A Defense of the Sabbath Day, Chapter 4 · Commentary · Section 19
SECT. XIX.
15thly, they fetch an other & a maine argumēt againſt Gods 7th day Sabbath, out of this text, Col. 2.16.17. Let no man therefore cōdemne you in meate & drinke, or in reſpect of an Holy day, or of the new Moone, or of the Sabbath daies: which are a ſhaddow of things to come: but the body is of Chriſt. But before I come to ſhew you their arguments out of this text, againſt the Sabbath, let me firſt ſhew you how abſurdly they behaue thēſelues, who would fetch arguments out of this text, againſt Gods Sabbath.
The firſt abſurdety is this, that they doe voluntarily & wilfully, without any conſtraint, ſet themſelues in oppoſition, to an ancient ordinance of Gods in his Church: for this purpoſe, it is to be obſerued, not onelyonly that the Saturday, or 7th day Sabbath, was an ordinance of Gods, and in high honour in his Church; but alſo that it was one of the moſt ancient ordinances, that euer God eſtabliſhed in his Church: for this Sabbath day, it did not onelyonly obtaine like priuiledges, and honour equally, with the reſidue of the Morales, deliuered vponupon Mount Sinay; but alſo, it pleaſed God to Sanctify this day at the very Creation of the world, as we reade Geneſ. 2.3. So God bleſſed the 7th day & ſanctified it: God did ſanctifie this day, & reſted in it, making him ſelfe our preſidēt, begining this holy Sabbath in his owne perſon: now for any man to oppoſe any of Gods ordinances, wilfully & not compelled therevnto is an euill, but to oppoſe ſo ancient an ordinance as is this Sabbath, is a farre greater euill: Baptiſme, and the Lords ſupper, are ancient ordinances in the Church, yet are they nothing ſo ancient, as be the Lords Sabbaths: whereby you ſee, that theſe patrones of nouelty are enemies to antiquity; I meane, thoſe who defend the Lords day for a Sabbath, which is a nouill thing, they are enemies to the Sabbath day, which is a moſt ancient thing: were it ſome nouelty, or new vpſtart point in religion, which I ſpeake for, it were tollerable that they ſhould oppoſe it; but being ſo ancient an ordinance in Gods Church, as that it is backed with the greateſt antiquity; here to oppoſe, & that cauſleſly, is moſt abſurd.
Were they compelled herevnto or conſtrained, by the vrgeing neceſſity of ſome portion of Scripture in the new Teſtament; or more ſpecially, were they compelled herevnto by this one text of Scripture Col. 2.16.17. or by any thing therein conteined, they might be excuſed: but ſeing this text, as well as all others, may be ſo expounded, as it ſhall not any whit oppoſe this ancient Sabbath and ordinance of God; and ſeing there is no collection or conſequence, that is thence deduced againſt this ordinance of Gods, which neceſſarily muſt follow from this text, therefore they are altogether vnexcuſable that oppoſe it, & make it ſo odiouſe before the people of God.
Wherefore their abſurdety appeareth, partly in this, that they will oppoſe an ordinance of Gods; yea one of his moſt ancient ordinances eſtabliſhed in his Church: and partly in this, that they will ſet themſelues againſt the ſame, voluntarily and wilfully, for no cauſe at all, but becauſe they will doe ſo.
The 2d abſurdety that theſe doe fale into, by forceing this text Col. 2.16.17. & (ſo any other text alſo) againſt the Sabbath day, commanded in the morall law, is this, that hereby they are manifeſt enemies to the Law of God, I ſay, to the morall law of God Exod. 20. written by the finger of God Exod. 31.…8. they bewray their enmity in this, that they are enemies to the Integrity and perfection thereof: they feare they ſhould rune into Iudaiſme if they ſhould yeeld obedience to al… the tenn commandements: for whereas the text ſaith, God ſpak all theſ… w…ds, Exo. 20.1. yet theſe men will reiect ſome of theſe words, namly, all thoſe words which concerne the 7th day Sabbath: thus they will not hauehave as the Prophet Dauid ſpeaketh Pſalm. 119.6. a reſpect vntounto all Gods commandements. But they will ſerue God by halues, and by peeces; they will take and leaue where and what they liſt in Gods law: for they will not imbrace and maintaine the whole law of God, as God deliuered it; but ſome peeces of it, they acknowledg, other peeces they renownce; and thus they deliuer to the people but a parte of Gods will, and but a broken, partiall, and imperfect law: if one parte of Gods law be good for vsus Chriſtians, is not an other parte of it good alſo? if the greateſt parte of Gods law be good for vsus, is not the whole law, and are not all the partes of it good for vsus alſo? depriue vsus not of the Integrity and perfection of Gods law.
