin, (which
is the greatest evil,) then the chief end of his coming was not (as some
imagine) to lift his people up into the love and abstracted speculation of the
Father above the law of God, but into his own bosom only, where only we have
fellowship with the Father above the law of sin.
Thesis 82. The blood of
Christ was never shed to destroy all sense of sin and sight of sin in
believers, and consequently all attendance to any rule of the law, by which
means chiefly sin comes to be seen; but he died rather to make them sensible of
sin; for if he died to save men from sin, (as is evident, 1 John 3:5; Tit. 2:14,)
then he died to make his people sensible of sin, because hereby his people's
hearts are chiefly weaned and severed from it, and saved out of it, (as by
hardness and insensibleness of heart under it, they chiefly cleave to it, and
it to them;) and therefore we know that godly sorrow works repentance never to
be repented of. (2 Cor. 7:10.) And that Pharaoh's hardness of heart
strengthened him in his sin against God unto the last gasp, and hence it is also
that the deepest and greatest spirit of mourning for sin is poured out upon
believers, after God hath poured out upon them the Spirit of grace, as is evident,
(Zech. 12:10, 11,) because the blood of Christ, which was shed for the killing
of their sin, now makes them sensible of their sin, because it is now sprinkled
and applied to them, which it was not before, for they now see all their sins
aggravated, being now not only sins against the law of God, but against the
blood and love of the Son of God: it is therefore a most accursed doctrine of
some libertines, who imagining that (through the bloodshed and righteousness of
Christ in their free justification) God sees no sin in his justified people,
that therefore themselves are to see no sin, because now they are justified
and washed with Christ's blood; and therefore lest they should be found out to
be gross liars, they mince the matter, they confess that they may see sin by
the eye of sense and reason, but (faith being cross to reason) they are therefore
to see the quite contrary, and so to see no sin in themselves by the eye of
faith; from whence it follows, that Christ shed his blood to destroy all sight
and sense of sin to the eye of faith, though not to the eye of reason, and
thus, as by the eye of faith they should see no sin, so (it will follow) that
by the same blood they are bound to see no law, no, not so much as their rule,
which as a rule is index sui et obliqui, and in revealing man's duty
declares his sin. I know that, in beholding our free justification by the blood
of Christ, we are to exclude all law from our consciences as a covenant of
life, not to see or fear any condemnation for sin, or any sin able to take away
life: but will it hence follow, that a justified person must see no sin by the
eye of faith, nor any law as his rule to walk by, to discover sin? and is this
the end and fruit of Christ's death too? Surely this doctrine, if it be not
blasphemous, yet it may be known to be very false and pernicious, by the old
rule of judging false doctrines, viz., if either they tend to extenuate sin in
man, or to vilify the precious grace of Jesus Christ, as this doctrine doth.
Thesis 83. If sin be the transgression of the law,
(which is a truth written by the apostle with the beams of the sun, (1 John 3:4,)
then of necessity a believer is bound to attend the law as his rule, that so he
may not sin or transgress that rule, (Ps. 119:11;) for whoever makes conscience
of sin can not but make conscience of observing the rule, that so he may not sin;
and consequently whoever make no conscience of observing the rule do openly
profess thereby that they make no conscience of committing any sin, which is
palpable and downright atheism and profaneness; nay, it is such profaneness
(by some men's principles) which Christ hath purchased for them by his blood;
for they make the death of Christ the foundation of this liberty and freedom
from the law, as their rule; the very thought of which abominable doctrine may
smite a heart, who hath the least tenderness, with horror and trembling.
Porquius, therefore, a great libertine, and the Beelzebub of those flies in
Calvin's time, shuts his sore eyes against this definition of sin, delivered by
the apostle, and makes this only to be a sin, viz., to see, know, or feel sin,
and that the great sin of man is to think that he doth sin, and that this is to
put off the old man, viz., non cernendo amplius peccatum, i.e., by not
seeing sin. So that when the apostle tells us, that sin is the transgression
of the law, Porquius tells us, that sin is the seeing and taking notice of any
such transgression; surely if they that confess sin shall find mercy, then
they that will not so much as see sin shall find none at all. A believer,
indeed, is to die unto the law, and to see no sin in himself in point of
imputation, (for so he sees the truth, there being no condemnation to them in
Christ Jesus,) but thus to die unto the law, so as to see no sin inherent in
himself against the law, this is impious, (for so to see no sin, and die unto
the law. is an untruth, if the apostle may be believed. (1 John 1:10.) Those
that so annihilate a Christian, and make him nothing, and God all, so that a
Christian must neither scire, velle, or sentire any thing of
himself, but he must be melted into God, and die to these, (for then they say
he is out of the flesh,) and live in God, and God must be himself, and such
like language, which in truth is nothing else but the swelling leaven of the
devout, and proud monks, laid up of late in that little peck of meal of Theologia
Germanica, out of which some risen up of late have made their cakes, for
the ordinary food of their deluded hearers: I say, these men had need take heed
how they stand upon this precipice, and that they deliver their judgments
warily; for although a Christian is to be nothing by seeing and loathing
himself for sin, that so Christ may be all in all to him, yet so to be made
nothing, as to see, know, think, feel, will, desire nothing in respect of one's
self, doth inevitably lead to see no sin in one's self, by seeing which the
soul is most of all humbled, and so God and Jesus Christ is most of all
exalted; and yet such a kind of annihilation the old monks have pleaded for,
and preached also, (as I could show abundantly from out of their own writings,)
insomuch that sometimes they counsel men not to pray, because they must be so
far annihilated as nihil velle ; and sometimes they would feign
themselves unable to bear the burden of the species of their own pitchers in
their cells from one end of them unto another, because, forsooth, they were so
far annihilated as neither to velle, so neither to scire or know
any thing beside God, whom they pretended to be all unto them, and themselves
nothing, when God knows these things were but brain bubbles, and themselves in
these things as arrant hypocrites as the earth bore, and the most subtle
underminers of the grace of Christ and the salvation of men's souls.
Thesis 84.
A true believer, though he can not keep the law perfectly, as his rule,
yet he loves it dearly; he blames his own
heart when, he cannot keep it, but doth not find fault with the law as
too hard, but cries out with Paul, “The
law is holy and good, but I am carnal;” he loves this copy, though he can but
scribble after it; when, therefore, the question is made, viz., whether a
believer be bound to the law as his rule, the meaning is not, whether he hath
power to keep it exactly as his rule, or by what means he is to seek power to
keep it; but the question is, whether it be in itself a believer's rule; for
so to be a rule is one thing, but to be able to keep it, and by what means we
should keep it, whether by our own strength or no, or by power from on high, is
another.
Thesis 85. If the apostle had thought that all
believers were free from this directive power of the law, he would never have
persuaded them to love, upon this ground, viz., because all the law is
fulfilled in love, (Gal. 5:13,14,) for they might then have cast off this
argument as weak and feeble, and have truly said, (if this principle were
true,) What have we to do with the law?
Thesis 86.
There is the inward law written on the heart, called the law of the
Spirit of life, (
Thesis 87. The Spirit of God which writ the
Scriptures, and in them this rule of the holy law, is in the Scriptures, and in
that law, as well as in a believer's heart; and therefore to forsake and reject
the Scriptures, or this written rule, is to forsake and reject the Holy Spirit
speaking in it as their rule; nay, it is to forsake that Spirit which is the
supreme Judge, according to which all private spirits, nay, all the actings,
dictates, movings, speakings of God's own Spirit in us, are to be tried,
examined, and judged. To the law and the testimony was the voice of the prophets
in their days. (Is. 8:20.) The Lord Christ himself refers the Jews to the
searching of Scriptures concerning himself. (John 5:39.) The men of Bereah are
commended for examining the holy and infallible dictates of God's Spirit, in
Paul's ministry, according to what was written in the Scriptures of old. It is
therefore but a cracking noise of windy words for any to say that they open no
gap to licentiousness by renouncing the written and external law as their rule,
considering that they cleave to a more inward and better rule, viz., the law of
the Spirit within; for (as hath been shown) they do indeed renounce the Holy
Spirit speaking in the rule, viz., the law without, which, though it be no rule
of the Spirit, (as some object,) yet it is that rule according to which the
Spirit guides us to walk, and by which we are to judge whether the guidance be
the Spirit's guidance or no.
Thesis 88.
Some say, “that the difference
between the Old Testament dispensation and the New, or pure gospel and new
covenant, is this, to wit, that the one, or
that of Moses, was a ministry
from without, and that of Christ from
within; and hence they say, that the mere commandment, or letter of
Scripture, is not a law to a Christian why he should walk in holy duties, but the law written on our
hearts, the law of life.” But if this be
the difference between the Old and New Testament dispensation, the ministry of
the Old and the ministry of the New, then let all believers burn their Bibles,
and cast all the sacred writings of the New Testament and Old unto spiders and
cobwebs in old holes and corners, and never be read, spoken, or meditated on,
for these external things are none of Christ's ministry, on which now
believers are to attend; and then I marvel why the apostles preached, or why
they writ the gospel for after times, (for that was the chief end of their
writing, as it was of the prophets in their times, Is. 30:8,) that men might believe,
and believing have eternal life, and know hereby that they have eternal life.
(John 20:31. 1 John 5:13.) For either
their writing and preaching the gospel was not an external and outward
ministry, (which is cross to common sense,) or it was not Christ's ministry,
which is blasphemous to imagine; and “it is a vain shift for any to say, that
although it was Christ's ministry, yet it was his ministry as under the law,
and in the flesh, and not in mere glory and spirit; for it is evident that the
apostle's preachings and writings were the effect of Christ's ascension and
glory, (Eph. iv. 8, 11,) when he was most in the spirit, and had received the
spirit that he might pour it out by this outward ministry, (Acts 2:33;) and it
is a mere new-nothing and dream of Master Saltmarsh and others, to distinguish
between Christ in the flesh, and Christ in the Spirit, as if the one Christ had
a diverse ministry from the other: for when the Comforter is come, (which is
Christ in the Spirit,) what will he do? He
will lead (it is said) unto all truth. (John 16:13.) But what truth will he guide
us unto? Verily to no other (for substance) but what Christ in the flesh had
spoken; and therefore it is said that he shall bring all things to your
remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you, (John 14:26 ;) and therefore (if
I may use their phrase) Christ in the Spirit leads us to what Christ in the
flesh said; inward Christ leads the faithful to the outward ministry of Christ;
Christ in the Spirit to Christ speaking in the letter, the Spirit of truth to
the word of truth, the Spirit within to the word without, by which we shall be
judged at the last day, (John 12:48,) and therefore certainly are to be
regulated by it now.
Thesis 89. It is true that the faithful receive an
unction or an anointing of the Spirit, which teacheth them all things; but is
this teaching immediate or mediate? If immediate, why doth John tell them that
he writ to them that hereby they might know they had eternal life? (1 John 5:13;)
but if it be mediate, viz., by the word externally preached or writ, then the
external word still is to be our rule, which the anointing of the Spirit helps
us to know; it is true, the apostle saith, (1 John 2:27,) that they, being
taught of the Spirit, did not need that any man should teach them: what then?
was their teaching therefore immediate? No, verily, for the apostle explains
his meaning in the words following, viz., otherwise, and after another way and
manner, then as the Spirit taught them, for so the words run, “You need not that any man should teach you,
but as the anointing teacheth you all things, and is truth.” For if ministers
are to preach and write in demonstration of the Spirit, then those that hear
them, and are taught by them, need no man to teach them otherwise than as the
same Spirit in the same demonstration teacheth them all things. It might be
truly said that the men of Bereah did need no man to teach them otherwise than
as the Spirit, in comparing and searching the Scriptures, did teach them the
things which Paul spake. And Calvin well observes upon this place, that the
scope of the apostle, in these words, is to confirm his doctrine which he writ
to them, it being no unknown thing, but a thing known to them by the anointing
of the Spirit, which either they had received by former ministry of the word,
or which now they might receive by this writing; as therefore the Spirit leads
us to the word, so the word leads us to the Spirit, but never to a spirit
without and beyond, the word; I mean so far forth as that the outward
administration of Christ in the flesh, or in the word, or letter, must cease,
and be laid aside, when the inward administration of Christ in the Spirit
comes.
Thesis 90. It is as weak an argument to imagine
that we are not \/o be led and guided by any outward commands in our obedience
unto God, because God is to work all our works for us, and because we are not
to live, but Christ is to live in us, as to think that we are not to look to any promises without us to
direct and support our faith, because Christ is also to fulfill and accomplish
all the promises for us. For, if the question be, By what are we to live? the
apostle's answer is full, (Gal.
Thesis 91.
The commanding will of God, called voluntas mandati, is to be our
rule, and not the working will of God, voluntas decreti, or the will of
God's decree; for we can not sin by fulfilling the one, but we may sin in fulfilling the other. God's secret and
working will was fulfilled when Joseph's brethren sold him into
Thesis 92.
It is a great part of Christ's love to command us to do any thing for him, as
well as to promise to do any thing for us. When the King of glory hath given us
our lives by promise, it is then the next part of his special grace and favor
to command us to stand before him and attend upon his greatness continually.
They that see how justly they deserve to be forsaken of God, and given over to
their own hearts' lusts, and to be forever sinning and blaspheming God in hell,
where God will never command them to think of him, speak of him, do for him,
pray to him more, can not but account it a high and special favor of Jesus
Christ to command them any thing, or bid them do any thing for him; a poor,
humbled prodigal will account it great love to be made a hired servant; John
Baptist will count it a high favor if he may but untie Christ's shoe latchet,
and be commanded by him to do the meanest work for him: David wondered at God's
grace toward him, that God should command him, and in some measure enable him
to offer willingly: “Lord, (saith he)
what are we?” I do therefore marvel how
any can pretend that they are acted by the love of Christ, and not by the law
of commands, considering that there is so much love in this for Christ to
command, and how they can profess their relish of preaching God's free grace
and love, and yet can not away with sweet and gracious exhortations pressing to
holiness and holy duties, in the revealing and urging of which them is so much free
grace and heart love of Christ Jesus; surely if the love of Christ is to lead
us, then the commands of Christ (wherein he discovers one chief part of his
love) are to guide us, and be a rule of life unto us. The man who in his cool
and delib- erate thoughts
imagines that a Christian under the rule of the law is a Christian under
bondage, may be justly feared that himself is still under the bondage of sin
and Satan, and never yet knew what the true love of Christ Jesus is to this
day.
Thesis 93.
The fundamental error of Antinomians ariseth from this — in imagining the great
difference between the law and gospel to be this, viz., that the law requires
doing, but the gospel no doing, and that all believers, being under the gospel,
are therefore under no law of doing; but we must know that, as the gospel
exacts no doing, that thereby we may be just, so it requires doing also when by
Christ Jesus we are made just. For if the gospel command us to be holy as God
is holy, (1 Pet. 1:15,) and perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect, (Matt. 5:48,)
then the gospel doth not only require doing, but also as much perfection of
doing as the law doth; the law and the gospel require the same perfection of
holiness, only here is the difference, (which many have not observed:) the
gospel doth not urge this perfection, nor require it of us as the law doth; for
the law calling and urging of it that so hereby we may be made just, it
therefore accepts of nothing but perfection; but the gospel requiring it
because we are perfectly just already in Christ, hence, though it commands us
as much as the law, yet it accepts of less, even the least measure of sincerity
and perfection mixed with the greatest measure of imperfection.
Thesis 94.
The law (say some of the Antinomians) is to be kept as an eternal rule of
righteousness; but their meaning then is, that believers are thus to keep it in
Christ, who hath kept it for them, and if they meant no more but that Christ
hath kept it for righteousness to their justification, they speak truly: but
their meaning herein is not only in respect of their justification, but also in
respect of their sanctification; for they make Christ's righteousness to be
materially and formally their sanctification: hence they say, A believer hath
repented in Christ, and mortified sin in Christ, and that mortification and
vivification are nothing but a believing that Christ hath mortified sin for
them, and been quickened for them, and that that sanctification which is
inherent in Christ, and not that which is inherent in us, is an evidence of our
justification. But this principle, which confounds a Christian's justification
and sanctification, as it casts the seed of denying all inherent graces in a
believer, so it lays the basis of refusing to do any duty, or conform to any
law in our own persons; for if this principle be true, (which no orthodox
writer doubts of,) viz., that we are to seek for no righteousness in ourselves
to our justification, because we are perfectly just and made righteous for that
end in Christ, then it will undeniably follow, that we are not to seek for any
holiness and sanctification in ourselves, because we are perfectly sanctified
also in Christ Jesus, who hath repented, and believed, and mortified sin perfectly
for us in his own person; look, therefore, as the perfection of Christ's
righteousness to our justification should make a Christian abhor any personal
righteousness of his own to his justification, so if we be perfectly sanctified
in Christ, then perfection of Christ's holiness to our sanctification should
make a believer not only renounce the law, but to abhor all personal holiness
through the Spirit to our sanctification, and then a believer must abhor to
seek any love or fear of God in his heart, which is not painted but professed
profaneness, and the inlet, not per accidens, but per se, to all
manner of looseness and wickedness in the world.
