the Law but the hardnesse of their stony hearts which the Law writ upon them was not able to overcome and t is true that the stony Tables did signifie stony hearts but its false that the writing on stone did not signifie 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 may 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 morall Laws and all morall Laws are thus summarily and generally honoured by God the ten Commandements being Christian pandects and common heads of all morall duties toward God and men Under which generals all the particular morall duties in the Commentaries of the Prophets and Apostles are virtually comprehended and contained and therefore Mr. Primrose's argument is weake who thinks that this honour put upon the Decalogue doth not argue it to be morall Because then many other particular morall Laws set down in Scripture not in Tables of stone but in parchments of the Prophets and Apostles should not be morall For we doe not say that all morall Laws particularly were thus specially honoured but that all and only morall Laws summarily were thus honoured in which summaries all the particulars are contained and in that respect equally honoured It may affect ones heart with great mourning to see the many inventions of mens hearts to blot out this remembrance of the Sabbath day they first cast it out of Paradise and shut it out of the world untill Moses time when in Moses time it s published as a Law and crowned with the same honour as all other morall Laws yet then they make it to be but a ceremoniall Law continuing onely until the comming of Christ after which time it ceaseth to be any Law at all unlesse the Churches constitution shall please to make it so which is worst of all Thesis 145. Every thing indeed which was published by Gods immediate voyce in promulgating of the Law is not morall 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 perswade to the obedience thereof but they were not Laws for the question is whether all Laws spoken and writ thus immediately were not morall 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 immediatly but yet were both of them proper unto the Iews But suppose the promise annexed to the fifth Commandement be proper to the Jews and ceremoniall as Master 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 Commandements 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 and perhaps ceremoniall may be annexed to morall laws which are common to all nor wil it follow that laws are therefore not common because the motives thereto are proper We that dwel in America may be perswaded to love and feare God which are morall duties in regard of our redemption and deliverances from out of the vast sea storms we once had and the tumults in Europe which now are which motives are proper to our selves Promises and motives annexed to the Commandements come in as means to a higher end viz. obedience to the Laws themselves and hence the Laws themselves may be morall and these not so though immediatly spoken because they be not chiefly nor lastly intended herein I know Wallaeus makes the preface to the Commandments a part of the first Commandment and therefore he would hence infer that some part at least of a Commandment is proper to the Jews but if these words contain a motive pressing to the obedience of the whole how is it possible that they should be a part of the law or of any one law For what force of a law can there be in that which only declares unto us who it is that redeemed them out of Egypts bondage For it cannot be true which the same Author affirms that in these words is set forth only who that God is whom we are to have to be our God in the first Commandement but they are of larger extent shewing us who that God is whom we are to worship according to the first Commandement and that with his own worship according to the second and that reverently according to the third and whose day we are to sanctifie according to the fourth and whose wil we are to doe in all duties of love toward man according to the severall duties of the second Table and therefore this declaration of God is no more a part of the first then of any other Commandment and every other Commandement may challenge it as a part of themselves as well as the first 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 spirituall life which flows from faith Gal. 2.20 Ioh. 5.24 The law therefore is the rule of our life now if nine of these be a compleat rule without a tenth exclude that one and then who sees not an open gap made for all the rest to goe out at also For where wil 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 Cassanders 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 himselfe from a broken head here sends us for salve to the light of nature and the testimony of tbe Gospel both which saith he maintain and confirm the morality of all the other Commandements except this one of the Sabbath But as it shall appeare 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 universall Idolaters and therefore blotted out the light of nature as Mr. Primrose confesseth
phrase Christ in the Spirit leads us to what Christ in the flesh said inward Christ leads the faithfull to the outward Ministery 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 Iohn 12.48 and therefore certainly are to be regulated by it now Thesis 89. It is true that the faithfull receive an unction or an anoinâ—ing of the Spirit which teacheth them all things but is this teaching immediate or mediate If immediate why doth Iohn tell them that he writ to them that hereby they might know they had eternall life 1 Iohn 5.13 but if it be mediate viz. by the word externally preacht or writ then the externall word still is to be our rule which the anointing of the Spirit helps us to know It is true the Apostle saith 1 Iohn 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 explaines his meaning in the words following viz. otherwise and after another way and manner then as the Spirit taught them for so the