A 3d abſurdety, commited by theſe is this; that they foulely contradict themſelues, by bringing this text Col. 2.16.17. againſt the Lords Sabbath day: for, whereas the queſtion betwixt them and mee, is ſolely about the time and day, to wit, the 7th day, this their text which they bring againſt this day, it doth not ſo much as mention they word day at all; for the word dayes in the text Col. 2.16.17. it is not in the originall, as you may perceiue by this, that our tranſlatoures hauehave written it in ſmaler letters; the originall hath nothing but the word Sabbaths: whereby I gather, that rather the Sabbaths, then the word day, and the time, are made a ſhaddow of Chriſt: now the Hebrew word Sabbath, ſignifying a Reſt from labours, as they will hauehave it: if any thing therefore be a ſhaddow of Chriſt, it is this Reſt from laboures: now they all teach and maintaine, that the Reſt in the 4th com. is morall and perpetuall, and yet behold here, by this their text Col. 2.16.17. and by their argument out of it, they diſpute againſt this Sabbath or Reſt; for they make it a ſhaddow of Chriſt, and ſo aboliſhed; and ſo this Reſt, it ſhall be morall & ceremoniall; perpetuall, and yet long ſince aboliſhed: it ſhall be morall, by their Doctrine in the pulpit, and ceremoniall by their arguments in Diſputation: is not this a groſſe contradiction? for this text Col. 2.16. if it maketh any thing againſt the 7th day Sabbath, it maketh as much (if not more) againſt the word Sabbath and Reſt, as it doth againſt the day and time, which is the thing in queſtion.
And this I make plaine by this reaſon alſo; they ſay, that by the word Sabbaths in Col. 2.16.17. is meant all Sabbaths, both the weekly and the yeerly Sabbaths; which if it be ſo, then looke how largly the word Sabbaths, is expounded touching the yeerly Sabbaths, ſo largly this word Sabbaths muſt be expounded touching the weekly Sabbath. for this one word (Sabbathes) cannot be taken in ij diuerſe ſenſes: now this word, in reference vntounto the yeerly Sabbaths, doth includ both the time & day, and alſo the Rest & dueties to be performed in that time and day, and ſo all are aboliſhed as Shaddowes, both the Reſt, and the day: iuſt ſo it muſt be touching the weekly Sabbath, if it be meant in the word Sabbaths, then both the day and the Reſt of the day alſo, muſt be included, and ſo day, and Rest, muſt be aboliſhed, as ſhaddowes both?
A 4th abſurdety committed by theſe enemies to the perfection and integrity of Gods law, is this, that by bringing this text Col. 2.16.17. (or any other text or textes) againſt the Sabbath day, commanded in the 4th com. hereby they doe nullify & vtterly bring to naught the 4th com. for, whereas the 4th com. commandeth the Sanctification of the Sabbath day; theſe men will by this text, proue this Sabbath day, to be a Shaddow of Chriſt, and ſo therefore to be aboliſhed: whence it muſt follow, that by their doeings the Sabbath day, commanded in the 4th com, is aboliſhed as a ſhaddow, which being aboliſhed the 4th com. is nullified, and made as a cipher, it commanding iuſt nothing at all: for, if theſe words (Sabbath day) be a ſhaddow and aboliſhed, then theſe 10 letters which are in theſe 2 words, may in ſenſe be put away as aboliſhed, and in the roome of them put 10 ciphers: then whereas the 4th com. runeth thus; Remember the (Sabbath day) to ſanctify it: why now according to theſe patrones of the Lords day, it may rune thus, Remember the 0000000000, to ſanctify it: and thus they hauehave nullified this commandement; for you ſee it now commandeth iuſt nothing; vnleſſe they can tell how to proue vntounto vsus, by the virtue of their conſequences, that God commanded two Sabbath dayes in his 4th com. the one vponupon the 7th day, the other vponupon the 8th day: ſuer I am, the Iewes neuer knew but one, and Chriſt neuer kept but one, and God ſpake not in his 4th com. of Sabbaths, in the plurall number, but of a Sabbath, or the Sabbath, in the ſingular number, as but of one ſingularly, and this one Sabbath, they hauehave made a Shaddow, and ſo aboliſhed.
Finally, whereas all Diuines affirme, that ſome time or day in generall for Gods worſhip, is morall and in force by the 4th com. if this text Col. 2.16. be vrged againſt the time and day, to wit, the Sabbath day, in the 4th com. then this abſurdety alſo followeth, that there is not ſome time or day for Gods worſhip, morall by the 4th com. the reaſon is, becauſe looke what was commanded in the 4th com. vnderunder theſe words (Sabbath day) the ſelfeſame is a boliſhed by Col. 2.16. vnderunder the ſame words (Sabbath dayes) if this text be ſet againſt that: for theſe words muſt hauehave as large a ſenſe in Col. 2.16. as they hauehave in Exod. 20.8. and ſo we ſhall hauehave no time morall in the 4th com. for Gods worſhip, which is contrary to all Diuines.
A 5th abſurdety, which theſe enemies of the perfection and integrity of Gods law, doe fale into, by producing this text Col. 2.16.17, (or any other text) againſt the 7th day Sabbath, commanded in the morall law, is this, that they doe ſet Scripture together by the eares, as they ſay; they make by their collectiones and by their conſequences, one text of Scripture, to be at mortall warres with an other; & one text quite to ouerthrow and ouerturne an other; for example, the 4th com. it commandeth the Sanctification of the 7th day Sabbath, in moſt plaine and expreſſe words, and yet for all that, they dare attempt to gather collectiones and conſequences, out of an other text of Scripture, to wit, Col. 2.16.17. whereby they will aboliſh and nullify vtterly that very thing, which was commanded in the 4th com. in expreſſe termes: is not this, to ſet Scripture at variance with Scripture, and one text againſt an other?
