Defense of the Christian Sabbath, Discourse (2 of 3)

Defense of the Christian Sabbath · Discourse (2 of 3)

p. 30He says, Paul was to go away on the Morrow. True; But it is not said they came together to take leave of Paul; but, came together to Break Bread. Paul's going away on the Morrow, might be the reason (and I believe was) why they continued there so long: but the End for which they came together, was to Break Bread: and the occasion of their so coming, because it was the first day of the Week: On which, it should seem, they were wont so to do for that end. And if he candidly▪ consider it, methinks▪ it should seem so to him. Paul came to them at Troas in five days, where he abode seven days: And on the first day of the week when the Disciples came together to break Bread, Paul preachea to them. Doth not the fair prospect of the place import thus much, that they were then met to break Bread, as being the first day of the week? What other occasion was there of mentioning what day of the Week it was? It had been otherwise a fairer transition to have said, He staid there Seven days, and on the Seventh day (or the last of those Seven) the Disciples came together to take leave of Paul and Sup with him over night, who was to depart on the morrow. Now if it had been said on the Seventh day (though meaning but the last of those Seven) it would no doubt have been urged as a great argument of Paul's keeping a Seventh day Sabbath, and the Disciples with him; not as a Iewish but as a Christiam Assembly; for breaking of bread (which was a Christian not a Iewish Service;) For then, breaking of bread, would certainly have been the Lords Supper: (But because it was on the first day of the Week) it must now be but common eating, to take leave of Paul▪ and to Sup with him; as (he tells us p. 57.) Friends commonly do (when a Minister or any other special Acquaintance intends to take a Iourney in the morning) to sup with him over night. But if he thinks this to be all which is there meant by the Disciples coming together on the first day of the Week to Break Bread; he must excuse me if I cannot be of his Opinion.

But because he is content to admit (upon some terms) their meeting might be upon a Religious account, for the Lords Supper (as no doubt it was) I shall press him no further therein: but accept of his condescension.

When he tells us, that foreign is Greek for one, and therefore foreign may as well be rendered One day of the Week, as the p. 31First day of the Week: Surely he is not in earnest. Such trifling doth more hurt than help his cause. No doubt, but, when ever they met▪ it was one day of the Week, we need not be told it; nor need the word Week be added, he might as well have said one day; nor need he have said so much▪ But this Author cannot think (nor doth he) that foreign doth any where signify other than the first day of the Week. In the whole story of Christs Resurrection, and what followed on that day in all the Four Evangelists, we have no other word for it but foreign, nor have we any other word for it (that I know of) there or any where else. I do not know that it is any where called foreign. Such shifting doth not look well.

'Tis somewhat like the Story of a man who bought a Horse for Five Pounds to be paid the next day. And accordingly on the next day he sent Five Pounds of Candles. Perhaps (in the Bargain) it was not said expresly (in words at length) Five Pounds of Lawful Money of England. But, by common intendment, it must be so understood. (And an honest English Iury▪ upon a Tryal, would so Find it.)

The Latin word Pridie, is a Derivative (or Compound rather) from prae, prior; and Postridie from post, posterior; and accordingly (in Latin) pridie Calendarum, and postridie Calendarum must signify a day before, and a day after the Calends. But can any man think it is meant of any day? No, but the next day before, and the next day after.

So if we say, Christ was Crucified one day before the Sabbath, and Rose again one day after the Sabbath. This one day is the next day. And so any man who hath not a mind to Cavil, will understand it. And so foreign, one day after the Sabbath, must needs be understood of the next day after the Sabbath: Nor is it ever used in any other sense. If it were to be understood of any indefinitely, it should be foreign some day after the Sabbath, not foreign one day after.

But the most pleasant shift of all, is, when he would have us think that this Evening (which is called the first day of the Week) was the Evening after the Seventh day, that is Saturday night; and the next morning (when Paul was to go away) was Sunday morning (and he to travel that Sunday:) And that the Evening of Saturday was the beginning of Sunday, and was therefore called the First day of the Week. Because it is said Gen. 1. the evening and the morning was the First day, (and so of the rest,) and therefore the evening was the beginning of every day. See p. 32what▪ shift a man will make, rather than quit an Opinion he hath once taken up.

We are taught that on the Fourteenth day of the first month at even the Pass-over was to be killed. Doth he think that this Fourteenth day at even was the end of the Thirteenth day, the Fourteenth day then beginning? I think every body else takes it to be the evening at the end of the fourteenth day, and the Fifteenth day (on the morrow) was the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread. For though it were the fourteenth day at evening, yet it was the fourteenth day, not the fifteenth.

And Luke 23. 54. the evening after our Saviours Crucifixion, on the sixth day, when it was late at night (as was shewed before, and must be, according to the story of what had been done before that time) was yet but the preparation, not the Sabbath, the Seventh day being not yet begun. For so we have it, it was the preparation, and the Sabbath drew on. And the Women were then preparing their Spices and Oyntments, yet rested the Sabbath day according to the Commandment; So that the Sabbath day was not yet begun; nor was it ended when the evening of the next day began, but on the morning of the day following▪ as was shewed above.

And (as we shewed at large before) the first day of the Week (on which Christ rose) began very early in the morning while it was dark, and continued (the same day) till very late at night. And this is the constant Language of the New Testament every where.

So that when the Congregation of Christians, Acts 20. 7. did on the first day of the week assemble to break Bread, and Paul Preached to them, continuing his Sermon till Mid-night; this must needs be on what we call Sunday; and the morning following was Munday morning; not Sunday morning as this Author would have it.

'Tis manifest therefore, that there was a Religious Assembly, of the Christian Congregation at Troas, on the First day of the Week, for celebration of the Lords Supper, and Preaching; and Paul with them. Which I take to be the celebration of a Christian Sabbath.

However, this (he says) is but One Instance. True, this is but one. (But we have heard of more before, and shall hear of more by and by.) But this one is more than he can shew for more than Two Thousand Five Hundred Years (from God's resting on the Seventh day Gen. 2. 3. till after Israel was come out of Egypt Ex. 16.) during which time he would have us think the Seventhday p. 33Sabbath was constantly observed. And if he could shew any one such instance (of Enoch, Noah, Abraham, or other,) where such a Religious Assembly, for the Worship of God, was held on the seventh day in course from the Creation; he would think his point well proved, though no more were said of it than is of this.

Whereas now as to the time from thence to the Floud, he brings no other proof, but that Abel, and Enoch, and Noah were good men (as no doubt they were) and therefore it is to be presumed they kept a Sabbath; and that upon the seventh day. Which is to beg the question, not to prove it.

From thence till Israels going into Egypt, all that he brings to prove this matter of fact is but that of Gen. 13. 6. where (speaking of Abram and Lot, with the multitude of their Cattel) it is said, the land was not able to bear them that they might Dwell together; for their substance was great so that they could not Dwell together; and there was a strife between the Herd-men of Abrams Cattle, and the Herd-men of Lots Cattle, &c. They could not Dwell together, that is (saith he) they could not Rest together, that is, they could not keep a Sabbath together; therefore (he concludes) they did use to keep a sabbath; and that Sabbath was the seventh day in course from the Creation. And is not this a goodly proof? I should think (if he would put a stress on the word Rest) it should rather signify, they could not live quietly together without their herd-mens quarrelling about their Pasture; for so it follows in the next words, there was a strife between their herds-men.

From thence till after their coming out of Egypt, he brings no other proof but that of Ex. 5. 4, 5. Where, when Moses and Aaron had been pressing Pharaoh to let Israel go three days Iourney into the Wilderness, to keep a Feast and Sacrifice to the Lord their God; Pharaoh replies, Wherefore do ye Lett (or hinder) the People from their Work; you make them rest from their Burdens, or you take them off from their Work; that is, says he, you make them keep a Sabbath. For the Word or Verb there Translated you make them Rest is, (he tells us) a derivative from another Verb which signifies to Rest, from which Verb the word Sabbath is also derived: They did therefore Rest (saith he) that is keep a Sabbath, and that Sabbath was every Week, and it was on the seventh day in course from the Creation.