words runne 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 heare 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 bee truely 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 confirme his Doctrine which he writ to them it being no unknowne thing but a thing known to them by the anointing of the Spirit which either they had received by former Ministery 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 meane so farre 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 's as weak an argument to imagine That wee are not to be led and guided by any outward commands in our obedience unto God because God is to worke all our workes for us and because we are not to live but Christ is to live in us as to thinke 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 Apostles answer is full Gal. 2.19 20. that as hee did not live but by the faith of the Son of God so are we But if the question be According to what rule are we to live and wherein are wee to live The answer is given by David Psalme 119.4 5. Thou hast commanded us to keep thy precepts diligently Oh that my heart were directed to keep thy Statutes Deal bountifully with thy servant that I may live and keep thy word ver 17. Let thy mercy come to me that I may live for thy law is my delight vers 27. So that if the question be What is the rule of faith by which we live The answer is the Gospel Phil. 3.16 But if the question be What is the rule of life it self The answer is the morall law and of this later is the controversie 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 Gods decree for we cannot sinne by fulfilling the one but wee may sin in fulfilling the other Gods secret and working will was fulfilled when Iosephs brethren sold him into Egypt and when Nebuchadnezzar afflicted Gods people seventy yeares as also when the Scribes and Pharisees caused Christ to bee crucified yet in all these thingâ— they sinned and provoked Gods wrath against them How Was it in crossing and thwarting Gods working will or the will of Gods Decree No verily for it 's expressely said that Christ was crucified according to the determinate counsell and will of God Acts 4.28 It was therefore by crossing Gods commanding will It is therefore a hellish device of Libertines to exempt men from all Law and from the sense of all sinne Because say they all things good and evill come from Gods will and all things that are done are wrought by him and all that he doth is good and therefore all sinfull actions are good because God workes them for what have we to doe to take the measure of our wayes by his working will Gods will is his owne rule to work with not our rule to worke by Our actions may bee most sinfull when his working in and about these may bee most just and holy for though God purposeth to leave the creature to fall and sin yet he so purposed it as that it should be onely through their owne fault that so they sinne And although a Christian is to submit humbly to the just dispensations of God when he leaves it to any evill yet Gods working will in all such dispensations must not be our rule for then wee must will not onely our owne sinne but our owne affliction and perdition for ever for all these are contained under his working will It is therefore a most subtle and pernicious practice in many who when they are overtaken with any sin or hampered with sinne they wash all off from themselves and lay all the blame if any be upon God himself saying The Lord left mee and he doth not helpe mee and he must doe all and hath undertaken to doe all if therefore I sin upon him be the blame or if there be any upon them it is but little But why should any judge of the evill of their sinne by Gods working will for that is not your rule but the commanding will of God according to which Samuel convinced Saul when he was left of God to spare Agag that his disobedience against the commandment was rebellion and as the sinne of Witchcraft in the eyes of God 1 Samuel 15.23 Thesis 92. It is a great part of Christs love to command us to doe any thing for him as well as to promise to doe any thing for us When the King of glory hath given us our lives by promise it s then the next part of his speciall grace and favour to command us to stand before him and attend upon his greatnesse continually
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 heires of the promise and consequently such as were beleevers in this Church in those old Testament times wee are not therefore now in these new Testament times under the law as they were the great difficulty therefore remaines 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 doe speak truely but they doe not resolve the difficulty in this place for certainly the Apostle speaks not onely of the Ceremoniall law but also of that law which was given because of transgressions Gal. 3.19 and which shut up not onely the Jewes but all men under sinne verse 22. which being the power of the morall law chiefely the Apostle must therefore intend the morall law under which the old Testament Beleevers were shut up and we now are not The doubt therefore still remaines viz. How are we not now under the morall law Will any say that we are not now under the malediction and curse and condemnation of it but the Jewes under the old Testament were thus under it even under the curse of it This cannot be the meaning for although the carnall Jewes were thus under it yet the faithfull whom the Apostle cals the heire and Lord of all Gal. 4.1 were not thus under it for Beleevers then were as much blessed then with faithfull Abraham as Beleevers now cap. 3.9 How then are we not now 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 straine the place but this cannot bee 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 verse 16. and they that thus walke in the spirit according to the law are not saith the Apostle under the law which cannot without flat contradiction be meant of not being under the rule or directive power of it and it would bee a miserable