A37049:760
A37049:760
London: printed for Dorman Newman, 1675
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
The third place is Matth. 24. v. 20. Pray that your flight be not in the Winter, neither on the Sabbath-day, where the Lord insinuateth, that as Travelling is troublesome to the Body in Winter; so would it be to the minds of the Godly (for he is now speaking to his Disciples alone) to Travel on that Day, specially and solemnly set apart for God's worship; now if there were no Sabbath to continue after Christs Ascension, or if it were not to be Sanctified, there would be no occasion of this grief and trouble, that they behoved to Travel on the Sabbath, and durst not tarry till that Day were by-past, and so no cause to put up this Prayer; which yet by our Lords Exhortation seemeth to infer that the Sabbath was to be as certain in its time as the Winter: And doubtless this cannot be meant of the Jewish-Sabbath. For 1 • That was to be abolished shortly. 2. Travelling on the Jewish-Sabbath was to be no cause of Grief unto them, if indeed all days were alike; neither would it be scrupled in such a case by the Apostles to whom he now speaketh. 3. Besides, if no Sabbath were to be, it had been better and clearer to say, Stand not, and griev not to Travel any day: but his words imply the just contrary, that there was to be a solemn Sabbath. 4. He mentioneth the Sabbath-day only, and not the other Festivals of the Jews which were to be kept holy also, and by this he distinguisheth the ordinary Sabbath from those other days, and opposeth it to many, as being now the only Holy day on which they should eschew, if possible, to Travel; and would therefore pray to have it prevented: for in the New-Testament the Sabbath spoken of as the solemn time for worship is ever meant of the Weekly Sabbath, and other Holy days are called the first or last day of the Feast, and therefore if the Lords meaning were that they should pray, that their flight might not be on any of the Jewish Holy days, to mention ⟨p. 195⟩the Weekly Sabbath only, would not be sufficient for that end.
The third place is Matth. 24. v. 20. Pray that your flight be not in the Winter, neither on the Sabbath-day, where the Lord insinuateth, that as Travelling is troublesome to the Body in Winter; so would it be to the minds of the Godly (for he is now speaking to his Disciples alone) to Travel on that Day, specially and solemnly set apart for God's worship; now if there were no Sabbath to continue after Christs Ascension, or if it were not to be Sanctified, there would be no occasion of this grief and trouble, that they behoved to Travel on the Sabbath, and durst not tarry till that Day were by-past, and so no cause to put up this Prayer; which yet by our Lords Exhortation seemeth to infer that the Sabbath was to be as certain in its time as the Winter: And doubtless this cannot be meaned of the Jewish-Sabbath. For 1 • That was to be abolished shortly. 2. Travelling on the Jewish-Sabbath was to be no cause of Grief unto them, if indeed all dayes were alike; neither would it be scrupled in such a case by the Apostles to whom he now speaketh. 3. Besides, if no Sabbath were to be, it had been better and clearer to say, Stand not, and griev not to Travel any day: but his words imply the just contrary, that there was to be a solemn Sabbath. 4. He mentioneth the Sabbath-day only, and not the other Festivals of the Jews which were to be kept holy also, and by this he distinguisheth the ordinary Sabbath from those other dayes, and opposeth it to many, as being now the only Holy day on which they should eschew, if possible, to Travel; and would therefore pray to have it prevented: for in the New-Testament the Sabbath spoken of as the solemn time for worship is ever meaned of the Weekly Sabbath, and other Holy dayes are called the first or last day of the Feast, and therefore if the Lords meaning were that they should pray, that their flight might not be on any of the Jewish Holy dayes, to mention ⟨p. 195⟩the Weekly Sabbath only, would not be sufficient for that end.
To say that it was for fear of scandal, that they should pray not to be put to fly, will not remove the former reasons; besides at that time the Apostles and other Christians had given up with the Jews and stood not on scandal in such things in reference to them, on whom, as the Apostle faith, 1 Thes. 2.16. Wrath had come to the uttermost, and who were not infirm but malicious, and so in respect of offence to be dealt with as the Lord did with the Pharisees; and therefore, all things being considered, it appeareth from our Lords words, that a Sabbath among Christians was to be Sanctified 40. years, or there-about, after his death, which proveth that the Scripture mentioneth a Sabbath to be Sanctified under the New-Testament.
To say that it was for fear of scandal, that they should pray not to be put to flye, will not remove the former reasons; besides at that time the Apostles and other Christians had given up with the Jews and stood not on scandal in such things in reference to them, on whom, as the Apostle faith, 1 Thes. 2.16. Wrath had come to the uttermost, and who were not infirm but malicious, and so in respect of offence to be dealt with as the Lord did with the Pharisees; and therefore, all things being considered, it appeareth from our Lords words, that a Sabbath among Christians was to be Sanctified 40. years, or there-about, after his death, which proveth that the Scripture mentioneth a Sabbath to be Sanctified under the New-Testament.