Thesis 95.
We deny not but that Christ is our sanctification as well as our righteousness,
(1 Cor.
Thesis 96.
They that are in Christ are said to be complete in Christ, (Col. 2:10,) and
that they receive all grace from his fullness, (John 1:16;) so that it seems
that there is no grace in themselves, but it is first in him, and consequently
that their sanctification is perfected in him; but we must know, that though
the perfection and fullness of all grace is first in Christ, yet that believers
have not all in him after one and the same manner, nor for the same end; for
our righteousness to our justification is so in him as never to be inherent in
us, in this or in the world to come; but our righteousness to our
sanctification is so far in him, as that it is to be derived and conveyed unto
us, and hence it is formally in ourselves, but meritoriously and virtually only
in him; even as our resurrection and glorification at last day are not so in
Christ as never to be derived to us, (for then the resurrection were past
already,) but they are so in him as that they are to be conveyed to us, and
therefore they are meritoriously and virtually in him, and we are meritoriously
and. virtually risen in him: a Christian therefore may be complete in Christ,
and yet not be perfectly formally sanctified in Christ, our sanctification
being completed in him after another manner, arid for other ends than our
justification.
Thesis 97. The chief end of Christ's first coming was
to lay down his life a ransom for many in way of satisfaction and merit. (Phil.
2:8. Matt. 20:28.) Now, by this
satisfaction he did two things: 1. He
brought in such a righteousness before God as might merit mercy and make us
just. Now, this is wholly in Christ out of ourselves; but because there was a
righteousness of new obedience and thankfulness to be wrought in us for this
love, therefore, 2. By the same
satisfaction he hath merited, not that this new obedience might justify us or
make us accepted, but that it might be accepted though imperfect and polluted
with sin, (1 Pet. 2:5, 6,) as also that it might be crowned and recompensed.
Now, hence it follows, that the Lord Jesus hath not performed our duty of
thankfulness and new obedience for us, sub hoc formali, or as of
thankfulness; for though Christ was thankful and holy for us, yet it was not
under this notion of thankfulness for his own love to us, for this is
personally required of us, and it sounds very harsh to say that Christ walked
in all holy thankfulness to himself, for his love to us; but he was thus
thankful for us, sub ratione meriti, or in way of merit, it being part
of that satisfaction which justice exacted.
All that which might satisfy justice, and merit any mercy, Christ did
for us in himself; but he did not believe and repent, and perform duties of
thank-fulness for us, because these and such like are not to satisfy justice,
but follow as fruits of that satisfaction, and therefore are wrought within us,
and so are personally required of us; and therefore, when a Christian finds a
want of these things in himself, he is not to comfort himself with fond
thoughts of the imputation of these in Christ only unto him, but he is to look
up to Christ Jesus for derivation of these out of Christ into himself;
otherwise, by making Christ his sanctification, only in way of imputation, he
doth really destroy Christ from being his sanctification; for if Christ be our
righteousness only by imputation, then if Christ be our sanctification, it must
be by derivation from him, which they must needs destroy who make him their
sole sanctification by mere imputation.
Thesis 98, Spiritual errors, like strong wine, make
men's judgments reel and stagger, who are drunken therewith; and hence the
Antinomians speak so variously in this point, that we know not where to find
them, or what they will stand to; for sometimes they will say that a believer
is free from the law in all its authority and offices; but this being too
gross, at other times they speak more warily, and affirm that a Christian is to
observe the law as his rule personally, thus far forth, viz., to do what is commanded,
but not in virtue of a command: the Spirit, say they, will bind and conform
their hearts to the law, but they are not bound by any authority of the law to
the directions thereof; the Spirit, they say, is free, and they are under the
government of the Spirit, which is not to be controlled and ruled by any law.
Now, if by virtue of a command they meant by virtue of our own natural strength
and abilities looking to the command, so it is true that a believer is not so
bound to act by virtue of the law, for then he was bound to conform to the law
pharisaically; for what is our strength but weakness and sin? But if by virtue of a command they mean thus
much, viz., that a believer is not bound by the commanding power of any law to
conform thereunto, only the Spirit will conform his heart thereunto, so that
he shall do the things (perhaps) which
the law requires, but not because the law requires or commands them to be
done. If this, I say, be their meaning,
(as surely it seems to be,) then the mystery of this iniquity is so plain,
that he that runs may read it. For hence it undeniably follows, that in
case a believer fall into any sin of
whoredom, murder, theft, witchcraft, etc., these wicked acts, though they be
sins in themselves, (because they are against the law,) yet they are not sins
unto him, because he is now set free from the law, and not bound to the
obedience of it by virtue of any command; for where there is no law, there is
no transgression, and if there be no law which binds him, there is no
transgression then at least unto him.
They are sins indeed in themselves, but not unto him; they are sins (as
some say) to sense, but not to faith; sins in the conversation, but not to conscience;
sins before men, (because they may cross their laws,) but not sins before God,
who exempts them from all law. And it is in vain here to reply, that they may
be sins to him, because they may be against the law of the Spirit which is his
rule; for we have already shown, that although the Spirit be the principle by
which we obey, yet it is not our rule according to which we are to obey.
Indeed, it is a high aggravation of sin when it is against the Spirit; but to
cross the Spirit doth not firstly make these things sinful, nor could they be
sins unless they cross such a spirit as speaks in and by some holy law, the
very essence of sin lying in the transgression, not of any law, but of the law,
i.e., the known moral or evangelical law.
Again: if these and such like be sins, because they are only against the
law of the Spirit, then it is no sin to bow down before an image, to commit
filthiness, theft, etc., supposing that the Spirit shall suspend his act, and
not restrain; nay, then it will follow, that sins of ignorance (of which the
Spirit hath not convinced a Christian) are no sins, nor to be repented of,
which is expressly cross to the holy practice of David: “Who knows his errors? Lord, cleanse me from my secret sins.” If sin
therefore be the transgression of the law, (whether the Spirit work upon a
Christian or no,) then certainly, if he be under no commanding power of the
law, he can not be guilty, or be said to commit any sin; and then the
conclusion is this, that every believer neither hath sin, or should say he doth
sin, no, not when he commits murder, adultery, and the foulest enormities in
the world; which doctrine, though so directly and expressly against the light
of Scripture, the confessions of all the saints, yea, of the light of nature
and common sense, and is the very filth of the froth of the fume of the
bottomless pit, yet some there are who are not ashamed to own it, the very βαθος and depth
of a perfect Familist consisting in this, viz., when a man can sin and never
feel it, or have any remorse or sorrow for it, and when one hath attained to
this measure, he is then deified, and then they profess the Godhead doth petere
fundum animae, (as they call it,) when believing that he hath no sin, he
can therefore neither see it nor feel it. From which depth of darkness the God
and Father of mercies deliver his poor people in these corrupting times, and I
wish that those who defend this kind of a believer's immunity from the law did
not lay this corner stone of hell and perdition to their followers. I am sure
they lead them hereby to the mouth of this pit, who, upon this principle,
refuse either to mourn for sin, or pray for pardon of sin, or to imagine that
God afflicts for sin, being now freed from the mandatory power of any law of
God, they being now not bound to act by virtue of any command.
Thesis 99.
If God did work upon believers as upon blocks or brute creatures, they might
then have some color to cast off all attendance to the directive power of the
law, and so leave all to the Spirit's omnipotent and immediate acts; as the
stars, which being irrational and incapable of acting by any rule, they are
therefore acted and run their course by the mighty word of God's power, and
therefore attend no rule; but believers are rational creatures, and therefore
capable of acting by rule, and they are also sanctified and delivered from the
power of their corrupt nature, and therefore have some inherent power so to
act; for if they be not now dead in trespasses and sins, they have then some
new life, and therefore some inherent power to act, according to the rule of
life: the image of God, renewed in them, is (in part) like to the same image
which they had in the first creation, which gave man some liberty arid power
to act according to the will of Him that created him. And if the first Adam, by
his fall, conveys to us, not only condemnation, but also an inherent power of
corruption, then the second Adam, the Lord Jesus, much more conveys unto all
his posterity, not only justification, but also some inherent power of grace
and holiness, which is begun here, and perfected in glory; for as sin hath
abounded, so grace aboundeth much more: and yet suppose they had no inherent
power thus to act, yet they have an adherent power, the Lord Christ Jesus, by
faith in whose name they may and shall receive power to act. And therefore,
although God works in us both to will and to do of his good pleasure, yet this
hinders not but that we are to work out our salvation with fear and trembling,
by attending the rule, by virtue of which we are bound to work, both by putting
forth that power which we have already received from God, as also in fetching
in that power we have not yet received, but is reserved daily in Christ's hands
for us, to enable us thereunto.
Thesis 100.
If they that say a believer is not to act by virtue of a command do mean this
only, viz., that he is not to act by virtue of the bare letter and external
words and syllables of it, they then speak truly; for such kind of acting is
rather witchery than Christianity, to place power and virtue in bare characters
and letters, which, though mighty and powerful by the Spirit, yet are empty and
powerless without it. But if their meaning be, that we are not to act by virtue
of any command in any sense, then the assertion is both pernicious and
perilous; for the Lord Jesus being the πρωτον δεικτικον , or first subject of all grace and
gracious efficacy and power, hence it is true, we are not to make the command
of God the first principle of our obedience, for this is proper unto Christ by
the Spirit. (John
Thesis 101.
To act therefore by virtue of a command, and by virtue of Christ's Spirit, are
subordinate one to another, not opposite one against another, as these men
carry it; this caution being ever remembered, that such acting be not to make
ourselves just, but because we are already just in Christ; not that hereby we
might get life, but because we have life given us already; not to pacify God's
justice, but to please his mercy, being pacified toward us by Christ already;
for as Junius well observes a great difference between placare Deum and placere
Deo, i.e., between pacifying God and pleasing God, for Christ's blood only
can pacify justice when it is provoked, but when revenging justice is
pacified, mercy may be pleased with the sincere and humble obedience of sons.
(
Thesis 102.
They that say the law is our rule as it is given by Christ, but not as it was
given by Moses, do speak niceties, at least ambiguities; for if the Lord Christ
give the law to a believer as his rule, why should any then raise a dust, and
affirm that the law is not our rule? For the law may be considered either
materially, or in itself, as it contains the matter of the covenant of works;
and thus considered, a believer is not to be regulated by it, for he is wholly
free from it as a covenant of life; or it may be considered finally, or rather
relatively, as it stood in relation and reference unto the people of the God of
Abraham, who were already under Abraham's covenant, which was a covenant of
free grace, viz., “to be his God, and
the God of his seed.” (Gen. 17:7.) And in this latter respect, the law, as it was given by Moses, was
given by Christ in Moses, and therefore the rule of love toward man (commanded
by Moses) is called the law of Christ. (Gal. 6:2.) For the law, as it was
applied to this people, doth not run thus, viz., “Do all this, and then I will be your God and
Redeemer,” (for this is a covenant of works,) but thus, viz., “I am the Lord
thy God,” (viz., by Abraham's covenant,)
“who brought thee out of the land of Egypt and house of bondage; therefore
thou shall do all this.” If therefore the law delivered by Moses was delivered
by Christ in Moses, then there is no reason to set Christ and Moses together by
the ears, in this respect I now speak of, and to affirm that the law, not as
delivered by Moses, but as given by Christ, is our law and rule.
Thesis 103. The law therefore which contains in itself
absolutely considered (which Luther calls Moses Mosissimus) the covenant of
works, yet relatively considered as it was delivered by Moses to a people under
a covenant of grace, (which the same author calls Moses Aaronicus,) so it is
not to be considered only as a covenant of works, and therefore for any to
affirm that the law is no covenant of works, as it is delivered on Mount Sion,
and by Jesus Christ, and that it is a covenant of works only, as it is
delivered on Mount Sinai, and by Moses, is a bold assertion, both unsafe and
unsound; for if, as it was delivered on Mount Sinai, it was delivered to a
people under a covenant of grace, then it was not delivered to them only as a
covenant of works, for then a people under a covenant of grace may again come
under a covenant of works, to disannul that covenant of grace; but the apostle
expressly affirms the quite contrary, and shows that the covenant made with
Abraham and his seed, (which was to be a God to them, Gen. 17:7,) and which was
confirmed before of God in Christ, the
law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, can not disannul.
(Gal. 3:17.) Now, that the people were
under a covenant of grace when the law was delivered on Mount Sinai, let the
preface of the ten commandments determine, wherein God's first words are words
of grace, “I am the Lord thy God,” etc., and therefore thou shall have no other
gods but me, etc. I know Paraeus,
Zanchy, and others affirm that the law is abrogated as it was in the hands of
Moses, but not as it is in the hand of Christ; but their meaning is at sometime
in respect of the manner of administration of the law under Moses, and when
they speak of the moral law simply considered, yet it never entered into their
hearts, that the law, as delivered on Mount Sinai, was delivered only as a
covenant of works, as some would maintain.
Thesis 104.
But there is a greater mystery intended by some in this phrase, as given by
Christ, for their, meaning is this, to wit, as Christ by his Spirit writes it
in our hearts, not any way a rule as written by Moses. A believer's heart
(saith Master Saltmarsh) is the very law of commands, and the two tables of
Moses, and in this respect it becomes not (saith he) the glory of Christ to be
beholding to any of the light upon Moses' face. It seems, then, that the law
written is not to be a Christian's rule, but only so far as it is written in
the heart—a most accursed assertion; for how and why did Christ Jesus himself
resist temptation to sin? Was it not by cleaving to the written word? (Matt. 44:10;)
and was not this done for our imitation? Why did David and Christ Jesus delight
to do God's will? Was it not this, because it was written of them that so they
should do? (Ps. 40:7, 8.) Did not the law in their hearts make them thus cleave
to the written law without? Why did Paul persuade children to honor their
parents? Was it not because this was the first commandment with promise? (Eph.
6:2.) Had it not been more evangelically spoken to persuade them rather to
look to the law of Moses written on their hearts within, to direct them
hereunto, rather than to be beholding for any light upon Moses' face to direct
them herein? How comes it to pass that Paul preacheth no other thing but what
was in the Old Testament of Moses and the prophets, who were only the
interpreters of Moses? (Acts
Thesis 105.
The apostle Paul, as he sometimes condemns works and sometimes commends them, so he
sometimes rejects the law and sometimes commends the law; sometimes he
would have believers die to the law, and sometimes he exhorts them to live in all holy obedience
to it: the apostle, therefore, must speak of the law under various
considerations, or else must speak daggers and flat contradictions; and
therefore of necessity we are to consider the law not always under one respect,
but variously; for consider the law as a covenant of works, or as the way unto
or matter of our justification, and so works are condemned, and the law is
rejected and abrogated, and so we are to
die to the law; but consider the law as a rule of life to a person justified
already, and so the law is to be received, and works are to be commended, and
we are to live thereunto.
Thesis 106.
When the gospel nakedly urgeth believers to good works and obedience to the
law, it is then considered only as a rule of life; but when we meet with such
scriptures as set the law and Christ, the law and grace, the law and promise,
the law and faith, etc., at opposition one against another, then the law in
such places is ever considered as a covenant of life, from which we are wholly
freed, and unto which we should be wholly dead, that we may be married unto
Christ, (Rom. 7:4;) hence therefore their arguings are feeble and weak, who
would prove a Christian to be wholly free from the directive power of the law,
because a Christian is said not to be under the law, but under grace, (Rom. 6:14,)
and because the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus
Christ, (John 1:17,) and because the inheritance is not by the law, but by
promise and by faith, (Gal. 3:12, 18;) for these and such like scriptures speak
of the law as standing in opposition to Christ, and therefore speak of it as of
a covenant of life, by which men seek to be justified; from which (we grant)
a believer is
wholly freed, and unto which he is not bound, nay, lie is bound to
renounce it, and cast out this bond woman; but all this doth not prove that he
is free from it as his rule of life.
Thesis 107.
The law and man's sinful heart are quite opposite one to another, (Rom. 7:9,10,
11, 13;) but when (through the grace of Christ) the heart is changed, so as
there is a new nature or new man in a believer, then there is a sweet agreement
between this new nature and the law, for, saith Paul, “I delight in the law of God in my inner man.”
It is therefore a most false assertion to say that the old man of a believer is
to be kept under the law, but the new man, or new nature, is above all law; for
though the new nature be above it as a legal covenant, yet it never comes to be
willingly under it as a rule until now: an imperfect new nature is infinitely
glad of the guidance of a holy and most perfect law. (Ps. 119:140.)