It is the parte of all Miniſters to louelove Gods law, and to their beſt to defend it, as the Title and Charter of their Soueraigne Lord God: and for this end, they ſhould labour and ſtudy, to reconcile ſuch texts in the new Teſtament, as ſeeme to oppoſe any thing commāded in the morall law: but theſe are farre from reconciling, who ſtudy to ſet the Law & Goſpell at oddes: I appeale vntounto their conſciences, if euer they faithfull attempted, to reconcile theſe two textes Exod. 20.8.10. & Col. 2.16.
Nay which is yet worſe, not this Scripture Col. 2.16.17. is ſet in oppoſition, againſt this Scripture Exod. 20.8. but their collectiones and conſequences, fetched out of this Scripture Col. 2.16.17. by manes ſhallow reaſon, is ſet in higheſt oppoſition againſt this other Scripture Exod. 20.8. But for a bare collection and conſequence, framed by mans poreblind and feeble reaſon, that this ſhould put to perpetuall ſilence, an expreſſe commandement, a portion of Gods written word and will; yea ouerturne an ordinance of Gods, commanded in his morall law; then this, there can be no greater abſurdety, no greater impiety: for this is to ſet mans reaſon, and conſequence, in equall Throne with the moſt Higheſt: for mans reaſon ſhall be a Countermand, to Gods expreſſe commandement: yea, it ſhall take the vpper hand of God; for it ſhall be more forcible, to ouerturne Gods commandement, then is Gods commandement forcible, to gaineſay mans reaſon and conſequence: if this be not blaſphemy againſt the moſt Higheſt, let all men iudge: and whither the Pope himſelfe, hath more highly aduanced his Authority, aboue the Scriptures, then doe theſe men their conſequences, let all men iudge.
A 6th abſurdety is, that theſe men can find diſtinctions to preſerue the Morall Law from being aboliſhed, but none to defend Gods Sabbath commanded in that law. 2. Let Anabaptiſtes bring theſe textes Exod. 31.13. Rom. 14.5. Gal. 4.10. & Col. 2.16. profanly, againſt Sabbaths in the Morall Law, and theſe my aduerſaries, will find anſwers and diſtinctions, to maintaine ſome day in generall, as morall in the 4th com: yea, to preſerue the Lords day, in the 4th com. which God neuer put there; and yet will find, nor admit of any diſtinctions, framed, to preſerue the Lords 7th day Sabbath, put there by God himſelfe: they hauehave an heart to defend their owne inventiones, which they hauehave thruſt into the 4th com. but none at all, to defend what they find in the ſame com. placed there by God himſelfe: they had rather ouerthrow it, then defend it.
A 7th abſurdety which theſe doe fale into, by bringing this text Col. 2.16.17. (or any other) is this, that they diſpute againſt Principles & Maximes, now who ſo will diſpute againſt Principles, he deſerueth to be anſwered with clubes, rather then with reaſon: as all Artes hauehave their Principles, ſo hath Diuinity hir Principles alſo; now the 10 commandements, are as 10 foundation ſtones, wherevpon a greate parte of the gloriouſe building of Chriſtian Religion doth ſtand; for all Religion ſtandeth vponupon Law & Goſpell; faieth & workes; and theſe 10 commandements, concerne that parte of Chriſtian Religion, which ſtandeth in workes, to wit, in workes of Piety & Charity. Now to diſpute againſt any ordinance commanded in theſe 10 commandements, is to make a bould and vnchriſtian attempte, to remoue and pull away, one of theſe foundation ſtones; or at leaſt if not a whole ſtone, yet halfe, or ſome peece and parte of a ſtone: and is it not a raſh, bould, and aduenturouſe parte of any man, to goe about to alter, remoue, take away, or diminiſh a foundation ſtone? yea, ſuch a ſtone as God himſelue the maſter builder hath laid, and not man? will they not indure it in Schooles, to heare a man diſpute againſt the Principles of Arte, and ſhall it be borne, that men ſhall diſpute againſt the Principles in Diuinity? No man may there, contradict the Axiomes of Ariſtotle, and ſhall men heere, be ſuffered to contradict the commandement of God? Ariſtotle, & his axiomes, are more honoured in Schooles, then God, and his Lawes, are amonge Diuines: where fore the Schooles ſhall riſe vp in iudgment and condemne Pulpites: for they honour Ariſtotles preceptes, more then theſe doe Gods praeceptes; after I had handled the 4th com. I added ſondry effectuall reaſones to moue vsus vntounto the louelove of Gods law; and is this all the louelove men will ſhew to it, to ſeeke out all manner of wayes, how & which way they may for euer ouerthrow ſome parte of it? where is louelove to God? where is any louelove to his lawes for themſelues ſake?