We come unto the second way of making out the Morality of this Command, to wit, by showing how the Scripture speaketh of the whole Decalogue, and thus we reason.
We come unto the second way of making out the Morality of this Command, to wit, by shewing how the Scripture speaketh of the whole Decalogue, and thus we reason.
1. If all the Commandments of the Decalogue be Moral, then must this be so also; for it is one of them; and if it were not Moral and binding, there would not now be Ten words (as they are called by the Lord, Deut. 10.4.) but Nine only, which at first blush, will and cannot but seem strange and absurd to those who have from Gods word drunk-in that number: But all these are Moral and binding, as is granted by all, (except the Papists who deny the second, and therefore score it out of their Catechisms) And that they must be all alike Moral and binding, may be made out, these two ways.
1. If all the Commandments of the Decalogue be Moral, then must this be so also; for it is one of them; and if it were not Moral and binding, there would not now be Ten words (as they are called by the Lord, Deut. 10.4.) but Nine only, which at first blush, will and cannot but seem strange and absurd to those who have from Gods word drunk-in that number: But all these are Moral and binding, as is granted by all, (except the Papists who deny the second, and therefore score it out of their Catechisms) And that they must be all alike Moral and binding, may be made out, these two wayes.
1. All of them in the Old-Testament had alike Authority, Privileges, and Prerogatives, which neither the Judicial nor Ceremonial Law had, as 1. To be distinctly pronounced by God himself, without adding more, Deut 5.22. 2. To be written by His own finger in Tables of Stone, Exod. 29.18. 3. To be laid up and kept in the Ark, Exod. 25.1 •. And if these and other Prerogatives did put a difference, and show a difference to be put betwixt the other Nine Commands, and all Judicial or Ceremonial Laws, Why not betwixt them, and this also? 2. In the New-Testament they are all alike confirmed; when the Law in general is spoken of, none of them is excepted, and therefore this Command is necessarily included.
1. All of them in the Old-Testament had alike Authority, Priviledges, and Prerogatives, which neither the Judicial nor Ceremonial Law had, as 1. To be distinctly pronounced by God himself, without adding more, Deut 5.22. 2. To be written by His own finger in Tables of Stone, Exod. 29.18. 3. To be laid up and kept in the Ark, Exod. 25.1 •. And if these and other Prerogatives did put a difference, and shew a difference to be put betwixt the other Nine Commands, and all Judicial or Ceremonial Laws, Why not betwixt them, and this also? 2. In the New-Testament they are all alike confirmed; when the Law in general is spoken of, none of them is excepted, and therefore this Command is necessarily included.
For which we should look first to that place, Matth. 5.17. Where our Lord in a special manner intendeth to vindicate the Moral Law, and to press holiness in Moral Duties upon His Hearers, even in another sort than the Pharisees did: Think no • (saith He) That I am come to destroy the Law and the Prophets, I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil; Verily he that breaketh one of the least of these Commands, and teacheth Men so, shall be called least in the Kingdom of God, &c Where, by Law, must necessarily be understood the Moral law, for he was thought to be a Transgressor of that, and especially of this Command in it (for that Sermon in Matthew cometh in, in order after His being challenged for breach of Sabbath, Joh. 5.10. &c.) And His scope is to wipe off that Imputation, and how? by showing that He still presseth the Moral law, even beyond what the Pharisees did. 2. It was the Moral law especially, which the Pharisee s corrupted, and whereof he undertaketh the Vindication, and it is Holiness in Obedience to that which he presseth as necessary beyond what the Scribes and Pharisees did; and indeed it was in that law they failed mainly, and not in the Ceremonial law. 3. The offence and mistake that Christ is to preoccupy and rectify amongst His Hearers, requireth this: for many of them fancied that by the Messiah there should be a Relaxation from the Duties of Holiness called for in the Moral law; and therefore, saith He, think not so; now a Relaxation from some other laws might have been thought of warrantably. 4. It is such a law whereof to teach the Abrogation at any time is sinful and pernicious, therefore it is certainly the Moral law.
For which we should look first to that place, Matth. 5.17. Where our Lord in a special manner intendeth to vindicate the Moral Law, and to press holiness in Moral Duties upon His Hearers, even in another sort than the Pharisies did: Think no • (saith He) That I am come to destroy the Law and the Prophets, I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill; Verily he that breaketh one of the least of these Commands, and teacheth Men so, shall be called least in the Kingdom of God, &c Where, by Law, must necessarily be understood the Moral law, for he was thought to be a Transgressor of that, and especially of this Command in it (for that Sermon in Mathew cometh in, in order after His being challenged for breach of Sabbath,
Secondly, We reason thus, when He speaketh of the law, [Greek or Hebrew], or by way of eminency (meaning no doubt the Decalogue) He speaketh alike of all its Commandments, even of the least of them and so of this. 4. Also that he came not to destroy it, which yet the Lord never did of Ceremoni •ls, but rather foretold the Abolition of them, as he did of the seeking and worshipping of God in the Temple at Jerusalem, &c. Yea when he cleareth the Doctrine of the Sabbath from the Pharisees corrupting Traditions, he doth never weaken its former Obligation, nor insinuate its weakness, but showeth the true meaning thereof, which from the beginning made it not only consistent with the works of Piety and mercy, but exceedingly helpful to both.
