The Divine Appointment of the Lords Day, Part · Chapter 7
CHAP. VII.
Qu. 2. Whether the seventh day Sabbath should be still kept by Christians, as of Divine obligation? Neg.
I Shall here premise, That as some superstition is less dangerous than prophaneness (though it be troublesome, and have ill consequents,) so the Errour of them who keep both daies as of Divine appointment, is much less dangerous than theirs that keep none: yea and less dangerous, I think, than theirs who reject the Lords day, and keep the seventh day only. Because these latter are guilty of two sins, (the rejecting of the right day, and the keeping of the wrong; but the other are guilty but of one (the keeping of the wrong day.) Besides that if it were not done, with a superstitious conceit (that it is Gods Law) in some cases a day may be voluntarily set apart for holy duties, as daies of Thanksgiving and Humiliation now are.
But yet, though the rejecting of the Lords day be the greater fault (and I have no uncharitable censures of them that through weakness keep both daies) I must conclude it as the truth, that We are not obliged to the observation of the Saturday or seventh day as a Sabbath, or separated day of holy Worship.
Arg. 1. That dayes observation which we are not obliged to, either by the Law of Nature, the Positive Law given to Adam, the Positive Law given to Noah, the Law of Moses, nor the Law of Christ incarnate, we are not obliged to by any Law of God (as distinct from humane Laws:) But such is the observation of the seventh day as a Sabbath: Ergo we are not obliged to the observation of the seventh day as a Sabbath by any Law of God.
The Minor I must prove by parts (For I think none will deny the sufficient enumeration in the Major.)
And, 1. That the Law of Nature bindeth us not to the seventh, or any one day of the seven more than other, appeareth, 1. In the nature and reason of the thing: There is nothing in nature to evidence it to us to be Gods will. 2. By every Christians experience: No man findeth himself convinced of any such thing by meer nature. 3. By all the Worlds experience: No man can say that a man of that opinion can bring any cogent evidence or argument from nature alone to convince another, that the seventh day must be the Sabbath. Nor is it any where received as a Law of Nature, but only as a Tradition among some few Heathens, and as Law positive by the Jews, and some few Christians. I am not solicitous to prosecute this argument any further; because I can consent that all they take the seventh day for the Sabbath, who can prove it to be so by meer natural Evidence: which will not be one.
II. That the Positive Law made to Adam (before or after the fall) or to Noah, bindeth not us to keep the seventh day as a Sabbath, is proved.
1. Because we are under a more perfect subsequent Law; which being in force, the former more imperfect ceaseth. As the force of the Promise of the Incarnation of Christ is ceased by his incarnation, and so is the precept which bound men to believe that he should de future be incarnate; and the Law of Sacrificing (which Abel doubtless received from Adam, though one of late would make it to be but will-worship;) so also is the Sabbath day, as giving place to the day in which our Redemption is primarily commemorated, as the imperfect is done away when that which is more perfect cometh.
2. Because that the Law of Christ containeth an express revocation of the seventh day Sabbath, as shall be shewed anon.
3. Because God never required two dayes in seven to be kept as holy: Therefore the first day being proved to be of Divine institution, the cessation of the seventh is thereby proved: For to keep two dayes is contrary to the command which they themselves do build upon, which requireth us to sanctifie a Sabbath, and labour six dayes.
4. And when it is not probable that most or many Infidels are bound to Adams day, for want of notice (at least;) For no Law can bind without promulgation (though I now pass by the question, how far a promulgation of a positive to our first Parents may be said to bind their posterity, that have no intermediate notice) It seemeth leís probable that Christians should be bound by it, who have a more perfect Law promulgate to them.
5. Nor is it probable that Christ and his Apostles and all the following Pastors of the Churches would have passed by this Positive Law to Adam, without any mention of it, if our universal obligation had been thence to be collected. Nay I never yet heard a Sabbatarian plead this Law, any otherwise than as supposed to be implyed or exemplified in the fourth Commandment.