Alas! how little do either or both of these places prove, of what he would have to be granted him thence! He tells us sometimes there were other Sabbaths, besides that of the seventh day; I am sure there were other Restings.

p. 34If Moses and Aaron had desired Pharaoh to excuse them from their Work one day in seven, that on such day they might serve the Lord their God; it would have looked like an Argument. But when it is, to go three days into the Wilderness to keep a Feast to the Lord; what is this to a Weekly Sabbath?

This Seventh-day sabbath, so runs in the mind of this Author, that if any where he can lay hold of the word Rest, it must presently prove a Seventh-day-sabbath. Else who would have thought, that because Abram and Lot could not dwell quietly together; therefore they must needs keep a Sabbath, and that upon the seventh day, and in course from the Creation? And the like of the Israelites in Egypt, because Moses and Aaron are said to hinder them from their work; Therefore they did constantly keep a weekly Sabbath, and that upon the seventh day, in course from the Creation.

He might have to better purpose, alleged Pharaoh's seven fat kine and seven lean ones, and the seven full Ears of Corn, and seven empty; for here we have the number seven signalized; only these were Seven Years, not Seven Days; and the like of Nebuchadnezzar's being seven years turned out to the Beasts of the field, Dan. 4. 25, 32, 33. Or that of the Clean Beasts and Fowls coming into the Ark by sevens, Gen. 7. 2, 3.

But, what is more to his purpose (and which he should not have missed) is that of Gen. 7. 4. and Gen. 8. 10, 12. where we have the interval of seven days particularly mentioned; For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the Earth, &c. (Chap. 7. 4.) where God gives to Noah just a Weeks warning of the time when the Floud should begin, during which interval (if those days were Sabbath days) he might remove himself and what was necessary into the Ark before the next Sabbath. And, toward the end of the Floud, Noah sends out the Dove, Chap. 8. 8. And he staid seven days, and again sent forth the Dove, ver. 10. And he staid yet other seven days, and sent forth the Dove, &c. ver. 12. Where we have the Dove sent out three times, just at seven days distance. And how do we know but that these three days were three Sabbath days? Which though it be not a conclusive Argument, is better than any that he brings. For here we have three Intervals of seven days, in these two Chapters.

But if a Weekly Sabbath were then kept, 'tis very strange that we should have no intimation of any such thing in the books of Moses (before Israel's coming out of Egypt.) And much more, that there is nothing of it in the Book of Iob. And, that none p. 35of his friends (amongst the many charges they bring against him) should never object his Neglect of the Sabbath, or want of due observance thereof. Which being so plausible an objection, it seems more likely, that a Sabbath was not then wont to be observed: for which he hath so very little to shew. And by what we have Iob 1. 4. It should seem that Iob's Seven Sons kept Feasting (each in his own day) for Seven days together; without any mention of a Sabbath intervening. Nor was it a Religious Feast but a Feast of mirth and jollity, such as made Iob suspicious lest they might sin and curse God in their heart, v. 5. And therefore he offer'd propitiatory Sacrifices for them continually, or (as the Margin tells us it is in the Hebrew) all the days, that is every of these Seven days.

As little a matter will serve his turn to prove (p. 43.) that Christs Ascension was, and his coming to Iudgment is to be, on a Saturday, or Seventh-day-Sabbath: Because it is said Acts 1. 12. that Mount Olivet (whence he ascended) is, from Ierusalem, a Sabbath-days Iourney.

But he tells us that by no account that he can make▪ can he assign the Ascension on the First day, (No more can I.) But what then?

Well! But why upon a Saturday rather than a Sunday? Because he observes, that after Christ's Ascension from Mount Olivet, it is said, Then they returned to Ierusalem, from Mount Olivet, which is from Ierusalem a Sabbath-days Iourney. Well! what of this? He cannot see why it was expresly said, that it was but a Sabbath-days Iourney from Ierusalem, but because it was the Sabbath-day.

Perhaps I may shew him another reason as likely as it. If the word then do not there signify the same day (but only at large, after his Ascension▪ ) this is nothing to the purpose. But admitting that by then be meant the same day; the connexion runs fairly thus, After his Ascension they returned from thence to Ierusalem the same day, for it was (foreign) but a little way off, about a Sabbath days Iourney. Which, I think, is a fair account of the place▪ Especially since we know otherwise, that it was not upon … p. 36Account (as he speaks) will serve as well for the one as for the other. But, indeed, for neither.

But how doth this concern his Coming to Iudgment? Yes, Because it is there said (ver. 11.) He shall come in like manner (foreign) as ye have seen him go into Heaven. And (because this Author fansies) he did Ascend on a Sabbath day, therefore (he fansies also) he shall on a Sabbath day come again. I see a Weak Argument, with a strong Fansy will go far.

But to prove his Ascension to be on the Sabbath (besides this, of a Sabbath-days Journey) he adds further, That Christ and his Disciples were then Assembled, and that Christ Preached. Well! And why may we not as well conclude that the day of his Resurrection was also a Sabbath? For Christ and his Disciples were then assembled, (first at Emmaus, and then at Ierusalem,) and Christ did then also (at both places) Preach to them, and the substance of his Preaching was much the same, (as will appear by comparing Luk 24. with Acts 1.) and did then also Celebrate the Lords Supper. And eight days after, Christ was again Assembled with the Disciples, and Preached to them, on the same day of the Week. If Christs Presence and Preaching will prove the Ascension day to be a Sabbath, why should it not as well prove the Resurrection day to be a Sabbath? the onelyonly difference is, That (he thinks) serves his turn, But this makes against him.

And why should it not also be thought a Sabbath, Acts 20. For Paul and the Disciples were then Assembled; and they were assembled to break Bread; and Paul there Preached to them. And all these Assemblies were on the first day of the Week. And they seem to me a much stronger proof of the First day, (the day of his Resurrection) being a Sabbath, than that the Ascension day was so.

And the Preaching which our Author here mentions as on the day of Ascension, seems to me rather to have been on that of the Resurrection. For St. Luke in the beginning of this Chapter of Acts 1. seems to give a short repetition of what himself had delivered more at large Luk. 24. And gives an account not only of what happened on the day of Ascension, (though he close with it) but of what happened during the forty days from his Resurrection to that time. And this Preaching, I take to be that mentioned Luke 24. on the day of his Resurrection.

But (after all) this is but a Whimsey, (what he tells us of Christs Ascension on a Seventh-day-Sabbath.) For 'tis very plain that his Ascension was neither on a seventh day, nor on a first, but on a fifth day of the Week. For 'tis plainly said, Acts 1. 3. p. 37That he shewed himself alive after his Passion, being seen of them Forty days, (that is, he was seen of them at times, not constantly, for the space of Fourty days) whereof that of his Resurrection was the first, and that of his Ascension was the last. And if that were Sunday, this must be Thursday. He may tell it upon his fingers (as he speaks p. 5.) if he please.

But though our Saviours Ascension was not on the seventh day of the Week (in observance of the Seventh-day Sabbath, or in confirmation thereof:) Yet the mission of the Holy Ghost (according as on the First day of the Week, the day of his Resurrection, he had promised. Luk 24. 49.) was on the first day of the Week fulfilled also, as appears Acts 2. When the day of Pentecost was fully come, that is, the Fiftieth day (for so Pentecost signifieth in Greek) they were all with one accord in one place (that is, they were unanimously assembled) and suddenly there came a sound from Heaven, as of a rushing mighty Wind, and filled the house, where they were sitting; And there appeared to them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them (that is, at least, upon each of the Apostles,) and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other Tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance. Which I take to be a further instance, (if our Author will not allow it to be called a Sabbath) at lest of a Religious Assembly for the Worship of God; (And if it had been on the seventh day, how great a proof would this have been with him for a Seventh-day Sabbath.) This I take to be a Christian Sabbath, and within the prospect of the Fourth Commandment. And though it be not expresly called a Sabbath (to avoid confusion or ambiguity, because the word Sabbath in common speech was then appropriated to the Jewish Sabbath,) yet it is the same thing.