Furthermore, all other Scriptures, eſpecially if they be ſuch as neede expoſition, they are to be brought vntounto the 10 commandemēts, as to the common standard; & Rule of triall, ſo as no expoſition may be admitted of, which any way croſſeth the 10 commandements; this is a common receiued Rule in the expoſition of Scripture: but if theſe new Sabbatharians may hauehave their will, the 10 commandements ſhall be no longer a ſtanding Rule, for the expounding of other darkeſome Scriptures; this starre, which guideth vsus in our nauigation to heauen ward, ſhall be plucked out of the firmament: for the Rule it ſelfe ſhall be queſtioned, whither all the partes of it be a Canō, Rule & touchſton of tryall, or not: for they will queſtion the 4th precept in this Rule: & thus we ſhall hauehave no certainty, in the Scriptures, no Iudge in ſcriptures darkeſome; we muſt I thinke erre lōg, to the Pope againe, to be a iudge in Scriptures doubtfull: nay theſe mē doe not onelyonly doubt of ſome parte of this Rule, but they dare diſpute againſt ſome parte of it, in right downe termes, & they will bring Scripture alſo againſt it, as Col. 2.16.17. but as the Deuill brought Scripture againſt Chriſt, Mat. 4.6.
But ſince they will queſtion ſome parte of this rule, why may we not by as good leaue, queſtion the whole rule, euen all the 10. commandements? I can with Libertines & Anabaptiſtes, bring Scripture too againſt all the 10. com. as well as they can againſt the 4th com. ſee Epheſ. 2.15 where it is ſaid, that Chriſt hath abrogated, the Law of commandemēts: whence a man might argue, if he would be ſo abſurd & profane, againſt not onelyonly ſomething in the 10 commandements, but alſo againſt eueryevery thing in the 10 com. againe, Hebr. 7.12. Jf the prieſthod be changed, then of neceſſity muſt there be a chang of the Law: whence a man might alſo ſay ſomething againſt the whole Law, & bring Scripture to backe him too: but foraſmuch as the Law, that is, the Law Morall, is an excellent Rule of our liues, & a notable Rule, for the expounding of other hard & darkſome places of Scripture, therefore we will not be ſo abſurd as to queſtion it, leaſt ſo we fale to queſtion eueryevery thing, & leaue no certainty in the Scriptures, nor any thing that migt be a Rule & a light vntounto other Scriptures, & in concluſion, be driuen to the Pope againe, to determine of the ſenſe of Scripture for vsus. So much for this their abſurdety, that they deny Maximes in Religion, and Principles in Diuinity, who deny the 7th day Sabbath, & diſpute againſt it,
One abſurdety more is, that they who alleage this text, Col. 2.16. or any other, againſt the Sabbath day mentioned in the Morall Law, they herein ſhake hands, & ioyne with lawleſſe Libertines & Anabaptiſtes, who doe by theſe textes, oppoſe Gods Sabbaths, & ſo liue profanly without any Sabbath, & conſcience of this diuine ordinance: & ſhall wee Proteſtantes, ſhake hands with Anabaptiſtes, in ouerturning Gods Sabbaths? God forbid.
Thus hauing ſhowne, the diuerſe & ſondry groſſe abſurdeties, which they rune into, who bring this text, Col. 2.16.17. (or any other) againſt the Sabbath day written in the Morall Law; now in the next place, let vsus ſee their arguments out of this text, that ſo we may anſwer them; their arguments are two: the one of them is this, that by the word Sabbaths, or Sabbath daies, in this text, Col. 2.16. is meant all Sabbath daies, vniuerſally & generally; & ſo if all Sabbath daies be aboliſhed, then the 7th day Sabbath alſo is aboliſhed.
Herevnto I anſwer, there is a Law Morall, & a Law ceremoniall, now when we read, that Chriſt hath aboliſhed the Law of cōmandements, Ephe. 2.15. & againe, that Of neceſſitie there must be a chang of the Law, Heb. 7.12. if any man ſhould preſſe theſe textes to the aboliſhing of all lawes, we would anſwer them by diſtinguiſhing of Lawes, into Morall & ceremoniall; ſaying, that theſe textes doe aboliſh onelyonly the Law ceremoniall, but not the Law Morall: So may I anſwer them, in this point: for the Sabbath day is a branch of the Morall Law: for it is written in the Morall Law, & commanded in the Morall Law; wherefore, I anſwer them by diſtinguiſhing thus, there be weekly Sabbath daies, commanded in the Morall Law; & there are yeerly Sabbath daies, which were neuer written in the Morall Law; Leuit. 23.24.39. now this their text may be vnderſtod onelyonly of theſe yeerly & ceremoniall Sabbaths, & not of the Morall & weekly Sabbath: & thus are theſe two ſcriptures, Exod. 20.8. & Col. 2.16. reconciled.
And whereas they ſay, that all Sabbaths are meante in this text: I anſwer, that this all, may be meant of the ceremoniall Sabbaths, that all thoſe Sabbaths are aboliſhed: for, there is, an all of them for they are many: ſo then, we may vnderſtād this text, to aboliſh all Sabbaths generally, that is, the generality of all yeerly Sabbaths; ſince there is a generallity of them: or, by all, we may vnderſtand all theſe Sabbaths excluded the Morall-Law, or Tables of ſtone, that is, all the Sabbaths written in the ceremoniall Lawes: & ſo the 7th day Sabbath is not touched in this text: thus you ſee, there is no neceſſity at all, why they ſhould hale in the 7th day Sabbath into this text; for a fit diſtinction may ſalue all: wherefore if they will violently wring the 7th day Sabbath into this text, it is wilfully done of them, to ſatisfy ſome corrupt humour or other: you ſee this text may ſafely & ſoundly be expounded of the annuall Sabbaths onelyonly, without any the leaſt violence offered vntounto this text.
