Зображення сторінки
PDF
ePub

bath; and yet writeth his book "de Sab. et Circum." purposely to prove that the Sabbath is ceased with circumcision, as a shadow, and that now the Lord's-day is the sanctified day. And the like he hath most expressly in Homil. de Semente, as is cited before, saying, that, 'The master being come, the usher was out of use; and the sun being risen, the lamps are darkened.'

Basil Epist. 74. writeth against Apollinaris for holding that after the resurrection, we should keep Sabbaths, and Judaize; as if that were the perfection to which Christ would restore men.

See Greg. Nazianz. Orat. 43. and Chrysost. Hom. 19. in Matt. xii. against the use of the Sabbath. Cyril. Hieros. cat. 4. and Epiphan. against the Nazaræi, condemn them for keeping the Sabbath and circumcision, though withal they kept the Lord's-day. The same doth Epiphanius, lib. 1. Hær. 30. n. 2. and before him, Euseb. Hist. lib. 3. say of the Ebionites. Augustine oft telleth us, that the observation or keeping of the Seventh-day-Sabbath is ceased, and not to be done by Christians. (Qu. ex. N. Test. 69; Ad Bonif. 1. 3; Contr. Faust. Manich. 1. 6. c. 4; De Genes. ad lit. 1. 4. c. 13; de spir. et lit. c. 14; de util. Cred. c. 3.)

3. And as for the Abassians keeping the Sabbath: it is true, they keep that day in some sort; but it is as true, that they use circumcision, and many other Jewish ceremonies; besides oft baptizings; and that they profess not to use these as the Jews do, but only as ancient customs, and as Paul did while he complied with them, using the outward action for other ends than Judaizers do. And the rather because they think their emperors descended from Solomon. But the Lord's-day they keep on the same account as other Christians. And if this instance make any thing for sabbatizing, it will make as much for circumcising, and other Jewish rites, but nothing against the sanctifying of the Lord's-day.

4. And as for the matter of fasting on the Sabbath, the churches greatly varied their customs. The Eastern churches and Millan in the West, were against fasting on the Sabbath on two accounts: 1. Because, as is said, they would not offend the Jews. Even as many peaceable nonconformists, who are against many holy days now established, do yet forbear labouring and opening their shops on those

days, because they will not give offence; yea, and go to hear the sermons on those days, though they keep them not holy, as such days. 2. Because there were many sorts of heretics in those times, who held that the world was made by an evil God, and thence came evil and so they fasted on the Seventh day on that reason; which made the Christians avoid it, lest they should symbolize with those heretics. And therefore (the real or pretended) Ignatius speaketh so severely against fasting on the Sabbath, as well as on the Lord's-day. And so do the constitutions called the apostles; yea, and the canons called theirs. (Can. 65.)

But in the Western churches (as is aforesaid), both Jews and heretics were more distant, or less considerable for numbers; and therefore they fasted on the Seventh day, and that the rather, lest they should seem by sabbatizing to Judaize. Which was before Antichrist's appearing, unless you think all the holy doctors before cited, and all the Western churches, to be Antichristian..

Having gone thus far, I here add two more Scripture-arguments to prove the abolition of the Jewish Sabbath. The first is, because it is frequently made (as circumcision is) a sign of the particular covenant between God and that nation, as they were a political body, and peculiar people. Therefore if their policy cease, and God's relation to them as a political body, and peculiar people, and so that political covenant with them, then also the sign of the covenant and relation ceaseth. And though the word 'for ever' is sometimes added, it is no other than is oft added also to the Jewish law and ceremonies.

[ocr errors]

2. From Acts xy: where the case is determined by a council of apostles, elders and brethren, yea, by the Holy Ghost. (ver. 28.) It appeareth by ver. 24, that the thing asserted by the false teachers was, that the Gentiles must be circumcised and keep the law; that is, of Moses. (ver. 1.) Now the Seventh-day-Sabbath was part of that law (as sacrificing was, though it was a law before). But the Holy Ghost determineth the case, "to lay on them no greater burden than these necessary things," after named; where the Sabbath is none of them, and therefore hereby shut out. The precepts given to Noah are named (of which the Sab bath was not one.)

[ocr errors]

Object. By this exposition you may say that the rest of

the decalogue is excluded: for idolatry, murder, &c. are not here forbidden by name.' Answ. I have fully proved that the decalogue as written in stone, and part of the law or covenant of Moses, is not at all in force, especially to the Gentiles; nor yet as part of the covenant (or promise) of works made with Adam in innocency: for the form of the promissory covenant of works ceased upon man's sin, and the promise of a Saviour; and the form of the Mosaical law or covenant never reached to the Gentile nations, and is ceased to the Jews: therefore the matter must cease as it constituted the same covenant, when the form ceased. And Paul saith expressly that this law written in stone is done away. But, 1. The law of nature, as a mere law, never ceased. 2. And Christ hath taken it into his covenant, as part of the matter of it. So that it is wholly in force, though not as part of the covenant of works, either Adamical or Mosaical. But the Sabbath, as to the seventh day, was no part of the law of nature, as is proved. And Paul expressly saith, that it was a "shadow of things to come," and is therefore vanished away. (Col. ii. 16.) Had it been part of the law of nature, it had bound us as such, and as Christ's law: or had it been one of the enumerated particulars, Acts xv, it had bound the neighbour Gentiles, pro tempore' at least. neither, that council dischargeth Christians from the observation of it, as far as I can understand the text.