Secondly, We reason thus, when He speaketh of the law, 〈non-Latin alphabet〉, or by way of eminency (meaning no doubt the Decalogue) He speaketh alike of all its Commandements, even of the least of them and so of this. 4. Also that he came not to destroy it, which yet the Lord never did of Ceremoni •ls, but rather foretold the Abolition of them, as he did of the seeking and worshiping of God in the Temple at Jerusalem, &c. Yea when he cleareth the Doctrine of the Sabbath from the Pharisies corrupting Traditions, he doth never weaken its former Obligation, nor insinuate its weakness, but sheweth the true meaning thereof, which from the beginning made it not only consistent with the works of Piety and mercy, but exceedingly helpful to both.
A Second place, Confirming the whole Decalogue (or rather Asserting it's Authority,) is in the Epistle of James, Jam. 2.10. He that Offendeth in One, is Guilty of, All: Why! Because He is the same God, and Law-giver (And no Servant nor Angel) who spake them All, one as well as another of them: And it being clear there, that he speaketh of the Decalogue, called the Royal Law; (there being no Law instanced in; nor any other, that can be of a like Authority, in these Laws instanced, but only it; nor that could be pleaded for, by James, on such Grounds, on such a time,) and it being also clear, That he giveth to all those Laws, which the Lord spake at that time, alike Authority; (other-wise, his reasoning would not be good, if any one Law or Command, could be instanced to him, of the Ten, which the Lord spake, and was abrogated, and not binding) it necessarily followeth, that this 4th. Command, being one of the Ten, must be of equal authority with t he rest.
It may be noted also, That James here doth not, (as neither doth our Lord, nor any of his Apostles, when they cite the Law) give New Authority to the Laws he citeth; but supposeth them to have it already; and maketh use of them, as Confirmations of the thing he pressed; which could not be, if their Authority depended on, or flowed from, the present Citation of them
Thirdly, we reason further thus; Either there is some Moral Duty, contained in this Command, and laid on by it; which is not in any of the former; or there is but some Ceremonial thing in it, reducible to one of them: For, the Perfection of this Law requireth, that all things needful to the Worship of God, should be summed in it and the Scope thereof, which is, Briefly to compend all requireth there should be nothing in it, that's needless, superfluous, or that might have been left out.
Thirdly, we reason further thus; Either there is some Moral Duty, contained in this Command, and laid on by it; which is not in any of the former; or there is but some Ceremonial thing in it, reducable to one of them: For, the Perfection of this Law requireth, that all things needful to the Worship of God, should be summed in it and the Scope thereof, which is, Briefly to compend all requireth there should be nothing in it, that's needless, superfluous, or that might have been left out.
Now if the matter be Moral; not contained in any former Command, then is the Command it self Moral; seeing a Moral Substance, and Matter Denominateth the Command so: Yea, it must be Moral, other-wise some-thing Morally necessary to Gods Service, (such as the Determination of its chief time) should be omitted. It may be assumed, yet further: It must be Moral, (be it what it will) to eschew a Tautology in ⟨p. 198⟩this short Compend of Duties; and that, of Moral Duties too.
Again, If it be not Moral, but contain some Ceremonial thing reducible to one of the three former Commands: Then 1. It might have been put amongst other Ceremonials. 2. Other Ceremonials might have been put in with it: Or, 3. A Reason given, Why all are not Reducible to some Moral Command. 4. If the matter of this be Reducible to another Command. then can it not be accounted a Distinct Command; neither ought it here to have been given as such, but sub-joined to some other; as the Servants and Beasts resting, is sub-joined to this. 5. It would be shown to what Command it's Reducible as to the Substance of it, if it be Ceremonial: 6. A Reason would be given, Why amongst Ten, One, and Only One, is set down, so far different from all the rest. And if all these Absurdities, follow the Denial of it's Substance to be Moral; then, for eschewing of them, we must conclude it to be Moral: and so the Fourth Command is Moral.