Furthermore I anſwer, it is to be obſerued, that the Apoſtle ſpeaking heere of Sabbaths which are a Shaddow, he doth not ſay all Sabbaths. vſeing the generall particle all, but he ſpeaketh indefinitly, ſaying, Sabbaths, or Sabbath daies, without this word all: & therefore may be vnderſtod but of ſome Sabbath daies particularly: It is true indeed, that the Apoſtle ſpeaketh of Sabbath daies, in the plurall number, but yet it doth not thereof follow, that therefore he ſpake of all Sabbath daies generally: thers a differēce betwixt a plurality & a generality; betwene Sabbahts plurally, & Sabbaths generally: for the Apoſtle may make Sabbaths plurally, that is, many Sabbaths, to be Shaddowes: & yet not make Sabbaths generally, that is, all Sabbaths, to be Shaddowes: for example, a man may ſay, the Trees doe ſhaddow mee; and yet all Trees in the world, doe not ſhaddow mee. Againe Miniſters teach that the bread in the Sacrament is the very body of Chriſt: & yet it followeth not that all Miniſters doe teach ſo; for proteſtant Diuines teach the contrary: ſo might Paul ſay, that Sabbaths were a ſhaddow, & yet neither ſay, nor thinke, that all Sabbaths were a ſhaddow: and thus is their former argument anſwered.
By the weakneſſe of which argument, we may ſee the weakneſſe of their louelove to God, & his ordinance, & to his Lawes: for ſtrong louelove, would neuer permit them to raſe downe to the grownd, ſo honourable an ordinance as Gods Sabbath, & to oppoſe Gods Law, the 4th com. with ſo weake an argument: and what would be the iſſue, if they might obtaine their deſires? why this, Gods Law ſhall be mangled & defaced: it ſhall be denied its integrity & perfection: it ſhall be made a Monſtre, partly morall partly ceremoniall: & way made for Anabaptiſtry, & the floud of prophaneſſe to flowe in vponupon vsus, by the want of Gods Sabbath.
An other argument they draw out of this text, againſt the Lords 7th day Sabbath (for they are wonderouſe eagre vponupon it, & deſire exceedingly to find, or make if they cannot find ſomething to defeate God & his Church of the Sabbath day) & for this purpoſe, they will faine a neceſſity vponupon it, that by Sabbaths in this text, we muſt of neceſſity vnderſtand the 7th day Sabbath for one: becauſe (ſay they) vnderunder the words Holy day, is meant all the ceremoniall yeerly Sabbaths, & ſo then vnderunder the words Sabbath daies, muſt be meante the weekly Sabbaths.
Herevnto I anſwer, that it cannot be proued, that vnderunder theſe words Holy day, all yeerly Sabbaths are compriſed: for it may be that none of the yeerly Sabbaths are therin cōpriſed: to make this appeare, let it be obſerued, that the word tranſlated Holy day, doeth ſignify alſo a feaſt, & the words tranſlated in reſpect, may be tranſlated in parte; & ſo for theſe words in reſpect of an holy day, you may hauehave in roome of them, theſe words, in parte of a feaſt foreign, & then the text ſhould rune thus; Let no man condemne you in meate, & drinke, or (in parte of a feast) or of the new moone, or of the Sabbath daies &c. Now the queſtion is to know, what daies are ſignified by theſe words, in parte of a feaſt: & for this purpoſe, looke into Leuit. 23.34.39. where you hauehave two feaſtes mentioned, & either of them were to laſt 7 daies a peece: now the firſt day of the 7 ſhould be a Sabbath day, & likewiſe the 8th day ſhould be a Sabbath day, as the text ſpeaketh, v. 35.36.39. now foraſmuch as the firſt 7 daies were the whole feaſt, when the firſt day of thoſe 7 was taken out for a Sabbath day, then the 6 daies remaining, which went betwen the two Sabbaths, theſe were the parte of a feast: and theſe 6 daies, being the parte of that ceremoniall feaſt, theſe were thoſe which S. Paul might ſay were a Shaddow of Chriſt; & ſo aboliſhed: ſo now you ſee, what daies they were, which S. Paul ſpeaketh of, vnderunder theſe words tranſlated Holy day; & which may be tranſlated, in parte of a feaſt: hereby is nothing elſe ſignified, but thoſe 6 festiuall daies, which went betwene the two Sabbaths, & were a parte of the whole feaſt, which laſted by the Law 7 daies. ſo then, whereas they would hauehave all the ceremoniall Sabbaths, compriſed vnderunder the words Holy day, inconcluſion you ſee, thers none of them at all compriſed in them: for the Apoſtle may be vnderſtod to ſpeake onelyonly of thoſe 6 daies which went betwen the 2 Sabbaths, but were no Sabbaths themſelues: & ſo it will not follow, that by the word Sabbaths, in Coloſ. 2.16.17. muſt be vnderſtood the 7th day Sabbath.