Thesis 108.
It is very evident that the children and
sons of God under the New Testament are not so under the law as the children
and sons of God were under the Old Testament for the apostle expressly tells,
(Gal. 3:23,) that before the faith came,
we (i.e, the children of the Old Testament) were shut up and kept under the
law, and were under it as under a school-master (ver. 24;) and these of whom
the apostle thus speaks are not only wicked and carnal Jews, but the dear
children of God and heirs of eternal life in those times, as is evident from
Gal. 4:1-3; but the apostle, speaking of the sons of God in gospel times, since
faith is come and revealed, speaks as expressly that we are now no longer under
the law as under a schoolmaster, (Gal. 3:25,) and that now, “when the fullness of time is come, God sent
his Son, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the
adoption of sons,” (Gal. 4:3-5;) which though it be true of all men by nature,
viz., that they are under the law, yet an impartial, clear eye will easily
discern that the apostle's dispute is not of our being under the law by nature
merely, but of being under the law by peculiar dispensation, which was the
state not only of the Jewish church, but of the children of God, heirs of the
promise (and consequently such as were
believers) in this church, in those Old Testament times; we are not therefore now, in these New
Testament times, under the law, as they were; the great difficulty therefore
remains to know how we are not under the law, as they were. Those who say we are not under the ceremonial
law, as they were, do speak truly; but they do not resolve the difficulty in this place; for certainly the
apostle speaks, not only of the ceremonial law, but also of that law which was
given because of transgressions, (Gal. 3:19,) and which shut up, not only the
Jews, but all men, under sin, (ver. 22 ;) which being the power of the moral
law chiefly, the apostle must therefore intend the moral law, under which the
Old Testament believers were shut up, and we now are not: the doubt therefore
still remains, viz., how are we not now
under the moral law?
Will any say that we are not now under the malediction, and curse, and
condemnation of it, but the Jews under the Old Testament were thus under it,
even under the curse of it? This can not
be the meaning; for although the carnal
Jews were thus under it, vet the faithful (whom the apostle calls the heir
and Lord of all. Gal. 4:1) were not thus
under it, for believers were as much blessed then with faithful Abraham as
believers now. (Cap. 3:9.) How then are
we not under it, as they were? Is it in
this, that they were under it as a rule of life to walk by, and so are not we ? Thus
indeed some strain the place, but this can not be it; for the apostle in this
very epistle presseth them to “love one
another,” upon this ground, because “all
the law is fulfilled in love,” (cap. 5:13,
14 ;) and this walking in love according to the law is walking in the spirit,
(ver. 16,) and they that thus walk in the spirit, according to the law, are not
(saith the apostle) under the law, which can not, without flat contradiction,
be meant of not being under the rule or directive power of it ; and it would be
a miserable weak motive to press them to love, because all the law is
fulfilled in love, if the law was not to be regarded as any rule of life or of
love; for they might upon such a ground easily and justly object, and say, What
have we to do with the law? If we therefore, as well as they, are thus under
the law as a rule of life, how are we hot under it as they were? Is it because
they were under it as a preparative means for Christ, and not we? They were under the humbling and terrifying
preparing work of it but not we. There
are some, indeed, who think that this use of the law under the gospel is but a back
door, or an Indian path, or a crooked way about, to lead to Jesus Christ; but
certainly these men know not what they say, for the text expressly tells us
that the Scripture has concluded, not only the Jews, but “all under sin, that
so the promise by faith might be given to them that believe.” (Gal. 3:2.) So that the law is subservient to faith, and
to the promise, that so hereby not only the Jews, but all that God saves, might
hereby feel their need, and fly by faith to the promise made in Jesus Christ;
and verily, if Christ be the end of the law to every one that believes, (Rom. 10:4,)
then the law is the means, (not of itself so much as by the rich grace of God,)
not only to the Jews, but to all others to the end of the world to lead them to
this end, Christ Jesus. If therefore the
faithful under the New Testament are thus under the preparing work of the law,
as well as those under the Old, how were they therefore so under the law, as we
are not, and we not under it as they were?
I confess the place is more full of difficulties than is usually observed
by writers upon it; only for the clearing up of this doubt, omitting many
things, I answer briefly, that the children of the Old Testament were under
the law and the pedagogy of it, two ways, after which the children of the New
Testament are not under it now, but are redeemed from it.
1. As the moral
law was accompanied with a number of burdensome ceremonies, thus we are not
under it, thus they were under it; for we know this law was put into the ark,
and there they were to look upon it in that type; if any man then committed any
sin against it, whether through infirmity, ignorance, or presumption, they
were to have recourse to the sacrifices and high priests yearly and to their
blood and oblations. They were to pray, (which was a moral duty,) but it must
be with incense, and in such a place; they were to be thankful, (another moral
duty,) but it must be testified by the offering up of many sacrifices upon the
altar, etc.; they were to confess their sins, (a moral, duty also,) but it must
be over the head of the scapegoat, etc. Thus they were under the law, but we
are not; and as it is usual for the apostle thus to speak of the law in other
places of the Scripture, so surely he speaks of it here; for hence it is that,
in the beginning of this dispute, (cap. 3:19,) he speaks of the moral law which
was given because of transgressions; and yet, in the close of it, (Gal. 4:3,)
he seems to speak only of the ceremonial law, which he calls the elements of
the world, under which the children were then in bondage, as under tutors and
governors; which implies thus much, that the children of the Old Testament were
indeed under the moral law, but yet withal as thus accompanied with ceremonial
rudiments and elements fit to teach children in their minority; but now in this
elder age of the church, although we are under the moral law in other respects,
yet we are not under it as thus accompanied.
2. In
respect of the manner and measure of dispensation of the moral law, which
although it had the revelation of the gospel conjoined with it, (for Moses writ
of Christ, John 5:46, and Abraham had the gospel preached to him, Gal. 2:8, and
the unbelieving Jews had the gospel preached, Heb. 4:2,) yet the law was
revealed and pressed more clearly and strongly, with more rigor and terror, and
the gospel was revealed more obscurely and darkly in respect of the manner of
external dispensation of them in those times; there were three things in that
manner of dispensation, from which (at least ex parte Dei revelantis) we
are now freed.
1. Then there was much law urged, externally, clearly, and little gospel so clearly revealed; indeed gospel and Christ Jesus was the end of the moral law, and the substance of all the shadows of the ceremonial law; but the external face of these things was scarce any thing else but doing and law, by reason of which there is a vail spread over the hearts of the Jews in reading the Old Testament unto this day, as is evident, (2 Cor. 3:13;) so
that the inside or end of the moral law being gospel, and
the outside and means appointed to this end being law, hence the gospel
was then less clearly, and the law was
more clearly, revealed in those
times; to say that Jesus Christ and his benefits, or eternal life, were then
dispensed under a covenant of works, or sub
conditione perfecate obedientiae, (as some eminent worthies affirm,) is
such an error which wise and able men might easily fall into by seeing how much
law was revealed and urged in those times; for though the law, simply
considered in itself, contained the matter of the covenant of works, yet
considered relatively in respect of the people of God, and as they were under
Abraham's covenant of grace, so it was given to them as a rule of perfect
righteousness, by both which they might the better see their own weakness and
unrighteousness, and fly to Christ; and therefore the apostle (Gal. 3:17) calls
the promise which was made to Abraham the covenant, and gives not this
title to the law, but calls it the law
which (he saith) could not disannul the covenant, confirmed in Christ; and
although it be propounded to them in way of covenant, (Ex. 19:5,) yet this is
to be understood (as some think) of evangelical keeping covenant, not of legal;
or if of legal, yet then it is not propounded simply as a covenant of works, to
convey Christ to them, but ex hypothesi, or upon supposition, that if
they did think to be God's people, and have him to be their God, by doing, (as
Junius observes the carnal Jews did think and hope so to have him, and as that
young man thought, Matt. 19:17, as Chamier observes,) that then they must keep
all these commandments perfectly, and to be accursed if they did not continue
therein. I dare not therefore say that
Christ and eternal life were dispensed in a covenant of works, under which
covenant the Jews were shut in Old Testament times; but rather this, that the
law was more strongly pressed as a yoke upon their shoulders, and that this law
which contains the covenant of works was more plentifully revealed and
insisted on, and the gospel more sparingly and darkly; but now in gospel times
the daystar is risen, (though in few men's hearts,) yet in the doctrine and
clear revelation of it therein, and therefore the gospel is called the “mystery hidden from ages and generations
past, but now is made manifest to his saints,” (Col. 1:26,) which can not be
meant as if they had no knowledge of it, for Abraham saw Christ's day, and
there is a cloud of witnesses in the Old Testament who died in faith, (Heb. 11.,)
but not such clear knowledge of it as now; they were therefore then under the
law as servants, (because so much working and doing was urged and chiefly
revealed,) but indeed were sons and heirs; but we now are not so under it, but
are as sons having the Lord Jesus and our Father's face in him clearly
revealed, and faith in him chiefly and most abundantly urged in his blessed
gospel; and thus the apostle tells us in this text, (Gal. 4:1, with 4:5,) that
the heirs of the promise under the Old Testament were as servants, but by
Christ's coming we are now as sons; look also, as they are said to be under the
law, not as if they had no gospel revealed, or no use of the gospel, but only
because the gospel was more darkly revealed, and the law more plentifully
urged, so we are said not to be under the law, not as if there was no law, or
no use of the law belonging to us, but because now the gospel is more clearly
revealed, and the law not externally so proposed and imposed as it was upon
them.
2. The law
was a schoolmaster, tutor, and governor, to lead them unto Christ to come; for
so the apostle tells us in this place, (Gal.
3. The law
being principally revealed, and yet so revealed as to lead unto Christ Jesus to
come, hence ariseth a third thing of the law, from which we are now delivered,
viz., they were therefore under more terror and fear of the law than we are
(on God's part revealing the gospel more clearly) in these times; and therefore
saith the apostle, (Gal. 4:4-6,) “that
when the fullness of time came, God sent his Son to redeem us from under the
law, that we might receive the adoption of sons, and thereby the spirit of
sons, crying, Abba, Father.” Could not
they who were sons under the law call God Father? Yes, verily, doubtless thou art our Father,
say they, (Is. 63:17;) but they having less light, they had more fear and less
of the spirit of adoption, I say still, (ex parte Dei revelantis,) than
we have in these days. “We are not
therefore so under the law, i.e., the fear and terror of the law, as they
were. The sum of all this is, that
although we are not so under the law, 1,
so accompanied, and, 2, so dispensed, as they were under the Old Testament,
yet this hinders not but that we are under the directive power of the law as
well as they.
Thesis 109. The apostle speaks of a law written and
engraven on stones, and therefore of the moral law, which is now abolished by
Christ in the gospel. (2 Cor. 3:6, 7, 11, 13.)
Is the moral law therefore abolished as a rule of life now? No, verily; but the meaning of this place is
as the former, (Gal. 3:25,) for the apostle, speaking of the moral law by a
synecdoche, comprehends the ceremonial law also, both which the false teachers
in those times urged as necessary to salvation and justification at least
together with Christ, against whom the apostle here disputes; the moral law
therefore is abolished, first, as thus accompanied with a yoke of ceremonies;
secondly, as it was formerly dispensed, the glorious and greater light of the
gospel now obscuring the lesser light under the law, and therefore the apostle
(ver. 10) doth not say, that there was no glory shining in the law, but it had
no comparative glory in this respect, by reason of the glory which excelleth;
and lastly, the apostle may speak of the moral law, considered as a covenant of
life which the false teachers urged, in which respect he calls it the ministry
of death, and the letter which killeth, and the ministers (who were called Nazarei
and Minei, as Bullinger thinks) the ministers of the letter, which
although it was virtually abolished to the believing Jews before gospel times,
(the virtue of Christ's death extending to all times,) yet it was not then
abolished actually until Christ came in the flesh, and actually undertook to
fulfill this covenant for us to the utmost farthing of doing and suffering
which is exacted; and now it is abolished both virtually and actually, that now
we may with open face behold the glory of the Lord as the end of the law for
righteousness to every one that doth believe.
Thesis 110.
The gospel under which believers now are requires no doing, (say some,) for
doing is proper to the law; the law promiseth life, and requires conditions;
but the gospel (say they) promiseth to work the condition, but requires none,
and therefore a believer is now wholly free from all law. But the gospel and
law are taken two ways: 1. Largely, the law for the whole doctrine contained in
the Old Testament, and the gospel for the whole doctrine of Christ and the
apostles in the New Testament; 2. Strictly the law pro lege operum, (as Chamier
distinguisheth,) and the gospel pro lege fidei , i,e., for the law of faith. The law of works, strictly taken,
is that law which reveals the favor of God and eternal life upon condition of
doing or of perfect obedience; the law of faith, strictly taken, is that
doctrine which reveals remission of sins, reconciliation with God by Christ's
righteousness only apprehended by faith. Now, the gospel in this latter sense
excludes all works, and requires no doing in point of justification and
remission of sins before God, but only believing; but take the gospel largely
for the whole doctrine of God's love and free grace, and so the gospel requires
doing; for as it is an act of God's free grace to justify a man without calling
for any works thereunto, so it is an act of the same free grace to require
works of a person justified, and that such poor sinners should stand before the
Son of God on his throne, to minister unto him, and serve him in righteousness
and holiness all the days of our lives, (Tit. 2:14;) and for any to think that
the gospel requires no conditions is a sudden dream against hundreds of
scriptures, which contain conditional, yet evangelical promises, and against
the judgment of the most judicious of our divines, who, in dispute against
Popish writers, can not but acknowledge them only thus, viz., conditions and
promises annexed to obedience are one thing, (saith learned Pemble,) and
conditions annexed to perfect obedience are another; the first are in the
gospel, the other not. Works are necessary to salvation, (saith Chamier,) necessitate
praesentiae, not efficientiae; and hence he makes two sorts of
conditions, some antecedentes, which work or merit salvation, and these
are abandoned in the gospel; others (he saith) are consequentes, which
follow the state of a man justified, and these are required of one already
justified in the gospel. There are indeed no conditions required of us in the
gospel, but those only which the Lord himself shall or hath wrought in us, and
which by requiring of us he doth work: will it therefore follow, that no
condition is required in us, but because every condition is promised ? No, verily, for requiring the condition is
the means to work it, (as might be plentifully demonstrated,) and means and
ends should not be separated. Faith
itself is no antecedent condition to our justification or salvation, take
antecedent, in the usual sense of some divines, for affecting or meriting condition,
which Junius calls essentialis conditio; but take antecedent for a
means or instrument of justification, and receiving Christ's righteousness, in
this sense it is the only antecedent condition which the gospel requires
therein, because it doth only antecedere, or go before our
justification, (at least in order of nature,) not to merit it, but to receive
it, not to make it, but to make it our own, not as the matter of our
righteousness, or any part of it, but as the only means of apprehending
Christ's righteousness, which is the only cause why God the Father justifieth;
and therefore, as Christ's righteousness must go before, as the matter and
moving cause of our justification, or that for which we are justified, so faith
must go before this righteousness as an instrument or applying cause of it, by
which we are justified, that is, by means of which we apply that righteousness
which makes us just. It is true God
justifies the ungodly; but how? not immediately without faith, but mediately
by faith, as is most evident from that abused text, Rom. 4:5. When works and faith are opposed by the
apostle in point of justification, affirming that we are justified by faith,
not by works, he doth hereby plainly affirm, and give that to faith which he
denies to works; look therefore, as he denies works to be antecedent conditions
of our justification, he affirms the contrary of faith, which goes before our
justification, as hath been explained; and therefore, as do and live hath been
accounted good law, or the covenant of works, so believe and live hath been in
former times accounted good gospel, or the covenant of grace, until now of late
this wild age hath found out new gospels that Paul and the apostles did never
dream of.
Thesis 111.
A servant and a son may be set to do the same work, and have the same rule
given them to act by; but the motives to this their work, and the stripes and
punishments for neglect of their work, may be various and divers; a son may be
bound to it, because he is a son and beloved; a servant may be bound to do the
same work, because he is hired and shall have wages; if a son neglect his work,
his punishment is only the chastisement of a father for his good; if a servant
be faulty, he is turned quite out of doors So, although believers in Christ,
and those that are out of Christ, have divers and various motives to the
obedience of the law of God, yet these do not vary the rule; the law of God is
the rule to them both, although they that be out of Christ have nothing but
fear and hope of wages to urge them, and those that are in Christ should have
nothing but the love of a Father, and the heartblood mercy of a tender Saviour
and Redeemer to compel them: the one may be bound to do, that so they may live,
the other may be bound to do, because they do live; the one may be bound to do,
or else they shall be justly plagued; the other may be bound to do the same, or
else they shall be mercifully corrected. It is therefore a mere feebleness to
think (as some do) that the law or rule is changed because the motives to the
obedience of it, and punishment for the breach of it, are now (unto a believer)
changed and altered; for the commandment urged from Christ's love may bind
strongly, yea, most strongly, to do the same thing which the same commandment,
propounded and received in way of hire, may bind also unto.