Again, If it be not Moral, but contain some Ceremonial thing reducible to one of the three former Commands: Then 1. It might have been put amongst other Ceremonials. 2. Other Ceremonials might have been put in with it: Or, 3. A Reason given, Why all are not Reducible to some Moral Command. 4. If the matter of this be Reducible to another Command. then can it not be accounted a Distinct Command; neither ought it here to have been given as such, but sub-joyned to some other; as the Servants and Beasts resting, is sub-joyned to this. 5. It would be shewn to what Command it's Reducible as to the Substance of it, if it be Ceremonial: 6. A Reason would be given, Why amongst Ten, One, and Only One, is set down, so far different from all the rest. And if all these Absurdities, follow the Denyal of it's Substance to be Moral; then, for eschewing of them, we must conclude it to be Moral: and so the Fourth Command is Moral.
Fourthly, we reason thus; If it be not Moral, it must either be Judicial, or Ceremonial, for the Matter and Substance of it; but it is not Judicial: that is, it belongeth not to External Policy, and Civil Society, principally and especially, in that one Nation, because no such Duties are Comprehended, at least Primarily, in any Command of the First Table; but in the Second, which teacheth Duties to others, as this First, doth •o God: Neither is it Ceremonial; For, All Ceremonies, that are Typical, have their Rise since the Fall, and relate some way to Christ to-Come. But this of sanctifying One Day of Seven, had it's Rise in the State of Innocency, and was enjoined to Adam in Paradise, before he fell, and therefore cannot be called Ceremonial Properly, more than the Command of a Man's leaving Father and Mother, and cleaving to his Wife, so that they too should be one Flesh, which the Apostle Ephes. 5. maketh use of. Besides, if it were Ceremonial in the Substance, then were it Typical and Significant of some-thing to come, which is hard to show: Then also had it not been Lawful to have retained it; for Ceremonials now in their use are not only Dead, but Deadly: But this Morality, in Substance the same with the Command which we plead for, was retained ⟨p. 199⟩by the Apostles, and Primitive Church; (to say no more) There-fore it is not Ceremonial: And so this Law must needs be Moral.
Fourthly, we reason thus; If it be not Moral, it must either be Judicial, or Ceremonial, for the Matter and Substance of it; but it is not Judicial: that is, it belongeth not to External Policy, and Civil Society, principally and especially, in that one Nation, because no such Duties are Comprehended, at least Primarily, in any Command of the First Table; but in the Second, which teacheth Duties to others, as this First, doth •o God: Neither is it Ceremonial; For, All Ceremonies, that are Typical, have their Rise since the Fall, and relate some way to Christ to-Come. But this of sanctifying One Day of Seven, had it's Rise in the State of Innocency, and was enjoyned to Adam in Paradise, before he fell, and therefore cannot be called Ceremonial Properly, more than the Command of a Man's leaving Father and Mother, and cleaving to his Wife, so that they too should be one Flesh, which the Apostle
To say, That the Command is partly Moral, partly Ceremonial; if we respect it's Substance, will not hold: For, 1. There is no such other Law. 2. That were to make Confusion, betwixt Ceremonials, and Morals; which it seemeth, the Lord himself hath aimed and resolved to keep clearly Distinct. 3. What ever be Ceremonial; That which was allowed, and enjoined to Adam in Paradise; and wherein we may agree with Him, under the Gospel, cannot be Ceremonial: For, neither of these States are Capable, of Proper Ceremonies; but both agree on a Seventh Day. Therefore, it is not Ceremonial.
To say, That the Command is partly Moral, partly Ceremonial; if we respect it's Substance, will not hold: For, 1. There is no such other Law. 2. That were to make Confusion, betwixt Ceremonials, and Morals; which it seemeth, the Lord himself hath aimed and resolved to keep clearly Distinct. 3. What ever be Ceremonial; That which was allowed, and injoyned to Adam in Paradise; and wherein we may agree with Him, under the Gospel, cannot be Ceremonial: For, neither of these States are Capable, of Proper Ceremonies; but both agree on a Seventh Day. Therefore, it is not Ceremonial.
The Third way, we make out the Morality of this Command, is, By particular considering of it self; and here we argue thus.
If it be not only put into the Decalogue, with the other Moral Commands; but more singularly explicated, and pressed even in it than they; then it is certainly Moral; that is, perpetually Obligatory with the rest. But so it is put and set down in the Decalogue; and pressed even more than the rest of the Commands, as on other Accounts, so possibly in this; because it's Ground is Positive, and Men need the more Words about it: Just as in the Second Command; Ergo, &c. Now, that it is thus put, and pressed; appeareth these several ways.
If it be not only put into the Decalogue, with the other Moral Commands; but more singularly explicated, and pressed even in it than they; then it is certainly Moral; that is, perpetually Obligatory with the rest. But so it is put and set down in the Decalogue; and pressed even more than the rest of the Commands, as on other Accounts, so possibly in this; because it's Ground is Positive, and Men need the more Words about it: Just as in the Second Command; Ergo, &c. Now, that it is thus put, and pressed; apeareth these several wayes.