In concluſion, let me ſhew you what may be vnderſtod by theſe words holy day, or, in parte of a feaſt: and theſe words Sabbath dayes: by thoſe words holy day, or, in parte of a feaſt, may be meant thoſe 6 feſtiuall dayes, which went betwen the ij Sabbaths, but were no Sabbaths themſelues; & then by thoſe other words in the text Col. 2.6. Sabbath dayes, may be meant theſe ij Sabbath dayes, which were the bounds of the 6 feſtiuall dayes, to wit, the firſt day, and the 8th day v. 35.36.39. together with all other annuall Sabbath dayes.
But if this pleaſeth not, then thus, by the words holy day, or rather feaſt, you may vnderſtand the Apoſtle to ſpeake of thoſe ij feaſtes of 7 dayes a peece, in v. 34.39. ioyning the firſt day Sabbath, with the following 6 dayes, and both theſe to make vp one feaſt conſiſting of 7 dayes: onelyonly then theſe words foreign muſt be tranſlated rather in reſpect, then in parte: for the words may be rendered both wayes: now if you put the firſt day Sabbath, vntounto the 6 feſtiuall dayes; then by theſe words Sabbath dayes in Col. 2.16. may be vnderſtod the 8th day Sabbaths which followed the 7 feſtiuall dayes, and alſo all other yeerly Sabbaths with it, as thoſe mentioned Leuit. 23.7.8.21.24.27.32.
Or, if this yet pleaſeth not, (for they are hard to pleaſe, ſo eagre they are againſt the Lords Sabbaths) then thus, if by holy day, or feaſt, you will needs vnderſtand all dayes, both the feaſtes of 7 dayes a peece, and all other ſingle Sabbath dayes forementioned; then by the word Sabbaths, foreign in Col. 2.16. the Apoſtle may be vnderſtod to ſpeake not of the Sabbath of dayes, but of the Sabbaths of yeeres, of which you may reade Leuit. 25.4.8.10.11. where you hauehave mention of the 7th yeere, to be kept for a Sabbath, & likewiſe of the 50th yeere, the yeere of Iubile; ſo in all theſe wayes, the 7th day Sabbath is not ſpokē of.
By all which anſwers it may appeare, that it is no impoſſible thing to reconcile theſe two Scriptures Exod. 20.8.10. & Col. 2.16.17. for, it appeareth, how many wayes the Apoſtles words may be taken, and ſtill the Sabbath day, written in the Morall Law, not touched at all, by this text Col. 2.16. and are they not wilfull and malitiouſe enemies, to the perfection of Gods Law, & to his ordinance the Sabbath day, who when the Apoſtles words may be taken any of theſe wayes, or ſome of theſe at leaſt, ſo as Gods morall Sabbath may be preſerued, but yet none of them will pleaſe them, but ſome other vnneceſſary ſenſe, muſt needs be violently thruſt vponupon vsus, and namly ſuch an one as may perpetually deſtroy the Lords Sabbath? why, is there no way to expound one text of Scripture, but ſo as it muſt ouerthrow an other? doe men delight themſelues, to make collectiones and gather concluſiones, out of one portion of Scripture, which ſhall ouerturne for euer, that expreſly commanded in an other portion of Scripture? where is the feare of God all this while, and reuerence to his word and ordinances? are not theſe men guilty of the ſinne of adding to Gods word? Deut. 12.32. & of that curſe threatened for the ſame cauſe? Reuel. 22.18? for like as they hauehave added diuerſe inventions to that text. Exod. 31.13. againſt Gods Sabbaths; ſo hauehave they added Gods 7th day Sabbath to this text Col. 2.17. for the ruine of it: and, they hauehave added this their invention to S. Pauls words, that he ſpake vniuerſally of all Sabbaths, when he ſpake but indefinitly of ſome Sabbaths.
Thre things more I hauehave to add by way of anſwer, vntounto this text Col. 2.16. the formoſt is this, that there are reaſones in this text why it cannot be, that this word Sabbaths, ſhould be vnderſtod of the Sabbath written in the morall law: the former reaſon is this, that all the other things mentioned in this text Col. 2.16. are ſuch things, as neuer came into the Morall Law, as 1. meate & drink. 2. holy day, or feaſt, 3. new Moones: wherefore, this giueth vsus an hint, to conclude, that the other thing mentioned in this text, namly the Sabbaths, ſhould be of like kind, to wit, ſuch Sabbaths as neuer came into the Morall Law neither: for, who could thinke, that all the other words and things in this text, ſhould be pure ceremonies, and ſuch as neuer came into the morall law; and this one word onelyonly, to wit, (Sabbaths) ſhould conteine in it a Morall day, and ceremoniall dayes; or, dayes ſome whereof were neuer wrote by the finger of God, as the yeerly Sabbaths, and ſome ſuch as God wrote with his owne finger, in the morall law, as the 7th day Sabbath?