weake motive to presse them to love because all the law is fulfilled in love if the law was not to bee 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 doe with the law If we therfore as well as they are thus under the law as a rule of life how are wee not under it as they were Is it because they were under it as a preparative means for Christ and not wee They were under the humbling and terrifying preparing worke of it but not we There are some indeed who think that this use of the law under the Gospel is but a back-doore or an Indian path or a crookt-way about to lead to Jesus Christ but certainly these men know not what they say for the text expressely tels us that the Scripture hath concluded not onely the Jewes but All under sinne that so the promise by faith might be given to them that beleeve Gal. 3.22 So that the law is subservient to faith and to the promise that so hereby not onely the Jewes but all that God saves might hereby feele their need and fly by faith to the promise made in Iesus Christ and verily if Christ be the end of the law to every one that beleeves Rom. 10.4 then the law is the meanes not of it selfe so much as by the rich grace of God not onely to the Iewes but to all others to the end of the world to lead them to this end Christ Iesus If therefore the faithfull under the new Testament are thus under the preparing worke of the law as well as those under the old How were they therefore so under the law as we are not and wee not under it as they were I confesse the place is more full of difficulties than is usually observed by writers upon it onely for the clearing up of this doubt omitting many things I answer briefely That the children of the old Testament were under the law and the pedagogy of it two wayes after which the children of the new Testament are not under it now but are redeemed from it 1. As the morall law was accompanied with a number of burdensome Ceremonies thus wee 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 sinne against it whether through infirmity ignorance or presumption they were to have recourse to the Sacrifices and High Priests yearely and to their bloud and oblations They were to pray which was a morall duty but it must bee with incense and in such a place They were to be thankfull another morall duty but it must bee testified by the offering up of many Sacrifices upon the Altar c. They were to confesse their sinnes a morall duty also but it must be over the head of the Scape-goat c. Thus they were under the law but we are not And as 't is usuall for the Apostle thus to speak of the law in other places of the Scripture so surely hee speakes of it here for hence it is that in the beginning of this dispute cap. 3.19 hee speaks of the morall law which was given because of transgressions and yet in the close of it Gal. 4.3 he seemes to speak only of the ceremoniall law which he cals the elements of the world under which the children were then in bondage as under Tutors and Governours which implies thus much that the children of the old Testament were indeed under the morall law but yet withall as thus accompanied with ceremoniall rudiments and elements fit to teach children in their minority But now in this elder age of the Church although we are under the morall law in other respects yet wee are not under it as thus accompanied 2. In respect of the manner and measure of dispensation of the morall law which although it had the revelation of the Gospel conjoyned with it for Moses writ of Christ Iohn 5.46 and Abraham had the Gospell preached to him Gal. 3.8 and the unbeleeving Jewes had the Gospel preached Heb. 4.2 yet the law was revealed and pressed more clearely and strongly with more rigour and terrour and the Gospel was revealed more obscurely and darkly in respect of the manner of externall 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. There was then much law urged externally clearly and little Gospel so clearely revealed indeed Gospel and Christ Iesus was the end of the morall law and the substance of all the shadowes of the ceremoniall
but not that they brake Bread every day in the Temple or from house to house or if they should yet the bâ—eaking of Bread in this verse is meant of Common not Sacred Bread as it is verse 42. where I think the Bread was no more Common then their continuance in the Apostles Droctrine and Fellowship was Common and therefore in this 46. verse the phrase is altered and the Original word properly signifies ordinary Bread for common nourishment And yet suppose they did receive the Sacrament every day yet here the breaking of Bread is made mention of as the opus diei or the speciall businesse of the day and the day is mentioned as the special time for such a purpose and hence no other day if they break Bread in it is mentioned and therefore it s called in effect the day of meeting to break bread Nor do I finde in all the Scripture a day distinctly mentioned for holy duties as this first day of the week is wherein a whole people or Church meet tâ—gether for such ends but that day was Holy the naming of the particular day for such ends implies the Holinesse of it and the time is purposely mentioned that others in after times might purposely and specially observe that Day 8 Nor is it said that the Disciples met together the night after the first day but it s expressely said to be upon the first day of the week and suppâ—se as Mr. Brabourne saith that their meeting was noâ— together in the morning but onely in the evening time to celebrate the Lords Supper a little before the shutting in of the day yet it s a sufficient ground for conscience to observe this day above any other for holy services although every part of the day be not filled up with publike Church duties for suppose the Levites on the Jewish sabbath should do no holy publike duty on their own Sabbath untill the day was farre â—pent will Mr. Brabourne argue from thence that the Jewish Sabbath was not wholly holy unto God But againe suppose the latter