London: Printed for Nath, Ponder, at the Peacock in the Poultry, 1685.
EDITOR'S ADVERTISEMENT.
All our inquiries into divine commands are required to be made personally, solemnly, prayerful. To 'prove all things,' and 'hold fast' and obey 'that which is good,' is a precept, equally binding upon the clown, as it is upon the philosopher. Satisfied from our observations of nature, that there is a God; our next inquiry is into the revelation of his will: which, when understood, must be implicitly obeyed, in defiance of any usages of society, and of every erroneous pre-conceived opinion. In this important investigation, we shall find, that the commands of God revealed to man, fall under two classes.
First, Moral and Eternal, being essential to the happiness of all created intelligences, whether pure or sinful. As, the fear and love of the Creator, who preserves and bountifully blesses his creatures; and flowing from this is love to all his creation. He who wantonly destroys life in order that he may glut a demoniac propensity with the agonizing death struggle, is a practical atheist. The Christian will cherish and promote the happiness of all; he dares only to take away life to preserve life.
Second, Ceremonial or Temporal. Those which have been commanded by God, for local, family or national observances, and which, when they have fulfilled their intended object, are removed or suffered gradually to die away.
The well-being of society requires that a portion of time be set apart for divine worship. Individuals are commanded to pray without ceasing. An invaluable custom leads families to unite in morning and evening prayer; and it is an important question whether the Creator having sanctified, and rested on, the seventh day, intended that rest as a pattern to all his rational creatures. If so, the seventh day must depend upon our being able to fix upon which day of the week the creation commenced. Again our inquiries will extend to those injunctions, given to the Jews in the wilderness, to sanctify certain days to public worship; and whether that law was intended for all mankind. In either case it is essential that we ascertain whether those various Sabbaths of weeks—of months or of years—with the ceremonies to be performed on them, were to continue to the end of time or for a limited period.
In all these inquiries we are strictly confined to revelation, for there is no indication in nature, or in any of its laws, of a day of rest; but on the contrary a state of progression marks every day alike. Our Lord has taught us that 'the Sabbath was made for man,' and therefore did not exist among the angels, prior to the creation of man, as all moral or universal obligations must have existed; for they are the same from eternity to eternity; and over this, like other ceremonial or local commands, the Creator claims dominion. 'The Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath.'
Researches into these questions were made in earlier times, and some curious calculations have appeared to prove, that the work of creation commenced on the day called Monday, so that what is now termed the first day of the week, was originally the rest of God from creation; as it was his rest from the work of redemption, by rising from the tomb. But the extent of that period called a day, in creation, has never been defined: and the terms 'work' or 'rest,' as applied to the Deity, are used in condescension to our finite powers. The controversy upon this subject assumed a more public and definite form at the Reformation. Sir Thomas More asserted that the seventh day was superseded by the first, in obedience to tradition:[1] it forms the first of the five commandments of Holy Church—'The Sundays hear thou mass.' William Tyndale, in reply, contends that 'we be lords over the Sabbath'; we may change it for Monday, or any other day, as we see need, or have two every week, if one is not enough to teach the people.[2] Calvin preferred a daily assembling of the church, but if that was impossible, then at stated intervals: his words are—'Since the Sabbath is abrogate, I do not so rest upon the number of seven, that I would bind the church to the bondage thereof; neither will I condemn those churches that have other solemn days for their meetings.'[3] Luther considers the observance of the Jewish Sabbath one of the 'weak and beggarly rudiments.'[4]
The controversy became still more popular in this country, when James the First and Charles the First put forth the book of sports to be allowed and encouraged on Sundays. The Puritans called Sunday 'The Sabbath,' and a voluminous contest was carried on as to whether it ought not rather to be called 'The Lord's day.' In 1628, Mr. Brabourne, a clergyman of note, kept the Jewish Sabbath, and in a short time several churches, in England, assembled on that day, and were called 'seventh day, or Sabbath keepers'—many of them were Baptists. This led to the controversy in which Bunyan took his part, in this very conclusive and admirable treatise.
The work was first published in the year 1685, and was not reprinted until the year 1806, when it appeared in the third volume of select works by John Bunyan; since then it has been reprinted in two American editions of his works. The reason why it was not republished, probably was, that the churches of the Sabbath keepers died away. At this time only three are known in England; one of these is at Millyard, London, where my talented antiquarian friend, W. H. Black, is elder and pastor. These places of worship are supported by an endowment. Bunyan's book does not appear to have been answered; indeed, it would require genius of no ordinary kind to controvert such conclusive evidence.