III. And that the fourth Commandment of Moses Law bindeth us not to the seventh day Sabbath is proved.
1. Because that Moses Law never bound any to it but the Jews, and those Proselites that made themselves inhabitants of their Land, or voluntarily subjected themselves to their policy. For Moses was Ruler of none but the Jews; nor a Legislator or deputed officer from God to any other Nation. The Decalogue was but part of the Jewish Law, if you consider it not as it is written in Nature, but in Tables of Stone: And the Jewish Law was given as a Law to no other people but to them. It was a National Law, as they were a peculiar people and holy Nation. So that even in Moses daies it bound no other Nations of the World. Therefore it needed not any abrogation to the Gentiles, but a declaration that it did not bind them.
2. The whole Law of Moses formally as such is ceased or abrogated by Christ. I say, As such, Because Materialy, the same things that are in that Law, may be the matter of the Law of Nature, and of the Law of Christ: of which more anon. That the whole Law of Moses as such is abrogated, is most clearly proved, 1. By the frequent arguings of Paul, who ever speaketh of that Law as ceased without excepting any part, And Christ saith, Luke 16. 16. The Law and the Prophets were untill John, that is, were the chief doctrine of the Church till then, Joh. 1. 17. The Law was given by Moses, but grace and truth cometh by Jesus Christ. No Jew would have understood this, if the word [Law] had not contained the Decalogue. So Joh. 7. 19, 23. Act. 15. 5, 24. It was the whole Law of Moses, as such which by Circumcision they would have bound men to. Gal. 5. 3. The Gentiles are said to sin without Law, even when they broke the Law of Nature, meaning [without the Law of Moses] Rom. 2. 12, 14, 15, 16. In all these following places its not part but the whole Law of Moses, which Paul excludeth (which I ever acknowledged to the Antinomians, though they take me for their too great Adversary,) Rom. 3. 19, 20, 21, 27, 28, 31, & 4. 13, 14, 15, 16. & 5. 13. 20. & 7. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 16. & 9. 4, 31, 32. & 10. 5. Gal. 2. 16, 19, 21. & 3. 2, 10, 11, 12, 13, 19, 21, 24. & 4. 21. & 5. 3, 4, 14, 23. & 6. 13. Eph. 2. 15. Phil. 3. 6, 9. Heb. 7, 11, 12, 19. & 9. 19. & 10. 28. 1 Cor. 9. 21.
2. More particularly there are some Texts which express the cessation of the Decalogue as it was Moses Law, 2 Cor. 3. 3, 7, 11. Not in Tables of Stone, but in fleshly tables of the heart—But if the Ministration of death written and engraven in stones was glorious, so that the Children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his Countenance, which was to be done away (or is done away.) They that say the Glory, and not the Law is here said to be done away, speak against the plain scope of the Text: For the Glory of Moses face, and the glorious manner of deliverance ceased in a few daies, which is not the cessation here intended; But (as Dr. Hammond speaketh it) [that Glory and that Law so gloriously delivered is done away] And this the eleventh verse fullyer expresseth [For if that which is done away was glorious (or, by Glory,) much more that which remaineth is glorious, or (in glory) so that as it is not only the Glory, but the Glorious Law, Gospel or Testament which is said to remain, so it is not only the Glory, but the Law which was delivered by Glory which is expresly said to be done away: And this is the Law which was written in Stone—Nothing but partial violence can evade the force of this Text.
So Heb. 7. 11, 12. [VnderUnder it (the Levitical Priesthood) the people received the Law—And the Priesthood being changed there is made of necessity a change also of the Law. 18. For there is verily a disanulling of the Commandment going before, for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. For the Law made nothing perfect; but the bringing in of a better hope—22. By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better Testament] In all this it is plain that it is the whole frame of the Mosaical Law that is changed, and the New Testament set up in its stead.
Heb. 9. 18, 19. Neither was the first Dedicated without blood; For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the Law, &c. Here the Law which is before said to be changed is said to contain Every Precept.
And Eph. 2. 15. It is the Law of Commandments contained in Ordinances, which Christ abolished in his flesh; which cannot be exclusive of the chief part of that Law.
Obj. This is the Doctrine of the Antinomians, that the Law is abrogated, even the Moral Law.
Ans. It is the Doctrine of the true Antinomians that we are under no Divine Law, neither of Nature nor of Christ; But it is the Doctrine of Paul and all Christians, that the Jewish Mosaical Law as such is abolished.
Obj. But do not all Divines say that the Moral Law is of perpetual obligation?