An other reaſon fetched from the text is this, that if in this word Sabbaths they will includ the 7th day Sabbath, commanded in the Morall Law, then doe they aboliſh by this text Col. 2.16. Not onelyonly the 7th day, and alſo the Rest, but alſo the very commandement it ſelfe, the 4th com. & that is aboliſhed vnderunder theſe words, where it is ſaid, that Chriſt hath Put out the handwriting of ordinances v. 14. In which words, the written 4th com. is aboliſhed: and this I make appeare thus; the 16th verſe of this ſecond Chapter to the Coloſſians, is a concluſion, as you may perceiue by the note of inference vſed in it (Therefore) one of the premiſſes whereof you hauehave in v. 14. Now the Apoſtles argument is on this wiſe; If the handwriting of ordinances (which is the written Law, which commanded meate and drink, and holy daies, new Moones, and Sabbath daies) be put out, and taken away; Then let no man condemne you in meate and drinke, holy daies, new Moones, and Sabbath daies: But the handwriting of ordinances, is put out, and taken away: Therefore, let no man condemne you in meate & drink, holy daies, new Moones, and Sabbath daies. The Apoſtles Minor, you hauehave in v. 14. and his concluſion in v. 16. now foraſmuch as it is a rule with Logiceans, that there muſt not be more in the concluſion, then is in the premiſſes; hence it followeth, that if by the word Sabbaths in v. 16. they will vnderſtand the 7th day Sabbath, written in the 4th com. then by theſe words handwriting in v. 14. they muſt vnderſtand alſo the handwriting of the 4th com. or elſe there is more in the concluſion then in the premiſſes, for the premiſſe, v. 14. ſpeaketh but of the hādwriting of ceremonies writtē by Moſes onelyonly, but in the concluſion v. 16. if they will includ not onelyonly the ceremoniall law writtē by Moſes, but alſo a parte of thoſe things written by God in the Tables of ſtone, then in the concluſion I ſay, they hauehave both Moſes his handwriting, and alſo a parte of Gods handwriting, and ſo there is more in the concluſion then in the premiſſes: wherefore to auoid this abſurdety, they muſt vnderſtand the word handwriting in v. 14. to include not onelyonly the handwriting of the ceremonies by the hand of Moſes, but alſo they muſt vnderſtand thereby, that parte of Gods handwriting whereby he commanded the 7th day Sabbath, which is the 4th com. and ſo you ſee they aboliſh the handwriting of the 4th com. it ſelfe, and ſo we ſhall hauehave no 4th com. at all: thus you may ſee wherevnto the oppoſition of Gods Sabbaths out of this text Col. 2.16. tendeth, namely to the ſubuerſion of the 4th com. let them talke what they will of obedience to Gods 4th com. and that they hauehave a reſpect with Dauid vntounto all Gods commandements, yet all is but talke and words; iudge the Tree by the fruits; you ſee all their endeauors tend vntounto the ſubuerſion of one of Gods Morall Lawes; and this is the firſt of my 3. Anſwers, which I tould you I had more to adde.
Now I come vntounto an other of my anſwers, and it is this, that they that expound this text Col. 2.16. of the 7th day Sabbath, commanded in the Morall Law, they doe croſſe and contradict their owne Authours; & ſuch writers of their owne, as are of high eſtimation with them: I will produce a fewe of them, in ſteade of many, that might be alleaged: I will begine with M. Perkins who frameth an obiection of ſome aduerſaries, which they make out of theſe ij textes Col. 2.16. and Gal. 4.10. ſaying, that if we obſerue any difference of dayes, now in the new Teſtament, then we are no better then Iewes: vntounto which textes M. Perkines thus anſwereth, That both theſe places ſpeake of the feaſts of the Iewes, and of d fference of daies, that ſtands in force by the Iewiſh ceremoniall Law. Caſes of conſcience, Chapt. 16. Sect. 3. Pag. 108. Where you ſee M. Perkins, freeth this text Col. 2.16. from hauing any thing to doe againſt the Morall Law; or againſt the difference of dayes in force by the Morall Law, by ſaying, that it ſpeaketh of a difference of dayes, which ſtode in force by the Iewiſh ceremoniall Law: now the 7th day Sabbath was neuer commanded in the Iewiſh ceremoniall law, but in the morall law.
Let vsus heare alſo what M. Dod ſaith in this point; he anſwereth to an obiection framed out of this text Col. 2.16. againſt the Sabbath day on this wiſe: We muſt know (ſaith he) that here the Apostle ſpeaketh of ſuch Sabbaths, as are in the ranke with the meates & drinkes, whereof the ſpake before, of which ſorte were the first day of eueryevery monethmonth, and the first and laſt daies of eueryevery one of the 3 ſolemne feastes of the Iewes, of theſe he ſpeaketh in the plurall number, and not of the Lords Sabbath day, in the ſingular number, which hath a ſingular excellencie, and, how euer times change, it neuer changeth: Dod on the 4th com. Pag. 132. In which words you ſee, M. Dod affirmeth, that this text Col. 2.16. ſpeaketh onelyonly of the yeerly Sabbaths, which the Iewes kept in their 3 yeerly feaſtes; or 3 ſolemne feaſtes; & doth plainly deny, that this text ſaith anything of the Lords 7th day Sabbath, which he caleth the Lords Sabbath day, in the ſingular number, by way of excellency.