And if he doubt whether the Feast of Pentecost were on the First day of the Week, as was that of the Resurrection; he may be satisfied from Levit. 23. 15. where that Feast is appointed. After mention made of the Pass-over, (ver. 5. &c.) Moses proceeds to that of the Wave-offering, v. 10, 11. When ye be come into the land which I give unto you, and shall reap the harvest thereof; then shall ye bring a sheaf of the first-fruits of your harvest unto the Priest, and he shall Wave the sheaf before the Lord to be accepted for you; on the morrow after the Sabbath the Priest shall wave it.

Whether by the Sabbath here mentioned be meant the Weekly Sabbath, or the first day of the Feast of Unleavened-Bread, is not material; because, in that year whereof we are speaking, this first day of the Feast was on the Weekly Sabbath, (as is manifest p. 38from the story of Christs Crucifixion, which was on the Sixth day of the Week, and the next day (being the Seventh day) was the Feast of the Pass-over) and the morrow after this Sabbath, was the day of Christ's Resurrection, as well as of the Wave-offering. And then he proceeds, ver. 15, 16, to the Feast of Pentecost, or the Feast of Weeks. Ye shall count unto you from the morrow after the Sabbath, from the day that ye brought the sheaf of the Waveoffering, seven Sabbaths, shall be compleat, even unto the morrow after the seventh Sabbath, shall ye number Fifty days▪ (inclusively taken, as the manner is in Scripture reckoning, and must needs be so here.) It was called the Feast of Pentecost, or the Feast of Weeks (as Deut. 16. 9, 10.) which Feast of Pentecost was the morrow after the Sabbath; on a first day of the Week.

And on this first day of the Week, (the morrow after the seventh day Sabbath) here was a solemn Assembly for Religious Worship, and a very large one, both of Jews and Gentiles out of every nation under Heaven, Parthians, Medes, Elamites, &c. And this solemnized by a Miraculous Effusion of the Holy Ghost, in the gift of Tongues▪ For we all hear (say those of that great assembly) every one in our own Tongue where in we were born the wonderful Works of God, ver. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. With a long Sermon of Peter's on that occasion▪ Which I take to be another celebration of the First day Sabbath; and a very eminent one.

We are to observe also, that in some of the places alleged to this purpose, though but single instances, there is an intimation of a frequent usage. As in that Act. 20. …. On the first day of the week, the disciples being assembled to break bread, Paul preached, &c. Is a fair intimation, that on the first day they did use so to assemble.

If it were said amongst us, About six a clock; when they were come together (in the College-Hall) to supper, such a thing happened: Any (unprejudiced) person would take it for a fair intimation, that they used to suppe about six a clock. And if this Author could any where find, in the book of Iob, that On the seventh day of the week (from the Creation) when Iob and his friends were assembled for the joint service of God▪ Bildad spake thus, &c. He would take this for a strong proof, that the seventh-day Sabbath was then wont to be observed. Much stronger than what he allegeth to that purpose; Abram and Lot had each of them so many Cattel, that they could not dwell or rest) together, without quarrellings amongst their servants. And that of what Pharaoh said to Moses and Aaron, Why do you Hinder their work, you make the people Rest from their burthens?

A like place is that of 1 Cor. 16. 1, 2. Nov concerning the Collection p. 39for the Saints, as I have given order to the Churches of Galatia, even so do ye (and what that was, we are told in the next words,) Upon the first day of the week, let every one of you lay by him in store as God hath prospered him; that there be no gatherings when I come. (If it had been so said (to …, to …, or to Iob, Upon the Seventh day of the week do this or thus) what a strong proof would this have been for the Observation of a seventh day Sabbath!)

I think it is plain from hence, that the First day of the week, was weekly observed, and was wont to be so observed, both by the Church of Corinth, and by the Churches of Galatia. For So Paul doth not here advise it, but suppose it, or take it for granted.

What that order was to the Churches of Galatia our Author says he cannot tell. … thought it had been plain enough: he bids the Corinthians do, as he had bid the Galatians, that is, on the First day of the Week, &c. What further order, he had given the Galatians, it is not as to this point necessary for us to know.

But saith he, if they must on that day lay by as God hath blessed them, then they must on that day cast up their accounts, tell their mony, reckon their stock, compute their Expenses, &c. which are not Sabbath-day Works. A wise objection▪ As though all this could not as well be done before (so far as is necessary) and, on Sunday, put so much into the poor mans box (or give to the Deacons or Collectors) as (upon such account) they should have found fit; like as is now done in our Churches when there is occasion for such Collections.

Why doth he not make the same exception to that of Deut. 16. 10. concerning the Feast of Pentecost? where they are to bring a tribute of a free-will-offering, which (says he) thou shalt give unto the Lord thy God, &c. according as the Lord thy God hath blessed thee; Doth he think that on the day of Pentecost (which was to be strictly observed as a Sabbath, a holy Convocation and no servile work to be done, Lev. 23, 1.) they must cast up their accounts, tell their money, &c. because they were to offer according as the Lord hath blessed them? I think not▪

But here comes in again his former trifling objection of foreign, whether it signify, the first day of the Week? Yet I am very confident, himself doth really believe it doth here so signify, and (as to his own thoughts) doth not doubt of it. But perhaps thinks it a piece of wit, or skill in Greek, thus to object against his own judgment. Yet since he will have it so, (and we must come again to Childs play,) I will say some what to it.

p. 40Whether foreign be good Greek or no, as to the common analogy of that Tongue; or, what is the reason of that Syntax; I need not trouble my self to enquire, (because it is nothing to the purpose; for we are not inquiring whether it be good Greek, but what it here signifies.) There are I presume in all Languages (by negligence or corruption) some harsh expressions, as to the analogy of the Language, which yet are allowable by common usage, and well enough understood.

He would think it perhaps a little harsh to say in Greek foreign, (that is in Latine, tres & decimum, quatuor & decimum,) for what we say in English thirteenth, fourteenth; yet so they speak. And somewhat harsh foreign Rev. 2. 26. Rev. 3. 21. and foreign, Rev. 3. 12. (instead of foreign) yet so it is. And foreign, yet so we find it Rev. 1. 4. And many such may be shewed.

In Latine, idcirco, quocirca, posthac, quapropter, controvertor, paterfamilias, omne genus homines, Aethiops albus dentes, pridie catendas, and many more, are scarce to be accounted for as regular, save that they are so used; but, because they are so used; they are accounted elegant enough.

In English; Methinks (for I think,) three pound ten shillings, (for three pounds, &c.) three foot nine inches, many a one, a few Pottage, and the like, are scarce regular; yet are so used. When a Merchant marks his Parcels (and so calls them) number one, number two, &c. he means first and second. So, in the Year of our Lord one thousand six hundred and ninety one, One thousand six hundred ninety two, is commonly said; when yet we mean ninety first, ninety second; so one a clock, two a clock, for the first and second hour after Twelve. And other the like cases, where the Cardinal number is put for the Ordinal. As it is also in Gen. 1. The evening, and morning were (jom echad) day one; which the Septuagint renders foreign, and foreign doth there signify foreign. Yet no wise man will cavil as to the sense of such expressions, (what ever they may do as to the Grammatical construction,) when we know what is meant by them.

So here; 'tis true foreign doth properly signify one in common construction: but foreign doth never signify other than the first of the week, (either in the New Testament or any where else,) not any day of the week, any more than one a clock doth signify any other hour than the first after twelve. When a thing is said to be done at one a clock; he that shall object, this may be any hour, for p. 41every hour is one; would be laugh'd at. And when a Merchant bids his Prentice bring him number one, if he bring him what else he pleases (because every number, is number one, or one number) he deserves to be knockt.

