The seventh day sabbath therefore was not from paradise, nor from nature, nor from the fathers, but from t he wilderness, and from Sinai.
QUESTION III.
Whether when the seventh day sabbath was given to Israel in the wilderness the Gentiles, as such, was concerned therein.
Before I shew my ground for this question, I must also first premise, That the Gentiles, as such, were then without the church of G.o.d, and pale thereof; consequently had nothing to do with the essentials or necessary circ.u.mstances of that worship which G.o.d had set up for himself now among the children of Israel.
Now then for the ground of the question.
First, we read not that G.o.d gave it to any but to the seed of Jacob. Hence it is said to Israel, and to Israel only, "The Lord hath given YOU the sabbath" (Exo 16:29). And again, "also I gave THEM my sabbath" (Eze 20:5,12).
Now, if the gift of the seventh day sabbath was only to Israel, as these texts do more than seem to say; then to the Gentiles, as such, it was not given. Unless any shall conclude, that G.o.d by thus doing preferred the Jew to a state of gentileism; or that he bestowed on them, by thus doing, some high Gentile privilege.
But this would be very fictious. For, to lay aside reason, the text always, as to preference, did set the Jew in the first of places (Rom 2:10). Nor was his giving the seventh day sabbath to them but a sign and token thereof.
But the great objection is, because the seventh day sabbath is found amongst the rest of those precepts which is so commonly called the moral law; for thence it is concluded to be of a perpetual duration.
But I answer: That neither that as given on Sinai is moral; I mean, as to the manner and ends of its ministration, of which, G.o.d permitting, we shall say more in our answer to the fourth question, whither I direct you for satisfaction. But,
Second, The Gentiles could not be concerned, as such, with G.o.d"s giving of a seventh day sabbath to Israel, because, as I have shewed before, it was given to Israel, considered as a church of G.o.d (Acts 7:32). Nor was it given to them, as such, but with rites and ceremonies thereto belonging, so Leviticus 24:5-9; Numbers 28:9, 10; Nehemiah 13:22; Ezekiel 46:4.
Now, I say, if this sabbath hath ceremonies thereto belonging, and if these ceremonies were essential to the right keeping of the sabbath: and again, if these ceremonies were given to Israel only, excluding all but such as were their proselytes, then this sabbath was given to them as excluding the Gentiles as such. But if it had been moral, the Gentiles could as soon have been deprived of their nature as of a seventh day sabbath, though the Jews should have appropriated it unto themselves only.
Again, to say that G.o.d gave this seventh day sabbath to the Gentiles, as such, (and yet so he must, if it be of the moral law) is as much as to say, that G.o.d hath ordained that that sabbath should be kept by the Gentiles without; but by the Jews, not without her ceremonies. And what conclusion will follow from hence, but that G.o.d did at one and the same time set up two sorts of acceptable worships in the world: one among the Jews, another among the Gentiles!
But how ridiculous such a thought would be, and how repugnant to the wisdom of G.o.d, you may easily perceive.
Yea, what a diminution would this be to G.o.d"s church that then was, for one to say, the Gentiles were to serve G.o.d with more liberty than the Jew! For the law was a yoke, and yet the Gentile is called the dog, and said to be without G.o.d in the world (Deut 7:7; Psa 147:19,20; Matt 15:26; Eph 2:11,12).
Third, When the Gentiles, at the Jews" return from Babylon, came and offered their wares to sell to the children of Israel at Jerusalem on this sabbath; yea, and sold them to them too: yet not they, but the Jews were rebuked as the only breakers of that sabbath. Nay, there dwelt then at Jerusalem men of Tyre, that on this sabbath sold their commodities to the Jews, and men of Judah: yet not they, but the men of Judah, were contended with, as the breakers of this sabbath.
True, good Nehemiah did threaten the Gentiles that were merchants, for lying then about the walls of the city, for that by that means they were a temptation to the Jews to break their sabbaths; but still he charged the breach thereof only upon his own people (Neh 13:15-20).