Of this ſame iudgement, is M. Greeneham in his worke vponupon the Sabbath: of the ſame iudgment alſo, is M. Elton vponupon the Coloſſians, on this text Col. 2.16. of the ſame iudgement likewiſe, is Doctour Ames in his Theſis touching the Sabbath. To theſe fiue, I might add many more, that are of the ſame iudgement, as themſelues cannot but know, ſeing they read them dally: one more I will add who is newly come forth, M. Richard Byfield againſt M. Brerewood on the Sabbath, who ſaith in expreſſe words, that this text Col 2.16. doth not aboliſh the Sabbath day in the 4th com. but thoſe other Sabbaths &c. See him Pag 130. Thus you ſee, that they who would hauehave the Apoſtle to ſpeake of the morall Sabbath, mentioned in the morall law, as M. Chappel & his 9 confederates would, they are contrary vntounto Diuines of greate note of their owne ſide.
Obiection; ſay they, why doe you alleage M. Perkins and M. Dod, and others, why they doe not defend your opinion for the 7th day Sabbath, doe they? Herevnto I anſwer, it is not my purpoſe in this place to alleage them, as if they ſpake for the 7th day Sabbath: but onelyonly for this purpoſe, to ſhew that they, euen thire owne Diuines will not indure it, that this text Col. 2.16. ſhould be preſſed any further, then againſt the Iewiſh ceremoniall law: and that it concerneth not the Lords Sabbath day, ſpoken of in the 4th com. ſingularly, but thoſe yeerly Sabbaths, ſpoken of plurally &c. This is all I aime at by alleaging their Teſtimony, now the Teſtimony of a man againſt himſelfe, is euer accounted ſtrong and good: & for me to produce one of my aduerſaries to iuſtify my cauſe, it is better and more forcible, then if I ſhould alleage an …undreth Diuines, that are of the ſame iudgement with mee: and ſo much for this point.
My third anſwer to this text is this, ſuppoſe we that the 7th day Sabbath were a ſhaddow of Chriſt by this text Col. 2.17. yet …ence vvill nothing follow neceſſarily, but that the Sabbath is aboliſhed as touching its typicalneſſe and ſhaddowiſh quality, that ſo it ſhall be no more vſed as a type or as a ſhaddow of Chriſt to come: but for all this, it may remaine ſtill, as a ſacred day and time for Gods worſhip, as a day to keepe memory of the Creation ſtill, as a fit time to refreſh man and beaſt in, by Reſt from the toilſome labours of the former Sixe dayes, and ſo as an helpe and furtherance vntounto theſe morall dueties of Reſt from labour, and performance of Religiouſe exerciſes. For the clereing of this, I referre you to what hath bene ſaid in Section the 18. onelyonly here let me giuegive a touch: Circumciſion, and the Paſseouer, hauing either of them a double type or ſigne, when the one was fulfilled, yet theſe Sacraments were vſed with reſpect to the other vnfulfilled; and admit the Sabbath ſhould aboliſh as a ſhaddow of Chriſt, why may it not remaine as a ſigne of the Creation? Exod. 31.17. The difference of meates is aboliſhed as a ſhaddow of Chriſt, but remaine, as in a faſt; and admit the Sabbath be aboliſhed as a ſhaddow of Chriſt, why may it not remaine, as an helpe and furtherance vntounto morall dueties? and if the Proſelite Gentiles, obſerued the Paſſeouer with the Iewes, neglecting ſuch things therein, as were peculiar vntounto the Iewes, and onelyonly obſerued ſuch things therein, as were common to Iew and Gentile both (as hath bene ſhowne in Sect. 18) why may not we Gentiles, neglect the Sabbath as a ſ…addow of Chriſt, wherein it was peculiar vntounto the Iewes, and obſerue it ſtill in ſuch reſpects, as it is common to Iew and Gentile both? as it is a ſigne of the Creation? and as it is an helpe and furtherance vntounto other morall dueties? ſo much for anſwer to this text Col. 2.16.17.
And thus like a friend to God, his law, and ordinance therein, I hauehave reconciled theſe two textes Exod. 20.8. & Col. 2.16.17. the which other men doe make to fight together, like deadly enemies.
Before I conclude this Section, let me render a reaſon why I doe on all occationes diſtinguiſh, betwixt the 7th day Sabbath & the anniuerſary Sabbathes: my reaſones are theſe 1. becauſe the 7th day Sabbath is more auncient then the yeerly Sabbaths: for theſe began but after the giuing of the Law; but that begane before the giuing of the Law. 2. Becauſe God Sanctified and hallowed the 7th day Sabbath in a ſpeciall manner Geneſ. 2.3. the which honour he did not to the yeerly Sabbaths: theſe were holy but by precept, but that alſo by Preſident: theſe were holy but by deſtination onelyonly, but that was holy by conſecration alſo. 3. Becauſe they are diſtinct in themſelues, the one being once eueryevery weeke, the other once eueryevery yeere. 4. Becauſe God placed the weekly 7th day Sabbath in his morall Law, and in the heart or firſt Table thereof, but the yeerly Sabbaths were excluded thence, and neuer came into the Tables of ſtone. 5. Becauſe the 7th day Sabbath was a ſigne of, and kept in memory of the Creation, which belongeth vntounto all men alike, but ſo was it not with the yeerly Sabbaths: there is good reaſon therefore, why I ſhould diſtinguiſh the weekly Sabbath, from the yeerly Sabbathes, according as I hauehave done in all my anſwers.