Now when every one knows (who understands any thing of this nature,) that foreign is the proper name of that day which is next after the Iewish Sabbath, as much as one a clock is the proper name of that hour which is next after Twelve: it must either be great ignorance, or somewhat worse so to object. I appeal to himself, whether ever he met with that name (in any Author) in any other sense.

He seems to take it very unkindly, pag. 66. of those who should think that, by son of man should be meant an ordinary Man, in Mar. 2. 27, 28. The Sabbath was made for Man, and not Man for the Sabbath; Therefore the Son of Man is Lord also of the Sabbath. Where I think it is plain, that in the former verse (the Sabbath was made for Man, &c.) it is manifestly spoken of ordinary Men. And though in the latter verse, (the Son of Man is Lord also of the Sabbath,) by Son of Man I suppose is meant Christ; yet is that Title given also to ordinary Men, elsewhere, very often. As Iob, 25. 6. How much less Man who is a Worm, and the Son of Man which is a Worm? And Isai. 51. 12. Who art thou that shouldst be afraid of a Man that shall dy, and of the Son of Man which shall be made as Grass. So Ps. 8. 4. What is Man, that thou art mindful of him, and the Son of Man that thou visitest him? And to the same purpose, Ps. 144. 3. And (to name no more) in the Book of Ezekiel, the Prophet Ezekiel is, in that one Book, called Son of Man, oftener than Christ is so called in the whole Bible. And if we would argue as he doth, we might plausiby object, It might be so meant here; though I think it is not. But he cannot shew that ever the Iewish Sabbath was called the Lords day (however he thinks it might have been;) nor (though foreign be Greek for One) that foreign is ever used for other than the first day of the week, or the next after the Jewish Sabbath. Nor doth he think it. Such trifling (to give it no harder name) may do well enough in Drollery or Burlesque, but not in a plain honest Enquiry.

But if he would be curious as to the Phrase; 'tis plain enough that foreign is not properly the Genitive case governed of foreign For then it should have been foreign because foreign is of the Neuter Gender. (And 'tis a mistake therefore when p. 58. he renders it by One of the Sabbaths, as if it had been foreign.) But 'tis governed rather of some Praeposition or Particle understood, (as foreign or the like,) and then, as in Latin pridie calendas (that is, p. 42p…io… dies ante calendas) is the next day before the Calends. so is foreign (or foreign) the next day after the Sabbath: The full construction is foreign, (the word foreign being understood in the word foreign, and foreign understood in the word foreign,) That is one day after the Sabbath; which being the proper Name of a day, cannot be meant of any other but the Next day after.

'Tis certain therefore that (foreign) the first day of the Week, or the first day after the Iewish Sabbath, was from the Resurrection of Christ and after, eminently signalized, as a day of special Observation; 'Twas honoured with Christs Resurrection on that day; with his first appearance to Mary Magdalen and the other Women; then, to the Two Disciples going to Emmaus, and his Religious Assembling with them there; after that, to the Disciples at Ierusalem and assembling with them the same day; and the whole time of those Assemblings employed in Religious Exercises, (Preaching, Celebrating the Sacrament, Instructing and Blessing his Disciples, and giving them Commission for Preaching the Gospel and Planting the Christian Church.) And again with the same Disciples on that day sen-night, assembled with them, and in like manner employed. It was specially signalized also by the Miraculous Effusion of the Holy Ghost on that day, in a great assembly of Iews and Gentiles on the day of Pentecost; and the day employed in Preaching and other Religious exercises. It was observed in like manner at Troas, in preaching the Word, Celebrating the Sacrament, and other Religious Communion, as things there usual on that day. It was observed at Corinth, not once onelyonly, but as a thing of course; and so presumed by the Apostle when he gives particular Instructions concerning a Collection for the Saints to be made weekly on that day. And in like manner in the Churches of Galatia, with a like direction to them. (And we have no reason to suspect but that in other Churches also, there was a like custome of observing that day) And it is the onelyonly day of the week (unless the Seventh-day, in order to the Iewish Sabbath) that is so much as Mentioned by name after the Resurrection of Christ. (At least I do not at present remember the Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, or Sixth day of the week by name so mentioned.) Now what we have reason to believe was so generally observed after the Resurrection, by Christ himself (more than once,) by his Apostles, and by the Christian Churches in their days; we have reason to believe was according to Christs direction. For we know very well, that p. 43Christ did after his resurrection give commandments to the Apostles, about things pertaining to the kingdome of God, and …ling the Christian Church. What those Commandments were in particular, we cannot tell; but are to presume that what they did therein, was pursuant of those commands; and this in particular about observing the first day of the week, which we call the Christian Sabbath; And which (in contradistinction to the Iewish Sabbath) is called the Lords day; Rev. 1. 10. And hath accordingly been so called, and so observed ever since. Which being so practised by the Apostles, and so continued ever since, I take to be a good warrant for us to continue it, as a thing agreeable to the Will of God.

As to what he so often objects, that there is no express command thereof recorded: that is, not such a command as our Author demands. We are not to prescribe to God in what terms he shall make known his Will, (any more than the Pharisees, Mat. 16. 4. were to prescribe to Christ what kind of signs he was to shew to testify his authority;) 'tis sufficient if God do in his own way intimate what is his Will, though it be it not with the formality of Be it Enacted. And those who are willing to be taught of God, will be content so to understand his meaning. An approved Practise in the Worship of God, frequently Repeated, attested by Miracles, encouraged by Christs own Example, and that of the Apostles and the Christian Churches then, and continued in the Christian Church ever since: Is to me great evidence of the will of God; and that there was a command for it, though it be not recorded. (Like as I believe that there was, very early, a command from God, to worship him by Sacrifice, though that Command be not recorded.

But (to that of its being so observed ever since) he objects, we have nothing but Tradition, either that the Christian Sabbath hath been so observed, or that it is called the Lords-day. And Tradition is what he takes great pleasure to exclaim against; If that be admitted (saith he) where shall we stop?

Very well! I am not over fond of laying too great a weight upon Traditions; at least not on all things that are pretended so to be. But I pray, How can he tell, otherwise than by Tradition, whether our Saturday or our Sunday, be the Seventh day in course from the Creation? Or, (if that be too hard a question) whether of the two is the Seventh day of the Iewish week? I know nothing but Tradition for it. I cannot remember so long: Nor have I so long kept so strict account of days as to be sure of it. I trust to the common Computation of the world, that our Sabbath p. 44is a continuation of that Sabbath which the Apostles kept. And if so, I am safe. If not, I cannot help it. And because I think the Apostles Sabbath was on the first day of the Jewish week, therefore I think ours to be so. But if theirs was not, neither is ours.

He would not have that of St. Iohn, Revel. 1. 10. I was in the spirit on the Lords-day to be understood of our Sabbath. And why not? He tells us, 1. Some think it to be Christmass-day; 2. Some think it to be Easter-day; and 3. Some think it to be the Day of Iudgment. And long Discourses we have upon all these. Well! But doth he think it to be meant of any of these? No. Then, to what purpose are these alleged, in disparagement of the Christian Sabbath?

But he seems to have so great displeasure against the Christian Sabbath, that whatever he can think of to be Objected (though he do not think it to be true) he will be sure to Object, (that he may disparage the Day, or perplex the Argument) as if he were more concerned to beat down the Christian Sabbath, than to set up the Iewish. Not considering, that, by all this, he is doing their Work who would have none at all. For they know well that the Iewish Sabbath hath been long since laid aside (without any great fear of returning;) and if they can but throw off the Christian Sabbath also, 'tis what they would have. And 'tis of a like import what he argues (p. 84) for coming to the publick but once a day, (not twice as our manner is;) For those who care not to come at all, if he dispense with them as to the One, they will dispense with themselves as to the Other meeting.