part of the day was spent in breaking of Bread yet will it follow that no other part of the day was spent before either in any private or publique holy duties possibly they might receive the Lords Supper in the evening of this Sabbath for the time of this action is in the general indifferent yet might they not spend the rest of the morning in publike Duties as we know some do now in some Churches who are said to meet together to break Bread the latter part of this day and yet sanctifie the Sabbath the whole day before Suppose it be not expressely said that they did shut up shopwindwes at Troas and forsake the Plough and the Wheele and abstaine from all servile work yet if he beleeves that no more was done this day but what is expressely set downe Mr. Brabourne must needs see a pitiful face of Christ in the Lords Supper and people comming â—ushing upon it without any serious examination or preparation or singing of Psalms because no such Duties as these are mentioned to be upon this Day 9. Lastly Master Primrose like a staggering man knowes not what to fasten on in answer to this place therefore tels us that suppose it was a Sabbath yet that it might be taken up from the Churches Liberty and Custome rather then from any Divine institution But besides that which hath been said to dasht his Dreame Thes. 27. the falsenesse of this common and bold assertion will appeare more fully in the explication of the second text 1 Cor. 16.1 2. which now followes wherein it will appeare to be an Apostolical and therefore a Divine Institution from Jesus Christ. Thesis 36. In the second of the places therefore alledged 1 Cor. 16.1 2. These things are considerable to prove the first day in the week to be the Christian Sabbath and that not so much by the Churches practise as by the Apostles precept For 1. Although it be true that in some cases Collections may be made any day for the poore Saints yet why doth the Apostle here limit them to this day for the performance of this Duty they that translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 upon one day of the week do miserably mistake the phrase which in Scripture phrase onely signifies the first day of it and beat their forheads against the maine Scope of the Apostle viz. to fixe a certaine day for such a Duty as required such a certaine time For they might by this translation Collect their Benevolences one day in foure or ten yeers for then it should be done one day in a week 2 The Apostle doth not onely limit them to this time but also all the Churches of Galatia verse 1. and consequently all other Churches if that be true 2 Cor. 8.13 14. wherein the Apostle professeth he pressâ—th not one Church that he may ease another Church but that there be an equality and although I see no ground from this Text that the maintenance of the Ministry should be raised every Sabbath day for Christ would not have them reckoned among the poore being labourers worthy of their Hire and although this Collection was for the poore Saints of other Churches yet the proportion strongly holds that if there be ordinary cause of such Collections in every particular Church these Collections should be made the first day of the week much more carefully and religiously for the poore of ones own Church and that in all the Churches of Christ Jesus to the end of the world 3. The Apostle doth not limit them thus with wishes and counsels onely to do it if they thought most meet but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 verse 1. as I have ordained or instituted and therefore bindes their consciences to it and if Paul ordained it certainly he had it from Christ Jesus who first commanded him so to appoint it who professeth that what he had received of the Lord that onely he commanded unto them to do 1. Cor. 11.23 4. If this day had not been more holy and more fit for this work of Love then any other day he durst not have limited them to this Day nor durst he have honoured this Day above any other in the weeke yea above the Iewish seventh Day For we see the very Apostle tender alway of Christian Liberty and not to binde were the Lord leaves his people free for thus doing he should rather make snares then Lawes for Churches 1 Cor. 7.27.35 and go expressely against his own Doctrine Galat. 5.1 who bids them stand fast in their Liberty and that in this very point of the observation of dayes Galat. 4.10 But what fitnesse was there on this Day for such a service Consider therefore 5. That the Apostle doth not in this place immediatly appoint and institute the Sabbath but supposeth it to be so already as Mr. Primrose is forced to acknowledge and we know Duties of Mercy and Charity as
well as of necessity and piety are Sabbath Duties for which end this Day which Beza finds in an ancient Manuscript to be called the Lords Day was more fit for those Collections then any other day partly because they usually met together publikely on this day and so their Collections might be in greater readinesse against Pauls coming partly also that they might give more liberally at least freely it being supposed that upon this Day mens hearts are more weaned from the world and are warmed by the word and other Ordinances with more lively faith and hope of better things to come and therefore having received spirituall things from the Lord more plentifully on this Day every man will be more free to impart of his temporal good things therein for refreshing of the poore Saints and the very bowels of Christ Iesus And what other reason can be given of Limiting this Collection to this Day I confesse I cannot honestly though I could wickedly imagine And certainly if this was the end and withall the Iewish Day was the Christian Sabbath the Apostle would never have thus limited them to this Day nor honoured and exalted this first Dâ—y before that Iewish seventh which if it had been the Christian Sabbath had been more fit for such a work as this then the first Day if a working day could be 6. Suppose therefore that this Apostolical