The Doctrine of the Sabbath, Thesis 36 – Thesis 38
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 foreign upon one day of the week, do miserably mistake the phrase, which in Scripture phrase onelyonly 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 onelyonly 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 press…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 onelyonly to do it, if they thought most meet, but foreign, 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 onelyonly 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,Primr. par. 3. c. 6. 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 D…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 onelyonly of their need: Suppose also that no man is injoyned to bring into the publike Treasury of the Church, but (foreign) 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 onelyonly by humane, but never by Divine Institution? Its, 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 …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 onelyonly 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,Primr. par. 3. cap. 7. 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.