Thesis 112.
Some think that there is no sin but unbelief, (which is a sin against the
gospel only,) and therefore, there being no sin against any law, (Christ having
by his death abolished all them,) the law cannot be a rule to them. An
adulterous and an evil generation made drunk with a cup of the wine of the
wrath of God, and strong delusion, do thus argue. Are drunkenness, whoredom,
lying, cheating, witchcraft, oppression, theft, buggery, no sins, and
consequently not to be repented of, nor watched against, but only unbelief? Is
there no day of judgment, wherein the Lord will judge men, not only for
unbelief, but the secrets of all hearts, and whatever hath been done in the
body, whether good or evil, according to Paul's gospel? (
Thesis 113. One would wonder how any Christian should
fall into this pit of perdition, to deny the directive use of the law to one in
Christ, if either they read Ps.219.
with any favor, or the epistles of John and James with any faith; in which the
law is highly commended, and obedience thereto urged as the happiness and chief
evidence of the happiness of man ; but that certainly the root of this accursed
doctrine is either a loose heart which is grown blind and bold, and secretly
glad of a liberty, not so much from the law of sin as from the law of God, or
if the heart be sincere in the main, yet it slights the Holy Scriptures at
present, and makes little conscience of judging in the matters of God according
unto them ; for if it did it could hardly fall into this dirty ditch, out of
which the good Lord deliver, and out of which I am persuaded he will deliver in
time all those that are his own : for I much question the salvation of that man
who lives and dies with this opinion;
and as every error is fruitful, so this is in special; for from this darkening
the directive use of the moral law arise (amidst many others) these ensuing
evils, which are almost, if not altogether, deadly to the souls of men; they
are principally these three.
Thesis 114.
The first is a shameful neglect (in some affecting foolishly the name of New
Testament ministers) of a wise and powerful preaching of the law, to make way,
by the humbling work of it, for the glorious gospel, and the affectionate entertainment
thereof; for through the righteous judgment of God, when men once begin to
abandon this use of the law as a rule, they abolish much more readily this use
of the law to prepare men thereby for the receiving of Christ. I know there are
some who acknowledge this use of the law to be our rule, but not to prepare;
but how long they may be orthodox in the one, who are heterodox in the other, the Lord only knows, for I find
that the chief arguments against the one
do strike strongly against the other also.
It is an easy thing to cast blocks before the blind, and to cast mists
before the face of the clearest truth, and to make many specious shows of New
Testament ministry, free grace and covenant, against this supposed legal way
and preparing work; but assuredly they that have found and felt the fruit and
comfort of this humbling way (for which I doubt not but that thousands and
thousands are blessing God in heaven that
ever they heard of it) do certainly and assuredly know that these men (at
least, doctrines in this point) are not of God — the word in these men's mouths
being flat contrary to the merciful and the forever to be adored work of God in their hearts. When the
Spirit comes, his first work, (if Christ may be believed,) even when he comes
as a Comforter, is, to convince the world of sin, (John 16:9, 10,) which we
know is chiefly by the law, (Rom. 3:20 ;) and shall the ministers (not of the
letter, but of the spirit) refuse to begin here, especially in these times of
wanton-ness, contention, confusion, famine, sword, and blood, wherein every
thing almost cries aloud for sackcloth, and therefore not for tiffany and
silken sermons? As if this corrupt and
putrefying age stood only in need of sugar to preserve and keep them sweet from
smelling. As if sublime notions about
Christ and free grace, covenant of grace, love of the Father, the kingdom
within, and Christian excellences and privileges, were the only things this age
stood in need of, and not in any need of searchings with candles, terrors,
shakings, sense of sin, or forewarnings of wrath to come. As if this old world did need no Noah to
foretell them of floods of fire and wrath to come. Or, as if the men of
The sin and
terror which the gospel (largely taken) makes use of out of the law are but subservient
to the gospel strictly taken, or for that which is principally or more properly
gospel, for thereby the righteousness and free grace and love of the Lord
Jesus, and preciousness and greatness of both, are the more clearly
illustrated. The law of itself wounds and kills, and rather drives from Christ
than unto Christ; but in the hand of the gospel, or as Christ handles it, so it
drives the soul unto Christ, and (as hath been shown) is the means to that end;
and it is a most false and nauseous doctrine to affirm that love only draws the
soul to Christ, unless it be understood with this caution and notion, viz.,
love as revealed to a sinner, and condemned for sin; which sin and condemnation
as the law makes known, so the gospel makes use of to draw unto Christ. If,
indeed, the gospel did vulnerare ut vulneraret, i.e., wound that it may
wound and terrify only, (which the law doth,) then it (saith Chamier) was all
one with law, (which Bellarmin pleads for;) but when it wounds that it may
heal, this is not contrary, but agreeable, to the office of a good physician,
whose chief work is to heal, and may well suit with the healing ministry of the
Lord Jesus; and hence we see, that although Christ was sent to preach the
gospel, yet he came to confirm the law in the ministry of the gospel, and
therefore shows the spiritual sins against the law more clearly, and the heavy
plagues for the breach of it more fully, than the scribes and Pharisees. He
that is angry with his brother is a murderer, and he that calls him fool is in
danger of hell fire. (Matt. 5:22.)
Peter was
no minister of the Old Testament because he first convinced and pricked the
Jews to the heart for their murder of Christ Jesus. Paul was no such minister
neither, (when as he would evince our justification by Christ's righteousness
only,) in that he begins and spends so much time in proving Gentiles and Jews
to be under sin and wrath, notwithstanding all the excuses of the one and
privileges of the other, as appears in his three first chapters to the Romans;
but herein they were gospel preachers. Nor can it with any color of reason be
thought that the prophets in the Old Testament were herein ministers of the
letter, viz., when they did first wound, and then heal; first humble by the
law, and then revive by the gospel. M. Saltmarsh hath been so blinded with this
notion of the Old Testament ministry, that to make this use of the law in
preaching the gospel, or to hold forth the promises of grace to them that are
qualified with the grace of the promise, (as the Old Testament prophets did,)
is to give (as he thinks) the wine of the gospel burning hot, as the covetous
gentleman did to his guests ; and another (whom I spare to name) professeth
that the Old Testament (because it urgeth the law to humble) containeth little
good news, but much bad news; but now, when Christ saith, “Go, preach the gospel,” thereby he would
have them (he saith) ministers of the New Testament to preach glad tidings,
(nothing but gospel,) but no bad tidings, (not a jot of the law,) until men
positively reject the glad tidings of the gospel. If these men speak true, then
neither Peter in his preaching, nor Paul in his writings, nor Christ himself
in his ministry, were ministers of the New Testament, but did overheat their
wine, and preach much bad tidings to the people of God. Verily, if this stuff be not repented of, the
Lord hath a time to visit for these inventions.
2. Some
object, (Gal.
false prophets, crying peace, peace, and salvation, where
there is no peace? “There is no peace to
the wicked, saith my God.” (Is. 48. ult.; 57. ult.) This is truth before they
reject the gospel, is it not? This the law saith (say some) true, but is not
this confirmed by the ministry of the gospel also? (John 3. ult.) He that
believes not, the wrath of God abides upon him, μενει
υπ αυιον,
it was upon him before he did believe; and when he believes not,
it abides where it did. Must the ministers of the New Testament, therefore,
preach lies and falsehoods, and tell proud women, and poor drunkards, and
villains, before they refuse the gospel by unbelief, that the Lord Jesus loves
them, and that they need not fear condemnation, when the Scripture hath shut up
all men under it, that the promise by faith might be given to those that
believe, and them only? What is this gospel ministry but to tell men they are
whole, and not sick to death, but healed before they come to the Physician, the
Lord Jesus? Surely that is gospel ministry which advanceth Christ not only in
word but in power in the hearts of poor sinners; but doth this ministry advance
the physician's custom and honor, which where it comes must first tell all the
crew of wretched drunkards, proud persons, and villains, that they are already
well and whole, loved and pardoned, blessed and saved, before ever they come to
the Lord Jesus? Suppose therefore (as some may say) that servants and slaves to
sin may have the law preached to them, yet the sons and children of God have no
use of it in that respect now; it is true, I grant, not as the servants have
under the New Testament, nor yet as the sons of God had under the Old; for the
children of God under the Old Testament had need of this schoolmaster to lead
them to Christ to come, and ad Christum typicum, i.e., to Christ typed
out in sacrifices and oblations, high priest and altar, and so it led them to
Christ afar off, and as it were a great way about; but it doth not follow that
there is no use of the law therefore to be a schoolmaster still to lead unto
Christ immediately and already come; those that are servants to sin under the
New Testament have need of the law to show them the condemnation and curse
under which they lie by nature and are now actually under; but the sons of God
(for whom Christ is made a curse) are not thus under it, and therefore have not
this use of it, but only to show that curse and condemnation which they do of
themselves deserve; and therefore the holy apostle, when he was in Christ, and
did live unto God, he shows us how he did live unto God, viz., by dying to the
law, and how he did die to the law, and that was by the law, i.e., as it did
show him his condemnation; he did live to God in his justification; as it did show him his sin,
and wants, and weakness, it made him die unto it, and expect no life from it,
and so live unto God in his sanctification; for so the words are, “I through the law am dead to the law, that I
may live unto God,” (Gal. 2:19;) the issue therefore is this, that if the
doctrine be taken strictly pro lege fidei, (as Chamier calls it,) or
that doctrine which shows the way of man's righteousness and justification only, there indeed all the
works of the law, all terrors and threatnings, are to be excluded, and nothing
else but peace, pardon, grace, favor, eternal reconciliation to be believed and
received; and therefore it is no New Testament ministry to urge the law, or to
thunder out any terror here, for in this sense it is true (which is commonly
received) that in the law there are terrors, but in the gospel none; but if the
gospel be taken largely for all that doctrine which brings glad tidings of Christ already come, and shows the
love of God in the largest extent of it, and the illustrations and
confirmations of it from the law, then such servants of Jesus Christ who hold
forth the law to make way for grace, and to illustrate Christ's love, must
either be accounted New Testament
ministers, or else (as hath been shown) Christ Jesus and his apostles were
none.
Thesis 115. The second is a professed neglect, and
casting off the work of repentance and mourning for sin, nay, of asking pardon
of sin; for, if the law be no rule to show man his duty, why should any man
then trouble himself with sorrow for any sin? For if it be no rule to him, how
should any thing be sin to him? and if
so, why then should any ask pardon of
it, or mourn under it? Why should not a man rather harden his heart like an
adamant, and make his forehead brass and iron, even unto the death, against the
feeling of any sin? But what doctrine is more cross to the spirit of grace in
gospel times than this? which is a spirit of mourning; (Zach. 12:10, 11;) what doctrine more cross
to the command of Christ from heaven than this? who writes from heaven to the
church of Ephesus, to remember from
whence she is fallen, and repent; (Rev. 2:5;) what doctrine more cross to the
example of holy men than this? who after they were converted then repented and
lamented most of all; (Jer. 31:18, 19; 2 Cor. 7:9-11;) what
doctrine more cross to the
salvation of souls, the mercy of God, and forgiveness of sin? for so the promise
runs, “If we confess our sins, he is
faithful and just to forgive us our sins.” (1 John 1:9.) What doctrine so cross to the spirit of the
love of Christ shed abroad in the heart, that when a man's sins are greatest,
(which is after conversion, because now against more love and more nearness to
Jesus Christ,) that now a believer's sorrow should be least monkish and
macerating? Sorrow indeed is loathsome, but godly sorrow is sweet and glorious;
doubtless those men's blindness is exceeding great who know not how to
reconcile joy and sorrow in the same subject, who can not with one eye behold
their free justification, and therein daily rejoice, and the weakness and
imperfection of their justification with another eye, and for that mourn.
Thesis 116.
The third thing is, a denying sanctification the honor of a faithful and true
witness, or clear evidence of our justification; for if a believer be not bound
to look unto the law as his rule, why should he then have any eye to his
sanctification? which is nothing else but our habitual conformity to the law,
as inherent corruption is nothing else but habitual disagreement with it;
although sanctification be no part of our righteousness before God, and in this
sense is no evidence of our justification, yet there is scarce any clearer
truth in all the Scripture than this, viz., that it is evidence that a man is
in a justified estate; and yet this leaven, which denies the law to be a
Christian's rule of life, hath soured some men's spirits against this way of evidencing.
It is a doubtful evidence, (saith Doctor Crisp,) an argument, not an evidence;
it is a carnal and an inferior evidence, the last and the least, not the first
evidence; it is an evidence, if justification be first evident, (say Den and
Saltmarsh,) some men may be led to these opinions from other principles than a
plain denial of the directive use of the law; but this I fear lies undermost:
however, let these two things be examined: —
1. Whether
sanctification be a doubtful evidence.
2. Whether
it be a carnal, inferior, and may not be a first evidence.
Thesis 117.
If to be under the power and dominion of sin and original corruption be a sure
and certain evidence of actual condemnation, so that he that saith he knows
Christ and hath fellowship with him, and yet walks in darkness, and keeps not
his com-mandments, is a liar, (1 John 1:6; 2:4,) why may not sanctification
then (whereby we are set free from the power of sin) be a sure and certain
evidence of our actual justification? For hereby “we know that we know him, if we keep his
commandments,” (1 John 2:3;) whereby it is manifest that the apostle is not of
their minds who think the negative to be true, viz., that they that keep not
Christ's commandments arc in a state of perdition; but they will not make the
affirmative true, viz., that they that keep his commandments may thereby know
that they are in a state of salvation: if Jesus Christ be sent “to bless his people in turning them from
their iniquities,” (Acts 3. ult.,) then they that know they are turned from
their iniquities by him may know certainly that they are blessed in him; and
if they be not thus turned, they may know certainly that they are yet accursed.
If godliness hath the promises of this life and that which is to come, (1 Tim. 4:8,)
and if the free grace and actual love of God be revealed clearly to us only by
some promise, how then is sanctification (so near akin to godliness) excluded
from being any evidence? Is there no inherent grace in a believer that no
inherent sanctification can be a true evidence? Verily, thus some do think;
but what is this but an open, graceless profession that every believer is under
the power of inherent sin, if he hath not the being of any inherent grace? or
if there be any inherent grace, yet it is (say some) so mixed with corruption,
and is such a spotted and blurred evidence, that no man can discern it.
I confess
such an answer would well become a blind Papist who never knew where grace
grew, (for so they dispute against certitudo salutis certitudine fidei, when
the conclusion of faith ariseth from such a proposition as is the word of God,
and the assumption the testimony of God's Spirit to a man's own experience of
the work of God in his heart,) but it ill becomes a minister of the gospel of
Christ to plead for such Popish ignorance in a Christian as can see no farther
than his own buttons, and that can not discern by the Spirit of God the great
and wonderful change from darkness to light, from death to life, from Satan to
God, the visible work of God, and graces of the Spirit of God. The things
(which the apostle calls love) “are freely given to them of God.” (1 Cor,
It is true,
1. That the gospel reveals the free grace and love of God, the death of Christ,
and salvation by him for poor sinners, and that all those that are or shall be
saved are to acknowledge and aggravate God's love toward them, in casting his
eye upon them when they were sinners, notwithstanding all their sins; this the
Scripture every where holds forth. (
But I am a
sinner, —
And
therefore I am reconciled. If this be the bottom of this gospel ministry and
preaching free grace, (as doubtless it is in some,) then I would say these
things only: —
1. That this doctrine, under a color of free
grace, doth as much vilify and take off the price of free grace in Christ's
death as any I know; for what can vilify this grace of Christ more, than for
Christ so to shed his blood as that Peter and Abraham in heaven shall have no more
cause to thank Jesus Christ for his love therein than Judas and Cain in hell?
it being equally shed for one as much as for the other.
2. That this is a false bottom for faith to rest
upon and gather evidence from; for, 1. If Christ hath died for all, he will
then certainly save all; for so Paul reasons, (Rom. 8:32, and 6:10;) he hath
given his Son to death for us; how shall he not but with him give us all other
things? and therefore he will give faith, and give repentance, and give
perseverance, and give eternal life also, which is most false. If he did not
pray for all, then he hath not died for all, (John 17:9;) which Scripture never
yet received scarce the show of a rational answer, though some have endeavored
it with all willingness.
