When Christ is said to be Lord of the Sabbath, Mat. 12.8 §201the meaning is not as if he was such a Lord as had power to break it, but rather such a Lord as had power to appoint it, and consequently to order the work of it for his own service. M. Primrose thinks That he is said to be Lord of it, because he had power to dispense with the keeping of it, by whom & when he would: and that Christ did choose to do such works upon the Sabbath day, which were neither works of mercy or necessity, nay, which were servile, which the Law forbade: for Christ (saith he) as mediator had no power to dispense with things moral, but he might with matters ceremonial, and therefore with the Sabbath. How far Christ Jesus might and may dispense with moral laws, I dispute not now, I think Biell comes nearest the truth in this controversy; only this is considerable, suppose the Sabbath was ceremonial, yet it's doubtful whether Christ Jesus who came in the days of his flesh to fulfil all righteousness, could abolish or break the law ceremonial until his death was past, by which this handwriting of Ordinances was blotted out, Colos. 2.14. and this middle wall of partition was broken down, Ephes. 2.14, 15, 16. But let it be yielded that Christ had power to break ceremonial laws then before his death, yet in this place there is no such matter; for the words contain a clear proof for the right observance of the Sabbath against the over-rigid conceptions of the superstitious and proud Pharisees, who as they thought it unlawful for Christ to heal the sick upon the Sabbath, so to rub out, and eat a few corn ears upon it, although hunger and want (and perhaps more ⟨p. 178⟩then ordinary in the Disciples here) should force men hereunto, which was no servile work (as Mr Primrose would) but a work of necessity and mercy in this case; and our Saviour proves the morality of it, from the example of David eating the Show-bread, and those that were with him, preferring that act of mercy before sacrifice and abstinence from Show-bread; and hence our Saviour argues, That if they attending upon David might eat the Show-bread, much more his hungry Disciples might eat the corn while they attended upon him that day, who was Lord of the Sabbath, and that they might be the better strengthened hereby to do him service: These things being thus;
When Christ is said to be Lord of the Sabbath, Mat. 12.8 §201the meaning is not as if he was such a Lord as had power to break it, but rather such a Lord as had power to appoint it, and consequently to order the work of it for his own service. M. Primrose thinks That he is said to be Lord of it, because he had power to dispense with the keeping of it, by whom & when he would: and that Christ did chuse to do such works upon the Sabbath day, which were neither works of mercy or necessity, nay, which were servile, which the Law forbade: for Christ (saith he) as mediatour had no power to dispense with things morall, but he might with matters ceremoniall, and therefore with the Sabbath. How far Christ Jesus might and may dispence with morall laws, I dispute not now, I think Biell comes nearest the truth in this controversie; only this is considerable, suppose the Sabbath was ceremoniall, yet it's doubtfull whether Christ Jesus who came in the daies of his flesh to fulfill all righteousnesse, could abolish or break the law ceremoniall untill his death was past, by which this handwriting of Ordinances was blotted out, Colos. 2.14. and this middle wall of partition was broken down, Ephes. 2.14, 15, 16. But let it be yeelded that Christ had power to break ceremoniall laws then before his death, yet in this place there is no such matter; for the words contain a clear proof for the right observance of the Sabbath against the over-rigid conceptions of the superstitious and proud Pharisees, who as they thought it unlawfull for Christ to heal the sick upon the Sabbath, so to rub out, and eat a few corn ears upon it, although hunger and want (and perhaps more ⟨p. 178⟩then ordinary in the Disciples here) should force men hereunto, which was no servile work (as Mr Primrose would) but a work of necessity and mercy in this case; and our Saviour proves the morality of it, from the example of David eating the Shew-bread, and those that were with him, preferring that act of mercy before sacrifice and abstinence from Shew-bread; and hence our Saviour argues, That if they attending upon David might eat the Shew-bread, much more his hungry Disciples might eat the corn while they attended upon him that day, who was Lord of the Sabbath, and that they might be the better strengthened hereby to do him service: These things being thus;
