A Defense of the Sabbath Day, Chapter 5 · Commentary · Section 3 · Argument 14
ARGVM. XIV.
My 14th argument, for maintenance of the Saturday Sabbath is, becauſe wee may, together with Antinomiās, Libertines, & Anabaptiſts, as well aboliſh all the Morall Law by the Scriptures, as with them aboliſh the Saturday Sabbath, and thus I argue.
If wee may, together with Libertines, Antinomians, & Anabaptists, aboliſh by the Scriptures, the Saturday Sabbath as a Jewiſh Ceremony; Then may wee with them alſo, aboliſh by the Scriptures, the wholl Law of God, euen all the tenn commandements, as Jewiſh Ceremonies.
But neither wee may, nor yet may thoſe lawleſſe Christians; of Libertines, Antinomians, & Anabaptists aboliſh by the Scriptures, the wholl Law of Gods tenn commandements, as Iewiſh ceremonies.
Therefore wee may not, together with Libertines, Antinomians, & Anabaptists, thoſe lawleſſe Chriſtians, aboliſh by the Scrïptures, the Saturday Sabbath, as a Iewiſh Ceremony.
For profe of the conſequence; it is well knowne, that thoſe Lawleſſe Chriſtians of Libertines, Antinomians, & Anabaptiſtes, doe reiect the Santification of all Sabbaths: not but that they keepe the Lords day as a Sabbath, together with thoſe Proteſtant Churches amonge whom they liue; but they keepe it onelyonly as an ordinance of the Magiſtrate, and as in obedience to their gouerners; yet ſo too, as in caſe they could doe any common ſeruile worke on the Lords day, without offence to any, they would, and doe profeſſe it that they would: but to keepe any Sabbath, as a Diuine inſtitution, and as an ordinance of Gods, and by virtue of the 4th commandement, this they doe reiect as Iewiſh, and Ceremoniall: and for their warrant, among other textes of Scripture, as wee doe, ſo doe they alleage Exod. 31.13. & Coloſ. 2.16.17. againſt the Saturday Sabbath, ſhewing that it is aboliſhed, as a ſigne and ſhaddow &c. Thus they bring Scripture againſt the old Sabbath, as well as wee, & the ſame Scriptures that we bring: ſo then, wee are iuſtly ranked with Libertines, Antinomians, and Anabaptiſts, for aboliſhing by the Scriptures, the ancient Sabbath day.
Now J procede to proue the Major (for as for the Minor, it needeth no profe) if wee may by theſe Scriptures Exod. 31.13. & Coloſ. 2.16.17. Together with theſe Sectaries, aboliſh the Saturday Sabbath, which is one thing commanded in the morall Law; then may we together with them alſo, by theſe Scriptures Eph. 2.15. Heb. 7.12. Heb. 10.1. Col. 2.14. Aboliſh the wholl Morall Law, & all things commanded therein: the reaſon hereof is plaine and manifeſt: for theſe Sectaries doe bring Scripture againſt the wholl Law of God, as well as againſt that one parte thereof, which commandeth the Saturday Sabbath: now if we will ſhake hands with them in the one, why not in the other alſo? if we will ioyne with them, in vrging & preſſing theſe textes Exod. 31.13. Coloſ. 2.16.17. Againſt the 7th day Sabbath, which is one branch of the Law; why then ſhould we not by the ſame reaſon, ioyne with them alſo, in vrging & preſſing theſe other textes Eph. 2.15.7.12. Heb. 10.1. & Col. 2.14. Againſt the wholl Law & eueryevery branch thereof, and ſo aboliſh it too? thers the ſame equity for both, let vsus not therefore aboliſh Gods Sabbath day, vnleſſe we minde to turne Anabaptiſts and Antinomians, and aboliſh the wholl Law alſo.