3. That whereas by this doctrine they would clear
up the way to a full and settled evidence and Christian assurance, they do
hereby utterly subvert the principal foundation of all settledness and
assurance of faith, which is this, viz., that if Jesus Christ be given to death
for me, then he will certainly give all other things to me. If we were
reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more shall we be saved by his
life. If Christ hath died and risen for us, who then shall condemn? who shall
then separate us from God's love? (Rom.
1. That
sanctification, faith, etc., might be no evidence at all to a Christian of a
good estate, for this, they say, is a doubtful evidence, and an unsettling way
of assurance; because they will hereby be as bones out of joint, in and out;
humbled to-day, and then comforted; but hard hearted tomorrow, and then at a
loss; whereas to see one's self a sinner, that is a constant evidence, for we
are always sinners, and the gospel proclaims peace to sinners, as sinners.
2. That so
men may keep their lusts and sins, and yet keep their peace too; for if peace
be the portion of a man under the power of sin and Satan, look then, as he may
have it, why may he not keep it upon the same terms? And therefore W. C. saith,
that if conscience object, thou art a hypocrite, (perhaps truly;) yet a
hypocrite is but a sinner, and God's love belongs to sinners, as sinners. And
if this be thus, what doth this doctrine aim at but to reconcile God and
Belial, Christ and Mammon; not only to open the door to all manner of
wickedness, but to comfort men therein?
3. That so
he may bring men in time purposely to sin the more freely, that so they may
have the clearer evidence of the love of God; for if God's love be revealed to
sinners, as sinners, then, the more sinful, the more clear evidence he hath of
God's love; and therefore one once entangled with these delusions was induced
to commit a gross wickedness, that more full assurance might be attained.
4. That so
the true preaching and ministry of the gospel of God's free grace might be
abolished, (at least despised,) which is this, viz., thou poor, condemned
sinner, here is Christ Jesus, and with him eternal Remission of sins and reconciliation,
if thou believe and receive this grace offered humbly and thankfully, for this
is gospel. (Matt, 28:19. Mark
shown.
Thesis 118. The second thing remains to be cleared, whether sanctification may not be a first evidence, and therefore more than a carnal inferior and last evidence, as M. Saltmarsh calls it; for if it be (not a doubtful) but a clear and certain evidence in itself, (as hath been proved,) why may it not be a first evidence? Why may not the Spirit of God, who works it in a person justified, first reveal it as an evidence that he is justified? What mortal man can limit the Spirit of God to what evidence he shall first bring into the conscience of a justified estate? For let sanctification be taken in the largest sense for any work of saving grace wrought in the elect, (whether in vocation to faith, or in sanctifi-cation, which, strictly taken, follows our justification by faith,) and take evidence not for evidence of the object, (for Christ Jesus in his free grace must be seen first as the ground on which faith rests,) but for evidence of testimony to the subject, and then I thus argue, that this first evidence of special actual love in beholding God's free grace to a sinner is either, —
1. Without being of faith and other graces ; —
Or, 2.
Without the seeing of them only, the eye looking up to Christ and free grace.
But this
first evidence is not without the being of faith and holiness, for then it
should be to a man actually under the power of sin, and his filthy lusts, and
the devil; which hath been already proved in the former Thesis to be a mere
delusion; there being no such word of the gospel which reveals God's free love
and actual reconciliation to a sinner, as a sinner, and as under the power of
his sins, but the gospel rather reveals the quite contrary; and to affirm the
witness of the Spirit clears this up, is to pretend a testimony of the Spirit
contrary to the testimony of the word; and yet I strongly fear, and do fully
believe, that this is the first evidence which men plead for, viz., to see
God's love toward them, while they neither see grace nor any change of heart in
them; or have grace, but are still under the dominion of their sin.
And on the
other side, if any affirm that this evidence is not without the being of grace,
but only without the seeing of it, so that a Christian's first evidence is the
feeling of God's free grace out of himself, without seeing any faith or grace
in himself, and seeing nothing else but sin in himself, this I confess is
nearer the truth, but it is an error which leads a man to a precipice, and near
unto the pit; for if this be so, then these things will unavoidably follow: —
1. That a
Christian must see the love of God toward him in Christ, and yet must not see
himself to be the person to whom this love only belongs; for (according to this
very opinion itself) it belongs only, to a believer, and one that hath the
being of grace, and not to a sinner, as a sinner.
2. Then a
Christian must not see the love of Christ and free grace of God by that
proposition or testimony of the Spirit which reveals it, and that is this, Tu
fidelis, (Thou believer,) called and sanctified, art freely beloved: and
thus a man must not see his estate good by the light of the Spirit; nay, thus a
Christian must receive the testimony of the Spirit, which assures him that he
is loved without understanding the meaning of the Spirit; which is, (not thou
sinner, as such,) but thou, believer, art beloved; not thou that hast no grace,
but thou that hast the being of it, art beloved.
3. Then the
first evidence is built upon a mere weakness, nay, upon an untruth and
falsehood; for it is a mere weakness not to see that which we should see, viz.,
the being of faith and grace in the heart, in which respect the promise is
sealed; and if any man, by not seeing it, shall think and say there is no
grace, no faith, no sanctification, and now he sees God's love to such a one,
and he thinks himself to be such a one, when he sees God's free grace, and hath
this first evidence, it is a falsehood and an untruth, for it is supposed to be
there in the being of it all this while. Suppose, therefore, that some
Christians, at their first return and conversion to God, or afterward, have
grace and faith, but see it not in their assurance of God's love, (the eminency
of the object and good of it swallowing up their thoughts and hearts from
attending themselves,) yet the question is quo jure; they do not see,
nay, should not see and take notice of the being of them in themselves. Is not
this a mere weakness and falsehood which is now made the mystery of this first
evidence, and indeed somewhat like Cusanus's summa sapientia, which he
makes to be this, viz., attingere illud quod est inattingibile
inattingibiliter, that a Christian must see and touch God's deep love, and
yet neither see, nor touch, nor feel any change in himself, or any being of
grace, when in truth it is there, in which respect also God's free grace and
love is revealed?
4. If this be the first evidence, then no minister, no, nor any apostle of Christ Jesus, can give any first evidence of God's love by the ordinary dispensation of the gospel; for although a minister may say, Thou art a sinner, therefore the Lord Jesus may save thee, yet he can not say upon that ground that therefore the Lord Jesus will save him, for then every sinner should be saved. No minister can say to any unbeliever, Christ hath redeemed thee, therefore believe; or say absolutely, Thy sins are pardoned; for then he should preach contrary to the word, which expressly tells us, that he that believes not is already condemned. No minister can say God will work faith in all you that are sinners, as hath been shown; but they can say, Thou, believer, art pardoned; thou art sanctified, art reconciled, etc. It is therefore an evil speech of one lately in print, who calls that a bastard assurance, arising from a lying spirit, which first proceeds from the sight of any grace, and thence concludes they are justified and shall be saved. For I would thus argue, that this work of grace (suppose love to the saints, hunger and thirst after righteousness, universal respect to all God's commandments, etc.) is either common to hypocrites, and unsound, or else it is peculiar to the elect and sincere. If the first, then it can not be either first or second evidence; it can be no evidence at all, either without or with seeing, first, God's free love to sinners, as sinners; if the second, then either God's promise (made to such as are hungry and humble, and have a work peculiar to God's eject in them) must be false, (which is blasphemous to imagine,) or else, whensoever it is seen, whether first or last, it must needs be a most blessed, and sweet, and sure evidence; for when we say that such a work of grace may be a first evidence, we do not mean as if the work, simply considered in itself, could give in any evidence, but only as the free promise of grace is made to such as have such a work of grace; this promise, we say, to such persons, when-soever they see this work, gives in full and clear evidence of their blessed estate. And if the word of grace to a sinner, as a sinner, may give in a first evidence, (as some imagine,) then much more may it give in evidence where there is not only the word of grace, but also the Spirit of grace, yea, the work of grace, to assure the conscience; and for any to affirm that faith and sanctification are good evidences, if justification be first evident, is but a quirk of frothy wit; for it may be as safely affirmed, on the contrary, that justification is a good evidence, if faith and sanctification be first evident, for it is not these simply, but the promise which is our evidence, which is never to a sinner, as such. I shall therefore conclude these things with showing the true grounds of effectual evidence of the love of Christ.
Thesis 119.
The free grace of God in Christ (not works) is the only sure foundation of
justifying faith, or upon which faith is built. (Rom.
1. In the
free offer of it to be our own by receiving it. (Acts
2. In the
free promise of it, revealing it as our own already, having actually and
effectually received it. (John 1:12.
The free
offer of grace (containing God's call, commandment, and beseechings to believe
and be reconciled) gives us right to this possession of Christ, or to come and
take, and so possess, Christ Jesus by faith. (Jer. 3:22. 1 Cor. 1:9,
The free
offer of grace being made to the soul, because it is poor and sinful, cursed
and miserable, and that therefore it would receive Christ, hence it is that in
this respect the soul is not bound first to see some good in itself and so to
receive him, but rather is bound (at first breathings of God upon it) rather to
see no good, i.e., nothing but sin and perdition, death and darkness, enmity
and weakness, and therefore to receive him.
(Luke 14:21. Rev. 3:17, 18. Gal. 3:21. Rom.
1. The free
offer of grace is the first evidence to a poor lost sinner that he may be
beloved.
2. The
receiving of this offer by faith (relatively considered in respect of Christ's
spotless righteousness) is the first evidence showing why he is beloved, or
what hath moved God actually to love him.
3. The work
of sanctification (which is the fruit of our receiving this offer) is the
first evidence showing that he is beloved.
If,
therefore, a condemned sinner be asked whether God may love him, and why he
thinks so, he may answer, Because Jesus Christ is held forth and offered to
such a one. If he be further asked, why or what he thinks should move God to
love him, he may answer, Because I have received Christ's righteousness
offered', for which righteousness' sake only I know I am beloved, now I have
received it. If he be asked, lastly, how he knows certainly that he is beloved,
he may answer safely and confidently, Because I am sanctified; I am poor in
spirit, therefore mine is the kingdom of heaven; I do mourn, and therefore I
shall be comforted; I do hunger and thirst, and therefore I shall be satisfied,
etc. We need, in time of distress and temptation, all these evidences; and
therefore it is greatest wisdom to pray for that Spirit which may clear them
all up unto us, rather than to contend which should be the first.
And thus we
see that the whole moral law is our rule of life, and consequently the law of
the Sabbath, which is a branch of this rule. We now proceed to show the third
branch of things generally and primarily moral.
Thesis 120.
Thirdly, not only a day, nor only a rest day, but the rest day, or Sabbath day,
(which is expressed and expressly interpreted in the commandment to be the
seventh day, or a seventh day of God's determining, and therefore called the
Sabbath of the Lord our God,) is here also enjoined and commanded, as
generally moral. For if a day be moral,
what day must it be? If it be said, that any day which human wisdom shall
determine, whether one day in a hundred or a thousand, or one day in many
years; if this only be generally moral, then the rule of morality may be
broken, because the rule of equality may be thus broken by human determination;
for it may be very unequal and unjust to give God one day in a hundred or a
thousand for his worship, and to assume so many beside to ourselves for our own
use. There is, therefore, something else more particularly, yet primarily,
moral in this command, and that is the Sabbath day, or such a day
wherein there appears an equal division and a fit proportion between time for
rest and time for work, a time for God and a time for man, and that is a seventh
day which God determines. A fit proportion of time for God is moral, because
equal; man can not determine nor set out this proportion; God therefore only
can and must. A day therefore that he
shall determine is moral, and if he declares his determination to a seventh, a
seventh day is therefore moral. Gomarus
confesseth that, by the analogy of this commandment, not one day in a thousand,
or when man pleaseth, but that one day in seven is moral, at least equal, fit,
and congruous to observe the same; and if the analogy he speaks of ariseth virtute
mandati divini, or by virtue of God's commandment, the cause is in effect
yielded; but if this analogy be made virtute libertatis humanae, so that
human liberty may do well to give God one in seven, (because the Jews did so,
and why should Christians be more scant?) then I see not but human liberty may
assume power to itself to impose monthly and annual holy days as well, because
the Jews had their new moons and yearly festivals; and by analogy thereof, why
may not Christians who have more grace poured out upon them, and more love
shown unto them under the gospel, hold some meet proportion with them therein
also, as well as in Sabbaths? But it can
never be proved that God hath left any human wisdom at liberty to make holy
days, by the rule of Jewish proportions.
Beside, if human wisdom see it meet and congruous to give God at least
one day in seven, this wisdom and reason is either regulated by some law, and
then it is by virtue of the law of God that he should have one day in seven, or
it is not regulated by a law, and then we are left to a loose end again, for
man to appoint what day he sees meet in a shorter or a longer time, his own
reason being his only law; and this neither Gomarus nor the words of the
commandment will allow, which sets and fixeth the day, which we see is one day
in seven, which not man, but God, shall determine, and therefore called the
Sabbath of the Lord our God.
Thesis 121.
The hardest knot herein to unloose lies in this, to know whether a seventh day
in general which God shall determine, or that particular seventh day from the
creation, be here only commanded : the first seems (in Mr. Primrose's apprehension)
to writhe and rack the words of the commandment; the second (if granted)
abolisheth our Christian Sabbaths.
Thesis 122.
For clearing up of this difficulty, therefore, and leaving the dispute of the
change of the Sabbath to its proper place, it may be made good, that not that
seventh day from the creation, so much as a seventh day which God shall
determine, (and therefore called the seventh day,) is primarily moral, and
therefore enjoined in this commandment; for which end let these things be
considered and laid together.
1. Because
the express words of the commandment do not run thus, viz., “Remember to keep
holy that seventh day,” but more generally,
“the Sabbath day;” it is in the
beginning, and so it is in the end of this commandment, where it is not said,
that God blessed that seventh day, but the Sabbath day; by which expression the
wisdom of God, as it points to that particular seventh day, that it should be
sanctified, so it also opens a door of liberty for change, if God shall see
meet, because the substance of the commandment doth not only contain that
seventh day, but the Sabbath day, which may be upon another seventh, as well as
upon that which God appointed first; and that the substance of the command is
contained in those first words, “Remember
the Sabbath day to keep it holy,” may appear from the repetition of the same
commandment, (Deut. 5:12,) where these words, “As the Lord thy God commanded
thee,” are immediately inserted before the rest of the words of the commandment
be set down, to show thus much, that therein is contained the substance of the
fourth command; the words following being added only to press to the duty, and
to point out the particular day, which at that time God would have them to
observe.
2. Because in the explication of those words (the Sabbath) it is not called “that seventh,” but “the seventh,” for so the words run: “Six days shall thou labor, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God,” the meaning of which is this much, to wit, that man taking six days to himself for labor, that he leave the seventh to be the Lord's. Now, unless any can show that no other day but that seventh could be the seventh for rest, nor no other six days but those six going before that seventh could be the sixth day for labor, they can never prove that this fourth commandment hath not only a respect to that particular seventh, and it is no small boldness necessarily to limit where God hath left free; for we know that, if God will, man may take other six days for labor, and leave another seventh for God, than those six days and that seventh day only.
3. The
change of the Sabbath undeniably proves thus much, (if it can be proved,) that
the morality of this command did not lie in that particular day only; for if
that only was moral, how could it be changed? and if it did not lie only in
that seventh, wherein then did it more generally lie? Was it in a day more
largely, or in a seventh day more narrowly? Now, let any indifferent
conscience be herein judge, who they be that come nearest to the truth, whether
they that fly so far from the name seventh, which is expressly mentioned in the
commandment, or they that come as near it as may be; whether they that plead
for a seventh of God's appointing, or they that plead for a day (but God knows
when) of human institution. And it is worth considering why any should be
offended at the placing of the morality of the command in a seventh, more than
at their own placing of it in a day; for in urging the letter of the
commandment to that particular seventh, to abolish thereby the morality of a
seventh day, they do withal therein utterly abandon the morality of a day; for
if that seventh only be enjoined in the letter of the commandment, and they
will thence infer that a seventh therefore can not be required, how can they,
upon this ground, draw out the morality of a day?
4. Because
(we know) that ratio legis est anima legis, i.e., the reason of a law is
the soul and life of the law. Now, let it be considered why God should appoint
the seventh, rather than the ninth, or tenth, or twentieth day, for spiritual
rest; and the reason will appear not to be God's absolute will merely, but
because divine wisdom having just measures and balances in its hand, in
proportioning time between God and man, it saw a seventh part of time (rather
than a tenth or twentieth) to be most equal for himself to take, and for man to
give: and thus much the words of the commandment imply, viz., that it is most
equal if man hath six, that God should have the seventh: now, if this be the
reason of the law, this must needs be the soul and substance of the morality of
the law, viz., that a seventh day be given to God, man having six, and
therefore it consists not in that seventh day only; for the primary reason why
God appointed this or that seventh was not because, it was that seventh, but because
a seventh was now equal in the eye of God for God to take to himself, man
having the full and fittest proportion of six days together for himself; and
because a seventh was the fittest proportion of time for God, hence this or
that individual and particular seventh in the second place fall out to be
moral, because they contain the most equal and fittest proportion of a seventh
day in them; there was also another reason why that seventh was sanctified,
viz., God's rest in it; but this reason is not primary, as hath been said, and
of which now we speak.
