A47576:208
The Jewish Sabbath abrogated, or, The Saturday Sabbatarians confuted in two parts
The Jewish Sabbath abrogated, or, The Saturday Sabbatarians confuted in two parts : first, proving the abrogation of the old seventh-day Sabbath : secondly, that the Lord's-Day is of divine appointment : containing several sermons newly preached upon a special occasion, wherein are many new arguments not found in former authors / by Benjamin Keach.The Jewish Sabbath abrogated, or, The Saturday Sabbatarians confuted in two parts : first, proving the abrogation of the old seventh-day Sabbath : secondly, that the Lord's-Day is of divine appointment : containing several sermons newly preach'd upon a special occasion, wherein are many new arguments not found in former authors / by Benjamin Keach.
London: printed by John Marshall, 1700
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.
Secondly, Suppose Adam had had this positive Law given to him also, to keep holy the seventh day, and had broke it, had he thereby been guilty of the breach of all the others? For I have just now showed that most believe him guilty of all in breaking that one Command, Thou shalt not eat of the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil. But being every way guilty, it must be supposed he broke both those positive Commands, if he had two given him, and so was guilty of the breach of the fourth twice. Nay, if what I say be considered, and that which I inquire about be granted, he was doubly guilty of the breach of them all.
Secondly, Suppose Adam had had this positive Law given to him also, to keep holy the seventh day, and had broke it, had he thereby been guilty of the breach of all the others? For I have just now shew'd that most believe him guilty of all in breaking that one Command, Thou shalt not eat of the Tree of Knowledg of good and evil. But being every way guilty, it must be supposed he broke both those positive Commands, if he had two given him, and so was guilty of the breach of the fourth twice. Nay, if what I say be consider'd, and that which I inquire about be granted, he was doubly guilty of the breach of them all.
Thirdly, The Law of the Sabbath was (as it is conceived) that Adam should keep that day holy; nay, he must be so obliged, if any Command was given to him, yea and keep it more holy than any of the other six. Now if so, would it not follow that Adam was not perfect in Innocency? Doth Perfection admit of any ⟨p. 47⟩•urther degree of Holiness, or require more sanctity on that day than any other? Certain•• while he stood, every day must be kept with •e Holiness and Sanctity. Or I say, what •ason can be given that Adam, who was so •ly and perfect, and capable in the same de•ree of contemplating every day the Perfections of his blessed Creator, should need one ecial day to do this in, having nothing to vert his thoughts, nor any need of a day of st from toilsome Labour? If so, doth not what ey say argue some Imperfection attending […]? how then was he created in the Image of […], and perfect, if he was capable of keeping y one day more holy than the rest whilst in innocency? If any should say he was capable […] rest from dressing the Garden on one day: […] answer, if the dressing the Garden was any nderance to him in Divine Contemplation, […] any holy Duty, it argues still he was not perfect, nor completely happy.