The Jews Sabbath Antiquated and the Lords Day Instituted, Position 3
POSITION III. That the Old Sabbath was yet further evidenced to be alterable and changeable in the after Obſervation of it.
FOr proof whereof, I ſhall only cite the practiſe of our bleſſed Saviour, in which the Adverſary glories moſt, as if it made only for him. Tis his ground argument for the perpetuity of the old ſeventh day, that Chriſt did moſt of his cures and famous miracles on that day. Now learned Chemnitius takes the ſame argument, and turns the edge of it againſt him thus:De abrogatione Sabbathi Moſaici & dictis docuit Chriſtus & libertatem factis ſapiuo teſtatam fecit cum Sabbathis ſanaret, &c. Chemn. Examen. Concil. Trident. cap. de Feſtis ubiplura. The Lord Jeſus both by word and deed hath taught us, that the Moſaical Sabbath was to be abrogated, not only in that he proclaimed himſelf Lord of the Sabbath, but in that he often witneſſed his liberty, and power over it by ſundry of his cures performed on that day. Some inſtance in the cure of the man born blind, John 9.6, 7, 14. Others in the miraculous cure of that cripple or impotent man, John 5 whereas Dr. Lightfoot learnedly obſerves, there was the moſt apparent ſign towards the ſhaking, and alteration of the Sabbath (as to the day) that we meet withall in the New Teſtament till the alteration it ſelf came. To this purpoſe let the context be duly conſidered, and we ſhall find two things obſervable in it.
1. What our Saviour did on the Sabbath day, he healed a long languiſhing malady, a diſeaſe of 38. years ſtanding.
2, What he ſayed upon this occaſion: and that
1. To the man his patient.
2. To the Jewes his perſecutors, who call him in queſtion about it. To the man he ſaid, Take up thy bed and walk. Now the queſtion is, why our Lord ſhould enjoyn this man to carry his bed on the Sabbath day, the expreſſe letter of the law prohibiting the bearing of any burthens on that day? T. T. Suppoſes that it was either for the confirmation of the miracle to ſhew the perfectneſs of the cure,Jerem. 17.21. p. 21. or for the publication of Gods glory; but it is anſwerd, that both theſe might have been done as well by his walking upon his feet and leaping, as in the like caſe wee read elſewhere; or at leaſt by bearing his bed the next day.Act. 3.8. ſo ch. 14, 10. There was therefore certainly more in this Command then what did barely refer, either to the confirmation of the miracle or the publication of Gods glory, in that ſenſe ſuppoſed; and what it was the above mentioned Author does thus reſolve us, namely that it was.See Dr. Lightf. Harm. of the 4 Evang. p. 3. in John 5.
Partly in reſpect of the man.
Partly in reſpect of the day.
In reſpect of the man, it was to trye his faith and obedience, whether upon the bare word of Chriſt he would venture upon ſo hazardous an action.
In reſpect of the day, it was to ſhew Chriſts power and authority over the old Sabbath, that as elſewhere in reſtoring the man ſick of the Palſy, he not onelyonly ſhewed his power over the diſeaſe in healing it, but alſo over ſin in forgiving it. So it pleaſed him here at one and the ſame time to ſhew his Divine power over the diſtemper in curing it, and his ſoveraignty over the Sabbath in diſpenſing with it and diſpoſing of it as he thought good. 'Tis objected againſt this by T. T. (whoſe uſuall trick it is to clamour where he cannot anſwer) That in argueing thus we joyn with the blaſphemous Phariſees in charging our Saviour as a Sabbath-breakere. Obj
But we eaſily cleare opur bleſſed Saviour, and quit our ſelves of this falſe and injurious charge, affirming, That our Lord could be no more taxed for Sabbath breaking in requiring this man to beare his bed on the Sabbath-day, then God himſelf in Commanding Joſhuah to march about Jericho ſeven times on the ſame day. He did not hereby tranſgreſs the Law, but ſhewed his ſoveraignty over the day; which will the better appeare if we conſider.
What he ſayes to the Jewes in anſwer to their cavils about it.