5. Because,
if no other commandment be in the decalogue but it is comprehensive, and
looking many ways at once, why should we then pinion and gird up this only to
the narrow compass of that seventh day only?
6. Because our adversaries in this point are forced sometimes to acknowledge this morality of a seventh with us: we have heard the judgment of Gomarus herein, (Thesis 44,) and M. Primrose, who speaks with most weight and spirit in this controversy, professeth plainly, that if God give us six days for our own affairs, there is then good reason to consecrate a seventh to his service, and that in this reason there is manifest justice and equity, which abideth forever, to dedicate to God precisely a seventh day after we have bestowed six days upon ourselves. It can not be denied (saith he) but that it is most just. Now, if it be by his confession, 1, just, 2, most just, 3, manifestly just, 4, perpetually just, to give God precisely one day in seven, the cause is then yielded: the only evasion he makes is this, viz., that though it be most just to give God one day in seven, yet it is not more just than to give God one in six, or five, or four, there being no natural justice in the number of seven more than in the number of six or four: but the answer is easy, that if man may give unto God superstitiously too many, or profanely too few, and if the appointment of God hath declared itself for a seventh, and that the giving of this seventh be most just and equal, then let it be considered whether it be not most satisfactory to a scrupling conscience to allow God a seventh day which he hath appointed, which is confessed to be most just and perpetually equal, and consequently moral; and if there be a moral and perpetual equity to give God one day in seven, then it is no matter whether there be any more natural equity therein than in one in five or six. The disputers of this world may please themselves with such speculations and shifts, but the wisdom of God, which hath already appointed one day in seven rather than in six or ten, should be adored herein, by humble minds, in cutting out this proportion of time, with far greater equity than man can now readily see.
7. Because
deep corruption is the ground of this opinion, the plucking up of God's bounds
and landmarks of a seventh is to put the stakes into the church's hands, to set
them where she pleaseth; or if she set them at a seventh, where God would have
them, yet that this may be submitted to, not because God pleaseth, but because
the church so pleaseth; not because of God's will and determination, but
because of the church's will and determination, that so, it being once granted
that the church hath liberty to determine of such a day, she may not be denied
liberty of making any other holidays, or holy things in the worship and service
of God; and that this is the main scope and root of this opinion, is palpably
evident from most of the writings of our English adversaries in this
controversy.
Thesis 123.
A seventh day, therefore, is primarily moral; yet (as was formerly said, Thesis
48) there is something else in this commandment which is secondarily moral,
viz., this or that particular seventh day. I will not say that it is
accidentally moral, (as some do,) but rather secondarily, and consequently
moral. For it is not moral firstly, because it is this particular seventh, but
because it has a seventh part of time, divinely proportioned and appointed for
rest, falling into it, and of which it participates. To give alms to the needy
is a moral duty, and primarily moral; but to give this or that quantity may be
moral also; but it is secondarily moral, because it flows ex consequenti, only
from the first; for if we are to give alms according to our ability and others'
necessity, then this or that particular quantity thus suiting their necessity
must be given, which is also a moral duty; so it is in this point of the
Sabbath.
Thesis 124.
Hence it follows that this commandment enjoins two things: 1. More generally, a
seventh. 2. More particularly, this or that seventh, and in special that
seventh from the creation, this or that seventh are to be kept holy because of
a seventh part of time appointed falling into them. A seventh day also is to be
kept holy by virtue of the commandment; yet not in general, but with special
eye and respect to that particular seventh, wherein this general is involved
and preserved. That seventh from the creation is commanded, because of a
seventh falling into it; and a seventh also is commanded, yet with a special
eye to that seventh wherein it is involved. And therefore it is a vain
objection to affirm, that if a seventh be commanded, that then no particular
seventh is; or if any particular seventh be so, that then a seventh is not; for
the commandment, we see, hath respect to both; for what is there more frequent
in Scripture than for general duties to be wrapped up and set forth in some
particular things, instances, and examples, and consequently both commanded
together? And after narrow search into this command-ment, we shall find both
the general and particular seventh, not Only inferring one the other, but both
of them in a manner expressly mentioned.
Thesis 125.
When those that plead for the morality of the fourth command, in respect of a
seventh day, would prove it to be moral, because it is part of the decalogue
and set in the heart of it, with a special note of remembrance affixed to it,
etc., Mr. Ironside and others do usually dash all such reasonings out of
countenance, with this answer, viz., that by this argument, That particular
seventh from the creation is moral, which we see is changed; for (say they)
that also is set in the heart of the decalogue, with a special note of
remembrance also. But the reply from what hath been said is easy, viz., that
that also is indeed moral, only it is secondarily moral, not primarily; and
therefore (as we have shown) was mutable and changeable, the primary morality
in a seventh immutably remaining; the moral duty of observing a seventh day is
not changed, but only the day. If Mr. Primrose could prove that there is
nothing else commanded in this fourth command, but only that particular seventh
from the creation, he had then enough to show that (this day being justly
changed) the commandment is not moral or perpetual; but out of this particular
seventh which is now changed, himself acknowledged that out of it may be
gathered the morality of a day; and why not of the seventh day also, as well
as of a day? He saith that it is a bold assertion to say that this genus of a
seventh is herein commanded. But why is it not as bold to affirm the same of a
day? For out of that particular seventh whence he would raise the genus of a
day, we may as easily, and far more rationally, collect the genus of a seventh
day.
Thesis 126.
Nor will it follow that because a seventh is moral, that therefore any one of
the seven days in a week may be made a Christian Sabbath. For, 1. We do not say
that it is any seventh, but a seventh determined and appointed of God for holy
rest, which is herein commanded. 2. The Lord hath in wisdom appointed such a
seventh as that man may have six whole days together to labor in; and hence it
follows that divine determination, without crossing that wisdom, could not
possibly fall upon any other days in the cycle of seven, but either upon the
last of seven, which was the Jewish, or the first of seven, which now is (as
shall be shown) the Christian Sabbath. 3. As God hath appointed one day in
seven for man's rest, so in his wisdom he so orders it as that it shall be also
a day of God's rest, and that is not to be found in any day of the week but
either in the last of seven, wherein the Father rested, or in the first of
seven, wherein the Son rested from his work also.
Thesis 127.
It is true that the Sabbath day and that seventh day from the creation are
indifferently taken, sometimes the one for the other, the one being the
exegesis, or the explication of the other, as Gen. 2:2, 3, Exod. 16:29, and
elsewhere; but that it should be only so understood in this commandment, Credat
Judeus Apella, non ego, as he said in another case I see no convicting
argument to clip the wings of the Scripture so short, and to make the Sabbath
day and that seventh day of equal dimensions; although it can not be denied but
that in some sense the Sabbath day is exegetical of the seventh day, because
the commandment hath a special eye to that seventh from the creation, which is
secondarily moral, yet not excluding that which is more generally contained in
that particular, and consequently commanded, viz., a seventh day, or the Sabbath
day.
Thesis 128.
Mr. Primrose would prove the exegesis, that by the Sabbath day is meant that
seventh day only from the creation, because God actually blessed and sanctified
that Sabbath day, because God can not actually bless a seventh, being an
unlimited, indefinite, and uncertain, indetermined time. The time (saith he)
only wherein he rested, he only actually blessed, which was not in a seventh
day indetermined, but in that determined seventh day. But all this may be
readily acknowledged, and yet the truth remain firm; for that particular
seventh being secondarily moral, hence, as it was expressly commanded, so it
was actually and particularly blessed; but as in this seventh a general of a
seventh is included, so a seventh is also generally blessed and sanctified.
Otherwise how will Mr. Primrose maintain the morality of a day of worship out
of this commandment? For the same objection may be made against a day which
himself ac-knowledgeth, as against a seventh day which we maintain; for it may
be said, that that day is here only moral, wherein God actually rested, but he
did not rest in a day indefinitely, and therefore a day is not moral; let him
unloose this knot, and his answer in defense of the morality of a day will help
him to see the morality of a seventh also. That particular day, indeed, wherein
God actually and particularly rested, he particularly blessed; but there was a
seventh day also more general, which he generally blessed also. He generally
blessed the Sabbath day, he particularly blessed that Sabbath day, and in
blessing of that he did virtually and by analogy bless our particular Christian
Sabbath also, which was to come. As Moses, in his actual blessing of the tribe
of Levi, (Deut. 33:7,10,) he did virtually and by analogy bless all the
ministers of the gospel not then in being. And look, as when God commanded them
to keep holy the Sabbath in ceremonial duties, he did therein virtually
command us to keep it holy in evangelical duties; so when he commanded them to
observe that day, because it was actually appointed, and sanctified, and
blessed of God, he commanded us virtually and analogically therein to observe
our seventh day also, if ever he should actually appoint and bless this other.
Thesis 129.
The distribution of equity and justice consists not always in puncto
indivisibili, i.e., in an indivisible point and a set measure; so as that
if more or less be done or given in way of justice, that then the rule of
justice is thereby broken; ex. gr., it is just to give alms and pay tribute;
yet not so just as that if men give more or less, that then they break a rule
of justice; so it is in this point of the Sabbath; a seventh part of time is
moral, because it is just and equal for all men to give unto God, who have six
for one given them to serve their own turn, and do their own work in; yet it is
not so just but that if God had required the tribute of a third or fourth part
of our time, but it might have been just also to have given him one day in
three, or two, or four; for in this case positive determination doth not so
much make as declare only that which is moral. And therefore, if Mr. Primrose
thinks that a seventh part of time is not moral, because it is as equal and
just to dedicate more time to God, and that a third or fourth day is as equal
as a seventh, it is doubtless an ungrounded assertion; for so he affirms, that
although it be most just to give God one day in seven, yet no more just than to
dedicate to him one day in three or six. And suppose it be so, yet this doth
not prove that a seventh day is not moral, because it is as equal to give six
as seven, no more than that it is no moral duty to give an alms, because it may
be as equal to give twenty pence as thirty pence to a man in want. If,
furthermore, he think that it is as equal and just to give God more days for
his service, as one in seven, out of human wisdom, and by human consecration,
not divine dedication, then it may be doubted whether one day in two, or three,
or six, is as equal as one day in seven; for as human wisdom, if left to
itself, may readily give too few, so it may superstitiously give too many, (as
hath been said.) But if four, or three, or six be alike equal in themselves to
give to God, as one in seven, then if he thinks it a moral duty to observe any
such day in case it should be imposed and consecrated by human determination,
I hope he will not be offended at us if we think it a moral duty also to observe
a seventh day, which we are certain, divine wisdom hath judged most equal, and
which is imposed on us by divine determination: we may be uncertain whether
the one is as equal, as we are certain that a seventh day is.
Thesis 130.
Actions of worship can no more be imagined to be done without some time, than a
body be without some place; and therefore in the three first commandments,
where God's worship is enjoined, some time together with it is necessarily commanded;
if, therefore, any time for worship be required in the fourth command, (which
none can deny,) it must not be such a time as is connatural, and which is
necessarily tied to the action; but it must be some solemn and special time,
which depends upon some special determination, not which nature, but which
counsel, determines. Determination, therefore, by counsel of that time which is
required in this command, doth not abolish the morality of it, but rather
declares and establisheth it. God, therefore, who is Lord of time, may justly
challenge the determination of this time into his own hand, and not infringe
the morality of this command, considering also that he is more able and fit
than men or angels to see, and so cut out the most equal proportion of time
between man and himself. God therefore hath sequestered a seventh part of time
to be sanctified, rather than a fifth, a fourth, or a ninth, not simply because
it was this seventh, or a seventh, but because, in his wise determination
thereof, he knew it to be the most just and equal division of time between man
and himself; and therefore I know no incongruity to affirm, that if God had
seen one day in three, or four, or nine, to be as equal a proportion of time
as one day in seven, that he would then have left it free to man to take and
consecrate either the one or the other, (the Spirit of God not usually
restraining where there is a liberty;) and on the other side, if he had seen a
third, or fifth, or ninth, or twentieth part of time more equal than a seventh,
he would have fixed the bounds of labor and rest out of a seventh; but having
now fixed them to a seventh, a seventh day is therefore moral, rather than a
fourth, or sixth, or ninth day, because it is the most equal and fittest
proportion of time (all things considered) between God and man; the
appointment therefore of a seventh, rather than a sixth or fourth, is not an
act of God's mere will only, (as our adversaries affirm, and therefore they
think it not moral,) but it was and is an act of his wisdom also, according to
a moral rule of justice, viz., to give unto God that which is most fit, most
just, and most equal; and therefore, although there is no natural justice (as
Mr. Primrose calls it) in a seventh, simply and abstractly considered, rather
than in a sixth or tenth, yet if the most equal proportion of time for God be
lotted out in a seventh, there is then something natural and moral in it rather
than in any other partition of time, viz., to give God that proportion of time
which is most just and most equal; and in this respect a seventh part of time
is commanded, because it is good, (according to the description of a moral
law,) and not only good because it is commanded.
Thesis 131.
It is true that in private duties of worship, as to read the Scriptures,
meditate, pray, etc., the time for these and the like duties is left to the
will and determination of man, according to general rules of conveniency and
seasonableness set down in the word; man's will (in this sense) is the measure
of such times of worship; but there is not the like reason here, in determining
time for a Sabbath, as if that should be left to man's liberty also, because
those private duties are to be done in that time which is necessarily annexed
to the duties themselves, which time is therefore there commanded, where and
when the duty is commanded; but the time for a Sabbath is not such a time as
naturally will and must attend the action, but it is such a time as counsel
(not nature) sees most meet, and especially that counsel which is most able to
make the most equal proportions of time, which we know is not in the liberty or
ability of men or angels, but of God himself; for do but once imagine a time
required out of the limits of what naturally attends the action, and it will be
found necessarily to be a time determined by counsel: and therefore our
adversaries should not think it as free for man to change the Sabbath seasons
from the seventh to the fifth, or fourth, or tenth day, etc., as to alter and
pick our times for private duties.
Thesis 132.
There is a double reason of proposing God's example in the fourth command, as
is evident from the commandment itself: the first was to persuade, 1 he second
was to direct. 1. To persuade man so to labor six days, together, as to give
the seventh, or a seventh appointed for holy rest, unto God; for so the example
speaks — God labored six days, and rested the seventh; therefore do ye the
like. 2. To direct the people of God to that particular seventh, which, for
that time when the law was given, God would have them then to observe, and that
was that seventh which did succeed the six days' labor: and therefore for any
to make God's example of rest on that seventh day an argument that God
commanded the observation, of that seventh day only, is a groundless assertion;
for there was something more generally aimed at by setting forth this example,
viz., to persuade men hereby to labor six days, and give God the seventh, which
he should appoint, as well as to direct to that particular day, which for that
time (it is granted) it also pointed unto; and therefore let the words in the
commandment be observed, and we shall find man's duty, 1, more generally set
down, viz., to labor six days, and dedicate the seventh unto God; and then
follows God's persuasion hereunto from his own example, who when he had a
world to make, and work to do, he did labor six days together, and rested the
seventh: and thus a man is bound to do still: but it doth not follow that he
must rest that particular seventh only, on which God then rested; or that that
seventh (though we grant it was pointed unto) was only aimed at in this
example: the binding power of all examples whatsoever (and therefore of this)
being ad speciem actus, (as they call it,) to that kind of act, and not
to the individuum actionis only, or to every particular accidental
circumstance therein; if, indeed, man was to labor six days in memorial only of
the six days of creation, and to rest a seventh day in memorial only of God's
rest and cessation from creation, it might then carry a fair face, as if this
example pointed at the observation of that particular seventh only; but look,
as our six days labor is appointed for other and higher ends than to remember
the six days work of God, it being a moral duty to attend our callings therein,
so the seventh day of rest is appointed for higher and larger ends (as
Didoclavius observes) than only to remember that notable rest of God from all
his works, it being a moral duty to rest the seventh day in all holiness.
Thesis 133.