Ans. Yes; Because it is Gods Law of Nature, and also the Law of Christ.
Obj. But do not most say that the Decalogue written in stone, is the Moral Law and of perpetual obligation.
Answ. Yes: for by the word [Moral] they mean [Natural,] and so take Moral, not in the large sense as it signifieth a Law de moribus as all Laws are whatsoever, but in a narrower sense as signifying, that which by Nature is of Vniversal and perpetual obligation. So that they mean not that it is perpetual as it is Moses Law and written in Stone formally, but as it is Moral, that is Natural; And they mean that Materially the Decalogue containeth the same Law which is the Law of Nature, and therefore is materially still in force: But they still except certain points and circumstances in it, as the prefatory reason [I am the Lord that brought thee out of the Land of Aegypt, &c.] And especially this of the seventh day Sabbath.
Q 1. How far then are we bound by the Decalogue?
Answ. 1. As it is the Law of Nature; 2. As it is owned by Christ, and made part of his Law. Therefore no more of it bindeth directly, than we can prove to be either the Law of Nature, or the Law of Christ. 3. As it was once a Law of God to the Jews, and was given them upon a… reason common to them with us or all mankind, we must still judge, that it was once a Divine determination of what is most meet, and an exposition of a Law of Nature, and therefore consequentially, and as that which intimateth by what God once commanded, what we should take for his will, and is most meet, it obligeth still. And so when the Law of Nature forbiddeth Incest, or too near marriages, and God once told the Jews what degrees were to be accounted too near, this being once a Law to them directly, is a Doctrine and Exposition of the Law of Nature still to us; and so is consequentially a Law, by parity of reason. And so we shall shew anon that it is by the fourth Commandment.
IV. The Law of Christ bindeth us not to the observation of the seventh day Sabbath. Proved.
1. Because it is proved that Christ abrogated Moses Law as such; and it is no where proved that he reassumed this, as a part of his own Law. For it is no part of the Law of Nature (as is proved) (which we confess now to be part of his Law.)
Object. Christ saith, that he came not to destroy the Law and Prophets, but to fulfill them, and that a jot or tittle shall not pass till all be fulfilled.
Answ. He is the end of the Law for righteousness to every one that believeth, Rom. 10. 4. The Law was a Schoolmaster to bring us to Christ, Gal. 3. 24. He hath therefore fulfilled the Law according to his word, by his incarnation, life, death and resurrection. It is past away, but not unfulfilled: And fulfilling it, is not destroying it. The ends of it are all attained by him: 2. And though having attained its end, it ceaseth formally, as Moses Law; yet materially, all that is of natural obligation continueth under another form; that is, as part of his perfect Law. Therefore as our childish knowledge is said, as knowledge to be increased and not done away; when we come to maturity; but as childish to be done away, so the Mosaical Jewish Law, as Gods Law in general is perfected by the cessation of the parts which were fitted to the state of bondage, and by addition of more perfect parts (The natural part of it is made a part of a better Covenant or frame:) But yet as Mosaical and imperfect it is abolished.
Briefly this much sufficeth for the answer of all the allegations, by which any would prove the continuation of Moses Law, or any part of it formally as such. I only add, That all Moses Law, even the Decalogue was Political, even Gods Law for the Government of that particular Theocrcratical Policy, as a Political body. Therefore when the Kingdom or Policy ceased, the Law as Political could not continue.
2. It is proved that Christ by his Spirit in his Apostles did institute another day. And seeing the Spirit was given them to bring his words to remembrance, and to enable them to teach the Churches all things whatsoever he commanded them, it is most probable that this was at first one of Christs own personal Precepts.