Happily it will be thought, ther is not ſo good reaſon, to aboliſh the wholl Law, by theſe Scriptures which theſe Sectaries doe alleage againſt it, as there is in thoſe other Scriptures, which they alleage againſt the Saturday Sabbath: But for this matter, I ſhall make it appeare, that (as theſe Sectaries, hauehave as little cauſe to vrge theſe textes, againſt the wholl Morall Law, as they or wee, hauehave to alleage thoſe textes againſt the old Sabbath day, ſo) they hauehave as good cauſe & as ſtrong reaſons, to alleage theſe textes againſt the wholl Law, as they and we hauehave to alleage thoſe textes againſt the old Sabbath day: for this purpoſe, let vsus compare the textes on either partes.
Firſt, for the textes brought againſt the Sabbath day, Exod. 31.13. & Coloſ. 2.16.17. Here ſay they & wee, the Sabbath in the Morall Law is made a ſigne, & a ſhaddow: now all ſignes & Shaddowes, are aboliſhed at Chriſts coming, hee being the ſubſtance of thoſe ſhaddowes. 2. In the text Col. 2.16.17. Say they and wee, here we hauehave the very thing in queſtion, expreſſy mentioned, namly Sabbaths, and Sabbaths too in the plurall number, & ſo all Sabbaths both weekly & annuall, in the Morall Law and in the Ceremoniall Law, are aboliſhed: Now on the other parte, for the textes brought againſt the wholl lawſee Heb. 10, 1. for the Law hauing a ſhadow of good things to come &c. Where the things commanded by the Law, are called a ſhadow: hence I thus reaſon, if the Sabbath commanded in the Morall Law be aboliſhed, becauſe Sabbaths commanded in a Law are a ſhadow; Col. 2.16.17. Then are all things commanded in the Morall Law aboliſhed (and conſequently the Law alſo) becauſe things commanded in a Law are a ſhadow. Heb. 10.1. Is not there as good reaſon for the one, as for the other? come we to the other textes alſo, ſee Eph. 2.15. Col. 2.14. Heb. 7.12. Where it is ſaid, there is a chang of the Law: & that the handwriting of ordinances is put out: & that the Law of commandements is abrograted, In which texts it is affirmed, that the law is aboliſhed: here then may they ſay in like manner, in theſe textes we hauehave the thing in queſtion expreſly mentioned, namly the Law: & by Law in Scripture is ſomtimes meant, both the Morall & Ceremoniall Law Mal. 2.7. And ſo the wholl Law is aboliſhed, both Morall and Ceremoniall: well then, hence I thus reaſon, if the Sabbath in the Morall Law be aboliſhed by Col. 2.17. Becauſe there is mention of Sabbaths aboliſhed; then muſt not the Morall Law, be aboliſhed alſo by Eph. 2.15. Col. 2.14. & Heb. 7.12. Becauſe here is mention made of the law aboliſhed? is there not the ſame reaſon in both? for if you will extend the word Sabbaths, which is onelyonly vnderſtod of the Sabbaths in the Ceremoniall Law, vntounto the Sabbath inioyned in the Morall Law; why may not they extend the word Law, which is onelyonly vnderſtode of the Ceremoniall Law, vntounto the Morall Law? & whereas you alleage, that in Col. 2.16.17. There is mention of Sabbaths in the plurall number, and therefore all kinds of Sabbaths weekly and anniuerſary muſt be aboliſhed; why may not they, and you with them, argue alſo and ſay, that in Eph. 2.15. and in Col. 2.14. There is mention of ordinances & commandements, in the plurall number, and therefore are all Gods ordinances, and all Gods commandements, whither in the Morall Law or in the Ceremoniall aboliſhed?
Thus you ſee then, there is as good reaſon for vsus, to ioyne with Antinomians and Anabaptiſtes in caſting away the Morall Law, as to ioyne with them in caſting away the Sabbath day, commanded in the Morall Law: we may as well caſt away by the Scriptures miſapplied, euen all Gods commandements, and all Gods ordinances, as Gods Sabbath day: we may as well turne Anabaptiſts in wholl as in parte, and reiect all things commanded in the Decalogue with them, as any one thing therein commanded. To conclude, vnleſſe we will iuſtify thoſe Sectaries in deſtroying the whole Law of Gods 10 commandements, let vsus as we ought, raiſe vp Gods Sabbath againe.