Page images

3. None of the texts cited by you do prove, that the apostles kept the Sabbath at all as a Sabbath, that is, a day on which it was their duty to rest; but only that they preached on that day in the synagogues, and to the people; for when should they preach, but when they were congregated, and capable of hearing ? They took it for no sin to preach on the Sabbath, no more than I would do to preach Christ on Friday, which is their Sabbath, to the Turks, if they would hear me. But sabbatizing according to the law, was something else than preaching.

4. And it is most evident that for a long time the Christian Jews did still keep the law of Moses ; and that all that the apostles did against it then, was, but 1. To declare that Christ was the end of the law, and so to declare the keeping of it to be unnecessary to salvation, but not unlawful, laying by the opinion of necessity. 2. That the Gentile Christians should not be brought to use it, because it was unnecessary; for the apostles, (Acts xv,) do not forbid it to the Jews, but only to the Gentiles (who were never under it). Therefore the apostles who lived among the Jews no doubt did so far comply with them to win them, as to keep the law externally, though not as a necessary thing, that is, not as a law in force obliging them, but as a thing yet lawful, to further the Gospel. And therefore no wonder if Peter went so far as to withdraw from the Gentiles, when the Jews were present; when even Paul, the apostle of the Gentiles, who speaketh so much more than all the rest against the law, doth yet as aforesaid circumcise Timothy, shave his head, purify himself, &c. and as he became all things to all men, so to the Jews he became a Jew. But when the Jews' policy

nd temple ceased, the change was executively yet ther made, and the Jewish Christians themselves were weaned from their law. In the meantime Paul and John (Rev. ii. iii.) do openly rebuke the Judaizing heretics, the Ebionites, and Cerinthians, and Nicolaitans, and shew the perniciousness of their conceits.

11. · The Holy Spirit 11. Though it be not true calls the seventh-day (and that the seventh is called the no other day) the Sabbath, Sabbath ; (Gen. ii ;) and throughout the Scriptures, though others deny the suffibefore and after the death, ciency of your enumeration, resurrection and ascension yet I grant your assertion as of the Lord Jehovah Christ; true. And therefore am saGen. ii. 2-4; Exod. xx. 10, tisfied that it is the seventh &c.; Acts xiii. 14—16. 42. day which is put down, when 44; xvi. 13, 14; xvii:2; xviii. Sabbatizing was put down; 1. 4.'

and that it could be none but

the seventh-day which Paul meant; “ Let no man judge you in meats, &c. and Sabbaths, which were shadows of things to come;" Col. ii. 16. For the first-day is never called a Sabbath, as you truly say; therefore it was not put down with the Sabbath. See Dr. Young's Dies Dom. on Col. ii. 16.

12. The Seventh-day- 12. This is all granted. Sabbath was profaned by the Sacrificing also was then prochurch heretofore and re- faned and reformed, and polformed; Neh. x. 28, 29. 31. luted and destroyed by Anxiii. 15.17,18.22. See Belg. tiochus ; and yet we are not Annot. on Dan. vii. 25, &c.; still under the obligation of as prophesied who would

who would sacrificing. We are not unchange it.

der the law, but under grace.


Whether the Seventh-day-Sabbath be part of the Law of Na

ture, or only a Positive Law ?

It is but few that I have any controversy with on this point: but yet one there is, who objecteth and argueth as followeth.

God hath put this into nature: (Exod. xx. 10 :) Thy stranger. (Deut. v. 14.) The three first chapters of Romans; particularly chap. ii. 14, 15. 26, 27. iii. 9. 21. 1 Cor. xi. 14. Nature hath its teachings. The human nature in the first Adam was made and framed to the perfection of the ten words; some notions whereof are still retained, even in the corrupt state of fallen man. (Gen. i. 26, 27. Eccles. vii. 29; Ephes. iv. 20; Col. iii. 10.) The law of the Seventhday-Sabbath was given before the ten words were proclaimed at Sinai; (Exod. xvi. 23;) even from the creation : (Gen. ii. 2,3 :) given to Adam in respect of his human nature, and in him to all the world of human creatures. (Gen. i. 14; Psal. civ. 19; Lev. x. 23; Numb. xxviii. 2. 9, 10.) It is the same word in the original. Set times of Divine appointment for

solemn assembling, and for God's instituted service, are directed to, and pointed at, by those great lights which the Creator hath set up in the heavens. (Psal. xix. with Rom. x. 4–8. 18–20; Deut. xxx. 10. 15; John i. 9.) Every man hath a light and law of nature which he carrieth about him, and is born and bred together with him. These seeds of truth and light, though they will not justify in the sight of God, and bring a soul throughly and safely home to glory; (Rom. i. 20;) yet there are even since Adam's fall, these relics and dark letters of this holy law of the ten words, to preserve the memory of our first created dignity, and for some other ends, though those seeds are utterly corrupted now. (Titus i. 15.) Natural reason will tell men, that seeing all men in all nations do measure their time by weeks, and their weeks by seven days, they should (besides what of their time they offer up as due to God every day) give one whole day of every week to their Maker, who hath allowed them so liberal a portion of time, wherein to provide for themselves and their families. There being no other portion of time that can so well provide for the necessities of families, as six days of every week, and that is so well fitted to all functions, callings and employments. And the light of nature (when cleared up) will tell men, that all labour and motion being in order to rest, and rest being the perfection and end of labour, into which labour, work and motion doth pass, that therefore the seventh day, which is the last day in every week, is the most fit and proper day for a religious rest unto the Creator, for his worship. (Gen. ii. 1, &c.; Exod. xx. 9; Deut. v. 13, 14; Heb. iv. 1. 11; Exod. xxxi. 17; Rom. xiv. 13; Exod. xxiii. 12; xxxiv. 21.)

