A Discourse Upon the Sabbath Day, Part 1

A Discourse Upon the Sabbath Day · Part 1

p. 100The 7^th day Sabbath is not aboliſhed.

THat vvith the more culler of truth they might aboliſh the Sabbath day, many hauehave taken in hand (out of a ſincere affection to their knowledge, as I verily perſwade my ſelfe, yeelding p. 101too much confidence to antiquity, and truſt to the labours of our worthy forefathers in this point) to make one of Gods tenne and morall Commandements, namly the 4^th, to be partly Morall, partly Ceremoniall; a thing at firſt hearing very ſtrange, that of 10. only one ſhould ſo farre differ in kinde from its fellowes, when all vvere equally and a like deliuered by the immediate and audible voice of God, and written all a like together by the finger of God in Tables of ſtone, vvhichwhich no ceremony vvas; Nay, vvhichwhich is worce yet, that not one whole commandement is ſaid to be ceremoniall, but only one peece of that one commandement is a ceremony: as if one of the linkes of this chaine vvere partly gould, partly lead, whereas all the reſt were pure gould, what were this but to ſuppoſe our God to plough in his field with an oxe and an aſſe yoked together; & to ſowe it vvith ſeedes of diuers kindes; vvhichwhich kinde of vnequall mixtures God vvould not abide amongſt his people, how much leſſe vvould him ſelfe vſe it? as if God had vvrote moralls & ceremonialls both vpō the ſame Table of ſtone, and twiſted in one Commandement ſome thing perpetuall, other ſome thing temporary; for they make the tyme in the 4^th Com: a ceremony, and Holines, a Morall; yea, the one indiuiduall Reſt, is partly a morall, and in other parte of it a ceremony, oh monſtrous, vvhat a p. 102hotch potche hauehave vve heere! vvhat a mingle mangle, what a confuſion & iumbling of things ſo farre diſtant together, as vvhen moralls and ceremonialls are ſuppoſed to be here mingled together: the one to laſt but for a tyme, the other to laſt for euer: the one belonging only to the nation of the Jewe: the other belonging to all nations: and both of theſe thoug mingled in one ſingle word, in the vvord Reſt: was the like euer heard of? can the like inſtance be ſhowne in all the 10. Commandements? and yet againe contrary wiſe, vvhat a rending and violent tearing in ſunder ſuch things in the Com: vvhichwhich God hath ioyned together, as to ſunder the Sabbath, from the 7^th day; vvhen God ſaith expreſly, The 7^th day is the Sabbath, Exod. 20.10. and ſo inviolably linked them together: thus they imagine Moyſes to iumble things vnſkilfully together, and then come they and rend and ſlaſh them aſunder againe; if this be lawfull, then vvhichwhich of the 10. Comm: may not ſuffer violence, laying out ſuch parcells of them as diſconceit vsus, and letting ſtand ſtill vvhat fanſy vsus? and is not this vvith that vvicked man, To change tymes and the Law, Dan. 7.25.

To come yet nerer, they endeauer to ſhevv the 4^th Com: is partly ceremoniall, and that in two things: the one is as touching the Reſt; the p. 103other is as touching the particular tyme of 7^th day: now leaſt they ſhould ſeeme to hould only the 7^th day, vvhichwhich is the queſtion, to be ceremoniall, there is great labour vſed to finde out ſome thing elſe in this Com: ceremonious too, & ſo the 7^th day ſhould not ſtand nakedly alone for a ceremony, and to this purpoſe eueryevery text that may ſeeme to ſauour of any exrraordenary ſtrictnes about the Jewiſh Reſt, that and thoſe textes are not expounded vvith a graine of ſalt, or dramme of qualification, but ſtretcht vponupon the tainterhoockes to the vtmoſt: of theſe two things we vvill begin with the Reſt, and ſee how they make it in parte ceremonious: A vvorthy and late wrighter (whoſe name I ſpare for honours ſake) makes this reſt, ceremoniall in three things, the vvhichwhich he termes that rigourous and preciſe reſt, preſcribed to the Jewes: theſe three things we will examine one after an other, and hauing diſpached theſe, vve vvill alſo examine ſome other like textes, and if vponupon their examination, it be founde, that God neuer required any ſuch ſtrict rigorouſeneſſe of reſt of the Iewes, as is ſuppoſed, then is it but a forgery to ſay, the ſtrictnes of the Iewiſh reſt vvas a ceremony, for how can it be a ceremony, which is not?

1. The firſt is, that the Iewe might not on the Sabbath goe forth, or take a iourney any whither, p. 104for any buſines of his owne, Exod. 16.29. this ſaith he was temporary, and doth not concerne theſe tymes of the New Teſtament.

Heretoo I anſwere, This text forbiddeth only vnneceſſary iournying on the Sabbath, to prouide that thing vvhichwhich God giueth him enough of, the day before, for becauſe God had giuen them Manna on the 6^th day enough for two dayes, therfore God forbad them to trauaile for it forth the doores on the 7^th day: ſo here God forbade only needleſſe and idle iournyes on the Sabbath: and vvhat rigorouſe preciſe ſtrictnes then vvas here impoſed vponupon the Jewe? is this ſuch a hard intollerable burthen as beſemes only the ſhowlders of a Iewe, and not of a Chriſtian, that a man ſhould not trauaile vainly, and to no purpoſe on the Lords Sabbath? 2. The Text is excedingly wronged to ſay, it forbad a man to take a iourney for any buſines of his owne; for, it forbad him not to trauaile a fewe miles for himſelfe in a caſe of neceſſity, ſince it only forbad him to trauaile in a caſe friuolouſe & idle. 3. If this text and law perteined only to the Iewe and left vsus at libertie, then may we on our Lords day and Sabbath now, take ſuch friuolous iournyes, vvhichwhich yet all ſound diuines condemne.

2. The 2^d thing vvherein ſtood the rigour of the Iewiſh reſt (as ſaith he) is that they might not kindle a fyer on the Sabbath day, Exod. 35.3.

p. 105Hereto I anſwere, this text is ſet vponupon the tainters and ſtretched farther than need is, why ſhould the ſame men qualify ſome textes about the reſt of the Sabbath, with due limitations, and yet extende other ſome text about the ſame reſt, beyond all limitation? for inſtance Exod. 20.10. In it thou ſhalt not doe any work: which though it according to the letter forbiddeth generally any kind of worke whatſoeuer, yet they doe well expounde it to be vnderſtood only of ſeruile works forbidden, not of works of charity and neceſſity: But in this Text Exod. 35.3. ye ſhall kindle no fyer; this canſt needes be vnderſtood litterally and generally, as if the Iewe might in no caſe kindle any fyer, without exception: I pray what differeth the Law Exod. 20.10. Thou ſhalt not doe any worke: from the Law here, Exod. 35.3. Thou ſhalt kindle no fyer? is not that the generall, and this this the ſpeciall, is a limitation to be added to the genus, and none to the ſpecies? wherfore, by the ſame authority that they limite the words in 4^th Comm: thou ſhalt not doe any work: that is, not any common vnneceſſary ſeruile work; by the ſame authority may I limite this Com: Exod. 35.3. Thou ſhalt kindle no fyer; that is, thou ſhalt kindle no fyer to doe vnneceſſary ſeruile works vvithall, ſuch as is of common brewars and bakers, to got their lyuing by as on the 6. dayes, and ſuch as p. 106was for the building of the Tabernacle, Exod. 35.3.4.5. &c. vvhereof there was no ſuch neceſſary haſt as that they ſhould kindle fyers to work about it on the Sabbath: But thinke you that God who allowed the Iewe to labour in caſe of neceſſity on the Sabbath day, to leade a beaſt to the vvater: to pluck and ruble eares of corne: to help a beaſt out the ditche; vvas ſo rigorous to him in an other thing of like vſe, as not permit him to kindle a fyer to warme his body, in the depth of winter vvhen tis freezing could, or to dreſſe a bite of warme meat for his dynner on the Sabbath, vvhereby he may be cheered vp the cheerefully to attend vponupon God in his ordinances, in the after parte of the Sabbath? was God thinke you ſo carefull for oxen, or vvas it not rather ſpoken for men, vvho are made after the image of God? and for vvhoſe ſake the Sabbath it ſelfe vvas made, Mark. 2.27? To conclude, did not our bleſſed Sauiour in his tyme approue of fyer making on the Sabbath (think you) or at leaſt of as great vvorks, and ſo of that, by like reaſon, vvhen he vowchſafed his preſence at a feaſt of the Iewes on the Sabbath, Luk. 14.1.2.3.4.5.6.7. &c? vvhere were many gueſtes, now at a feaſt, and many gueſts, could not but be a fyer to dreſſe meat, or as great labour in dreſſing meat and tendance of the gueſts, as is the bare kindling of a fyer.

p. 1073 The 3d thing is, that the Iewe might carry no burdenes on the Sabbath day, Ierem. 17.21. Nehem. 13.15.