In the ſequel of the Chapter; where all along we may obſerve, how he juſtifies his act by aſſerting his power; He tels tehm verſe 17 that he had the ſame authority over the Sabbath that the father had, The Father worketh hitherto and I work. This anſwer refers cheifly to that part of the objection which lay againſt his healing on the Sabbath day: and it is continued to verſe 20. Then he anſwers more directly to that other part of their accuſation, his ſuppoſed violation of the Sabbath, in giving the man a diſpenſation to carry his bed, verſe 20 The father loveth the Son, and ſheweth him all things that himſelf doth; yea he will ſhew him greater things then theſe that ye may mervel. Greater workes then theſe; why, (as the forementioned Authour ſpeakes) they were great things that our Saviour had now done, in curing a deſperate diſeaſe and diſpenſing with the Sabbath, but he muſt do yet greater Workes then theſe,v. 16. namely raiſe the dead, and change the Sabbath, that Jewiſh Spirits might mervel. The Jewes perſecuted him becauſe he had done theſe things on the Sabbath day, that is, healed the man, and commanded him to carry his bed.So the word judgment is uſed Pſalm 9.11. Pſalm 94.15. Iſai 28.6. Jerem. 33.15. John 8.16. Now in anſwer to theſe two particulars, he tels them, that the Father would ſhew him greater workes then theſe, for verſe 21. As the Father raiſeth the dead, ſo the Son; And verſe 22. The father judgeth no man, but hath committed all Judgment to the Son that is government, or Legiſlative power about the affaires of men, and in particular about the diſpoſall of the Sabbath, which was now under diſpute. They carped and cavill'd at his preſent carriage towards the Sabbath; He tels them, that he had authority to do what he did, yea and more then that came to, for all judgement was committed into his hands, to do ſome greater things then barely to diſpenſe with the Sabbath, and ſomething at which the Jewes ſhould marvell; and for which all ſhould honour the Son as they honour the Father; Verſe 23 That as the Father was honoured in giving the Law, ſo ſhould the Son be honoured in giving the Goſpel; and as the Father was honoured in appointing the old Sabbath, ſo ſhould the Son in ordaining a new Sabbath, not in confirming the old (as T. T. would have it;) for ſo the Son is not honoured even as the Father was honoured.pa. 145. For the Father was honoured as the inſtitutor of a Sabbath, therefore ſo, foreign, even ſo muſt the Son be honoured. The argument is very ponderous, if we conſider the ſcope of our Saviours oration, which was to juſtifie what he had done on the Sabbath-day. To this purpoſe he pleades his deſignment to do greater things then theſe, and ſome greater thing in reference to command and diſpoſall over the Sabbath; which was the thing in queſtion. And this plea he proves by his power to raiſe the dead, and to diſpoſe of all things in a way of judicature or government under the new Teſtament, as the Father had done under the Old; and to this intent, that all men ſhould honour the Son as they honour the Father; which being ſpoken with reference to the Sabbath, and to his preſent diſpenſing with it, doth plainly ſpeake his intention to alter and change it.
Again, here is one thing more obſervable, namely, that Chriſts power to raiſe the dead, and his power to diſpoſe of the Sabbath, are carryed along both together in this diſcourſe. And the one is made an argument of the other; plainly intimating the change of the day upon the reſurrection, upon his own reſurrection in the firſt place, which is hinted at (verſe 26.) and others with himſelf at his reſurrection; according to that ancient prophecy, Thy dead men ſhall live, Iſai. 26.19. Mat. 27.52, 53.together with my dead body ſhall they ariſe; which was fulfilled when our Saviour roſe from the dead.
So that all things conſidered, here is a moſt pregnant Scripture to prove that it was our Redeemers purpoſe to alter the Sabbath: And therefore (as in Preface to ſuch a thing) he both gives the man a commiſſion to carry his bed on that day, and pleads for what he had done by his divine authority, as beginning to ſhake the day, which within two years after was to be unhinged and actually changed for another; at leaſt it ſpeaks his power to alter it. And he that ſhall dare deny this, muſt make Chriſt Jeſus the Lord inferiour to David the ſervant; for even David had power to alter a circumſtance in the Law of Moſes; 1 Chron. 23.24, 25, 26.ordaining that the Levites ſhould officiate at twenty years old,Numb. 4.3. Numb. 8.24. when as Moſes had appointed that they ſhould not officiate till 25. or 30. yet when the reaſon of the Moſaical ordinance ceaſed, and the Ark had reſt, you ſee David changes that order. And if David, who was but a meer man (though a King and a Prophet) might alter a circumſtance about the Prieſthood;Iſai. 9.6. Revel. 15.3. Mat. 28.18. how much more might the Lord Jeſus, (who is the mighty God, King of Saints, and King of Nations, having all power in heaven and earth put into his hands) alter a circumſtance concerning the Sabbath, by tranſlating it from the laſt to the firſt day of the week?
Well, if he had power to alter it, then it was alterable; which was the thing to be proved. If it be ſaid, the queſtion is not, what the Lord could do, but what he did; whether he did indeed alter the Sabbath as to the day: I anſwer, we ſhall put this queſtion out of queſtion in the next Poſition.