3. And to put all out of doubt, that neither the Law of Nature, nor any Positive Law, to Adam, Noah, or Moses, or by Christ doth oblige us to the seventh day Sabbath, it is expresly repealed by the Holy Ghost, Col. 2. 16. [Let no man therefore judge you in meats or in drink, or in respect of an Holy day (or Feast) or of the New Moon, or of the Sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to came; but the body is of Christ.] I know many of late say, that by Sabbaths here is not meant the weekly Sabbath, but only other Holy dayes, as Monethly or Jubilee rests: But 1. This is to limit without any proof from the word of God: When God speaks of Sabbaths in general without exception, what is man that he should put in exceptions without any proof of Authority from God? By such boldness we may pervert all his Laws. Read Dr. Young upon this Text. 2. Yea, when it was the weekly Sabbath, which then was principally known by the Name of a Sabbath, above all other Festivals whatsoever, it is yet greater boldness without proof to exclude the principal part, from whence the rest did receive the name. 3. Besides the Feasts and New Moons being here named as distinct from the Sabbath, are like to include so much of the other separated dayes, as will leave it still more unmeet to exclude the weekly Sabbath in the Explication of that word [Sabbaths] when so many Feasts are first distinguished: foreign incuit Grotius, hic sunt Azyma dies omer, scenopegia, dies foreign.
Obj. But the Sabbath mentioned in the Decalogue could not be included.
Answ. This is spoken without proof, and the contrary is before proved.
Obj. By this you will make the Christian Sabbath also to be excluded. Is not the Lords day a Sabbath?
Answ. I am here to speak but of the name; of which I say, that the common sense of the word Sabbath was, a Day so appointed to Rest, as that the bodily Rest of it, was a primary part of its observation, to be kept for it self; and such the Jewish Sabbaths were. Though spiritual Worship was then also commanded, yet the corporal Rest was more expresly or frequently urged in the Law, and this not only subordinately as an advantage to the spiritual worship, but for it self, as an immediate and most visible and notable part of Sabbatizing. Even as other Ceremonies under the Law were commanded, not only as doctrinal Types of things spiritual, but as external Acts of Ceremonious operous obedience suited to the Jews Minority, which is after called the yoke which they and their Fathers were unable to bear, Acts 15. Whereas the Lords day is appointed but as a seasonable time subserviently to the spiritual work of the day; And the bodily Rest, not required as primary obedience for it self, but only for the spiritual work sake: and therefore no bodily labour is now unlawful, but such as … hinderance to the spiritual work of the day, … or accidentally a scandal and temptation to others) whereas the breach of the outward Rest of the Jews Sabbath, was a sin directly of it self, without hinderance of, or respect to the spiritual Worship. So that the first notion and sense of a Sabbath in those dayes being (in common use) A day of such Ceremonial Corporal Rest, as the Jewish Sabbath was, the Lords day is never in Scripture called by that name; but the proper name is [The Lords day.] And the ancient Churches called it constantly by that name, and never called it the Sabbath, but when they spake Analogically by allusion to the Jews Sabbath; even as they called the holy Table, the Altar, and the Bread and Wine, the Sacrifice. Therefore it is plain, that Paul is to be understood of all proper Sabbaths, and not of the Lords day, which was then and long after distinguished from the Sabbath.
And this Ceremonial, Sabbatizing of the Jews was so strict, that the Ceremonicusness made them the scorn of the Heathens, as appeareth by the derisions of Horat. li. 1. sat. 9. Persius sat. 5. Juvenal. sat. 6. Martial. lib. 4. and others: whereas they derided not the Christians for the Ceremonious Rest, but for their Worship on that day. The Lords day being not called a Sabbath in the old sense then only in use, but distinguished from the Sabbath cannot be meant by the Apostle in his exclusion of the Sabbath.
Obj. But the Apostles then met in the Synagogues with the Jews on the Sabbaths; Therefore it is not those dayes that he meaneth here Col. 2. 16.
Answ 1. You might as well say, that therefore he is not for the cessation of the Jewish manner of Worship, or Communion with them in it, because he met with them.
2. And you may as well say, that he was for the continuance of Circumcision and Purification, because he purified himself and circumcised Timothy.
3. Or that he was for the continuance of their other Feasts, in which also he refused not to joyn with them.
4. But Paul did not keep their Sabbaths formally as Sabbaths, but only take the advantage of their Assemblies, to teach them and convince them; and to keep an interest in them: And not scandalize them by an unseasonable violation and contradiction.
5. And you must note also, that the Text saith not [Observe not Sabbath dayes] but [Let no man judge you] that is, Let none take it for your sin, that you observe them not; nor do you receive any such Doctrine of the necessity of keeping the Law of Moses.] The case seemeth like that of things strangled and blood, which were to be forborn among the Jews while they were offensive, and the use of them hindred their conversion.
Obj. But the ancient Christians did observe both dayes.