I anſwere 1. If this be a part of the rigorous preciſe and ſtrict reſt required only of the Jewe, vvhy doe all diuines now a dayes preſſe this rigorouſnes vponupon Chriſtians, forbidding vsus novv to carry burdnes on the Sabbath day? if this vvas a ceremony and to ende with Chriſt, then vve Chriſtians may freely beare burdenes vpō backs of men, or beaſts, or on cartes, novv on our Lords day, is not this goodly ſtuffe? hereby you may hauehave a taſte vvhat it is for vvorthy diuines to captiuate their judgments, to yeeld to much confidence to the labours of our forefathers if of Note, or to take points of diuinity by tradition vponupon truſt from others, for had this learned man vſed his owne judgment in theſe points, he had neuer ouerſhot himſelfe ſo farr as to put downe ſuch things as theſe, ſo vndigeſted. 2. In this text God forbad carrying of burdenes only as an vnneceſſary ſeruile vvork, but he forbade not carrying burdnes in caſe of neceſſity, as a vvork of charity, for Chriſt allowed the ſicke man, to carry his bed on the Sabbath day, Ioh. 5.8.9.10. now vvhere then vvas God ſo rigorous and ſtraight vntounto the Jewe, ſince he permitted them burthens bearing if and vvhen neceſſity ſo required? and ſo we hauehave examined theſe 3. things aboue mentioned.

p. 1084 A 4^th Text I may add, vvhichwhich I hauehave often heard alleaged for the former purpoſe, and tis vvritten, Exod. 16.23. Bake that to day vvhichwhich ye vvill bake, and ſeeth that vvhichwhich ye vvill ſeeth, and all that vvhichwhich remaineth, lay it vp till the morning for you, &c. vvhere (ſay they) here the Iewes vvere commanded to dreſſe all their meate on the Friday, the day before their Sabbath day, and by conſequence they were forbidden to dreſſe any on the Sabbath.

I anſwere 1. To this I oppoſe an other Text Exod. 12.16. vvhere the Lord forbade the Iſralites to doe any work, but with this exception, Saue about that which eueryevery man muſt eate, that only may ye doe: this text ſo playnly giuing leaue to dreſſe ſuch and ſo much meate on the day as a man ſhould eat vponupon the day, giues me to thinke no other text ſhould forbid the ſame: but hereto it will be ſaid the Text Exod. 16.23. treats of the Morall Sabbath, but your Text Exod. 12.16. treats of the holy dayes of the paſſeouer. I anſwere, tis true, this text ſpeaks of the firſt and of the 7^th dayes of the feaſt of vnleauened bread only, but this muſt alſo be noted, that theſe feſtiuall dayes, had their holy conuocations and aſſemblies, and wherein they were forbidden to doe any work, as the text ſhewes, juſt as on the Sabbath dayes, yea, theſe feſtiuall dayes were alſo called Sabbath dayes; and threatened p. 109with death alſo if they wrought on theſe dayes, Leuit. 23.30.32. now, if God as ſtrictly bound the Iewe to reſt on theſe feſtiuall Sabbaths which were annuall, as on the morall Sabbath weekly, then looke what libertie God gaue vponupon one of theſe Sabbaths, vve are to judge, I ſuppoſe that God gaue the like libertie on the other Sabbath, the caſes being a like, and the ceremoniall Sabbath being as ſtrictly to be reſted in from all manner of ſeruile works, as vvas the morall Sabbath.

2. I anſwere to the text directly: This Text in my thinking is vvonderouſly miſ-vnderſtood, they ſuppoſe that Moſes lade the Iſralites bake vponupon Friday both the two Omers gathered on that day, and then by theſe words, all that remayneth lay vp &c. they vnderſtand all that remaineth of the 2. omers backt and vneaten, ſo as that which remained vneaten was backed: But firſt they erre in ſuppoſing Moſes bad them bake on the day before the Sabbath both theſe two omers vvhichwhich they had that day gathered, where as Moſes left it free to their choiſe to backe (as the text faith) vvhat they vvould, more or leſſe: Bake that which ye vvill bake, and ſeeth that which ye vvill ſeeth &c. and ſo tis moſt likly they baked that day about one omer of the two they had gathered, juſt as they did on the other 5. vvorking dayes, they gathered eueryevery day one page missing p. 112world, So then the Sabbath if it muſt laſt till heauen comes, it muſt then laſt to eueryevery particular ſaint, and beleeuer ſo long as he liues on earth, & abides in the church militant, and it muſt laſt to the church generally, to this worlds end: and if ſo then I truſt the Sabbath is no ceremony temporary, and aboliſht long ſince.

I anſwere 2. Admit the Sabbath here were a type, yet is not the Sabbath as men keepe it made a type of heauen, but as God kept it at creation, as v. 4. Now if only Gods keeping Sabbath rt creation was a type of heaueu, what is this to make the Iewes keeping Sabbath any type of heauen? for our queſtion is of the Sabbath in reference to men.

I anſwere 3. Gods reſt at the creation is not a type properly, as hauing relation to Chriſt incarnate but a ſimilitude only, as ſhadowing out Heauen, and ſuch ſimilitudes are not ceremonious and temporary, but perpetuall and eternall: for inſtance Heb. 4.10. He that is entred into his reſt, hath ceaſed from his workes () as God did from his: if then Gods reſt, becauſe a ſimilitude to be a ceremony and temporary, then alſo is the perfection in God a temporary ceremony, for tis made a ſimilitude of our perfection, Mat. 5.48. ye ſhall therfore be perfect (foreign) as your heauenly father is perfect: ſee a like example Joh. 5, 21.

p. 113And theſe are the textes, vvhichwhich are vſually brought to make the Reſt of the 4^th Comm: in parte, eighther too ſtrict and rigorous, or elſe typicall, and ſo ceremoniall; and ſo the 4^th Com: it ſelfe to be partly a ceremony; and all to this end, the better to make way for the downe fale and vtter ruine of Gods 7^th day Sabbath; the vvhichwhich by Gods Mercy they hauehave not yet attained, but you ſee are fruſtrat of their purpoſes, & ſo I truſt ſhall euer be hereafter: And now I come to the tyme of the Sabbath the 7^th day, vvhichwhich is the maine of all, and againſt which they hauehave bent all their forces: and if it fall ſo out they hauehave no better ſucceſſe againſt this 7^th day Sabbath, then they hauehave had againſt the Reſt in the Sabbath, all their labour vvill be loſt, as I truſt in God it will appeare at the laſt: what they ſay againſt the 7^th day Sabbath, I reduce to two heades, the former ſhall conſiſt of textes of Scripture and artificiall arguments; the latter of teſtimonies, and authorities of men: for their Textes of Scripture whereby they would proue the 7^th day Sabbath is aboliſht.

1. The firſt text ſhall be that of Iſai. 66.23. from month to month, or from new Moone to new Moone, and from Sabbath to Sabbath, ſhall all fleſh come to worſhip before me &c. whence it is collected by them, that the weekly 7^th day p. 114Sabbath was a ſigne, and that of the euerlaſting Sabbath in Heauen and therfore the ceremoniall and temporary.