Answ. How far a day is of natural due, I have shewed before. In all the words of this reason (which I set down as I received them) there is much which is no matter of controversy between us; as that there is a light, and law of nature (which few men doubt of, who are worthy to be called men); and that by this law of nature God should be solemnly worshipped, and that at a set or separated time. I hope the reader will not expect that I weary him with examining the texts which prove this, before it is denied. But the thing denied by us is, that the Seventh-day-Sabbath, as the seventh, is of natural obligation. The proofs which are brought for

[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors][ocr errors]

this I must examine: for indeed this is the very hinge of all oúr controversies ; for if this be once proved, we shall easily confess that it is not abrogated; for Christ came not to abrogate any of the law of nature, though as I have said, such particles of it may cease, whose matter ceaseth, by a change in nature itself.

The first proof is Exod. xx. 10. The stranger. To which I answer, Our question is not, whether the Sabbath was to be rested on by strangers that are among the Jews, but, whether it was part of the law of nature? If it be intended that

whatever such strangers were bound to, was of the law of nature: but strangers were bound to keep the Sabbath. Ergo.' I deny the major, which they offer not to prove. And I do more than deny it: I disprove it by the instances of Exod. xii. 19. Was eating leavened bread, forbidden by the law of nature ? “ One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and to the stranger that sojourneth among you.' (ver. 48, 49.) Circumcision was not of the law of nature. (Lev. xvi. 29.) Resting from all work on the tenth day of the seventh month, was not of the law of nature, though made also the stranger's duty. So eating blood, and that which dieth, or was torn. (Lev. xvii. 12. 15. So Lev. xxv. 6; Numb. xv. 14--16. 26. 29; xix. 10; xxxv. 15; Deut. xxxi. 12; Josh. viii. 33--25; xx. 9, &c.)

The next pretended proof is Rom. ii. 11, &c.; where there is not one syllable mentioning the decalogue as such, but only in general, the law, so far as it was written in the Gentiles' hearts. But where is it proved that the law or the decalogue, are words of the same signification or extent; any more than the whole and a part are? Or where is it proved that none of the rest of the law is written in nature, but the decalogue only? Or else that every word in the decalogue itself is part of the law of nature, (which is the question). I shall prove the contrary anon: in the meantime the bare numbering of chapters and verses is no proof.

3. It is next said,' that Adam was made and framed to the perfection of the ten words.' Answ. Adam was made in the image of God, before the ten words were given in stone : but so much of them as is the law of nature, and had matter existent in Adam's days, no doubt, was a law to him as well as it is to us. But that is nothing to the question, Whether all things in the ten words are of natural obligation?

4. It is said, “That the law of the Seventh-day-Sabbath was given before the ten words were proclaimed in Sinai:'

Answ. So was circumcision; and so was sacrificing; yea, so was the law about the dressing of the garden of Eden, and about the eating or not eating of the fruit thereof, even in innocency; which yet were no parts of nature's law, but positives, which now cease.

5. It is said, “That it was given to Adam in respect of his human nature, and in him to all the world of human creatures.'

Answ. So was the covenant of works, or innocency, which yet is at an end. But what respect is it (to his human nature) that you mean? If you suppose this position,

Whatever law is given with respect to human nature, and to all men, is of natural and perpetual obligation,' I deny it. The law of sacrifices and oblations was given with respect to human nature, that is, in order to its reparation, and it was given to mankind, and yet not of natural, perpetual obligation. The law of distinguishing clean beasts from unclean, and the law against eating blood, were given to Noah, and to all mankind, with respect to human nature, (Gen. viii. 20; ix. 4,) and yet not wholly of nature or perpetual obligation. All common laws have some respect to human nature. But if

your meaning be, that this law was given in and with the nature of man himself, or that it is founded in, and

probably by the very essentials of man's nature, or any thing permanent, either in the nature of man, or the nature of the world, I still deny it, and call for your proof. Positives may have respect to human nature as obliged by them; and yet not be written in human nature, nor provable by any mere natural evidence.

6. It is said, 'Set times of Divine appointment for solemn assemblies, &c. are directed by the great lights, &c.' (Psal. xix ; Rom. x, &c.) Answ. But the question is not of set times in general (that some there be), but of this set time, the Seventh day in particular. It will be long before you can fetch any cogent evidence from the lights of heaven for it. Nor do any of the texts cited mention any such thing, or any thing that can tempt a man into such an opinion. It must be the Divine appointment and institution (which you mention) that must prove our obligation to a particular day, and not any nature within us or without us.

« PreviousContinue »