I should rather think, that, the whole day being due to the Service of God (publick and private) it is to be parcelled out, as to the number and times of publick meeting; as might (according to Christian Prudence) be judged most conducing (in this or that place) to those ends, and to common Edification; and that, to make such little Circumstances (otherwise than as they conduce to those general ends) a matter of Religious Observation, or Divine Institution, is a like extravagance as that of the Pharisees in laying like weight on their Traditions, and that of the Papists on their numerous Superstitious Ceremonies. And is as properly superstition, as these.

I do not know this Author, (who thus argues against observing the Christian Sabbath, and against publick meeting on that day more than once;) And therefore am not willing to judge hardly. But the natural result of what he argues, is as I told you.

p. 45He doth not think that Iohn, was (on the Lords day Rev. 1. 10.) keeping the Anniversary of Christs Incarnation; nor of his Resurrection. (No more do I.) But why not? Because (saith he) he may say as in the case of Moses's dead body, No man knows of his Sepulchre to this day. Now as to the Incarnation, I am apt to think, that no man doth At this day know certainly, either on what day of the Year, or what day of the Week Christ was born (nor is it any matter whether we do or no.) But I should rather say, no man knows At this day, than (as he) no man knoweth To this day, (as if no man hitherto had known it:) for certainly there have been those who knew it heretofore (while he was alive) though it be now forgotten, and at this day no man knows it. But will he say so as to the Resurrection? I think it is plain, that Christ was Crucified on the fourteenth day, lay in the Grave the fifteenth, and rose again the sixteenth day, of the first month. And that he rose on the first day of the week, no man doubts. He should rather have put it thus, As no man knows To this day, where is the Body of Moses, (that it might not be worshiped,) So no man knows At this day, which is the Seventh in course from the Creation; that we might not contend about it.

However, I am contented to admit, (if that will please him) that the Lords day there mentioned was neither meant of Christmass-day, nor Easter-day, nor Whit-sunday, nor the day of Iudgment; but think it to be meant of the first day of the week, which is the Christian Sabbath. Not, of any of those other days mentioned; nor of the Iewish Sabbath, as he would have it.

'Tis, I think, a new notion of his own (at least I know none other of his mind) that it should be meant of the Iewish Sabbath. He grants there is nothing from the Circumstances of the place to determine it to this day. Nor doth he pretend to shew that the Jewish Sabbath was ever so called. But he thinks it might have been so called. For he says God blessed and sanctified the seventh day (that is, the Seventh day after Six days of Labour) therefore it might have been called the Lords day: and so may as well the Christian Sabbath as the Iews Sabbath. That the Son of Man is Lord also of the Sabbath day; And so he is of every day in the Week; and of the Christian Sabbath (when that is the Sabbath) as well as of the Iewish. That the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord our God; that is, the Seventh day after Six days of Labour, but whether the Seventh day in course from the Creation, is no where said. That Isai. 58. 13. The Sabbath is called my p. 46holy day: True, on what ever day the Sabbath be: First or Seventh of the Week; or whatever day God appoints to be kept Holy; As for instance, the first and seventh day of the Feast of Unleavened bread, Ex. 12. 16. The First day shall be a Holy Convocation; and the Seventh day shall be a Holy Convocation; and each of them was the Lords Holy day, on what ever day of the week they happened. And the like for other days. So Levit. 23. 2, 4, 7, 8, 21, 24, 25, 27, 28, 30, 32, 35, 36, 39. and Num. 28. 18, 25, 26. Num. 29. 1, 7, 12, 35. All the days here mentioned are the Lords Holy days, yet I do not take any of them to be foreign And all he can pretend to from these or whatever he produceth, is no more but that the Iewish Sabbath (while it was the Sabbath) might have been so called, foreign the Lords day; he doth not pretend to shew that ever it was so called.

Now I would desire this Gentleman (if he can but a little while lay aside his prejudice) to consider, first that the Lords day was the proper name of a day; whereby it might be known as distinguished from other days; (else to what purpose is it said I was in the spirit on the Lords day;) whereas the proper name of the Iewish Sabbath (and of that onelyonly as he would have us think p. 64.) was the Sabbath day; and there is no appearance of reason, why, if he meant that day, he should not rather have said I was in the spirit on the Sabbath day, or the seventh day. This therefore must needs be meant of some other day, known by another name.

2. I would have him next consider, that the Lord in the Old Testament is the usual name of God indefinitely; without particularizing this or that of the Three persons; and the Sabbath of the Lord thy God, doth not appropriate it to the second Person more than to the first and third. And though I do not deny, that our Christ was the God who gave the Ten Commandments (for all the three Persons are the same God,) yet I do not think it to be Christ onelyonly, as contradistinguished to the other two. And when it is said, I am the Lord thy God, thou shall have no other God but me; the meaning is not, I the second Person, am so the Lord thy God, that thou shalt own no other Person for thy God beside me the second Person. But foreign the Lord, in the New Testament, is for the most part applied peculiarly to our Lord Christ (God and Man.) and is understood foreign of him. (As he is called elsewhere foreign the Son of Man.) And accordingly foreign must be a day peculiarly appropriate (foreign) to our Lord Christ; which the Jewish Sabbath was not, nor that of the Fourth Commandment; p. 47which is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God, that is of God indefinitely; for 'tis in that notion that God speaks in the Ten Commandments, not as one person contradistinct to the other two.

It is foreign the Lords day in a like sense as foreign the Lords Supper, 1 Cor. 11. 20. and foreign, the Cup of the Lord, the Table of the Lord, 1 Cor. 10. 21, 22. 1 Cor. 11. 27. In all which, by the Lord is meant the Lord Christ, God and Man. And because, there being a double Sabbath then in use, (the Iewish Sabbath, and the Christian Sabbath,) and the word Sabbath indefinitely having been a long time applied to the Iewish Sabbath, and would be apt to be understood of it; therefore (by way of distinction) that of the Christians (though a Sabbath also, within the sense of the Fourth Commandment) was called the Lords day, as being the Day or Sabbath appropriate to our Lord Iesus Christ. And therefore when he tells us, so often, the World was made by our Lord Iesus Christ, and the Law given on Mount Sinai by our Lord Iesus Christ, (upon which Notions he seems to lay great stress, though it be nothing to the purpose,) I think it is a mistake. For our Lord Iesus Christ is God and Man, but he was not God and Man when the World was made, or the Law given, but onelyonly God. 'Tis true Christ as God, (according to his Divine Nature) is the same God who made the World, and gave the Law, (for we have no other God but one) but not as God and Man. For Man he was not at that time, but in the fulness of time became Man. The Sabbath of the Lord our God (in the fourth Commandment, with equal respect to all the Three Persons) doth not signify the same as, The Sabbath of our Lord Iesus Christ (God and Man.) The Lord our God there, not the same with our Lord Iesus Christ, in the New Testament. But foreign (the Lords Supper) is the Supper of our Lord Iesus Christ (God and Man) the Founder of our Christian Religion: And accordingly foreign (the Lords day) is the day of our Lord Iesus Christ, a day appointed by him.

3. I would have him consider further, that the Lords day, (dominica, or dies dominicus,) hath been all along, in all ages of the Christian Church, used as the proper name of what we otherwise call the Christian Sabbath; and not for the proper name of any other day; and therefore, till somewhat do appear to the contrary, I shall take it to be the same with what is called the Lords day in Scripture.

There is, in the New Testament, a place called Rome; and there is at this day a place in Italy called Rome, and which hath been so called all along ever since; neither do I know of any other eminent p. 48place of called. Therefore (till somewhat do appear to the contrary) I shall presume our Rome to be the same place with that which in the New Testament is called Rome.