It was but accidental, and not of the essence of the Sabbath day, that that
particular seventh from the creation should be the Sabbath; for the seventh day
Sabbath being to be man's rest day, it was therefore suitable to God's wisdom
to give man an example of rest from himself, to encourage him thereunto, (for
we know how strongly examples persuade:) now, rest being a cessation from
labor, it therefore supposes labor to go before; hence God could not appoint
the first day of the creation to be the Sabbath, because he did then but begin
his labor; nor could he take any the other days, because in them he had not
finished his work, nor rested from his labor; therefore God's rest fell out
upon the last of seven succeeding six of labor before; so that if there could
have been any other day as fit then for exemplary rest as this, and as
afterward it fell out in the finishing of the work of redemption, it might have
been as well upon such a day as this; but it was not then so: and hence the
rest day fell, as it were, accidentally upon this: and hence it is that God's example
of rest on that particular day doth not necessarily bind us to observe the same
seventh day; moral examples not always binding in their accidentals, (as the
case is here,) although it be true that in their essentials they always do.
Thesis 134.
There is no strength in that reason, that because one day in seven is to be
consecrated unto God, that therefore one year in seven is to be so also, as of
old it was among the Jews; for beside what hath been said formerly, viz., that
one year in seven was merely ceremonial, one day in seven is not so, (saith
Wallaeus,) but moral; God gave no example (whose example is only in moral
things) of resting one year in seven, but he did of resting one day in seven. I
say, beside all this, it is observable what Junius notes herein. The Lord
(saith he) challengeth one day in seven jure creationis, by right of
creation; and hence requires it of all men created: but he challenged one, year
in seven jure peculiaris possessionis, i.e., by right of peculiar possession,
the land of Canaan being the Lord's land in a peculiar manner, even a type of
heaven, which every other country is not; and therefore there is no reason
that all men should give God one seventh year, as they are to give him one
seventh day. By the observation of one day in seven, (saith he,) men profess
themselves to be the Lord's, and to belong unto him, who created and made them;
and this profession all men are bound unto; but by observation of one year in
seven, they professed thereby that their country was the Lord's, and themselves
the Lord's tenants therein, which all countries (not being types of heaven) can
not nor ought to do; and therefore there is not the like reason urged to the
observation of a seventh year as of a seventh day.
Thesis 135.
Look therefore as it is in the second commandment, although the particular
instituted worship is changed under the gospel from what it was under the law,
yet the general duty required therein of observing God's own instituted worship
is moral and unchangeable. So it is in the fourth commandment, where though the
particular day be changed, yet the duty remains moral and unchangeable in
observing a seventh day; there is therefore no reason to imagine that the
general duty contained in this precept is not moral, because the observance of
the particular day is mutable; and yet this is the fairest color, but the
strongest refuge of lies, which their cause hath who hold a seventh day to be
merely ceremonial.
Thesis 136.
If it be a moral duty to observe one day in seven, then the observation of such
a day no more infringeth Christian liberty than obedience to any other moral
law, one part of our Christian liberty consisting in our conformity to it, as our bondage consists in being left
to sin against it; and therefore that argument against the morality of one day
in seven is very feeble, as if Christian liberty was hereby infringed.
Thesis 137.
It was meet that God should have special service from man, and therefore meet
for himself to appoint a special time for it; which time, though it be a
circumstance, yet it is such a circumstance as hath a special influence into
any business, not only human, but also divine; and therefore if it be
naturally, it may be also ethically and morally good, contributing much also to
what is morally good; and therefore the determination of such a time for
length, frequency, and holiness, may be justly taken in among the moral laws.
He that shall doubt of such a powerful influence of special time for the
furthering of what is specially good, may look upon the art, skill, trade,
learning, nay, grace itself perhaps, which he hath got by the help of the
improvement of time; a profane and religious heart are seen and accounted of
according to their improvements of time, more or less, in holy things. Time is
not therefore such a circumstance as is good only because commanded, (as the
place of the temple was,) but it is commanded because it is good, because time,
nay, much time, reiterated in a weekly seventh part of time, doth much advance
and set forward that which is good.
Thesis 138.
That law which is a homogeneal part of the moral law is moral; but the fourth
commandment is such a part of the moral law, and therefore it is moral. I do
not say, that that law which is set and placed among the moral laws in order of
writing, (as our adversaries too frequently mistake us in,) that it is
therefore moral; for then it might be said, as well, that the Sabbath is
ceremonial, because it is placed in order of writing among things ceremonial, (Lev.
23.;) but if it be one link of the chain, and an essential part of the moral
law, then it is undoubtedly moral; but so it is, for its part of the
decalogue, nine parts whereof all our adversaries we now contend with confess
to be moral; and to make this fourth ceremonial, which God hath set in the
heart of the decalogue, and commanded us to remember to keep it above any
other law, seems very unlike to truth to a serene and sober mind, not disturbed
with such mud, which usually lies at the bottom of the heart, and turns light
into darkness ; and why one ceremonial precept should be shuffled in among the
rest which are of another tribe, lineage, and language, hath been by many
attempted, but never soundly cleared unto this day. Surely if this commandment
be not moral, then there are but nine commandments left to us of the moral law,
which is expressly contrary to God's account. (Deut. 4.)
To affirm
that all the commands of the decalogue are moral, yet every one in his
proportion and degree, and that this of the Sabbath is thus moral, viz., in
respect of the purpose and intent of the Lawgiver, viz., that some time be set
apart, but not moral in respect of the letter in which it is expressed: it is
in some sense formerly explained; true, but in his sense who endeavors to prove
the Sabbath ceremonial, while he saith it is moral, is both dark and false; for
if it be said to be moral only in respect of some time to be set apart, and
this time an individuum vagum, an indeterminate time, beyond the verges
of a seventh part of time, then there is no more morality granted to the fourth
commandment than to the commandment of building the temple and observing the
new moons; because in God's command to build the temple, the general purpose
and intention of the Lawgiver was, that some place be appointed for his public
worship, and in commanding to observe new moons, that some time be set apart
for his worship, and so there was no more necessity of putting remember to keep
the Sabbath holy, than to remember to keep holy the new moons. And look, as the
commandment to observe new moons can not in reason be accounted a moral commandment,
because there is some general morality in it, viz., for to observe some time of
worship, so neither should this of the Sabbath be upon the like ground of some
general morality mixed in it; and therefore for Mr. Ironside to say that the
law of the Sabbath is set among the rest of the moral precepts, because it is
mixedly ceremonial, having in it something which is moral, which other ceremonial
commands (he saith) have not, is palpably untrue; for there is no ceremonial
law of observing Jewish moons and festivals, but there was something generally
moral in them, viz., that (in respect of the purpose and intention of the
Lawgiver) some time be set apart for God, just as he makes this of keeping the
Sabbath.
Thesis 139.
To imagine that there are but nine moral precepts indeed, and that they are
called ten in respect of the greater part according to which things are usually
denominated, is an invention of Mr. Primrose, which contains a pernicious and
poisonful seed of making way for the razing out of the decalogue more laws than
one; for the same answer will serve the turn for cashiering three or four more,
the greater part (suppose six) remaining moral, according to which the
denomination ariseth. For although it be true, that some time the denomination
is according to the greater part, viz., when there is a necessity of mixing
divers things together, as in a heap of corn with much chaff, or a butt of wine
where there be many lees, yet there was no necessity of such a mixture and jumbling together of
morals and ceremonials here. Mr. Primrose tells us that he doth not read in
Scripture that all the commandments are without exception called moral, and
therefore why may there not (saith lie) be one ceremonial among them? But by
this reason he may as well exclude all the other nine from being moral also;
for I read not in Scripture that any one of them is styled by that name, moral;
and although it be true which he saith, that covenants among men consist
sometimes together of divers articles, as also that God's covenant (taken in
some sense) sometimes did so, yet the covenant of God made with all men (as we
shall prove the decalogue is) ought not to be so mingled, neither could it be
so without apparent contradiction, viz., that here should be a covenant which
bindeth all men in all things to observe it. and yet some part of it, being
ceremonial, should not bind all men in all things it commands; nor is there
indeed any need of putting in one ceremonial law, considering how easily they
are and may be reduced to sundry precepts of the moral law as appendices thereof,
without such shuffling as is contended for here.
Thesis 140.
If this law be not moral, why is it crowned with the same honor that the rest
of the moral precepts are? If its dignity be not equal with the rest, why hath
it been exalted so high in equal glory with them? Were the other nine spoken
immediately by the voice of God on
Thesis 141.
Our adversaries turn every stone to make answer to this known argument, and
they tell us that it is disputable and very questionable, whether this law was
spoken immediately by God, and not rather by angels; but let it be how it will
be, yet this law of the Sabbath was spoken and written, and laid up as all the
rest were, and therefore had the same honor as all the rest had, which we doubt
not to be moral; and yet I think it easy to demonstrate that this law was
immediately spoken by God, and the reasons against it are long since answered
by Junius, on Heb. 2:2, 3; but it is useless here to enter into this
controversy.
Thesis 142.
Nor do I say that because the law was spoken by God immediately, that therefore
it is moral; for he spake with Abraham, Job, Moses in the mount, immediately
about other matters than moral laws; but because he thus spake; and in such
a manner, openly, and to all the people, young and old, Jews
and proselyte Gentiles, then present, with such great glory, and terror, and
majesty, surely it stands not (saith holy Brightman) with the majesty of the
universal Lord, who is God not only of the Jews, but also of the Gentiles,
speaking thus openly, (not privately,) and gloriously, and most immediately, to
prescribe laws to one people only, which were small in number, but wherewith
all nations alike should be governed. Mr. Ironside indeed thinks that the Lord
had gone on to have delivered all the other ceremonials in the like manner of
speech from the mount, but that the fear and cry of the people (that he would
speak no more to them) stopped him; but the contrary is most evident, viz.,
that, before the people cried out, the Lord made a stop of himself, and
therefore is said to add no more. (Deut. 5:22.) It was a glory of the gospel
above all other messages, in that it was immediately spoken by Christ, (Heb. 1:2;
2:3;) and so God's immediate publication of the moral law puts a glory and
honor upon it above any other laws; and therefore, while Mr. Ironside goes
about to put the same honor upon ceremonial laws, he doth not a little obscure
and cast dishonor upon those that are moral, by making this honor to be common
with ceremonial, and not proper only to moral laws.
Thesis 143.
Nor do I say that the writing of the law on stone argues it to be moral, (for
some laws not moral were mediately writ on stone by Joshua, (Josh. 8:32,) but
because it was writ immediately by the finger of God on such tables of stone,
and that not once, but twice; not on paper or parchment, but on stone, which
argues their continuance; and not on stone in open fields, but on such stone as
was laid up in the ark, a place of most safety, being most sacred, and a type
of Christ, who kept this law, and upon whose heart it was writ, (Ps. 40:6, 7,)
to satisfy justice, and to make just and righteous before God all that shall be
saved, of all whom the righteousness of this law, according to justice, was to
be exacted. What do these things argue but at least thus much, that if any law
was to be perpetuated, this surely ought so to be? Mr. Primrose tells us that
the writing upon stone did not signify continuance of the law, but the hardness
of their stony hearts, which the law writ upon them, was not able to overcome;
and it is true that the stony tables did signify stony hearts, but it is false
that the writing on stone did not signify continuance also, according to
Scripture phrase; for all the children of God have stony hearts by nature. Now,
God hath promised to write his law upon such hearts as are by nature stony, and
his writing of them there implies the continuance of them there; so that both
these might stand together, and the similitude is fully thus, viz., the whole
law of God was writ on tables of stone, to continue there: so the whole law of
God is writ on stony hearts by nature, to continue thereon.
Thesis 144.
Only moral laws, and all moral laws, are thus summarily and generally honored
by God, the ten commandments being Christian pandects and common heads of all
moral duties toward God and men; under which generals, all the particular
moral duties in the commentaries of the prophets and apostles are virtually
comprehended and contained; and therefore Mr. Primrose's argument is weak, who
thinks that this honor put upon the decalogue doth not argue it to be moral,
because then many other particular moral laws set down in Scripture, not in
tables of stone, but in parchments of the prophets and apostles, should not be
moral: for we do not say that all moral laws particularly were thus specially
honored, but that all and only moral laws summarily were thus honored; in which
summaries all the particulars are contained, and, in that respect, equally
honored. It may affect one's heart with great mourning to see the many inventions
of men's hearts to blot out this remembrance of the Sabbath day: they first
cast it out of paradise, and shut it out of the world until Moses' time; when
in Moses' time it is published as a law, and crowned with the same honor as all
other moral laws, yet then they make it to be but a ceremonial law, continuing
only until the coming of Christ; after which time it ceaseth to be any law at
all, unless the church's constitution shall please to make it so, which is
worst of all.
Thesis 145.
Every thing, indeed, which was published by God's immediate voice in
promulgating of the law is not moral and common to all; but some things so
spoken may be peculiar and proper to the Jews, because some things thus spoken
were promises or motives only, annexed to the law, to persuade to the obedience
thereof; but they were not laws; for the question is, whether all laws spoken
and writ thus immediately were not moral; but the argument which some produce
against this is, from the promise annexed to the fifth command, concerning long
life, and from the motive of redemption out of the house of bondage, in the
preface to the commandments, both which (they say) were spoken immediately, but
yet were both of them proper unto the Jews. But suppose the promise annexed to
the fifth commandment be proper to the Jews, and ceremonial, as Mr. Primrose
pleads, (which yet many strong reasons from Eph. 6:2 may induce one to deny,)
what is this to the question? which is not concerning promises, but
commandments and laws. Suppose also that
the motive in the preface of the commandments, literally understood, is proper
to the Jews; yet this is also evident, that such reasons and motives as are
proper to some, arid perhaps ceremonial, may be annexed to moral laws, which
are common to all; nor will it follow that laws are therefore not common,
because the motives thereto are proper. We that dwell in
Thesis 146.
It is a truth as immovable as the pillars of heaven, that God hath given to all
men universally a rule of life to conduct them to their end. Now, if the whole
decalogue be not it, what shall? The gospel is the rule of our faith, but not
of our spiritual life, which flows from faith. (Gal. 2:20. John 5:24.) The law
therefore is the rule of our life; now, if nine of these be a complete rule
without a tenth, exclude that one, and then who sees not an open gap made for
all the rest to go out at also? For where will any man stop, if once this
principle be laid, viz., that the whole law is not the rule of life? May not
Papists blot out the second also, as some of Cassander's followers have done, all
but two, and as the Antinomians at this day do all? And have they not a good
ground laid for it, who may hence safely say that the decalogue is not a rule
of life for all? Mr. Primrose, that he might keep himself from a broken head
here, sends us for salve to the light of nature, and the testimony of the
gospel, both which (saith he) maintain and confirm the morality of all the
other commandments except this one of the Sabbath. But as it shall appear that
the law of the Sabbath hath confirmation from both, (if this direction was
sufficient and good,) so it may be in the mean time considered why the
Gentiles, who were universal idolaters, and therefore blotted out the light of
nature (as Mr. Primrose confesseth) against the second commandment, might not as
well blot out much of that light of nature about the Sabbath also; and then how
shall the light of nature be any sufficient discovery unto us of that which is
moral, and of that which is not?
Thesis 147.
There is a law made mention of, James 2:10, whose parts are so inseparably
linked together, that whosoever breaks any one is guilty of the breach of all,
and consequently whosoever is called to the obedience of one is called to the
obedience of all, and consequently all the particular laws which it contains
are homogeneal parts of the same totum, or whole law. If it be demanded,
What is this law? the answer is writ with the beams of the sun, that it is the
whole moral law contained in the decalogue. For, 1. The apostle speaks of such
a law, which not only the Jews, but all the Gentiles, are bound to observe, and
for the breach of any one of which, not only the Jews, but the Gentiles also,
were guilty of the breach of all; and therefore it can not be meant of the
ceremonial law, which did neither bind Gentiles nor Jews, at that time wherein
the apostle writ. 2. He speaks of such a law as is called a royal law, and a
law of liberty, (ver. 8, 12,) which can not be meant of the ceremonial law in
whole or in part, which is called a law of bondage, not worthy the royal and
kingly spirit of a Christian to stoop to. (Gal. 4:9.) 3. It is that law by the
works of which all men are bound to manifest their faith, and by which faith is
made perfect, (ver. 22,) which can not be the ceremonial nor evangelical, for
that is the law of faith, and therefore it is meant of the law moral. 4. It is
that law of which, “Thou shalt not kill,”
nor “commit adultery,” are parts, (ver.