Hereto I anſwere 1. that this phraſe of ſpeech in this text is obſcure and dark ſome to vsus, for vvhat ſhall be meante by theſe words, from Month to Month: whereof are theſe a ſigne? now tis vnmeet that ſo plaine a text as is the 4^th Com: touching the Sabbath, which is deliured in plaine and proper vvords ſhould be contradicted and blotted out by an other text, which is in Metaphoricale phraſes, & of a doubtfull ſenſe. 2. if this Sabbath was a ſigne of heauen, it is ſo farre from being a temporary ceremony, as rather it is perpetuall Morall, to laſt till Heauen comes, as hath beene ſaid before, for the ſigne or ſhadowe is to laſt vntill the body a ſubſtance be comne: or, admit this Sabbath a ſigne both of the whole tyme of the Church of the New Teſtament on earth, and alſo of the Church triumphant in heauen, as ſome would, why yet I hope the body of Heauen hath as much force to moralize the Sabbath, as hath the body of the new Church on earth, to ceremonialize and temporize it, yea more, by how much better but it is not worth our labour, to ſpend more words about this text, it hauing ſo little culler to any thing in it for their purpoſe.

2. A 2^d text to proue the Sabbath a ceremony p. 115and ſo aboliſht is Numb. 28.9.10. where it was commanded the Iſralites to offer two lambes for for a ſacrifice on the Sabbath day.

Hereto I anſwere 1. why ſhould the ſacrificing of two lambes on the Sabbath, make the Sabbath a ceremony and aboliſht any more then the ſacrificing of one lambe eueryevery day for a daily burnt offring Numb. 28.4.6. make the working dayes of the weeke ceremoniall and aboliſht. 2. Hath not the Morall works in the Sabbath, as Reſt, and Holineſſe, and remembrance of Gods Reſt after creation, as much and more power ouer the tyme and day wherein they were done to moralize and eternize the Sabbath, as hath the ſacrificing two lambes to ceremonize and temporize the Sabbath? or if ſacrifices could aboliſh the tyme of the Sabbath, which was commanded, why did they not alſo aboliſh the duties in the tyme, as Reſt and Holineſſe? 3. The Sabbath was a Sabbath in nature and inſtitution before there was any ſacrifices, for it was in tyme of Adams innocency before the fall, wherfore as the Apoſtle Gal. 3.17. reaſoneth of the promiſe and of the Law, that the Law could not diſanulle the promiſe to Abraham, which came 430. yeeres after the promiſe; ſo ſay I Sacrifices cannot diſanulle the Sabbath, ſince the Sabbath was before any Sacrifices; and ſince Sacrifices came after the Sabbath: as therfore the Sabbath had a being before p. 116ſacrifices and ceremonies, ſo may it hauehave its being after all ſacrifices and ceremonies be aboliſht.

3. A 3^d Text is in Deuter. 5.15. where the Lord telleth the Iſraelites, He brought them out of Egypte, and therfore the Lord commanded them to keepe the Sabbath: vvhence they would argue to this effect, ſince that the Sabbath is an effect of, or hath neceſſary dependance vpō their deliuerance out of Egypt, it followeth if that deliuerance out of Egypt be but ceremoniall as a thing proper to the Iewe; Then ſo is the Sabbath alſo.

I anſwere 1. The Sabbath may be ſaid to be an effect or hauehave dependance of an other thing two wayes: one, as touching its obſeruation; the other, as touching its inſtitution: now this deliuerance out of Egypt, was not cauſe of the Sabbaths inſtitution, for the Sabbath was before they euer went downe into Egypt Geneſ. 2.3. neither vvas or could the deliverance out of Egypt be the ſole cauſe, nor the cheife cauſe of the Sabbaths inſtitution, for Gods owne reſt vponupon that day Geneſ. 2.3. was the cheife cauſe; and next the Sabbath was made for man Mark. 2.27. that is for the eaſe and benifite of his body, and for the good and edification of his ſoule, in duties of holineſſe. But as touching the Sabbaths obſeruation, p. 117the deliuerance from Egypt might be a cauſe, and was and ought to be a motiue to obedience in obſeruance & keeping the Sabbath day, and ſo all bleſſings whatſoeuer ſhould be motiues to obedience, as Deut. 6.20.21.23.24. Deuter. 28.47.48. but vvhat if theſe bleſſings faile, and God giuegive others in roome of them, ſhall our obedience and obſeruance faile and vaniſhe? vvhat and if we Chriſtians hauehave not that one particular bleſſing of deliuerance from Egypt which the Jewe had, hauehave vve no many other bleſſings and deliuerance to moue vsus to obedience, as from that Armade in 88. from the Gunpowder plott, and I know not how many more. I conclude, that ſince the deliuerance out of Egypt, vvas not the cauſe of the Sabbaths inſtitution, but only of its after obſeruation, therfore, though that deliuerance was ceremoniall, yet was not the Sabbath ceremoniall. 2. I anſwere, if this motiue of Iſralites deliuerance from Egypt, becauſe not belonging to vsus Chriſtians, therfore ſhewes the Sabbath belongs not to vsus neither; Then may we by as good reaſon aboliſh not the Sabbath alone, but the whole morall law alſo; and then, as vve vvill none of the Jewes Sabbath to be ours, no more need vve vvill the Iewes God to be ours, commanded in the firſt Com: for the reaſon to induce to obedience and hauing the true God for their God, was this, I page missing p. 120Law; as therfore vvhen the Apoſtle ſaith Epheſ. 2.15. Chriſt abrogated the Law of Commandements, vve vnderſtand it only of the ceremoniall law of commandements, not of the morall: So vvhere here the Apoſtle takes away the difference of dayes, I vnderſtand him to aboliſh only ceremoniall dayes, but not the Morall 7^th day Sabbath. I anſwere 3^d. if all difference of all dayes be aboliſht, vvhy then keepe we the Lords day now for a Sabbath in a religiouſe manner? if you ſay you keep it not as a ceremony or type & ſhaddow of Chriſt to come, which was the reaſon of the Sabbaths abolition, but in other reſpects, as in remembrance of Chriſt alredy comne: vvhy then by like reaſon may not the 7^th day Sabbath, be now kept by vsus, ſo be we lay aſide that ſuppoſed typicall ſhaddowiſh reſpect vvhichwhich it had of Chriſt to come? and vve keeping it in other reſpects, as in remembrance of Gods Reſt on the ſame day after the vvork of creation, and as it is a day for the benefit of both our bodies for reſt, and our ſoules for holineſſe?

Thus none of thoſe former textes you ſee can proue that the 7^th day Sabbath vvas euer ceremoniall, or yet aboliſht, but yet they hauehave two textes more behinde, vvherein they put great confidence, and eſpecially in the former of the two, and, if they faile in theſe two as I truſt in p. 121God they ſhall, then are they quite gone, and for euer to hould their peace, for ſpeaking more againſt the Lord Gods Sabbath.

6. The 6^th text is that Coloſ. 2.16.17. let no man condemne you in meate and drinke, or in reſpect of an holy day, or of the new Moone, or of the Sabbath dayes, vvhichwhich are a ſhaddow of things to come, but the body is of Chriſt: Loe (ſay they) here you hauehave Sabbath dayes forbidden, the very point in queſtion, & they are counted a ſhaddaw of Chriſt and therfore aboliſht.