and Divine Institution is to give their Collections but not to institute the Day as Master Primrose pleads suppose also that they were not every Lords Day or first Day but sometime upon the first day Suppose also that they were extraordinary and for the poor of other Churches and to continue for that time onely of their need Suppose also that no man is injoyned to bring into the publike Treasury of the Church but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 privately to lay it by on this Day by himselfe as Mr. Brabourne urgeth against this Text yet still the question remaines unanswered viz. Why should the Apostle limit them to this Day either for extraordinary or private Collections and such special acts of Mercy unlesse the Lord had honoured this day for acts of mercy and much more of Piety above any other ordinary and common day What then could this Day be but the Christian Sabbath imposed by the Apostles and magnified and honoured by all the Churches in those dayes I know there are some other Replies made to this Scripture by Master Brabourne but they are wind-egges as Plutarch calls That Philosophers notions and have but little in them and therefore I passe them by as I do many other things in that book as not worth the time to name them 7. This Lastly I adde this first Day was thus honoured either by Divine or Humane Institution If by Divine we have what we plead for If by Humane custome and tradition then the Apostle assuredly would never have commended the observation of this Day who elsewhere condemnes the observation of dayes though the dayes were formerly by Divine Institution Ye observe saith he Dayes and Times and would he then have commended the observation of these dayes above any other which are onely by humane but never by Divine Institution It s strange that the Churches of Galatia are forbidden the observation of dayes Galat. 4.10 and yet commanded 1 Cor. 16.1.2 a more sacred and solemne observation of the first Daye of the week rather then any other Surly this could not be unlesse we conclude a Divine Institution hereof For we know how Zealous the holy Apostle is every where to strike at Humane customes and therefore could not lay a stumbling block to occasion the grievous fall of Churches to allow and command them to observe a Humane Tradition and to honour this above the seventh Day for such holy services ar are here made mention of But whether this Day was solemnely sanctified as the Sabbath of the Lord our God we come now to inquire Thesis 37. In the third Text Revel 1.10 Mention is made of the Lords Day which was ever accounted the first day of the week It seems therefore to be the Lords Day and consequently the Sabbath of the Lord our God Two things are needfull here to be considered and cleared 1. That this Day being called the Lords Day it is therefore set apart and sanctified by the Lord Christ as holy 2. That this Day thus sanctified is the first day of the week and therefore that first Day is our Holy or Sabbath Day Thesis 38. The first Difficulty here to prove and cleare up is that This Day which is here called the Lords Day is a day instituted and sanctified for the Lords honour and service above any other Day For as the Sacrament of Bread and Wine is called the Lords Supper and the Lords Table for no other reason but because they were instituted by Christ and sanctified for him and his honour so what other reason can be given by any Scripture-light why this is called the Lords Day but because â—t was in the like manner instituted and sanctified as they were Master Brabourne here shifts away from the light of this Text by affirming that it might be called the Lords Day in respect of God the Creator not Christ the Redeemer and therefore may be meant of the Iewish Sabbath which is called the Lords holy Day Isaiah 58 3. But why might he not as well say that its called the Lords Supper Table in respect of God the Creator considering that in the New Testament since Christ is actually exalted to be Lord of all this phrase is onely applyed to the Lord Christ as Redeemer Look therefore as the Jewish Sabbath being called the Lords Sabbath or the Sabbath of Iehovah is by that title and note certainly known to be a Day sanctified by Iehovah as Creator so this Day being called the Lords Day is by this note as certainly known to be a Day sanctified by our Lord Jesus as Redeemer Nor do I finde any one distinct thing in all the Scripture which hath the Lords superscription or name upon it as the Lords Temple the Lords Offerings the Lords people the Lords Priests c. but it is sanctified of God and holy to him why is not this Day then Holy to the Lord if it equally bears the Lords name Master Primrose indeed puts us off with another shift viz. That this Day being called so by the Churches customs John therefore calls it so in respest of that custome which the church then used without Divine institution But why may he not as well say that he calls it the Lords Table in respect of the Churches Custome also the Designation of a Day and of the first time in the Day for Holy publike services is indeed in the power of each particular Church Suppose it be a Lecture and the houres of Sabbath-meetings but the Sanctification of a Day if it be Divine worship to observe it if God command and appoint it then