11.) Now, these laws are part of the decalogue only, and whereof it may be said
He that said, “Thou shalt not commit
adultery,” said also, “Remember to keep
the Sabbath holy;” and therefore the whole decalogue, and not some parts of it
only, is the moral law; from whence it is manifest that the apostle doth not.
speak (as Mr. Primrose would interpret him) of offending against the word at
large, and of which the ceremonial laws were a part, but of offending against
that part of the word, to wit, the moral law, of which he that offends against
any one is guilty of the breach of all; hence, also, his other answer falls to
the dust, viz., that the fourth command is no part of the law, and therefore
the not observing of it is no sin under the New Testament, because it was given
only to the Jews, and not to us; for if it be a part of the decalogue, of which
the apostle only speaks, then it is a mere begging of the question, to affirm
that it is no part of the law to Christians. But we see the apostle here speaks
of the law and the royal law, and the royal law of liberty; his meaning
therefore must be of some special law, which he calls κατ
εξοχην, the law. Now, if he thus
speaks of some special law, what can it be but the whole decalogue, and not a
part of it only? as when he speaks of the gospel κατ
εξοχην, he means not some part, but
the whole gospel also; and if every part of the decalogue is not moral, how
should any man know from any law or rule of God what was moral, and what not?
and consequently what is sinful, and what not? If it be said, by the light of
nature, we have proved that this is a blind and corrupt judge, as it exists in
corrupt man; if it be said by the light of the gospel, this was then to set up
a light unto Christians to discern it by, but none to the Jews while they
wanted the gospel as dispensed to us now; many moral laws also are not
mentioned in the gospel, it being but accidental to it to set forth the
commandments of the law.
Thesis 148.
If Christ came to fulfill, and not to destroy, the law, (Matt.5:17,) then the
commandment of the Sabbath is not abolished by Christ's coming; if not one jot,
prick, or tittle of the law shall perish, much less shall a whole law perish or
be destroyed by the coming of Christ.
Thesis 149.
It is true, indeed, that by law and prophets is sometimes meant their whole
doctrine, both ceremonial, moral, and prophetical, which Christ fulfilled
personally, but not so in this place of Matthew; but by law is meant the moral
law, and by prophets those prophetical illustrations and interpretations
thereof, in which the prophets do abound. For, 1. The Lord Christ speaks of
that law only, which whosoever should teach men to break and cast off, he
should be least in the kingdom of heaven, (Matt. 5:19;) but the apostles did
teach men to cast off the ceremonial law, and yet were never a whit less in the
kingdom of heaven. 2. He speaks of that law by conformity to which all his true
disciples should exceed the righteousness of scribes and Pharisees; but that
was not by being externally ceremonious or moral, but by internal conformity to
the spiritual-ness of God's law, which the Pharisees then regarded not. 3.
Christ speaks of the least commandments, and of these least commandments, μια των εντολων τουτων των ελακιοτων, Now, what should
those least commandments be but those which he afterwards interprets of rash
anger, adulterous eyes, unchaste thoughts, love to enemies, etc., which are
called least, in opposition to the Pharisaical doctors' conceits in those
times, who urged the gross duties commanded, and condemned men only for gross
sins forbidden; as if therein consisted our complete conformity to the law of
God. And, therefore, by the least of those commandments is meant no other than
those which he afterwards sets down in his spiritual interpretation of the law,
(ver. 21,) never a one of which commandments are ceremonial, but moral laws;
and although Mr. Primrose thinks that there is no connection between the
seventeenth and the other expositor's verses of the law which follow, yet
whosoever ponders the analysis impartially shall find it otherwise, even from
the seventeenth verse to the end; the conclusion of which is, to be perfect as
our heavenly Father is perfect, who is never made a pattern of perfection to us
in ceremonial, but only in moral matters. It is true, indeed, (which some
object,) that there is mention made of altar and sacrifice, (ver. 23,) which
were ceremonials; but there is no law about them, but only a moral law of love
is thereby pressed with allusion to the ceremonial practice in those times; he
speaks also about divorce, but this is but accidentally brought to show the
morality of the law of adultery; the law of retaliation wants not good
witnesses to testify to the morality of it, but I rather think it is brought in
to set forth a moral law against private revenge. Our Saviour, indeed, doth not
speak particularly about the law of the Sabbath, as he doth of killing, and
adultery, etc.; but if therefore it be not moral, because not spoken of here,
then neither the first, second, nor fifth command are moral, because they are
not expressly opened in this chapter; for the scope of our Saviour was to speak
against the pharisaical interpretations of the law, in curtailing of it, in
making gross murder to be forbidden, but not anger; adultery to be forbidden,
but not lust; which evil they were not so much guilty of in point of the
Sabbath; but they rather made the phylacteries of it too broad by overmuch
strictness, which our Saviour therefore elsewhere condemns, but not a word
tending to abolish this law of the Sabbath.
Thesis 150. If,
therefore, the commandment is to
be accounted moral which the gospel reenforceth, and commends unto us,
(according to Mr. Primrose's principles,) then the fourth commandment may well
come into the account of such as are moral; but the places mentioned and
cleared out of the New Testament evince thus much: the Lord Jesus coming not to
destroy the law of the Sabbath, but to establish it; and of the breach of which
one law he that is guilty is guilty of the breach of all.
Thesis 151.
If the observation of the Sabbath had been first imposed upon man since the
fall, and in special upon the people of the Jews at Mount Sinai, there might be
then some color and reason to clothe the Sabbath with rags and the worn out garments
of ceremonialness; but if it was imposed upon man in innocency, not only before
all types and ceremonies, but also before all sin, and upon Adam as a common
person, as a commandment not proper to that estate, nor as to a particular
person, and proper to himself, then the morality of it is most evident; our
adversaries, therefore, lay about them here, that they might drive the Sabbath
out of paradise, and make it a thing altogether unknown to the state of
innocency; which if they can not make good, their whole frame against the
morality of the Sabbath falls flat to the ground; and therefore it is of no
small consequence to clear up this truth, viz., that Adam in innocency, and in
him all his posterity, were commanded to sanctify a weekly Sabbath.
Thesis 152.
One would think that the words of the text. (Gen. 2:2, 3) were so plain to
prove a Sabbath in that innocent estate that there could be no evasion made
from the evidence of them; for it is expressly said, that the day the Lord
rested, the same day the Lord blessed and sanctified; but we know he rested the
seventh day immediately after the creation, and therefore he immediately
blessed and sanctified the same day also; for the words run copulatively, he
rested the seventh day, “and he blessed
and sanctified that day;” but it is strange to see not only what odd evasions
men make from this clear truth, but also what curious cabalisms and fond
interpretations men make of the Hebrew text, the answer to which learned Rivet
hath long since made, which therefore I mention not.
Thesis 153.
The words are not thus copulative in order of story, but in order of time; I
say not in order of story and discourse, for so things far distant in time may
be coupled together by this copulative particle and, as Mr. Primrose
truly shows, (Ex. 16:32, 33; 1 Sam. 17:54;) but they are coupled and knit
together in respect of time; for it is the like phrase which Moses immediately
after useth, (Gen. 5:1, 2,) where it is said,
“God created man in his image, and blessed them, and called their
names,” etc., which were together in time; so it is here; the time God rested,
that time God blessed; for the scope of the words (Gen. 2:1-3) is to show what
the Lord did that seventh day, after the finishing of the whole creation in six
days, and that is, he blessed and sanctified it. For, look, as the scope of
Moses in making mention of the six days orderly was to show what God did every
particular day, so what else should be the scope in making mention of the
seventh day, unless it was to show what God did then on that day? and that is,
he then rested, and blessed and sanctified it, even then in that state of
innocency.
Thesis 154.
God is said (Gen. 2:1-3) to bless the Sabbath as he blessed other creatures;
but he blessed the creatures at that time they were made, (Gen. 1:12, 28,) and
therefore he blessed the Sabbath at that time he rested. Shall God's work be
presently blessed, and shall his rest be then without any? Was God's rest a
cause of sanctifying the day many hundred years after, (as our adversaries
say,) and was there not as much cause then when the memory of the creation was
most fresh, which was the fittest time to remember God's work in? Mr. Primrose
tells us that the creatures were blessed with a present benediction, because
they did constantly need it; but there was no necessity (he saith) that man
should solemnize the seventh as soon as it is made; but as we shall show that
man did then need a special day of blessing, so it is a sufficient ground of
believing that then God blessed the day when there was a full, and just, and
sufficient cause of blessing, which is God's resting; it being also such a
cause as was not peculiar to the Jews many hundred years after, but common to
all mankind.
Thesis 155.
The rest of God (which none question to be in innocency immediately after the
creation) was either a natural rest, (as I may call it,) that is, a bare
cessation from labor, or a holy rest, i.e., a rest set apart in exemplum, or
for example, and for holy uses; but it was not a natural rest merely, for then
it had been enough to have said, that at the end of the sixth day God rested;
but we see God speaks of a day, the seventh day. God hath rested with a natural
rest or cessation from creation ever since the end of the first sixth day of
the world until now; why then is it said that God rested the seventh day? or
why is it not rather said that he began his rest on that day, but that it is
limited to a day? Certainly this argues that he speaks not of natural test
merely, or that which, ex natura rei, follows the finishing of his work;
for it is then an unfit and improper speech to limit God's rest within the
circle of a day; and therefore he speaks of a holy rest then appointed for holy
uses as an example for holy vest, which may well be limited within the compass
of a day; and hence it undeniably follows, that if God rested in innocency with
such a rest, then the seventh day was then sanctified, it being the day of holy
rest.
Thesis 156.
It can not be shown that ever God made himself an example of any act, but that
in the present example there was and is a present rule, binding immediately to
follow that example; if therefore, from the foundation of the world, God made
himself an example in six days' labor and in a seventh day's rest, why should
not this example then and at that time of innocency be binding, there being no
example which God sets before us but it supposeth a rule binding us immediately
thereunto? The great and most high God could have made the world in a moment or
in a hundred years; why did he make it then in six days, and rested the seventh
day, but that it might be an example to man? It is evident that, ever since the
world began, man's life was to be spent in labor and action which God could
have appointed to contemplation only; nor will any say that his life should be
spent only in labor, and never have any special day of rest, (unless the
Antinomians, who herein sin against the light of nature;) if therefore God was
exemplary in his six days' labor, why should any think but that he was thus
also in his seventh day's rest? pointing out unto man most visibly (as it
were) thereby on what day he should rest. A meet time for labor was a moral
duty since man was framed upon earth; God therefore gives man an example of it
in making the world in six days. A meet time for holy rest, the end of all holy
and honest labor, was much more moral, (the end being better than the means;)
why then was not the example of this also seen in God's rest? Mr. Ironside, indeed,
is at a stand here, and confesseth his ignorance in conceiving how God's
working six days should be exemplary to man in innocency, it being not
preceptive, but permissive only to man in his apostasy. But let a plain
analysis be made of the motives used to press obedience to the fourth command,
and we shall find (according to the consent of all the orthodox not prejudiced
in this controversy) that God's example of working six days in creating the
world is held forth as a motive to press God's people to do all their work
within six days also; and the very reason of our labor and rest now is the
example of God's labor and rest then, as may also appear, Ex. 31:17. And to say
that those words in the commandment (viz., six days thou shalt labor) are no
way preceptive, but merely promissive, is both cross to the express letter of
the text, and contrary to moral equity, to allow any part of the six days for sinful idleness
or neglect of our weekly work, so far forth as the rest upon the Sabbath be
hindered hereby.
Thesis 157.
The word sanctified is variously taken in Scripture, and various things
are variously and differently sanctified; yet in this place, when God is said
to sanctify the Sabbath, (Gen. 2:2, 3,) it must be one of these two ways:
either, 1. By infusion of holiness and sanctification into it, as holy men are
said to be sanctified; or, 2. By separation of it from common use, and dedication
of it to holy use, as the temple and altar are said to be sanctified.
Thesis 158.
God did not sanctify the Sabbath by infusion of any habitual holiness into it,
for the circumstance of a seventh day is not capable thereof, whereof only
rational creatures, men and angels, are.
Thesis 159.
It must therefore be said to be sanctified in respect of its separation from
common use, and dedication to holy use, as the temple and tabernacle were,
which yet had no inherent holiness in them.
Thesis 160.
Now, if the Sabbath was thus sanctified by dedication, it must be either for
the use of God or of man; i.e., either that God might keep this holy day, or
that man might observe it as a holy day to God; but what dishonor is it to God
to put him upon the observation of a holy day? and therefore it was dedicated
and consecrated for man's sake and use, that so he might observe it as holy
unto God.
Thesis 161.
This day therefore is said to be sanctified of God that man might sanctify it
and dedicate it unto God; and hence follows, that look, as man could never have
lawfully dedicated it unto God, without a precedent institution from God, so
the institution of God implies a known command given by God unto man thereunto.
Thesis 162.
It is therefore evident, that when God is said to sanctify the Sabbath, (Gen. 2:2,
3,) that man is commanded hereby to sanctify it, and dedicate it to the holy
use of God. Sanctificare est sanctificari mandare, saith Junius; and
therefore, if Mr. Primrose and others desire to know where God commandeth the
observation of the Sabbath in Gen. 2:2, they may see it here necessarily
implied in the word sanctify. And therefore, if God did sanctify the
Sabbath immediately after the creation, he commanded man to sanctify it then;
for so the word sanctified is expressly expounded by the Holy Ghost
himself. (Deut. 5:15.) We need not therefore seek for wood among trees, and
inquire where, and when, and upon what ground the patriarchs before Moses
observed a Sabbath, when as it was famously dedicated and sanctified, i.e.,
commanded to be sanctified, from the first foundation of the world.
Thesis 163.
Our adversaries, therefore, dazzled with the clearness of the light shining
forth from the text, (Gen. 2:2,) to wit, that the Sabbath was commanded to be
sanctified before the fall, do fly to their shifts, and seek for refuge from
several answers; sometimes they say it is sanctified by way of destination,
sometimes they tell us of anticipation, sometimes they think the book of
Genesis was writ after Exodus, and many such inventions; which because they can
not possibly stand one with another, are therefore more fit to vex and perplex
the mind than to satisfy conscience; and indeed do argue much uncertainty to be
in the minds of those that make these and the like answers, as not knowing
certainly what to say, nor where to stand: yet let us examine them.
Thesis 164.
To imagine that the book of Genesis was writ after Exodus, and yet to affirm
that the Sabbath in Genesis is said to be sanctified, and blessed, only in way
of destination, i.e., because God destinated and ordained that it should be
sanctified many years after, seems to be an ill-favored and misshapen answer,
and no way fit to serve their turn who invent it; for if it was writ after
Exodus, what need was there to say that it was destinated and ordained to be
sanctified for time to come? When as upon this supposition the Sabbath was
already sanctified for time past, as appears in the story of Ex. 19:20. And
therefore Mr. Primrose translates the words thus: that God rested, and hath
blessed and hath sanctified the seventh day, as if Moses writ of it as a thing
past already; but what truth is there then to speak of a destination for time
to come? I know Junius so renders the Hebrew words, as also the word rested;
but we know how many ways some of the Hebrew tenses look, nor is it any
matter now to trouble ourselves about them. This only may be considered, that
it is a mere uncertain shift to affirm that Genesis was writ after Exodus. Mr.
Ironside tells us he could give strong reasons for it, but he produceth none;
and as for his authorities from human testimonies, we know it is not fit to
weigh out truth by human suffrages; and yet herein they do not cast the scale
for Genesis to be writ after Exodus; for although Beda, Abulensis, and divers
late Jesuits do affirm it, yet Eusebius, Catharinus, Alcuinus, a Lapide, and
sundry others, both Popish and Protestant writers, are better judgmented herein;
and their reasons for Genesis to be the first born, as it is first set down,
seem to be most strong. The casting of this cause therefore depends not upon
such uncertainties; and yet, if this disorder were granted, it will do their
cause no good, as, if need were, might be made manifest.
Thesis 165. Mr. Ironside confesseth, that God's resting and sanctifying the Sabbath are coetaneous, and acknowledged the connection of them together at the same time, by the copulative and; and that as God actually rested, so he actually sanctified the day. But this sanctification which he means is nothing else but destination, or God's purpose and intention to sanctify it afterward; so that, in effect, this evasion amounts to thus much, viz., that God did actually purpose to sanctify it about twenty-five hundred years after the giving of the law, but yet did not actually sanctify it; and if this be the meaning, it is all one as if he had said in plain terms, viz., that when God is said to sanctify the Sabbath, he did not indeed sanctify it, only he purposed so to do; and although Mr. Primrose and himself tells us that the word sanctify signifies, in the original, Some time to prepare and ordain, so it may be said that the word signifies sometimes to publish and proclaim. If they say that this latter can not be the meaning, because we read not in Scripture of any such proclamation that this should be the Sabbath, the like may be said (upon the reasons mentioned) concerning their destination of it thereunto. Again: if to sanctify the day be only to purpose and ordain to sanctify it, then the Sabbath was no more sanctified since the creation than ab aeterno, and before the world began, for then God did purpose that it should be sanctified; but this sanctification here spoken of seems to follow God's resting, which was in time, and therefore it must be understood of another sanctification than that which seems to be before all time. Again: as God did not bless the Sabbath in way of destination, so neither did he sanctify it in way of destination; but he did not bless it in way of destination, for let them produce but one Scripture where the word blessed is taken in this sense, for a purpose only to bless. Indeed, they think they ha