Page images
PDF
EPUB

one answer will serve for them all. Though the original reason of a sabbath was the command in paradise, yet that idea had been probably lost before the days of Moses, and for many ages since it had been as it were overwhelmed with the various sabbatisms of the Jews, and the ceremonies depending thereupon: And though it stood in the Mosaic history, yet as many Mosaic laws were long forgotten and unpractised, during the state of Judaism, so this law of paradise did not immediately emerge and arise again into clear light and practice, but might be mingled with Jewish sabbatisms in the minds of men, nor appear even to christians themselves in a distinct light. It was by the wise providence of God, that it was permitted to lie unnoticed for a season, till the Jewish christians were more brought off from their excessive fondness for Mosaic rites.

And though the reasons of the change of the day, from the seventh to the first, came from the resurrection of Christ, and was plainly in many instances observed by the apostles; yet it was not, all at once, prescribed to christians as a new command, nor introduced into the churches. The first christians for many years were originally Jews, and the first great business and labour of the apostles, after preaching the essential doctrines of religion and the gospel, was to take them off from all Jewish ceremonies, of which their sabbatisms were some of the chief : this appears from scripture, with great evidence. But afterwards, when the gentiles were converted, and Jewish sabbaths not brought in among them, the importance and necessity of a certain fixed day for christian worship appeared more and more; and the observation of the first day, which had been intimated by apostolic example before, was more plainly taught and introduced among christians by degrees.

Nor is this strange that it should be so, when there are other doctrines and duties of more moment, such as the atonement of Christ for sin, faith in that atonement, &c. which our Saviour and his apostles introduced among men in the christian dispensation, not all at once, but gently and obscurely at first, and by such degrees, as men were able to bear it. And it is upon this account, that we do not read of any such signal opposition of the Jews to the observation of the first day of the week, as might have been expected: Yet the Jewish christians might make some opposition to it, as it seems from Rom. xiv. Col. ii. &c. And they did possibly observe the seventh day for some time, perhaps together with the first, or perhaps without it, because they were not perfectly cured of judaising, and the gentile converts might sometimes join with them, partly being entangled with Jewish scruples, and partly by way of condescension and compliance with indifferent things for the sake of peace and charity, of which St. Paul gives us remarkable examples and rules on other

occasions.

This will also give us a very fair answer to that argument for the continuance of the Jewish sabbath, which is drawn from our Saviour's advice to his disciples, relating to the destruction of Jerusalem; Mat. xxiv. 20. Pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, nor on the sabbath-day, &c. This text will by no means prove that our Saviour intended that the Jewish seventhday sabbath should be observed by christians after the time of the destruction of the Jewish polity: But he foresaw the prejudices both of Jews and Jewish christians would be so strong, that christians might find very great inconveniences thereby, both in their own consciences, and by the opposition of the Jews, if their flight from the destruction of the city, happened on the sabbath of the Jews. And if this signify their flight on the sabbath day, it is certain that our Saviour here can only mean to shew the hardships which might arise on this occasion from Jewish customs or prejudices; for neither Jews nor christians were by any laws of God forbidden to fight, or fly, or do any thing necessary for the safety of their lives on a sabbath, either under Judaism or christianity. But while the Jewish polity was not yet absolutely and utterly dissolved, but only dissolving*, the flight of his disciples might be, many ways, rendered exceeding troublesome on a sabbath. Yet I think Dr. Hammond's conjecture is not utterly to be omitted here; for if the word ca66ato in this place can mean the sabbatical year, their flight would be doubly inconvenient both in the winter, when there was no food in the field, and on the sabbatical year, when the fields were not sown, and both war and famine would come together. Now if this be the sense, the sabbath-day has nothing to do in this text.

Question III. Is not the holiness of days and times, abolished under the New Testament, as well as the holiness of places? Are not the expressions which abolish all sabbaths very plain and express? Does not the apostle severely reprove the Galatians, chapter iv. 10. for observing days and months, and times and years? Does he not teach the Colossians, chapter ii. 16. that no man should judge them in meats or drinks, or in respect of a holy-day, or new moons, or sabbaths? How can we suppose then, there is any holiness of days required, under the christian state? Or what holiness belongs to the Lord's-day wherein christians meet to worship.

Many of the Mosaical precepts, are to be considered as political, as well as religious ceremonies. Now while the Jewish polity subsisted, not only sabbaths but even circumcisions, some sacrifices, and several other things seem to be left,upon a foot of indifferency, as things decaying and vanishing away, as the apostle apeaks; Heb. viii. 13. and as things lawful to be complied with, accord. ing as prudence should dictate to the Jewish christians, in the places were they were; while at the same name the religious obligation was really finished at the setting up of the gospel-state, or christianity, at the day of Pentecost, when the Spirit was poured out,

Answer. The holiness either of days or places, has very great degrees of difference in it. The land of Canaan was the Joly land, because the people of God dwelt in it. Jerusalem was yet a more holy city, because God chose it for his habitation and his temple-worship. The inner courts of the temple were so holy, that the Gentiles might not walk in them; and besides this, there was the holy place where none might enter but the priests; and the most holy, where the high-priest only might appear, and that but once in a year. So it is also in times: there are several degrees of holiness in them. God blessed the seventh day in paradise and sanctified it, or made it holy, that is, separated it from the other days by a peculiar appointment for the rest of man, and the worship of God; so that the common labours of life were not to be continued or carried on upon that day. But it was a much higher degree of holiness that God put on the Jewish sabbath, by ordaining most peculiar ceremonies of worship, and by a more absolute and rigorous command, of resting from every purpose of human life, which was not absolutely necessary, and by severe penalties on the offender. Now all this Jewish holiness of times is abolished by the authority of Christ, and the writings of St. Paul under the gospel, as I have shewn before. And indeed our Saviour seemed to give hints of this kind to the Jews, that the rigorous observance of the ceremonial sabbath was vanishing when he told them, the Son of man was Lord of the sabbath; Mark ii. 38. and bid the paralytic whom he healed, take up his bed and carry it, on the sabbath-day; John v. 8-11.'