We find in scripture there is an Island of the Mediterranean Sea called Melita or Malta (where St. Paul suffered Ship-wrack) not far from another Island called Crete: Now we know also there is in the Mediterranean Sea an Island called Malta at this day, and another not far from thence called Crete or Candy, and we do not know of any other Islands so called, then, or at any time since; and therefore we may safely presume (till somewhat do appear to the contrary) that those Islands now so called, are the same Islands with those which were then so called.

And in like manner, that Day which hath been ever since called the Lords-day as by its proper name, we may and ought to presume to be the same day which was by St. Iohn so called (as by its proper name) in Rev. 1. 10. when he wrote the Book of the Revelation; till it can be shewed that he did by that name mean some other day.

And we have the more reason so to presume, because we find it so called by others, very soon after St. Iohn's time; and by those whom we have great reason to believe to have been well acquainted with St. Iohn's meaning and his manner of speech.

The first I shall name is St. Ignatius, who was not onelyonly Contemporary with St. Iohn, but was a Disciple or Scholar of St. Iohn. Now St. Iohn (according to the best account we can have from Chronology) wrote his Revelation in Patmos (whither he was banished by Domitian,) in or about the year of our Lord 96; (after which he wrote his Gospel, upon his return from Patmos to Ephesus:) And Died in the Year 98 or 99 under Trajanus. And Ignatius died a Martyr under the same Emperour Trajan, in the Year of our Lord 107. So that there is no great distance in time. (And if we should miss a year or two it is not material.) How long before his death Ignatius wrote his Epistle to the Magnesians, we are not sure (nor is it material;) Now in that his Epistle to the Magnesians, even according to the genuine Edition published by Bishop Usher out of an ancient Manuscript (not that which is justly suspected to be interpolated,) he doth earnestly exhort them not to Iudaize, but to live as Christians; (Si enim usque nunc secundum Iudaismum vivimus; confitemur gratiam non recepisse.) And as to the Sabbath in particular, Non amplius Sabbatizantes, sed secundum Dominicam viventes, in qua & vita nostra orta est▪) Not any longer observing the Iewish Sabbath, but the Lords p. 49Day on which Christ our Life … is manifest therefore, that within 8 or 10 years after … writing, the Lords day did not signify the Jewish Sabbath, but the first day of the week, on which our Saviour Rose again; and that it was then observed in contradistinction to the Jewish Sabbath. I forbear to mention his Epistle ad Trallianos (where again we have foreign applied to the first day of the week on which Christ rose again) because it is in that Edition which is suspected to be Interpolated.

I might to this add the Testimony of Polycarp, who was also a Disciple of St. Iohn, and collected and published these Epistles of Ignatius, and may be presumed to understand what St. Iohn meant by the Lords day.

But I shall add in the next place that of Iustin Martyr; whom though I cannot call a Disciple of St. Iohn, (because he was not converted to the Christian Religion till about the Year of our Lord 129, about Thirty years after St. Iohn's Death,) yet he lived so soon after, that he could not be ignorant of the Christians Practise, and what they understood St. Iohn to mean by the Lords Day. And how that day was observed in Iustin's time, he tells us in (what is called) his Second Apology, foreign, and a little after foreign. On that day commonly called Sunday, there is held a Congregation or a general Meeting together, of all Inhabitants whether of City or Country, and there are publickly read the Memorials or Monuments of the Apostles, or the Writings of the Prophets, &c. And again, The day called Sunday we do all in common make foreign the Meeting-day; for that the First-day is it on which God from Darkness and Matter made the World, and our Saviour Iesus Christ did on the same day rise from the dead. In which places though it be not called dominica, but dies solis, yet how it was then solemnly observed, in memory of our Lord Christs Resurrection, is evident.

'Tis manifest therefore that the Lords day (foreign, Dominica, or Dies Dominicus,) was the known name of a day so called when St. Iohn wrote his Revelation; That it was a day of Religious Worship contradistinguished to that of the Iewish Sabbath, so observed and so called by (St. Iohn's Disciple) Ignatius within 8 or 10 years at most after St. Iohn's writing that Book; (Which he would not have done if he had not thought it to be so meant by p. 50his Master St. Iohn.) … manner it was observed (in their solemn religious assemblies) Iustin Martyr tells us within …0 years after that; and that it was otherwise called (foreign) Sunday. And that Dominica or Dies Dominicus; hath been so used not onelyonly by the Ancient Christian Writers, Ignatius, Clemens, Irenaeus, Origen, Tertullian, &c. but by the Councils and Church History all along; hath been so often shewed by divers, and is to be seen by any who please to consult them, as is not to be doubted by any; unless we would (under the notion of Tradition) deny all History; which in a plain matter of Fact were very unreasonable. Nor can he shew that the name of the Lords day ever was (however it might have been as he thinks) attributed to the Iewish Sabbath. And therefore to tell us that this name is stollen from the Iewish Sabbath to be applied to ours▪ is such a Fansy as may be laughed at, but doth not deserve a serious Answer. Sure we are that the Christian Sabbath hath been long in possession of that Name; but, that ever the Iewish Sabbath was so, there is no evidence: Therefore the Theft must be on his side, who steals it from us to give it to the Jewish Sabbath.

But he tells us, that our Saviour himself observed the Jewish Sabbath. (And I suppose he did so▪ And, that he was Circumcised also, and did observe the Ceremonial Law▪) But it was before his Death and Resurrection. I do not find that he observed it afterward.

But he says, after Christs Death when he had said It is finished, he kept the Sabbath in the Grave. Be it so (if that were keeping a Sabbath.) And the good Women rested on that day according to the Commandment. And why not? Since Christ was not yet risen; nor was the day yet changed, or pretended so to be. This therefore is but Whimsey and nothing to the purpose. We all agree; that, till the Resurrection of Christ, the Jews observed the Jewish Sabbath, on what they called the Seventh-day of their Week. But whether or no it were a Seventh from the Creation, we cannot tell.

'Tis more to the purpose what he tells us, that Paul and other Christians did after Christs Resurrection seem to observe the Jewish Sabbath; Going to the Temple and to the Synagogues on the Sabbath-day; meaning thereby the Iewish Sabbath. And it is true; They did so go. But I answer;

1. So they did on other days as well as on the Sabbath, and in other places, as well as in the Synagogue and the Temple, Act 5. 42. Dayly in the Temple, and in every house, or from house to house p. 51(foreign … they ceased not to preach Iesus Christ. And Act. 2. 46. they continued dayly foreign with one accord in the Temple, foreign, and breaking bread at home, or from house to house. As to such duties of Worship as were common to them with the Jews, they took the opportunity of joining therein with them; whether on their Sabbath, or on any other day; but as to what was peculiarly Christian, this they performed in separate meetings from them; breaking their Bread at home, foreign, or from house to house; The Sacrament of the Lords Supper (being peculiarly a Christian service) they did celebrate in their houses, or separate places of meeting. And so we find it at Troas; and, on the first day of the week; Act. 20. 7. on the first day of the week, when the Disciples were met to break bread, Paul preached, &c. Their meeting for this Christian service, was in a separate place, and on another day, from that of the Iewish service. And Paul at Athens. Act. 17. 17. he disputed in the Synagogue with the Jews, and with the devout persons, and in the Market, Dayly, (foreign,) He took the opportunity of publick meetings, whether in the Synagogues or elsewhere, whether on the Sabbath or any other day, to preach Christ to them, whether Jews or Greeks. Which doth not prove that they did then take the seventh day to be the Christian Sabbath▪ any more than our going to Hear or Preach a Week-day Lecture, suppose on Thursday, would prove, that we take Thursday to be our Sabbath▪ or Paul's Preaching on Mars-hill, or in the Market-place, would prove that he took these places to be the Temple or Synagogue. He knew these to be Times and Places of concourse, and therefore took the opportunity of Preaching Then and There; and would so have done at any other time and place as there was occasion: In season or out of season, as he adviseth Timothy, 2 Tim. 4. 2.