Answ. 1. In the first Ages they did as the Apostles did; that is, 1. They observed no day strictly as a Sabbath in the notion then in use: 2. They observed the Lords day, as a day set apart by the Holy Ghost for Christian Worship. 3. They so far observed the Jews Sabbath materialy, as to avoid their scandal, and to take opportunity to win them.
2. But those that lived far from all Jews, and those that lived after the Law was sufficiently taken down, did keep but one day, even the Lords day, as separated to holy uses: except some Christians who differed from the rest, as the followers of Papias did in the Millenary point.
3. And note that even these dissenters, did still make no question of keeping the Lords day, which sheweth that it was on foot from the times of the Apostles. … (whoever it was, and whenever he wrote) saith that [After the Sabbath we keep the Lords day.] And Pseudo-Clemens Can. 33. saith [Servants work five dayes, but on the Sabbath and Lords day, they keep holy day in the Church, for the Doctrine (or Learning) of Godliness]
The Text of Gal. 4. 10. is of the same sense with Col. 2. 16. against the Jews Sabbath, and therefore needeth no other defence.
And I would have you consider, whether as Christs Resurrection was the foundation of the Lords day; so Christs lying dead and buried in a Grave on the seventh day Sabbath, was not a fundamental abrogation of it: I say not the Actual and plenary abrogation: For it was the Command of Christ by his Word, Spirit, or both to the Apostles before proved, which fully made the change: But as the Resurrection was the Ground of the new day so his Burial seemeth to intimate, that the day with all the Jewish Law which it was the symbolical profession of, lay dead and buried with him. Sure I am that he saith, when the Bridegroom is taken from them, then shall they fast and mourn; but he was most notably taken from them, when he lay dead in the Grave; And if they must fast and mourn that day, they could not keep it as a Sabbath, which was a day of joy Therefore as by death he overcame him that had the power of death, Heb. 2. 14. and as he nailed the hand-writing of Ordinances to his Cross; so he buried the Sabbath in his Grave, by lying buried on that day.
And therefore the Western Churches, who had fewer Jews among them, did fast on the Sabbath day, to shew the change that Christs burial intimated: Though the Eastern Churches did not, lest they should offend the Jews.
And that the ancient Christians were not for sabbatizing on the seventh day, is visible in the writings of most, save the Eastern ones before mentioned. Tertull. cont. Marcion li. 1. cap. 20. & Chrysost. Theodoret, Primasius, &c. on Gal. 4. expound that Text, as that by Dayes is meant the Jewish Sabbath, and by Moneths, the New Moons, &c.
Cyprian 59. Epist. ad Hidum saith, that the eighth day is to Christians, what the Sabbath was to the Jews, and calleth the Sabbath, the Image of the Lords day. Athanasius de Sab. & Circumcis. is full and plain on it. See Tertullian Advers. Judae. c. 4. Ambros. in Eph. 2. August. Ep. 118. Ch…ys…st. in Gal. 1. & H…m. 12. ad pop. Hilary before cited Prolog. in Psalm. Origen Hom. 23. in Num. Item Tertull. de Idol. c. 14. Epipban. l. 1. num. 30. noting the Nazaraei and Ebionaei Hereticks, that they kept the Jews Sabbath. In a word, The Council of Laodi…aea doth Anathematize them that did Judaize by forbearing their Labours on the Sabbath or seventh day. And as Sozomen tells us, that at Alexandria and Rome they used no Assemblies on the Sabbath, so where they did, in most Churches they communicated not in the Sacrament.
Yea, that Ignatius himself (true or false) who saith as aforecited [After the Sabbath let every lover of Christ celebrate the Lords day] doth yet in the same Epistle (ad Magnes.) before say [Old things are passed away, behold all things are made new: For if we yet live after the Jewish Law, and the Circumcision of the flesh, we deny that we have received Grace—Let us not therefore keep the Sabbath (or sabbatize) Jewishly, as delighting in Idleness (or Rest from labour.) For be that will not labour, let him not eat. In the sweat if thy brows thou shalt cat thy bread.] I confess I take the cited Texts to have been added since the body of the Epistle was written; but though the Writer favour of the Eastern custom, yet he sheweth they did not sabbatize on the account of the fourth Commandment, or supposed continuation of the Jewish Sabbath as a Sabbath: For bodily labour was strictly forbidden in the fourth Commandment.