I anſwere 1. as there is two Lavves; a morall Lavv conſiſting of 10. Comm: all vvritten by the finger of God, vponupon Tables of ſtone; and a ceremoniall Law vvritten by Moſes and deliuered to the people; ſo are there Sabbaths morall, that is ſuch as God engraued vponupon the Tables of ſtone vvith other 9. preceptes; and there are Sabbaths ceremoniall, that is ſuch as you finde no mention of in the Decalogue, but ſuch as you finde recorded by Moſes diſperſed here & there in the 5. bookes of Moſes, ſpecially in Leuit. 23.4. &c. to the end of the chapter: Novv as vvhen you reade Heb. 7.12. Epheſ. 2.15. If the prieſthode be changed, then muſt there be a change of the lavv: you vvill not here permite any man to iumble confuſedly together the lavv morall and Law ceremoniall, and ſay both theſe lawes are p. 122here changed, but you vvill diſtinguiſh of Lawes, granting them the ceremoniall Law to be meante here, but not the morall, ſo doe I in anſwere to this text Col. 2.16. diſtinguiſh of Sabbaths, granting them here is meante only ceremoniall Sabbaths, denying that here is meante the Morall Sabbath of 7^th day: That this diſtinction is good, and that by Sabbaths here is meant only ceremoniall Sabbaths, doe beare witneſſe to me, euen vvorthy diuines of their owne ſide, as, Greenham in his vvorke vponupon the Sabbath day; and Perkins in his caſes of conſcience booke 2. chapt. 16. Sect. 3. and Dod vponupon the 4^th Comm: pag. 133. and Elton vponupon the Coloſſians 2.16. and Ames in his Theſis touching the Sabbath. 2. That here is meante only ceremoniall Sabbaths is plaine by the context, and that by two reaſons; the former, in that theſe Sabbathes are ranked vvith other things all vvhichwhich be ceremonies, as meates, and drinkes, and new Moones, and holy dayes, ſo that all other things in this text vvhichwhich the Apoſtle aboliſheth being ceremonies, it giues vsus cauſe to thinke the Sabbaths placed and ioyned vvith them be only ceremoniall Sabbaths, as M. Dod vvell obſerueth vponupon the 4^th Com: the latter reaſon, is for that this 16^th verſe is, as you may ſee by the vvord of inference Therfore a concluſion, vvhoſe premiſe you hauehave in the 14^th verſe, and here the Apoſtles diſcourſe is on this p. 123wiſe: If the hand wrighting of ordinances (which is the Law, that commanded meates & drinkes, and Holy dayes, new Moones & Sabbath dayes) be put out, and taken away; Then let no man condemne you in meates and drinkes, in Holy dayes, new Moones or Sabbaths dayes: But the handwrighting of ordinances, is put out, and taken away: Therfore let no man condemne you in meates and drinkes, in Holy dayes, new Moones, or Sabbath dayes: The minor you hauehave v. 14. the concluſion in v. 16. Now for aſmuch as it is a rule vvith Logicians, that there ſhould not be more in the concluſion, then vvas in the premiſſes, Hence it followeth that if by the vvord Sabbathes in v. 16. you vvill vnderſtand the morall Sabbath of the 7^th day, then by handvvrighting of ordinances in v. 14. you muſt vnderſtand at leaſt that parte of the Morall Law, vvhichwhich is the 4^th Com: the vvhichwhich commanded that Sabbath: The vvhichwhich if you doe, then you rune vponupon this abſurdety, that you make the Apoſtle to aboliſh in this text a branch of morall Law, as the vvhole or at leaſt a parte of the 4^th Com: and ſo wheras the Lord wrote vponupon the Table tenne commandements Deut. 10.4. you make by this interpretation but nyne commandements, or at moſt but nyne and an halfe, or but nyne and three quarters or there abouts; for tenne compleate, there is not I am ſure.

p. 124Againſt my diſtinction they ſay, by Sabbaths, in this text of neceſſity muſt morall Sabbaths be meante, becauſe vnderunder the name of Holy dayes, is compriſed all ceremoniall Sabbathes, ſo that then the word Sabbaths muſt meane the morall Sabbath: whereto I anſwere that I vvill lay you out for eueryevery word its proper day it ſignifies, and yet the morall Sabbath excepted: 1. by nevv Moones is meante only the firſt day of month Numb. 28.11. 2. Holy day is in the originall, feaſt day, or a feaſte; or, in parte of a feaſte foreign: now the Lord had commanded the Jewes a feaſt of 7. dayes Leuit. 23.34.39. of vvhichwhich feaſt, the firſt day, and alſo the laſt day were Sabbaths; now the dayes goeing betwene the firſt and laſt day, theſe vvere the parte of a feaſt, foreign, and theſe the Apoſtle aimed at, by holy day: and then 3^d. and laſtly by Sabbaths are meante thoſe annuall Sabbaths, vvhichwhich vvere on the firſt and laſt day of the Feaſt of 7. dayes: now leaſt ye think this diſtinction and application but a conceipte, ſee Leuit. 23.37.38. where the Lord himſelfe diſtinguiſheth twixt Feaſtes and Sabbathes: vvhen he ſaid, Theſe are the Feaſtes &c. beſides the Sabbathes &c. Or, if by Holy day, or Feaſt, you vvill vnderſtand all theſe 7. dayes, with the firſt and laſt dayes which were Sabbathes; then by the vvord Sabbathes in Col. 2.16. may be vnderſtood theſe Sabbathes Leuit. 23.24.32. p. 125which were feaſtes but of one ſingle day a peece, and eighther of them called Sabbathes, and theſe vvere the Sabbathes vvhichwhich Paul aboliſhed: ſo you ſee, there is no neceſſity by Sabbathes, to vnderſtand the Morall Sabbath at all.

I anſwere 2. to the text Col. 2.16. that hereby vve ought not to vnderſtand the Morall Sabbath, as if that were aboliſht, for this vvere to ſet Paul againſt Chriſt, the ſeruant againſt his Lord; for Chriſt eſtabliſhed the morall Law, and eueryevery iott and title of it to the vvorlds end Math. 5.18. now the 7^th day Sabbath vvas not leſſe than a iott or title of the Law; and did Chriſt pleaſe to ratifie it to the vvorlds end, and ſhall vve make Paul with in a fewe yeeres after to aboliſh it? vvhat neceſſety is there of ſuch large vnderſtanding of the vvord Sabbathes? is there any beſides mens pleaſures, ſo to hauehave it, that they might throw downe the ſacred tyme of the Lords Sabbath? Beware ye be not found fighters againſt God; and to ſide it vvith that branded vvicked one in Dan. 7.25. vvho thought he might change tymes, and the law.

It is not to be paſſed by vvithout obſeruation that the Apoſtle condemnes Sabbathes but indefinitly, he ſaid not all Sabbaths generally, but Sabbaths indefinitly, as of ſome Sabbathes only: but ſay now that an indefinite axion may be conſerued eighther generally or particularly, a… p. 126the matter, and circumſtances of the place requireth, why ſhew me now vvhat occaſion this context giueth you to vnderſtand here Sabbathes, of all Sabbathes morall and ceremoniall, or of any but ceremoniall: or if you hauehave grownds ſo to doe from ſome other text, I pray ſhew the text or if from ſom reaſons, I pray ſhew the reaſons, and let them be neceſſarily ſounde, and demonſtratiuly true, for there is great cauſe it ſhould be ſo, ſince by force thereof you vvill confront one of Gods expreſſe commandements; you had need looke you goe on ſure grownde vvhen you attempt to altar any branch of thoſe commandements vvhichwhich God himſelfe tooke care to wright in Tables of ſtone: for my part, I truſt it ſhall euer be my care to death, to maintaine the inviolable and eternall Law of God, thoſe is commandements and eueryevery iett and title of them, ſo as not to departe with any of them, nor ſuffer a title to be ſnatcht from me by any light diſtinctions, or humane vnneceſſary enlargement of the ſenſe of words; I truſt God vvill euer giuegive me to make conſcience of that Commandement Deut. 12.32. vvhatſoeuer I command you, take heede you doe it: Thou ſhalt put nothing there to, nor take ought there from: if I muſt not take any thing from the Law of God, then reſolue I, not to conſent to, or yeelde that the Lords Sabbath ſhould be rente from Gods Law, vponupon eueryevery or p. 127any light coniecture, and probable argument.