He doth not deny, p. 122. but that Paul did keep the Feast (of the Pass-over) after the Resurrection of Christ; Because of what we have Act. 18. 21. He bids them farewel (at Ephesus) saying, I must by all means keep this Feast that cometh, at Jerusalem; but I will return again unto you, if God will. Which Feast he thinks to be that of the Pass-over, though it be not named. But whether that or whatever Feast of the Jews it be, it is all one as to our business. How great a proof would this have been for the Seventhday-Sabbath, if it had been said I must by all means keep the Sabbath! 'Tis said indeed, he did on the Sabbath-day go into the Synagogue (but so he did on other days,) but not that he kept the Sabbath-day; much less that he must by all means Keep it. Or that p. 52he must by all means take a journey from Ephesus to Ierusalem rather than not keep it, though he were to return thither again. Yet this Author doth not, for all this think, the Law for the Iewish Pass-over to be then in force. But onelyonly that Paul took occasion to be there at that publick great concourse of People, to preach Christ to the multitude. For, that the Apostles were under no obligation to keep that feast of the Pass-over, after the death of Christ, is to him (he says) past doubt. And why may not we say the same of his going into the Synagogue on the Sabbath day (rather than miss such an oportunity of a publick concourse) which was a less journey than from Ephesus to Ierusalem? though under no obligation to keep the Iewish Sabbath, more than to keep the Iews Pass-over.

2. But I answer further. The Jews who were not Christians, did yet continue to observe the Jewish Sabbath as a matter of duty. And there was no reason why they should not. For, while they did not acknowledge our Christ to be the Messiah, nor the Mosaick Law to be at an end, but Circumcision and the Jewish Oeconomy yet in force, there was no reason why they should not think themselves obliged to the Jewish Sabbath. And many of the Christian Jews, who were not yet satisfied of the Abolition of the Mosaick Law, did comply with them therein. For knowing this to have been a law once, and not yet being fully satisfied that it was expired, they were content still to observe it. (And if our Gentleman be of that mind, I would not hinder him, if a Jew, from so doing; but neither would I incourage him.) And I find the Apostles willing to connive at it, and even to countenance it. Not as a thing necessary, but at least allowable.

And though they did not think fit to bring a new Yoke upon the Gentiles, who had not before been obliged to the Jewish Law, (and therefore would not allow the Gentiles to be Circumcised; as appears by S. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians, and the Decrees of the Synod at Ierusalem, Act. 15.) yet he allowed the Iews to practise it (to whom it had once been a Law) and accordingly Circumcised Timothy Act. 16. because, though his Father were a Greek, yet his Mother was a Jew: (but he did not Circumcise Titus, Gal. 2. 3. for whom there was not the same reason.)

And he did himself comply with the Iewish ceremonies; As Act. 18. 18. Having shorn his head in Canchrea; For he had a vow. And those of Purification Act. 21. Not that he thought those Laws now obliging; but, because many of the believing Iews were yet zealous of the Law, and thought themselves obliged by it, he would not give offense to them. For he was satisfied as to himself, p. 53that Circumcision availeth nothing, nor Uncircumcision, 1 Cor. 7. 19. Gal. 6. 15. But was content (till by time and further instruction they should be better satisfied) that each one should be gratified, as to their own practise, according to their own sentiments, as to things yet disputable.

And accordingly, as to eating or not eating things forbidden by Moses's Law, his advise was, to the Romans, (many of whom were Jews) Rom. 14. 17. Let not him that eateth not, judge him that eateth, (as breaking a Law which he thinks to be yet in force,) nor let him that eateth, despise him that eateth not, (as a fool that doth not understand his own liberty) for the kingdom of God is not meat and drink, &c.

And in like manner those at Ierusalem Act. 15. though they did not think fit to bring a new Yoke of Circumcision upon the Gentiles (to whom before it had not been a Law) yet do advise them to forbear things strangled and bloud, because this had once been a Law to all the Sons of Noah, Gen. 9. 4.

Not but that this was even now antiquated, but (to avoid offense) because it had once been a Law. For I take even those things to fall under these Generals, The kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost, Rom. 14. 17. and every creature of God is good, 1 Tim. 4. 4. I know, and am perswaded that there is nothing unclean of it self: But All things indeed are pure, Rom. 14. 14, 20. Tit. 1. 15. Meat commendeth us not to God; for neither if we eat, are we the better (as making use of our lawful liberty) neither if we eat not (in compliance with those who be unsatisfied) are we the worse, 2 Cor. 8. 8.

So that the Practise of the Apostles or of the Church at that time, in compliance with the Jews, as to what had before been a Law, but now was not; is no argument that the thing was then obligatory, as before it had been, but onelyonly an argument of their condescension in things of a middle nature, rather than to give offense to those who were therein unsatisfied; according to that principle of his All things are lawful for me but all things are not expedient, 1 Cor. 10. 23. To give no offense either to Iew or Gentile, or to the Church of God, ver. 32, 33. To the Iews I became as a Iew; To the weak I became as weak; I am made all things to all men; 1. Cor. 9. 19. In so much that even in those things which he knew to be lawful, yet, rather than give offense to a weak brother, he would forbear, If meat make my brother to offend, (or, be an offense to a brother) I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, left I ma… my Brother to offend.

p. 54And the like I suppose as to the Iewish Sabbath▪ He that regardeth a day regardeth it to the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks, Rom, 14. 6. Where 'tis manifest that he doth parallel the observing or not observing a day than questionable; with the abstaining from meats disputable; that is, from such as before were unlawful, but now ceased so to be, though all were not yet therein satisfied.

And though it be not expresly said, what was the Day thus in question; yet it is most likely to be that of the Iewish Sabbath; For, that the first day of the Week or Christian Sabbath was now observed, seems very plain: and whether the Iewish Sabbath should be observed also, was the question. And those who were for continuing Circumcision and the Mosaick Ceremonies, were doubtless for that also. And the Apostles Rule was for a mutual condescension (as to the Jews) for each to follow their own sentiments therein, without censuring one another.

But as to the Gentiles, he seems to be of another mind; And therefore to the Galatians, who were most of their Gentile-Christians, he would not so much as allow the practise of Circumcision (which to the Jews he did;) and tells them that if they be Circumcised Christ profiteth them nothing; and he that is Circumcised is debtor to the whole Law, Gal. 5. 2, 3. For it was a renouncing Christ who had made them Free; putting themselves under the Jewish Yoke, to which (even before) they were not subject.

And therefore to these he speaks more warmly, Gal. 1. 6, 7. I marvel that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ, unto another Gospel: Which is not another, (or, there being no other Gospel foreign, where as there is not any other Gospel;) onelyonly there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the Gospel of Christ. And such are those who would bring on them a new Yoke, (by making that a Duty which God had not made so.) Where he presseth them to keep close to the Gospel of Christ, as by him delivered (without any connexion of Moses's Law,) there being indeed no other Gospel but that; and they who teach them otherwise, do pervert the Gospel; the true Gospel of Christ, including no obligation to the Jewish Law; either as to Circumcision or the difference of meats, or other particulars of that Law; as he argues, in the second, third and fourth Chapters; shewing that even those who were before under it, are now freed p. 55from it, and they much more who were never under it. And thereupon Chap. 4. 9, 10, 11. he rebukes them severely, that after they had known God (or rather were known of God) they should turn again to the weak and beggarly rudiments or elements. Ye observe (saith he) days and months and times and years, I am afraid of you lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain.

'Tis not indeed here said in particular, what those days were, that are here meant; yet it is most likely (and scarce to be doubted) to be meant of the Iewish Sabbath. For though other Observation of Times be here reckoned up (there being the same reason of all) yet there was no occasion for the others, in Galatia. For the Jews themselves did not think themselves obliged (nor do the Jews at this day) to the observation of their other Feasts or Fasts out of their own land. But to that of Circumcision, and of the Iewish Sabbath, and the distinction of Meats, they thought themselves obliged even out of their own land. And of such we must understand this to the Galatians. These being the things there in question; not those other, which were confined to the land of Canaan.