But can it be imagined, had the Gentiles now been concerned with this sabbath by law divine, that so holy a man as Nehemiah would have let them escape without a rebuke for so notorious a transgression thereof; especially considering, that now also they were upon G.o.d"s ground, to wit, within and without the walls of Jerusalem.
Fourth, Wherefore he saith to Israel again, "Verily my sabbaths YE shall keep." And again, "YE shall keep the sabbath." And again, "The children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout THEIR generations" (Exo 31:14-16, 16:29).[10]
What can be more plain, these things thus standing int he testament of G.o.d, than that the seventh day sabbath, as such, was given to Israel, to Israel ONLY; and that the Gentiles, as such, were not concerned therein!
Fifth, The very reason also of G.o.d"s giving of the seventh day sabbath to the Jews, doth exclude the Gentiles, as such, from having any concern therein. For it was given to the Jews, as was said before, as they were considered G.o.d"s church, and for a sign and token by which they should know that he had chosen and sanctified them to himself for a peculiar people (Exo 31:13-17; Eze 20:12,13).
And a great token and sign it was that he had so chosen them: for in that he had given to them this sabbath, he had given to them (his own rest) a figure and pledge of his sending his Son into the world to redeem them from the bondage and slavery of the devil: of which indeed this sabbath was a shadow or type (Col 2:16,17).[11]
Thus have I concluded my ground for this third question. I shall therefore now propound another.
QUESTION IV.
Whether the seventh day sabbath did not fall, as such, with the rest of the Jewish rites and ceremonies? Or whether that day, as a sabbath, was afterwards by the apostles imposed upon the churches of the Gentiles?
I would now also, before I shew the grounds of my proposing this question, premise what is necessary thereunto; to wit, That time and day were both fixed upon by law, for the solemn performance of divine worship among the Jews; and that time and day is also by law fixed, for the solemnizing of divine worship to G.o.d in the churches of the Gentiles. But that the seventh day sabbath, as such, is that time, that day, that still I question.
Now before I shew the grounds of my questioning of it, I shall enquire into the nature of that ministration in the bowels of which this seventh day sabbath is placed. And,
First, I say, as to that, the nature of that law is moral, but the ministration, and circ.u.mstances thereunto belonging, are shadowish and figurative.
By the nature of it, I mean the matter thereof: by the ministration and circ.u.mstances thereto belonging, I do mean the giving of it by such hands, at such a place and time, in such a mode, as when it was given to Israel in the wilderness.
The matter therefore, to wit, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy G.o.d with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength": and "thy neighbour as thyself," is everlasting (Mark 12:29-31), and is not from Sinai, nor from the two tables of stone, but in nature; for this law commenced and took being and place that day in which man was created. Yea, it was concreate with him, and without it he cannot be a rational creature, as he was in the day in which G.o.d created him. But for the ministration of it from Sinai, with the circ.u.mstances belonging to that ministration, they are not moral, nor everlasting, but shadowish and figurative only.
That ministration cannot be moral for three reasons. 1. It commenced not when morality commenced, but two thousand years after. 2.
It was not universal as the law, as moral, is; it was given only to the church of the Jews in those tables. 3. Its end is past as such a ministration, though the same law as to the morality thereof abides. Where are the tables of stone and this law as therein contained? We only, as to that, have the notice of such a ministration, and a rehearsal of the law, with that mode of giving of it, in the testament of G.o.d.
But to come to particulars.
1. The very preface to that ministration carrieth in it a type of our deliverance from the bondage of sin, the devil, and h.e.l.l.
Pharaoh, and Egypt; and Israel"s bondage there, being a type of these.
2. The very stones in which this law was engraven, was a figure of the tables of the heart. The first two were a figure of the heart carnal, by which the law was broken: the last two, of the heart spiritual, in which the new law, the law of grace is written and preserved (Exo 34:1; 2 Cor 3:3).
3. The very mount on which this ministration was given, was typical of Mount Zion. See Hebrews 12 where they are compared (vv 18-22).
4. Yea, the very church to whom that ministration was given, was a figure of the church of the gospel that is on Mount Zion. See the same scripture, and compare it with Acts 7:38; Revelation 14:1-5.