surely it is wil-worship for any Humane Custome to institute it Now the Lords name being stamped upon this Day and so set apart for the honour of Christ it cannot be that so it should be called in respect of the Churches customes for surely then they should have been condemned for wil-worship by some of the Apostles and therefore it is in respect of the Lords institution hereof Thesis 39. The second Difficulty now lies in clearing up this particular viz. That this Day thus sanctified was the first Day of the week which is therefore the Holy Day of the Lord our God and consequently the Christian Sabbath for this purpose let these ensuing particulars be laid together 1. That this Day of which Iohn speaks is a known Day and was generally known in those dayes by this glorious name of the Lords Day and therefore the Apostle gives no other title to it but the Lords Day as a known day in those times for the Scope of Iohn in this Vision is as in all other Prophetical Visions when they set down the day and time of it to gain the more credit to the certainâ—y of it when every one sees the truth circumstantiated and they heare of the particular time and it may seem most absurd to set down the day and time for such an end and yet the day is not particularly known 2. If it was a known Day what Day can it be either by evidence of Scripture or any Antiquity but the first Day of the week For 1. There is no other Day on which mention is made of any other work or action of Christ which might occasion a Holy Day but onely this of the Resurrection which is exactly noted of all the Evangelists to be upon the first Day of the week and by which work he is expressely said to have all power given him in heaven and earth Matt. 28.18 and to be actually Lord of dead and living Rom. 14.9 and therefore why should any other Lords Day be dreamed of why should Master Brabourne imagine that this day might be some superstitious Easter Day which happens once a yeer the Holy Ghost on the contrary not setting downe the month or day of the yeer but of the week wherein Christ arose and therefore it must be meant of a weekly Holy Day here called the Lords Day 2. We do not read of any other Day besides this first Day of the week which was observed for Holy Sabbath Duties and honoured above any other day for breaking of Bread for preaching the Word which were acts of piety nor for Collections for the poor the most eminent act of mercy why then should any imagine any other day to be the Lords day but that first day 3. There seems to be much in that which Beza observes out of an ancient Greek Manuscript wherein that first Day of the week 1 Cor. 16.2 is expressely called the Lords Day and the Syriack Translation saith that their meeting together to receive the Sacrament 1 Cor. 11.20 was upon the Lords Day nor is there any antiquity but expounds this Lords Day of the first Day of the week as learned Rivet makes good against Gomarus professing that Quotquot Interpretes hactenus fuerunt haec verba de die Resurrectionis Domini intellexerunt solus quod quidem sciam Cl. D. Gomarus contradixit 4. Look as Iehovahs or the Lords Holy Day Isaiah 58.13 was the seventh Day in the week then in use in the Old Testament so why should not this Lords Day be meant of some seventh Day the first of seven in the week which the Lord appointed and the Church observed under the New Testament and therefore called as that was the Lords Day 5. There can be no other Day imagined but this to be the Lords Day indeeed Gomarus affirms that it s called the Lords Day because of the Lord Jesus apparition in Vision to Iohn and therefore he tell us that in Scripture phrase the Day of the Lord is such a Day wherein the Lord manifests himselfe either in wrath or in favour as here to Iohn But there 's a great difference between those phrases The Lords Day and the Day of the Lord which it is not called here For such an interpretation of the Lords Day as if it was an uncertaine time is directly crosse to the Scope of Iohn in setting downe this Vision who to beget more credit to it tels us First of the person that saw it I Iohn ver 10. Secondly the particular place in Paimo Thirdly the particular time the Lords Day These considerations do utterly subvert Mr. Brabournes discourse to prove the Jewish Sabbath to be the Lords Day which we are still to observe and may be sufficient to answer the scruples of modest and humble minds for if we aske the Time of it It is on the first Day of the week Would we know whether this time was spent in holy Duties and Sabbath services this also hath been proved Would we know whether it was sanctified for that end Yes verily because it s called the Lords Day and consequently all servile work was and is to be laid aside in it Would we know whether 't is the Christian Sabbath Day Verily if it be the Day of the Lord our God the Lords Day why is it not the Sabbath of the Lord our God If it be exalted and honoured by the Apostles of Christ above the Jewish Sabbath for Sabbath duties why should we not beleeve but that it was our Sabbath Day And although the word Sabbath Day or seventh day be not expressely mentioned yet if they be for substance in this Day and by just consequence deduced from Scripture it is all one as if the Lord had expressely called them so Thesis 40. Hence therefore it followes that although this particular seventh day which is the first of seven be not particularly made mention of in the fourth Commandment yet the last of seven being abrogated and this being instituted in its roome it is therefore to be perpetuated and observed in its roome For though it be true as Mr. Brabourne urgeth That New Institutions cannot be founded no not by Analogy of proportion meerly upon Old Institutions as because children were Circumcised it will not follow that they are therefore to be baptized and so because the Iewes kept that seventh day that we may therefore keep the first day Yet this is certaine that when New things are instituted not by humane Analogy but by Divine appointment the Application of these may stand by vertue of old precepts and general Rules from whence the Application even of old Institutions formerly arose For we know that the Cultus institutuâ— in the New Testament in Ministry and Sacraments stands at this day by vertue of the second Commandment as well as the instituted worship under the Old And though Baptisme stands not by vertue of the institution of Circumcision yet it being De novo instituted by Christ as the Seale of