I anſwere 3^d. if by Sabbathes here muſt be meante all Sabbathes, as well the Morall as the Ceremoniall Sabbathes, then by like reaſon may I gather an abolition not only of the ceremoniall Law, but alſo of the morall Law, for Epheſ. 2.15. tis ſaid, Chriſt hath abrogated the law of commandements: and Heb. 7.12. of neceſſety there muſt be a change of the Law: now vvhy may not I by the word Law vnderſtand both morall and Ceremoniall Law: as vvell as you by the vvord Sabbathes to vnderſtande the Morall and ceremoniall Sabbathes? ſee therfore vvhat abſurdetyes would follow if it were lawfull thus to extende vvords: but happily ſome thinke it no abſurdety to ſay that Chriſt by his death aboliſht both Lawes, the ceremoniall and the morall: but if ſuch thoughtes and ſayings be not blaſphemouſe againſt the Law of God, I know not vvhat are; if ſuch collections be not of moſt perniciouſe & dangerouſe conſequence in Gods Church, I cannot tell what be: did not the ſame Chriſt whom they vvould make to aboliſh the morall Law, renounce this facte, and alſo contrariwiſe eſtabliſh this morall Law Mat. 5.17.18. ſaying, I came not to deſtroy the Law &c. and then, vntill heauen and earth periſh one iotte or title of this Law ſhall not paſſe? but they vvill ſay, it vvas reeſtabliſhed againe after by the p. 118in the 4^th Comm: and then you giuegive liberty for men to exerciſe themſelues in ſeruile labours, at home in their families, and a part a brode in the fields in ploughing, dikeing, carteing, and the like; now theſe exerciſes doe vtterly aboliſh Holines. I doe not ſay Holines abſolutly, for a man may be holy in a calling, but I ſay it aboliſheth a Sabbaths Holineſſe, vvhichwhich is, to be exerciſed in holy performances without labour, and a whole day, and in holy aſſemblies: but how can they be in the congregation, in the aſſemblie togeather, who be eueryevery man at his owne houſe ſeuerally, or in the field ſcatteredly at their labours? the ſame whereof is, that take away Sabbaths; and you take away Reſt, which is ſignified by the vvord Sabbath: againe, take away Reſt, and you neceſſarily take away Holineſſe, that other dutie alſo. And againe, if you by this text of Col. 2.16. doe aboliſh the very duties of the Sabbath, Reſt, and Holines, as you doe, hauehave you not made faire worke think you, by aboliſhing that which you call the morality of the Sabbath, euer Reſt, and Holineſſe.

7. The 7^th and laſt text they produce for the aboliſhing of the 7^th day Sabbath is that in Exo. 31.13. where the Sabbath are ſaid to be a ſigne that the Lord did ſanctifie his people; now they ſay all ſignes be abrogated, and therfore the Sabbath day.

p. 131I anſwere 1. The Lord God doth not ſay expreſly in this text, you ſhall not hereafter, as namly after the death of Chriſt, keepe the Sabbath day any more, becauſe I hauehave made it a ſigne now: no, but thus much is collected by humane reaſon, becauſe God made the Sabbath a ſigne: now I can but vvonder how mortall man dareth by bare force of his blind & feeble reaſon thus to confront his God: God ſaid in his 4^th Comm: (which he wrote aboue all Scripture by his owne finger) Remember the Sabbath day, to ſanctifie it: The 7^th day is the Sabbath, in it thou ſhalt not work: Now the quite contrary to God, men now a dayes bluſhe not by bare force of reaſon to anowche: Namly that the Sabbath day is aboliſhed, and therfore not to be remembred any more, nor to refraine ſeruile work in it: yea, they contradict their Sauiour too, who ſaid of the Morall Law, one iott or title of it ſhould not paſſe to the vvorlds end Mat. 5.18. but they ſay yis, that one iott to vvit the 7^th day Sabbath may paſſe &c. now chooſe you vvhither it be ſafer to leaue the vveight of your ſoules vponupon Gods and Chriſtes expreſſe wordes, or vponupon mens force of reaſon by way of collections and conſequentes: we hauehave formerly ſhowne how blinde a thing mans reaſon is in matter of religion, and eſpecially in the duties of the firſt Table vvhichwhich conſerueth God, and that therfore Diuines in other page missing p. 134are ſignes, and yet in vſe ſtill.

I anſwere 5. by diſtinguiſhing of ſignes, and that two wayes: firſt there be ſignes of things preſent, as is the Sabbath Exod. 31.13. it is a ſigne &c. that I the Lord doe ſanctify you, here the ſigne & the thing ſignified are together in tyme: and there be ſignes of things to come, and ſuch vvas the ſigne of circumciſion, Geneſ. 17.11. vvhichwhich aimed at Chriſt to come: now though I grant that ſignes of things to come be abrogate, yet I deny that ſignes of things preſent be abrogate, & ſuch are the Sabbaths mentioned, Exod. 31.13. a difference muſt be put twixt the ſignes of things preſent, and future, ſince that vvhen a ſigne and thing ſignified futurly, doe mete together in tyme, then the ſigne vaniſheth; as vvhen circumciſion and Chriſts death came together then the ſigne circumciſion vaniſhed; but tis other vviſe vvith a ſigne and the thing ſignified vvhichwhich euer vvere together, as vvas the Sabbath keeping, and Gods ſanctifying them; for, if preſence of a ſigne, and thing ſignified then together had cauſed an abolition of the ſigne, vvhy then the Sabbath day (becauſe a ſigne of Gods preſent ſanctifications) had beene aboliſht euen then vvhen Moſes vvrote theſe vvordes Exod. 31.13. & if preſence of the thing ſignified could not then aboliſh the Sabbath, why ſhould it now, ſince God is euer the ſame to them that keepe p. 135his Sabbaths then or now? he ſanctified them, then he ſanctifieth vsus now: there is no reaſon therfore that ſuch as are ſignes of things preſent, as is the Sabbath Exod. 31.13. ſhould be aboliſht. My 2^d diſtinction of ſignes is, that there be ſignes of things future as hath bene ſhowne Geneſ. 17.11. and ſignes of things paſt, as the Sabbath is made a ſigne of the creation and of Gods Reſt at the begining of the world, vvhichwhich is a thing paſt, Exo. 31.16.17. keep the Sabbath &c. it is a ſigne betwene me and the children of Iſrael; for or that in 6. dayes the Lord made heauen &c. in the 7^th day he reſted. The word (for) is and may be tranſlated (that) as Deuter. 29.6. now though ſignes of things future vaniſh when the thing ſigned comes in place, yet is there no cauſe why vve ſhould thinke a ſigne ſhould vaniſh, as the Sabbath day, whoſe thing ſignified is long ſince paſt, as Gods Reſt at the creation: why may not, the Sabbath day ſignify and commemorate Gods Reſt and Sabbath day at the creation, euen to the vvorlds end, as vvell as in Moſes his tyme? and vvhy ſhould vve thinke the coming of Chriſt in the fleſh ſhould hauehave more force to aboliſh the Sabbath day, if it had beene a ſigne of Chriſt to come, then the work of creation, vvhichwhich is eternally to be remembred, hath force to perpetuate and eternalize the Sabbath, ſince that the Sabbath was a ſigne of its remembrance?

p. 136I confeſſe, I heare them produce one Text to proue that all ſignes be aboliſht, and that is written in Coloſ. 2.16.17. vvhere the Apoſtle ſeemes to giuegive a reaſon vvhy meates and drinkes, and Holy dayes, & Sabbath dayes are aboliſht, namly becauſe they were ſhaddowes of things to come; vvhence they collect that all ſhaddowes be aboliſht; and all ſignes be ſhadowes; ergo all ſignes be aboliſht. Here vntounto I anſwere 1. tis true that it is commonly taken that theſe things being ſhadowes, vvere therfore aboliſht; but vvhither this be a neceſſary, or but a contingent truth, I vvill not novv queſtion. 2. Whereas they ſuppoſe all ſignes to be ſhadowes, this is falſe: for, the word ſhadowe, being but thrice (as I take it) vſed in the New Teſtament, as in this Text Col. 2.17. and Heb. 8.5. and Heb. 10.1. vvith reference to Chriſt; it euer ſignifieth a ſhadow of things to come: now a ſigne is vſed to ſignifie, and ſigne out ſome tyme a thing paſt, as Rom. 4.11. ſome tyme a thing preſent, as Exod. 31.13. ſome tyme a thing future, as Geneſ. 17.8.11. now all ſignes then be not ſhadowes, ſince ſome ſignifie things paſt, ſome typifie things preſent. 2. Shadowes, ſtill hane reference to Chriſt, Col. 2.17. vvhichwhich are a ſhadow of things to come, but the body is of Chriſt, ſo a ſhadow aimes at Chriſt: but a ſigne often hath reference to God to Jehouah, as in Exod. 31.13. Iſa. 38.7. Thus as a ſhadow and a p. 137ſigne differ in vvordes, ſo you ſee they differ in vſe and application, & therfore they be not both one, as they vvould.