These Jewish sabbatisings being now abolished by many scriptures, and all their ceremonial holiness, I think the holiness of the Lord's day, cannot rise higher that that of the paradisiacal sabbath before the Jewish ceremonies and holy things were introduced; for we have no such new order given us in the New Testament. If therefore we do but so far rest from the cominon business of life, as the due seasons of christian worship require, in order to render that worship most useful to the public honour of our blessed Lord, and to our own inward holiness and growth in grace, the chief designs of this day are complied with and obtained: Nor do I see any inconvenience in allowing that one day in seven, and particularly the Lord's-day, may have so much holiness as this in it; since we suppose the chief parts of it are to be separated from the common businesses of human life, in order to worship God, and our risen Saviour, whose name the day bears; while all Jewish sabbatisms, and holy days, are abolished and renounced for ever.

Question IV. If the observation of a holy sabbath, or one day in seven for worship and rest, be of such importance to preserve religion in the world, why is there not a more express and

plain command for it under the New Testament? Why should we be left in such obscurity, that we can only spell out our duty, by inferences from the Old Testament, and some examples and probabilities in the New, concerning the observation of one day in seven, as well as concerning the change of that day from the seventh to the first? Give me leave to answer this two or three

ways.

First, If our Saviour, or his apostles, had insisted too early, and too plainly on the observation of one day in seven, as a day of holy rest from labour, they had been in danger of giving occasion to the Jewish christians to have continued their rigour of sabbatising; for they were so fond of these yokes and ceremonies, that they were very hardly weaned from them. Many of the weakly disciples would scarce have known how to distinguish between the strict ceremonial holiness of days imposed in Judaism, and the appointment of religious worship, under the gospel, with a merciful release from the labours of life on the Lord's-day. But I answer,

In the second place, by giving an instance of the like kind, wherein God has left a moral duty under the same obscurity. Was not monogamy, or the marriage of but one wife, as important, and as necessary to the peace of families, the regular and pious education of children, and the good order of the world in all ages and nations, as it is to christians under the gospel? And why then was the law, which prohibits more wives than one, left so obscure aud so uncertain under the Old Testament in the patriarchal and Jewish age, that it seems to be unknown, and was often violated both by Jews and patriarchs? Why was there a sort of permission for divorces given by Moses upon other causes, besides fornication, when our Saviour forbids it under the gospel, and seems to declare it to have been an irregular thing even from the beginning of the creation; Mat. xix. 3-9? And yet there is no plain disapprobation of polygamy, nor divorces, till the days of Malachi, the last of the prophets; Mat. ii. 14-16.

But let it be observed, that our Saviour gives us the reason of this doubtful and uncertain notice of this moral duty, where he tells us, that Moses, because of the hardness of their hearts, suffered them to put away their wives, though from the beginning it was not so ordained, that is, the general reason, why God left it under, this obscurity, and gave no such plain and express precepts and prohibitions about some of these things to the Jews and patriarchs, might be, because he foresaw that strong temptations from within and from without, from the customs of the world, and the appetites and passions of nature, would render the duty difficult to be constantly practised in their circumstances, or the sin diflicult to be avoided: Now, where a duty is

not clearly known or discovered, the crime of neglecting it is proportionably diminished. Sins against the light of reason, or revelation, are scarce imputed, where there is not light enough to lead men into the knowledge of their duty, if there be but a sincere willingness to find out and practise every duty within the reach of their enquiries.

In like manner, when the religion of Christ was to be diffused amongst all ranks of people, rich and poor, bond and free, in heathen nations, where there where no sabbaths observed, our Saviour knew it would be exceeding difficult, especially for persons in poor or servile circumstances, to keep a sabbath religiously, to rest from their labours one day in seven, and devote it to religious purposes: He might think it proper, therefore, to give no such express and solemn command about it, but introduce it by degrees into the churches, lest the consciences of his followers should be too much entangled and perplexed, between the express command, and the difficulty of practice. The case of the sabbath was not the same in the Jewish state: There was no such difficulty in keeping the appointed day. It was there commanded by God in express language, it was universally acknowledged by the people, taught by all the priests and preachers, and maintained by the high-priest, and all the magistrates of the country, both as a political law of the land, and as a religious ordinance, and was supposed to be publicly practised by all the nation.

Now this tenderness to weak christians is encouraged and exemplified in several instances in the conduct of our blessed Lord, when he was here on earth: He would not enjoin bard and painful practices on young and tender disciples; Mark ii. 18-22. He preached the things of the gospel unto the people, as they were able to bear them; Mark iv. 33. John xvi. 12. and in some cases, neither God nor his Son, neither prophets, nor apostles, would press such duties too plainly and strongly on the consciences of good men, as would endanger the casting a snare upon them, that is, entangling their consciences, as the apostle speaks; 1 Cor. vii. 35. or would burden young disciples with too many obligations. I mention this only as a conjecture, and if it be not approved, I am no way fond to support it. See more reasonings in answer to this question in discourse the fourth, "On the Holiness of Places of Worship."

To conclude, since all Jewish festivals, new moons, and sabbaths, are abolished by St. Paul's authority, in such express and unlimited language, as may lead many sincere christians to believe that all manner of distinction of days whatsoever, whether Jewish or patriarchal, is finished; since the religious observation of days, in the xiv. chapter to the Romans, in general, is represented as a matter of doubtful disputation; since the observation of the Lord's-day is not built upon any express and plain institu

« PreviousContinue »