Gospel makes an offer of Christ and salvation and remission of sins to all sinners where it comes yea to all sinners as sinners and as miserable yea though they have sinned long by unbeleef as is evident Hos. 14.1 Rev. 3.17 Ier. 3 2â— Isa. 55.1 all are invited to come unto these waters freely without money or price these things no man doubts of that knows the Gospel but the question is not whether Remission of sins and reconciliation in the Gospel belong to sinners but whether they belong to sinners immediately as sinners not whether they are merited by Christs death and offered out of his rich grace immediately to sinners but whether they are actually and immediately their own so as they may challenge them thus as their own from this as from a full and sufficient evidence viz. because they are sinners and because they see themselves sinners for we grant that Jesus Christ came into the world actually to save sinners yet mediatly by faith and then they may see salvation that he justifieth also the ungodly but how immediatly no but mediatly by faith Rom. 3.5 and that where sin abounds grace abounds to whom â—o all sinners no but mediatly to all those only who by â—aith receive this grace Rom. 5.17 so that the Gospel reveals no actuall love and reconciliation immediatly to a sinner as a sinner but mediatly to a sinner as a beleeving and broken-hearted sinner and the Scripture is so cleare in this point that whoever doubts of it must caecutire cum sole and we may say to them as Paul to the Galathians O foolish men who hath bewitched you that you should not see this truth For though Christ came to â—ave sinners yet he pâ—ofesseth that he came not to call the righteous but the sick sinners Mat. 9.13 though God justifieth the ungodly yet 't is such an ungodly man as beleeveth in him whose faith is imputed unto righteousnesse Rom 3.5 though grace abounds where sin abounds yet 't is not to all sinners for then all should be saved but to such as receive abundance of grace by faith Rom. 5.17 although God holds forth Christ to be a propitiation for sinners yet it 's expresly said to be mediatly through faith in his bloud Rom. 3.24.25 although the Scripture hath concluded all under sin that the promise might be given yet it is not said to be immediatly given to sinners as sinners but mediatly to all that beleeve and in one word though it be true that Christ died for sinners and enemies that they might have remission of sins then procured and merited for them yet we never actually have nor receive â—his remission and consequently cannot see it as our own untill we doe beleeve for unto this truth saith Peter do all the Prophets witnesse that whosoever beleeveth in him shall receive remission of sins Act. 10.43 and hence it is that as all the Prophets preached the actual favour of God only to sinners as beleevers so the Apostles never preached it in New Testament times otherwise and hence Peter Act. 2.38 doth not tell the sorrowfull Jews that they were sinners and that God loved them and that Christ had died for them and that their sins were pardoned because they were sinners but he first exhorts them to repent that so they might receive remission of sins nor doth Paul tell any man that salvation belonged to him because he is a sinner but if thou beleeve with all thy heart thou shalt be saved Rom. 10.5 6 7. if the love of God be revealed to a sinner as a sinner this must be either 1. by the witnesse of the Law but this is impossible for if the curse of God be herein revealed only to a sinner as a sinner then the love of God cannot but the Law curseth every sinner Gal 3.10 Or 2. by the Light and witnesse of the Gospel but this cannot be for it reveals life and salvation only to a beleever and confirms the sentence of the Law against such a sinner as beleeves not Ioh. 3.17 36. he that beleeves not is condemned already not only for unbeleef as some say for this doth but aggravate condemnation but also for sin by which man is first condemned before he beleeves if the Apostle may be beleeved Rom. 3.19 and if a man be not condemned for sin before he beleeve then he is not a sinner before he beleeve for look as Christ hath taken away any mans condemnation in his death just so hath he taken away his sin 3. Or else by the witnesse and testimony of Gods spirit but this is flat contrary to what the Apostle speaks Gal. 3.26 with 4 6. ye are all the sons of God by faith in Christ Iesus and because ye are sons not sinners he hath sent the spirit of his son crying Abba Father Gal. 4.4 5 6 and verily if the love of God belong to sinners as sinners then all sinners shall certainly be saved for a quatenus ad omne valâ—â— consequentia so that by this principle as sinne hath abounded actually to condemn all so grace hath abounded actually to save all which is most pernicious nor do I know what should make men embrace this principle unlesse that they either secretly think that the strait gate and narrow way to life is now so wide and broad that all men shall in Gospel times enter in thereat which is prodigious or else they must imagine some Arminian universall Redemption and reconciliation and so put all men in a salvable and reconciled estate such as it is before faith and then the evidence and ground of their assurance must be built on this false and crazy foundation viz. Iesus Christ had died to reconcile and so hath reconciled all sinners But I am a sinner And therefore I am reconciled If this be the bottome of this Gospel-Ministry and preaching free grace as doubtlesse 't is in some then I would say these things only 1. That this doctrine under a colour of free-grace doth as much vilifie and take off the price of free grace in Christs death as any I know for what can vilifie this grace of Christ more then for Christ so to shed his bloud as that Peter and Abraham in heaven shall have no more cause to thank Iesus Christ for his love therein then Iudas 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 aâ—l he will then certainly save all for so Paul reasons Rom. 8.32 and 6.10 he hath given his Sonne to death for us how shall â—e not but with him give us all other things and therefore he will give faith and give repentance and give perseverance and give eternall life also which is most false 2. If he did not pray for all then he hath not died for all Ioh. 17.9 which Scripture never yet received scarce