5. That ministration was given in the hand and by the disposition of angels, to prefigure how the new law or ministration of the Spirit was to be given afterwards to the churches under the New Testament by the hands of the angel of G.o.d"s everlasting covenant of grace, who is his only begotten Son (Isa 63:9; Mal 3:1[12]; Acts 3:22,23).
6. It was given to Israel also in the hand of Moses, as mediator, to shew, or typify out, that the law of grace was in after times to come to the church of Christ by the hand and mediation of Jesus our Lord (Gal 3:19; Deut 5:5; Heb 8:6; 1 Tim 2:5; Heb 9:15, 12:24).
7. As to this ministration, it was to continue but "till the seed should come"; and then must, as such, give place to a better ministration (Gal 3:19). "A better covenant, established upon better promises" (Heb 8:6).
From all this therefore I conclude, that there is a difference to be put between the morality of the law, and the ministration of it upon Sinai. The law, as to its morality was before; but as to this ministration, it was not till the church was with Moses, and he with the angels on Mount Sinai in the wilderness.
Now in the law, as moral, we conclude a time propounded, but no seventh day sabbath enjoined. But in that law, as thus ministered, which ministration is already out of doors;[13] we find a seventh day; that seventh day on which G.o.d rested, on which G.o.d rested from all his works, enjoined. What is it then? Why the whole ministration as written and engraven in stones being removed, the seventh day sabbath must also be removed; for that the time nor yet the day, was as to our holy sabbath, or rest, moral; but imposed with that whole ministration, as such, upon the church, until the time of reformation: which time being come, this ministration, as I said, as such, ceaseth; and the whole law, as to the morality of it, is delivered into the hand of Christ, who imposes it now also; but not as a law of works, nor as that ministration written and engrave in stones, but as a rule of life to those that have believed in him (1 Cor 9:21).
So then, that law is still moral, and still supposes, since it teaches that there is a G.o.d, that time must be set apart for his church to worship him in, according to that will of his that he had revealed in his word. But though by that law time is required; yet by that, as moral, the time never was prefixed.
The time then of old was appointed by such a ministration of that law as we have been now discoursing of; and when that ministration ceaseth, that time did also vanish with it. And now by our new law-giver, the Son of G.o.d, he being "lord also of the sabbath day," we have a time prefixed, as the law of nature requireth, a new day, by him who is the lord of it; I say, appointed, wherein we may worship, not in the oldness of that letter written and engraven in stones, but according to, and most agreeing with, his new and holy testament. And this I confirm further by those reasons that now shall follow.
First, Because we find not from the resurrection of Christ to the end of the Bible, anything written by which is imposed that seventh day sabbath upon the churches. Time, as I said, the law as moral requires; but that time we find no longer imposed. And in all duties pertaining to G.o.d and his true worship in his churches, we must be guided by his laws and testaments. By his old laws, when his old worship was in force; and by his new laws, when his new worship is in force. And he hath verily now said, "Behold, I make all things new" (Rev 21:5).
Second, I find, as I have shewed, that this seventh day sabbath is confined, not to the law of nature as such, but to that ministration of it which was given on Sinai: which ministration as it is come to an end as such, so it is rejected by Paul as a ministration no ways capable of abiding in the church now, since the ministration of the Spirit also hath taken its place (2 Cor 3). Wherefore instead of propounding it to the churches with arguments tending to its reception, he seeks by degrading it of its old l.u.s.tre and glory, to wean the churches from any likement[14] thereof:
1. By calling of it the ministration of death, of the letter, and of condemnation, a term most frightful, but no ways alluring to the G.o.dly.
2. By calling it a ministration that now has no glory, by reason of the exceeding glory of that ministration under which by the Holy Spirit the New Testament churches are. And these are weaning considerations (2 Cor 3).
3. By telling of them it is a ministration that tendeth to blind the mind, and to veil the heart as to the knowledge of their Christ: so that they cannot, while under that, behold his beauteous face, but as their heart shall turn from it to him (2 Cor 3).
4. And that they might not be left in the dark, but perfectly know what ministration it is that he means, he saith expressly, it is that "written and engraven in stones." See again 2 Corinthians 3.