But being

POSTSCRIPT.

It is long since the foregoing Treatise was promised to a person of honourable rank who was inclined to the Jewish Sabbath; but before it was finished or well begun, I had a sight of a treatise on the same subject, by the late reverend worthy servant of Christ, Mr. Hughes of Plymouth, which inclined me to take my promised work as unnecessary. But yet some reasons moved me to re-assume it. Near two months after it went from me to the press, the said treatise of Mr. Hughes first, and after another on the same subject by Dr. J. Owen came abroad. Yet do I not reverse mine, because many witnesses in an age of enmity and neglect, can

be no injury to a truth so serviceable to the cause of Christianity, and the prosperity of the church, and the good of souls. Though if I were one that took the church's prosperity to consist in riches, grandeur, ease and domination, or empire of papal pastors, rather than in the humble, holy, heavenly, self-denying imitation of a crucified Christ, I would have forborne a subject which is all for our preparation for a heavenly Sabbatism, and carrieth men above the sensual rest of fleshly men, and therefore is so much disrelished by them. (Rom. viii. 6-8.) But supposing it to be my duty to do what I have done, I think meet to advise the reader, that when several men treat of the same subject, though they speak the same things in the main, yet usually each of them bringeth some considerable light, which is omitted by the rest. And as the same Spirit sets them all on work, so all together give fuller evidence to the truth, than any one of them alone. And I hope the concourse of these three tractates doth prognosticate, that (though the devil hath so contrived the business for the profane, that like Papists, they will hear and read none, but those that are not like to change them; yet) God will awaken the sober and serious believers of this age, to a more holy and fruitful improvement of his day; which will greatly tend to the increase of real godliness, and consequently to the recovery of the dying hopes of this apostatizing and divided age.

But that which moveth me to write this Postscript, is to acquaint thee, for the prevention of scandal by any seeming differences in our writings, 1. That it cannot be expected, that all who plead the same cause, should say just the same thing for it, for matter and manner of argumentation.

2. That if I own the name of Sabbath less than some others, and adhere more to the name of the Lord's-day, I do not hereby oppose the use of the name of Sabbath absolutely; nor is that in itself a controversy about the matter, but the name, which though not contemptible, yet is of far less moment than the thing.

3. That if I make not use of so many Old Testament texts as some others, I do not thereby deny the usefulness of them, nor call you off from the consideration of any argumentation or evidence thence offered you.

[blocks in formation]

4. That if I seem to be more for the cessation of Moses's law, than some others, even of that part which was written in stone, yet no part of the law of nature is thereby denied by me, any more than by any of them; and they that are angry with me, for writing so much against the Antinomians, should not also be angry with me for going no further from them, than the force of truth constraineth me.

5. That you must pardon me for my purposely avoiding the name of the moral law;' Mr. Cawdry and Mr. Palmer, who have written most largely of the Sabbath, have told you the reason. I love not such names, as are not fitted to the nature of things, but are fitted to signify almost what the speaker pleaseth.

I know no law which is not formally moral, as being 'Regula actionum Moralium.' And men may if they will, as well confine the signification of the word 'law' itself, as of a moral law.' Nor doth use itself sufficiently notify the distinguishing signification of it. For one meaneth by that name, all the law of nature as such. Another meaneth only so much of the law of nature as is common to all mankind. Another meaneth all positive laws of supernatural revelation, which are perpetual and universal, as well as the law of nature. Therefore without finding fault with others, it sufficeth me to distinguish laws by such names as plainly signify the intended difference. And though by the law of nature, I mean not formally the same thing that some others do, I have sufficiently opened my sense and the reasons of it, in my "Reasons of the Christian Religion."

6. That they who say, that the Old Covenant, or the covenant of works made by Moses with the Jews, is abrogated or ceased, and the decalogue as a part of, or belonging to that covenant, do say the same thing that I do, when I maintain that the decalogue and whole law, as Mosaical, is ceased, but that all the natural part is by Christ assumed into his law, or covenant of grace. For it is the same thing which is denominated the law (of Moses, or of Christ) from the preceptive part, and a covenant from the terms, or sanction, especially the promissory part. Nor is there any part of the law of Moses, which was not a part of the Mosaical covenant. And if the form cease which denominateth, the being and denomination ceaseth, and all the parts, as parts of that which ceaseth. So that if the covenant of works

« НазадПродовжити »