But when they ſee this profe thus vvill not hould, then they fetch about the buſhe an other vvay, laboring to make the vvord ſigne in Exod. 31.13. to be a ſigne of a thing future, and that of Chriſt too; and then they thinke this done, the word ſigne in this text, and the vvord ſhadow in Col. 2.17. vvill be both one, and ſo their propoſe become good againe: To this end, they add theſe vvords, (By and through Chriſt) to the Text Exod. 31.13. and vnderſtand the text as if thus reade, The Sabbath is a ſigne &c. that I the Lord doe ſanctifie you; by and through Chriſt: and the reaſon of this addition, they ſay is becauſe God doth all that he doth to his Church, by and through Chriſt, as in Eph. 1.3. Bleſſed be God, vvho hath bleſſed vsus vvith all ſpirituall bleſſings in Chriſt.

Hereto I anſwere 1. admit that God did ſanctify, by and through Chriſt: how vvill it followe and be ſoundly proued, that becauſe God and Chriſt doe ſanctify man together, that therfore alſo vvhat God made to be a ſigne of his vvork of ſanctification, the ſame alſo muſt neceſſarily be a ſigne of Chriſts work of ſanctification? proue I ſay that it vvas Gods pleaſure to make the Sabbath here a ſigne of Chriſt, as vvell as a ſigne of p. 138himſelfe: for though it vvas a ſigne by Chriſt, yet vvas it a ſigne of Chriſt: we muſt know ſignes are not applied to God or Chriſt naturally, but voluntarily, euen according as it pleaſed the Author of thoſe ſignes to appointe them, to one or more perſons, to himſelfe or to other.

I anſwere 2. if Chriſts coworking vvith God, cauſeth that vvhichwhich is a ſigne of Chriſt; Then it followes too, that the Miniſters of the Goſpell, coeworking vvith God and Chriſt in the worke of ſanctification, that therfore if the Sabbath be a ſigne that God ſanctifieth his people, the Sabbath muſt be a ſigne alſo, that vve of the Miniſtry doe ſanctify Gods people, and ſuch an vſe of the Sabbath vvas neuer heard of before.

I anſwere 3. if they vvill conioyne any of the perſones in the Trinity, vvith the vvork of God the Father in ſanctifying vsus, it vvere moſt proper to ioyne the Holy Ghoſt (and ſo Piſcator vponupon Ezek. 20.12.20. applieth it) and ſay, God ſanctifyeth vsus by the Holy Ghoſt, rather than by Chriſt ſince ſanctification is more properly attributed to the Holy Ghoſt than to Chriſt: for the Father createth, the Sonne redemeth, the Holy Ghoſt ſanctifieth: But I will not ſtand vponupon this.

I come to the Text Eph. 1.3. God hath bleſſed vsus with all ſpirituall bleſſings in Chriſt: if you vnderſtand theſe vvordes ſo, as if vvhatſoeuer bleſſing the Church enioyeth, Chriſt doth equally p. 139equally and a like with the Father diſpenſe effectuall and beſtowe it on the church, you miſvnderſtand them, doth not Piſcator vponupon this text, that the word all muſt hauehave a limitation? Juſtification is an acte ſolely of God the Father, not of God the Redeemer, abſoluing and acquiting a penitent beleeuing ſinner: likewiſe Election is an acte of God the Father, not of Chriſt the Re-Redeemer: Alſo the donation of the elect vntounto Chriſt Joh. 6.37. is of like nature: can it be ſaid here, God the Father gaue the elect vntounto Chriſt, in Chriſt, by Chriſt, or through Chriſt? vvhereby you ſee Chriſt is ſo farre from effecting equally and a like all vvorkes vvith the Father, that ſome vvorkes he hath no hand or ſtroke in; and yet if they vvill hauehave this text to make for them, they muſt proue by it, that not only Chriſt doth effect all vvorkes the vvhichwhich his Father effecteth, but alſo that Chriſt doth them, eueryevery way equally and a like as God the Father doth them; for, elſe how vvill it follow by like reaſon, that the Sabbath being a ſigne of Gods ſanctification, it muſt alſo be a ſigne of Chriſts ſanctification too, vnleſſe it be from this grownd, that God his ſanctification, and Chriſt his ſanctification be both performed equally, and a like in all reſpectes? but ſince the former cannot be proued, the latter can much leſſe be proued: But there vntounto it may be ſaid, though the generall cannot be proued, yet p. 140the particular in queſtion may, Heb. 10.10. wher tis ſaid, we be ſanctified by the offring vp of Ieſus Chriſt &c. ſo that Chriſt doth ſanctify as well as God the Father: Herevnto I anſwere, whither ſanctification here importeth any more then a waſhing vsus from the guiltineſſe of our ſines, or not, I will not diſpute: but let it goe for granted that by ſanctification here is meant that inherent new quality of Holines; yet it will not follow, that becauſe Chriſt ſanctifyeth vsus, as well as God the Father ſanctifyeth vsus, therfore vvhatſoeuer is made a ſigne of God the Fathers ſanctifying vsus, is neceſſarily muſt be a ſigne of Chriſt his ſanctifying vsus to, ſo as if God made the Sabbath a ſigne of his ſanctification, he muſt alſo make the Sabbath a ſigne of Chriſts ſanctification; how by force of our feeble reaſon we dare put ſuch a neceſſity vponupon God, I cannot ſee: nay rather the cōtrary appeares to mee, that for ſo much as Gods ſanctifying vsus, and Chriſts ſanctifying vsus be farre vnlike each other, therfore they ſhould not by force of reaſon obtaine a like preuiledges and relations: to this purpoſe ſee how they differ, 1. God ſanctifyeth by virtue of his Godhead and Diuinity; Chriſt ſanctifyeth by the offering of his body Heb. 10.10. now great is the difference twixt the Deity and the Humanity. 2. God the Father ſanctifyeth vsus of himſelfe, & by himſelfe originally; but Chriſt his death and ſufferings, p. 141or Chriſt his body offred vp, ſanctifyeth not of and by it ſelfe, but of; from, and by God, and by his bleſſing vponupon it: ſo you ſee there is not ſo ſtrong reaſon that Chriſt ſhould hauehave the Sabbath made a ſigne of his worke, as there is that God ſhould hauehave it made a ſigne of his: and ſo much of his anſwere, wherein you ſee they put me to much nedleſſe buſines, by ſhewing themſelues too to buſy with humane reaſon, for as by bare force of reaſon without any precept they vvill erect and vphould new Sabbathes, as the Lords day; ſo by meere force of their reaſon they vvill make new ſignes, or elſe will make thoſe ſignes, to appertaine to ſuch perſons (as to Chriſt) newly, the which Gods word is deeply ſilent in, I can but wonder that diſcreete men who woll know the defects in our reaſon, dare there withall wade into the deepes of God, thus farre: yea, I vvonder the more, when I conſider the ende thereof, which is to defeate God of his choſen ſacred tyme for his worſhip, and to thwarte a morall precept.