Dionysius Alexandr. hath an Epistle to Basilides a Bishop on the Question, When the Sabbath Fast must end, and the observation of the Lords day begin, Biblioth. Patr. Graec. Lat. Vol. 1. p. 306. In which he is against them that end their Fast too soon. And plainly intimateth that the seventh day was to be kept, but as a preparatory Fast (being the day that Christ lay in the grave) and not as a Sabbath, or as the Lords day.
I cite not any of these, as a humane authority to be set against the authority of the fourth Commandment; But as the certain History of the change of the day which the Apostles made.
Qu. How far then is the fourth Commandment Moral? you seem to subvert the old foundation, which most others build the Lords day upon.
Answ. Let us not entangle our selves with the ambiguities of the word [Moral] which most properly signifieth Ethical, as distinct from Physical, &c. By Moral here is meant that which is (on what ground soever) of perpetual or continued obligation: And so it is all one as to ask how far it is still obligatory or in force; To which I answer,
1. It is a part of the Law of Nature, that God be solemnly worshipped, in families and in holy assemblies.
2. It is a part of the Law of Nature, that where greater things do not forbid it, a stated time be appointed for this service, and that it be not left at Randome to every mans will.
3. It is of the Law of Nature, that where greater matters do not hinder it, this day be one and the same in the same Countreys; yea, if it may be through the world.
4. It is of the Law of Nature, that this day be not so rarely as to hinder the ends of the day, nor yet so frequently as to deprive us of opportunity for our necessary corporal labour.
5. It is of the Law of Nature, that the holy duties of this day be n…t hindered by any corporal work, or fleshly pleasure, or any unnecessary thing which contradi…teth the holy ends of the day.
6. It is of the Law of Nature, that Rulers, and in special Masters of families, do take care that their inferiours thus observe it.
In all these points the fourth Commandment being but a transcript of the Law of Nature, which we can yet prove from the nature of the reason of the thing, the matter of it continueth (not as Jewish, but) as Natural.
7. Besides all this, when no man of himself could tell, whether one day in six or seven or eight were his duty to observe, God hath come in, and 1. By Doctrine or History told us, that he made the world in six dayes, and rested the seventh. 2. By Law; and bath commanded one day in seven to the Jews; by which he hath made known consequential…y to all men, that one day in seven is the fittest proportion of time. And the case being thus determined by God, by a Law to others, doth consequentially become a Law to us, because it is the determination of Divine Wisdom; unless it were done upon some reasons in which their condition differeth from ours. And thus the Doctrine and Reasons of an abrogated Law, continuing, may induce on us an obligation to duty. And in this sense the fourth Commandment may be said still to bind us to one day in seven.
But in two points the obligation (even as to the Matter) ceaseth. 1. We are not bound to the seventh day, because God our Redeemer who is Lord of the Sabbath, hath made a change. 2. We are not bound to a Sabbath in the old notion, that is, to a day of Ceremonial Rest for it self required; but to a day to be spent in Evangelical Worship.
And though I am not of their mind who say, that the seventh day is not commanded in the fourth Commandment, but a Sabbath only; yet, I think that it is evident in the words, that the Ratio Sabbati, and the Ratio diei septimi are distinguishable: And that the Sabbath as a Sabbath, is first in the precept, and the particular day is there but secondarily, and so mutably; as if God had said, I will have a particular day set apart for a holy Rest, and for my Worship, And that day shall be one in seven, and the seventh also on which I rested from my works.
And thus I have said as much as I think needful to satisfie the considerate about the day: Again professing 1. That I believe that he is in the right that maketh Conscience of the Lords day only. 2. But yet I will not break Charity with any Brother that shall in tenderness of Conscience keep both dayes; especially in times of prophaness when few will be brought to the true observation of one. 3. But I think him that keepeth the seventh day only and neglecteth the Lords day, to sin against very evident light, with many aggravations. 4. But I think him that keepeth no day (whether professedly, or practising contrary to his profession; whether on pretence of avoiding Superstition, or on pretence of keeping every day as a Sabbath) to be far the worst of all. I shall now add somewhat to some appendant Questions.