the shew of a rationall answer though some have endeavoured it with all wilinesse 3. That whereas by this doctrine they would clear up the way to a full and setled evidence and Christian assurance they do hereby utterly subvert the principall foundation of all setlednesse 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 shal we be saved by his life if Christ hath died and risen for us who then shall condemn who shall then seperate us from Gods love Rom. 8.32 Rom. 6.9 10. But if they hold no such principles I would then know how any man can have evidence of this viz. that God loves him and that Christ hath died for him while he is a sinner and as he is a sinner or how any Minister of the New Testament can say to any man under the power of his sins and the devil that he is not condemned for his sins but that God loves him and that Christ hath died for him without preaching falsehoods and lies and dreams of their own heart for 1. God hath not loved nor elected all sinners nor hath Christ died for all sinners 2. If every man be in a state of condemnation before he beleeve the Gospel then no man can be said to be in a state of reconciliation and that God hath loved him untill he refuse the Gospel but every man is in a state of condemnation before he beleeve because our Saviour expresly tel us that by faith we passe from death to life Ioh. 5.24 and he that hath not the son hath not life 1 Ioh. 5.12 and therefore if those be Ministers of the new Testament who first preach to all the drunkards and whoremongers and villaines in a parish that God loves them and that they are reconciled by Christ death and that they may know it because they are sinners then let the heavens hear and the earth know that all such Ministers are false Prophets and cry Peace Peace where God proclaims wrath and that they acquit them whom God condemns and if they be Ministers of the Old Testament spirit who first shew men their condemned estate and then present God as wroth against them while they be in their sin that so they may prize and fly to favour and free grace then such are Ministers of the old Testament and not of the new because they preach the truth and if preaching the truth be an old Testament Ministry no wise man then I hope will desire the new wine for the old is better while the Lion sleeps and God is silent and conscience slumbers all the beasts and wilde sinners of the world and many preachers too may think that there is no terrour in God no curse or wrath upon themselves in the midst of the rage increase and power of all their sins but when this lion roars and God awakens and conscience looks above head they shall then see how miserably they have been deceived they may slight sin abolish condemnation talk of and wonder at free-grace now and beleeve easily because they are sinners but certainly they shall be otherwise minded then Some men may have good ends in preaching Gods free-grace after this manner in the Gospel and make the Gospel a revelation of Gods actuall love to sinners as sinners and make a Christians evidence of it nothing else but the sight of his sin and of his being under the power of it but little do they think what Satan the father of this false doctrine aims at which are these four things chiefly 1. That sanctification faith c. might be no evidence at all to a Christian of a good estate for this they say is a doubtfull evidence and an unsettling way of assurance because they will hereby be as bones out of joynt in and out humbled to day and then comforted but hard-hearted to morrow and then at a losse whereas to see ones self a sinner that is a constant evidence for we are alway 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 an hypocrite perhaps truly yet a hypocrite is but a sinner and Gods 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 onely to open the door to all manner of wickednesse 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 Gods love be revealed to sinners as sinners then the more sinfull the more clear evidence he hath of Gods love and therefore one once intangled with these delusions was inticed to commit a grosse wickednesse that more full assurance might be attained 4. That so the true preaching and Ministry of the Gospel of Gods free-grace might be abolished at least despised which is this viz. Thou poor condemned sinner here is Christ Jesus and with him eternall remission of sins and reconciliation if thou believe and receive this grace offered humbly and thankfully for this is Gospel Mat. 28.19 Mark 16.16 Rom. 10.5 6 7 8. Rom. 3.14 25. Act. 8.37 And hence Mr. W.C. hath these words That if the Gospel hold forth Christ and salvation upon beleeving as many saith he preach it were then little better tidings then the law Ah wretched unworthy speech that when Jesus Christ himselfe would shew the great love of God unto the world Ioh. 3.16 he makes it out by two expressions of it 1. That the father sent his only Son 2. That whosoever did beleeve in him or if they did beleeve in him they should have eternall life The Lord shews wonderfull love that whoever beleeve may have Christ and eternall life by beleeving but this doctrine breathing ouâ— Gods dearest love by this mans account is little better then law which breaths out nothing but wrath But why doth he speak thus Because saith he it is as easie to keep the ten Commandements as to beleeve of ones self Very true as to beleeve of ones self but what is this against the preaching and holding forth Christ and salvation upon condition of beleeving For is not this preaching of the Gospel the instrument and means of working that faith in us which the Lord requires of us in the Gospel And must not Jesus Christ use the means for the end Were not those three thousand brought into Christ by faith by Peters promise of remission of sins upon their repentance Were not many filled