I anſwere 5. admite that God doth all by Chriſt, and ſo euer did, and alſo admit the Sabbath vvas a ſigne of Chriſts ſanctification, no leſſe then of Gods, yet though I may truely and ſoundly diſtinguiſh of Chriſts workes and ſanctification: ſome are euer preſent with the ſigne, ſome are future, whoſe ſigne goeth long before p. 142the thing ſignified: of Chriſts preſent ſanctification was the Sabbath a preſent ſigne, Exod. 3.13. keepe ye my Sabbath for it is a ſigne &c. That I the Lord doe ſanctify you: where the ſigne and the thing ſignified are together: of Chriſts future ſanctification, you hauehave the Sacraments of the ould Teſtament circumciſion and the Paſſeouer and alſo as they would thoſe meates & drinkes, and Holy dayes, and Sabbath dayes, vvhichwhich are a ſhaddow or ſigne of things to come, Col. 2.16.17. vvhere the ſignes and things ſignifyed are farre diſtāt in tyme, & tone long before thother: Note farther, Chriſt may be ſaid to ſanctify virtually, or really; as I may ſay virtually, and as thus he is the lambe ſlaine from the begining of the world, the virtue of whoſe death did ſaue the Patriarkes, ſo the virtue of Chriſts incarnate may be ſaid euer to ſanctifye, as in dayes of Moſes Exod. 31.13. and thus although I grante Chriſt did ſanctify with God Exod. 31.13. and that (perhaps) alſo the Sabbath was a ſigne that Chriſt did then ſanctify the people, yet this ſigne being preſent with the thing ſignifyed, could not be aboliſht by the preſence of the body or thing ſignifyed, for if it could then had the Sabbath beene aboliſht euen in Moſes dayes when he wrote thos wordes, Exod. 31.13. ſince the Sabbath vvhichwhich was the ſigne and ſanctification, which was the the thing ſignifyed, were then both together p. 143preſent. 2. Chriſt may be ſaid to ſanctify really, and that is whilſt he was God man, Incarnate, & thus he is conſidered of only as to come afterwards, as Col. 2.27. which are a ſhadow of things to come, that is of Chriſt to come then; and here I deny not but ſignes of things to come may be abrogate, but, yet here I deny that the Sabbath Exod. 31.13. was made any ſigne of any thing to come afterwards; So then vntill they proue the Sabbath Exod. 31.13. was accounted and called by God a ſigne to come, of Chriſts ſanctification, they cannot proue it aboliſht: The Text ſaith not, The Sabbath ſhall be a ſigne &c. that I the Lord will hereafter ſanctifie thee: but it ſaith, The Sabbath is a ſigne &c. that I the Lord doe ſanctifie thee: now we muſt not confound tymes, the preſent tenſe with the future tenſe, and ſo ouerthrow Grammar.

I anſwer 6. and laſtly, I hauehave cauſe to reiect that which is their ſumme and ſcope out of this text Exod. 31.13. namly to proue this concluſion and aſſertion, That the Sabbath day is not aboliſht: it being brought in direct oppoſition to Gods commandement Exod. 35.2. The 7^th day ſhall be vntounto you the Holy Sabbath &c. God ſaid, the 7^th day ſhall be your Sabbath: and they ſay, The 7^th day ſhall not be your Sabbath: now I reiect this, becauſe theſe two are not of equall authorities: tone is an expreſſe plaine infallible p. 144word of God; tother is but a collection by man liable to error in his collections; now if Paul ſo ſleited mens contrary judgments of him; I paſſe not to be judged of mans judgment 1. Cor. 4.3. may not I ſleite mens contrary judgements of Gods Law? ſaying, I paſſe not what cenſure and collections men bringe againſt Gods Law? ſhall mans collections & concluſions beare equall authority with an expreſſe Commandement of a God? or countermaunde it? Neuer with me, I truſt to God.

Finally, to giuegive one anſwere that may ſerue for both thoſe textes, the 6^th and the 7^th, wher to I hauehave laſt anſwered, that is to the text Coloſ. 2.16.17. and to the Text Exod. 31.13. ſay, I ſhould grante them out of theſe two Textes euen all which they deſire to hauehave, as namly that by Sabbathes in Coloſ. 2.16. is meante the Morall Sabbath of the 4^rd Com: and that it was reckoned for a ſhadow of Chriſt to come too: yea, let it be granted them that the Sabbathes Exod. 31.13. were ſignes & ſhadowes of Chriſt to come, why yet it will not follow that theſe Morall Sabbaths of the 7^th day be aboliſht abſolutly and altogether.

To this purpoſe note with me, The 7^th day Sabbath may be cōſidered abſolutly, or relatiuely and ſignificatiuely; for inſtance, John the Baptiſt, p. 145was a man, there is his abſolute nature; againe he vvas the fore runner of Chriſt, there is his office and relatiue nature, vvhere by he pointed out Chriſt for to come after him: now when Chriſt vvas already comne in Johns preſence, ſo as Iohn pointed to him, ſaying: Behold the Lambe of God, now forth vvith Iohn loſt, his relatiue nature, of being any longer Chriſts forerunner, and to preach of Chriſt as to come, becauſe Chriſt was already comne. Neuertheleſſe Iohn loſt not but ſtill retayned his abſolute nature of being a man, for he vvas a man ſtill after Chriſt comne as well as before: An other inſtance, an Iuye buſhe hung vp at a vinteners houſe, it is an Iuy buſhe: and alſo it is a ſigne of vvyne to ſell in that houſe; now take downe the buſhe, or pull downe the houſe vvhere the wyne vvas, and then the buſhe ceaſeth to be a ſigne any longer yet it remaines to be an Iuy buſhe ſtill: Iuſt ſo the Sabbath, it hath an abſolute nature, as it is a Sabbath? and it hath a relatiue and ſignificatiue nature as it is a ſigne of Chriſt, as they ſay: now be it at Chriſts coming, the body & thing ſignified being comne and in preſence, the ſigne or ſhadow then is to vaniſh, vvhy be it ſo, let the relatiue and ſignificatiue nature or quality of the Sabbath vaniſh as it vvas a ſigne of Chriſt, vvhy yet it followeth not therfore the Sabbath as a Sabbath, in its abſolute nature ſhould alſo vaniſh: but you vvill page missing p. 148diuerſe reſpects, if they kept it ſignificatiuely, & vve morally: Alſo Paul might aboliſh theirs as ſignificatiue by Col. 2.16.17. and yet not medle vvith ours, no more then he aboliſht faſting by this text. We may not make an Image to worſhip, yet may vve make an Image for ornament, and not violate the 2d Com: ſo you ſee reſpects doe alter things not a litlle.

2. The Rocke, vvas made a ſigne of Chriſt 1. Corin. 10.4. They drancke of the Rocke that followed them, which rocke was Chriſt: now vvhen the Rocke ceaſed to be a ſigne of Chriſt, yet it ceaſed not to be a Rocke ſtill, it loſt but its ſignificatiue nature onelyonly by the coming of Chriſt, and ſo the Sabbath loſt but its ſignificatiue nature neither: but your arguing is as if once a thing be abrogate in its ſignificatiue nature, why ſo it muſt be alſo in its abſolute nature, vvhichwhich you ſee is falſe.

3. Holy dayes, had a ſignificatiue nature, being ſhadowes of Chriſt to come, Col. 2.16.17. now at Chriſts coming, in this reſpect they were aboliſht; and yet to this day in other reſpects we retayne Holy dayes, for we keepe Pentecoſt or whitſuntide now ſtill to this day: if therfore we may retayne a Jewiſh Feaſt day as Pentecoſt, notwithſtanding it had a ſignificatiue nature, and notwithſtanding that Paul expreſſely forbad it Col. 2.16.17. why may we not by like reaſon retaine p. 149the Jewiſh 7^th day Sabbath, though it had beene ſignificatiue, and though Paul in that reſpect had forbad it Col. 2.16.17. if vve yeeld not this, our owne practiſe in ſtill keeping Pentecoſt day will condemne vsus: Moreouer, you know all difference of dayes vvas taken away, Rom. 14.5. and Gal. 4.10. namly, as ſhadowes of Chriſt, or as Heatheniſhe ſuperſtition; Neuertheleſſe to this day vve obſerue difference of dayes in other reſpects; in a morall regard, for we keepe faſt dayes ſolemnely; and vve keepe the Lords day eueryevery Sunday, ſo as our owne practiſe telleth vsus a day aboliſh in ſome one regard is not forth with therfore aboliſht in all reſpects abſolutly, by thoſe textes vvhichwhich ſpeake againſt them.

