Page 145
Thesis 147.
There is a Law made mention of, Iam. 2.10. whose parts [ 147] are so inseparably linked together that whosoever breaks any one is guilty of the breach of all, and consequently whosoe∣ver is called to the obedience of one, is called to the obedi∣ence of all, and consequently all the particular Jaws which it contains are homogeneall 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 'tis the whole morall 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 cannot be meant of the ceremoniall Law which did neither binde Gentiles or Jews at that time wherein the Apostle writ. 2 He speaks of such a Law as is called a royall Law, and a Law of liberty, vers. 8.12. which cannot be meant of the ceremoniall Law in whole or in part, which is called a Law of bondage, not worthy the royall and kingly spirit of a Christian to stoop to, Gal. 4.9. 3. 'Tis that law by the works of which all men are bound to ma∣nifest their faith, and by which fa••••h is made perfect, vers. 22. which cannot be the Ceremoniall nor Evangelicall, for that is the Law of faith: and therefore it's meant of the Law mo∣rall. 4. 'Tis that Law of which, Thou shalt not kill nor commmit adultery are parts, vers. 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 morall Law, from whence it is manifest that the Apostle doth not speak (as M. Primrose would interpret him) of offending against the Word at large, and of which the Ceremoniall Laws were a part, but of offen∣ding against that part of the word, to wit, the morall Law, of which, he that offends against any one is guilty of the breach of all; hence also, his other answer fals to the dust, viz. that the fourth command is no part of the Law, and therefore the not observing of it is no sinne 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 'tis a meer begging of the question to affirm that it is no part of the Law of Christians: but we see the Apostle here speaks of the Law, and the Royall Law, and the Royall Law of Liberty: his meaning therefore must be of some speciall Law which he