But he objects here, that though Days be mentioned, yet not Sabbath days; and fansies it might be meant of some other days; not of Sabbaths. To gratify him therefore in this also, I will proceed to that of Colos. 2. 16. Where Sabbaths are expresly named.

To the Colossians, who were also Christian Gentiles, he pursues the same notions; Least any one should beguile them with inticing words, Col. 2. 4. (thereby to bring them under the Mosaick Law:) He bids them Beware lest any spoil them through Philosophy and vain deceit. Whereby, I suppose, he means the Mosaick doctrines or Philosophy of the Jews, (which Clemens Alexandrinus doth all along call foreign in contradistinction to that of the Greeks,) after the traditions of men, after the rudiments (or elements) of the world, and not after Christ, ver, 8. and that particularly of Circumcision ver. 11. (in the room of which, Baptism is come; ver. 12.) Christ, by his Death having blotted out the handwriting of ordinances (meaning the Jewish Law) and took it out af the way, nailing it to his Cross, ver. 14. and (amongst other things) Let no man therefore judge you in meat or in drink (as if some were now clean others unclean, as under the Mosaick Law,) or in respect of an holy day, (foreign a Festival) or of the new Moon, or of the Sabbath days▪ foreign, ver. 16. Where by Sabbath must be meant the Iewish Sabbath; the day which in common speech was understood by the word Sabbath.

p. 56For this, he hath two or three evasions. He doth commonly press hard in other places, that by Sabbath is to be understood the Jews Seventh-day-Sabbath, and no other day. (The holy Spirit doth call the Seventh-day, the Sabbath, (and no other day of the week) both in the Old and in the New Testament throughout, p. 46. And, I think, he is not much out therein; that it doth, usually, so signify where it doth not come with some intimation to direct us to some other sense. And why it should not be thought so to signify here, I see no reason. For though I take our Christian Sabbath to fall as properly under the word Sabbath in the Fourth Commandment, as that of the Iews▪ yet the word, in common use, having by this time become the proper name of that Day which the Jews so called, it was necessary (to avoid confusion) to give the Christian Sabbath another name; as that of the Lords Day, or the first day of the week. And consequently that the Sabbaths here mentioned, are to be understood (according to the then use of the word) of those Sabbaths. Not as if all days of Holy Rest where hereby forbidden; but onelyonly the nicety of confining it particularly to that day which was then (in common speech) so called.

But he would not have it here understood of the Seventh-day Sabbath (as every where else) but some other Ceremonial Sabbaths; but what those are, he doth not tell us.

That there were some other Feasts observed by the Jews, which, in the Old Testament, are sometimes called Sabbaths (but very seldome,) I do not deny: nor that those come under the general Words in this place. But those do not seem to be here principally intended, because it is manifest to be understood of the Sabbath there in dispute. Now there was no occasion of a dispute concerning the observance of those other Sabbaths, amongst the Gentiles, out of the Holy-land. These observations being not thought obligatory, even to the Jews, but in their own Land onelyonly. And it is expresly provided, Deut. 16. that these were not to be kept in any place promiscuously; not within any of the Gates which the Lord thy God giveth thee; But in the place which the Lord thy God shall chuse to place his name there. So of the Pass-over, ver. 5, 6. So of the Feast of Pentecost, ver. 11. So of the Feast of Tabernacles, ver. 15. And of altogether, ver. 16. And therefore, not out of their own Land. I do not deny but that they might, in private houses, eat the Paschal Lamb, (as Christ did, with his Disciples,) but not Sacrifice the Pass-over. For it was to be sacrificed in the Temple onelyonly; and the Feast of the p. 57Pass-over to be there solemnly kept. Not in private houses; and much less out of their own Land.

Nor do I remember, that any where in all the New Testament, the word Sabbath is used for any such Sabbaths: Nor can reasonably be supposed to be here meant of those Feasts, because it is put in contradistinction to them. Let no man judge you in respect of a Feast, of the New-moon, or of the Sabbaths. Which yet I do not understand as if no Sabbath might now be kept, but that the Obligation to that Sabbath was now at an end.

Another evasion is this, He would have foreign (Sabbata) in the plural number, to signify Weeks, not Sabbath-days. The Sabbath-day being called, in the singular number, foreign (Sabbatum.) For he will rather play at small game than stand out. If we should allow him this, it would not advance his purpose at all. For if the business of Weeks be at an end, (that we are no longer to distribute our time into Weeks,) than that of the Sabbath much more, which he would have to be the seventh day of the Week.

But suppose we do allow that one Sabbath is to be called Sabbatum what are we to call two or more Sabbaths? Must not they be Sabbata? And if this be his meaning, then are we not to observe such Sabbaths any longer.

But what must we then say to Mat. 28. 1. foreign, which we render In the end of the Sabbath, meaning thereby the Seventh day Sabbath then past, foreign, as it began to draw towards the first day of the Week: must we read it, at the end the Sabbaths (because foreign is in the plural number,) when the Sabbaths (meaning the Seventh-day Sabbaths) were now at an end, and the First-day Sabbath coming on in their place? If that reading please him; it will serve us as well.

But he is mistaken in his criticism. 'Tis true that foreign in the plural number seems to be sometime put for a Week (but not Weeks, that I know of, as he would have it.) And so it is commonly taken to be where we find foreign, for the first day of the Week (but may as well be rendered, the first day after the Sabbath.) And so is foreign in the singular, as Luke 18. 12. foreign, I fast twice in the week, I suppose he would not have us render it I fast twice on the Sabbath day (though it be in the singular number,) as if he did fast twice upon one day. But thus rather, I keep two Fasts to one Sabbath; which is the same in sense with, I fast twice in the Week▪ In like manner as the Olympiad, may be taken sometime for that particular year on which were the Olympick Games (which were wont to return p. 58every fifth year inclusively, that is, as we use to speak the fourth year after the last Olympick;) sometime for the interval of four years from the end of one Olympick to the end of the next following. So here, Sabbatum may be sometime taken strictly for the Sabbath-day, and sometime for the whole septiduum or week from Sabbath to Sabbath.

And so is Sabbata (in the plural number) taken also for a Sabbath-day; Thus I take it to be here, (Mat. 28. 1.) foreign when the Sabbath-day was ended; in the same sense with that of Mark 16. 1. foreign (speaking of the very same time) when the Sabbath was past. And in like manner, Matth. 12. 1. At that time Iesus went on the Sabbath day through the Corn, foreign (Sabbatis) in the plural number. And so it is in Mark 2. 23. foreign. Yet it is meant but of one day, as appears by the parallel place (where the same is again related Luk. 6. 1. foreign. And so Mat. 12. 5, 10, 12. Mar. 3. 4. Luk. 4. 31. Luk. 6. 2, 9. And foreign in the Septuagint is commonly put for the Sabbath-day. I will not say. Allways (because I have not examined it) but in all the places which I consulted. And even in the body of the Ten Commandments Exod. 20. 8. foreign. (Remember the day of the Sabbaths; in the plural number▪) And again ver. 10. foreign. (but the seventh day Sabbaths to the Lord thy God;) So Ex. 16. 13. foreign. (the Sabbaths a holy Rest unto the Lord, to morrow.) And Levit. 23. 3. six days shall work be done, but the seventh is foreign the Sabbaths of Rest; ye shall do no work therein, foreign it is the Sabbaths of the Lord. Which are the signal places wherein the Sabbath is commanded. And the like very often (if not always) in the Septuagint, whose language the New Testament doth usually follow. So that his criticism comes to nothing, but only to shew how careless he is of what he says if at least he may seem to say somewhat. (Such is that when he tells us p. 136. that God who hath reserved a Tenth of our Substance, hath reserved But a Seventh of Time. As though he thought a tenth part to be more than a seventh part. And many such negligences, which I spare to mention.)