4. Dauid, a ſigne, ſhadowe, or type of Chriſt to come Pſ. 2. Pſ. 118.22.24. he had a relatiue or ſignificatiue nature as he vvas a King, ſo as his Kingly office vvas a type of Chriſts Kingly office; vvhy yet vvhen Chriſt the body came, all Kingly offices did not ceaſe, for we retaine them to this day: The High Prieſt, he was a type of Chriſt, now that very High Prieſt who liued before and after, and at Chriſts paſſion, ſo ſoone as Chriſt had finiſht all vponupon the croſſe, that High Prieſt loſt his typicall nature, he was no longer High Prieſt or type of Chriſt, yet he ceaſed not to be a man ſtill, or a Seruant of God and the like.

p. 1505. Circumciſion it was a ſigne Geneſ. 17.11, Rom. 4.11. now thoſe infants that were borne, and circumciſed a little before Chriſts paſſion, the cuting of their foreſkine vvas a ſigne of Chriſt to come, vntill Chriſt had ſuffred vponupon the croſſe, and no ſooner had Chriſt ſuffred but their circumciſion ceaſed to be any ſigne of Chriſt to come, and yet for all that their circumciſion ceaſed not then alſo, for they remained euer after with the foreſkine cut of: yea, and it is not to be paſſed by vvithout obſeruation, that though there was a meanes by the arte of chirurgry to draw on the foreſkine againe, and ſo to nullify and vncircumciſe themſelues, yet Paul vvould not hauehave them take away their circumciſion, ſee 1. Cor. 7.18. if then it had beene neceſſary that at Chriſts paſſion, all things that had formerly bene made ſignes, ſhould then hauehave bene aboliſhed amongſt chriſtians, vvhy then vvould not Paul hauehave giuen way to theſe chriſtians newly called, to hauehave gathered their vncircumciſion, or vndone their circumciſion, and taken away the ſcarre? ſo you ſee the inciſion or ſcarre might and and did remaine, though the ſigne annexed to it vvas aboliſhed: By all vvhichwhich examples it is more then manifeſt that though they could proue the Sabbath day a ſigne, or a ſhadowe, yet it can not follow that therfore it muſt be vtterly and abſolutly aboliſht in all reſpects, by thoſe two p. 151textes Col. 2.16.17. Exod. 31.13. nor vvill it follow neceſſarily, that ought in a Sabbath is aboliſht, ſaue its typicalneſſe and ſignificatiue nature only.

Thus you ſee all their textes fully as I truſt anſwered, ſo as they hauehave no ground in Gods Booke for aboliſhing of Gods Sabbath; and to conclude, I can but wonder vvhat ſhould ſett wiſe and religiouſe men on worke, thus to ſharpen their vvittes againſt the Lords Sabbath, it being a branch of that inviolable & eternall Law of God, wrote in Tables of ſtone, to notify its perpetuity: they hauing no plaine and direct Text of Scripture neceſſarily aboliſhing it, it can be nothing then, but their bare vvilles and pleaſures to hauehave it aboliſht, and this grownded vponupon the cuſtome of the church, becauſe ſhee hath aboliſht it, now a long tyme.

They hauehave not thus done vvith it though for they hauehave alſo certain reaſons & argumēts more, vvhichwhich vve novv come to my minde againſt the tyme and day; where by they would proue the Sabbath day aboliſht.

The firſt is taken from Chriſt himſelfe: Say ſome men, vvhy Chriſt himſelfe aboliſhed the Sabbath day, and that euen in his owne tyme whilſt he vvas vponupon the earth, for, He gaue leaue to vvork vponupon the Sabbath; as to leade beaſtes p. 152to water, to toile about lifting a beaſt out of a ditche; yea himſelfe made clay on the Sabbath, to open the eyes of the blinde man, in ſo much as the Phariſes taxed him for a breaker of the Sabbath, and for a godleſſe man for it, ſaying, This man is not of God, becauſe he keepeth not the Sabbath day Ioh. 9.16.14.

Hereto I anſwer 1. what matters it, what thoſe ſuperſtitious Phariſes cenſured of Chriſt, vvho were the blind leaders of the blinde, and of enuy could not endure Chriſt ſhould doe any thing but they would carpe and cauill at it if poſſiblie they could: though here they would not endure Chriſt ſo much as to cure a blinde man on the Sabbath, yet it appeareth it was but enuy & but ſuperſtition in them, for Chriſt approued his owne facte of healing on the Sabbath day, by a common practiſe among the Jewes themſelues at that day, of the like ſaying: what man among you, if his ſheepe fall on the Sabbath, into a pitt, doth not take it, and lift it out? Mat. 12.10.11. yea it appeareth the Phariſes and Doctoures of the Law, euen vnderunder the Law, allowed other men (though not Chriſt, nor his Diſciples) to doe works of charity and neceſſity on the Sabbath, as to lift a ſheep out of the ditch: and for the Prieſt to kill the Sacrifices on the Sabbath, Matt. 12.5.11. I anſwere 2. let not vsus attend to the Scribes and Phariſes cenſures, but hearken we to Chriſt p. 153the true expounder & obſeruer of the Law, now he allowed workes of mercy and workes of neceſſity to be done on the Sabbath day, as thoſe inſtances afore mentioned doe proue: but for any to ſuppoſe Chriſt meante hereby to aboliſh the Sabbath, is a ſimple conceipte, for Chriſt ſaith of the Morall Law, vvhereof the Sabbath day is a branch, He came not to deſtroy the Law but to fulfill it, Mat. 5.17. But ſuppoſe the Sabbath had beene a branch of the ceremoniall Law, why yet tis abſurde to think that Chriſt would abrogate any thing of it ſo long as he liued, for the ceremoniall Law was equally in force with the Morall Law vntill Chriſts death: So then theſe things did not argue any abolition of the Sabbath day then, but rather giues vsus to vnderſtand how we Chriſtians are to keepe the Lords Sabbath to the worlds end, not in any ſuperſtitious ſtrictnes as if vve might not on that day doe works of mercy and neceſſity, but the contrary; for if Chriſt allowed it to the Jewes, euen before his death whilſt no man doubtes but all Lawes morall & ceremoniall were in force; why ſhould vve thinke but that he allowed as much libertie to Chriſtians to the vvorlds end?

2. A 2^d reaſon, is fetcht from that phraſe Mat. 12.8. The Sonne of man is Lord of the Sabbath day: whence it is thought, that ſince Chriſt is p. 154called the Lord of the Sabbath: that therefore Chriſt may change the Sabbath day: & ſecondly, that Chriſt as Lord of the day, did aboliſh the day.

I anſwere firſt to the former; Say I ſhould graunt that Chriſt the Lord of the Sabbath may or might change the Sabbath, whats that to our queſtion? vve diſpute not of what Chriſt may or might doe, but what Chriſt did doe? I anſwere to the latter; that neither the context, nor yet the phraſe, of Chriſt being Lord of the Sabbath; will afforde any ſuch matter: ſee the abſurdety of ſuch collections from a like phraſe, Rom. 14.9. Chriſt died, and roſe againe, that he might be Lord both of the deade and of the liuing: can any hence collect, that becauſe Chriſt is called Lord of the liuing? that therfore Chriſt might or did aboliſh or deſtroy the liuing? 2. to ſuppoſe Chriſt here did aboliſh the Sabbath day as a ceremony, is altogether growndleſſe, for both at this tyme when Chriſt ſpake theſe vvordes, all ceremonies vvere in full force; and alſo ſo they remained euer after, vntill the day of his death and paſſion; for not vntill then was the handwriting of ordinances taken out of the vvay Col. 2.14. nor vntill his death, did Chriſt euer aboliſh any ordinance formerly in vſe in the Iewiſh church: To conclude, no more can be gathered out of this text Mat, 12.8. but the right vſe of the Sabbath; p. 155Chriſt freeing it from the ſuperſtitions of the Phariſes, who held that no worke might be done in no caſe vponupon the Sabbath day, but Chriſt ſhewed that in a caſe of neceſſity his Diſciples might plucke and rubb a fewe eares of corne, to ſatiſfie preſent hunger; & Chriſt did beare them out in it, allowing a diſpenſation in ſuch a eaſe; for, as he vvas Lord of all the commandements, as touching his Godhead; ſo of the Sabbath day alſo, and therfore he might diſpenſe vvith that law, and that day; or rather, he might therfore be betruſted to hauehave giuen the true ſenſe and expoſition of the commandement, and to hauehave ſhowne them the right vſe of a Sabbath day: as if he had thus ſaid, ſince I am Lord of the Sabbath, doe not you Phariſies think that I vvill giuegive way no not to my Diſciples to doe any vnlawfull facte on this day, nor ſuffer them to prophane this ſacred tyme, for it is myne, I am Lord of it, if therfore their plucking eares of corne had bene blame worthy, you ſhould hauehave found me ſo farre from defending them, as I vvould hauehave bene the firſt that would hauehave rebuked them for it; but herein I ſee they hauehave done no more then I doe allowe them to doe: the Lord of a corne field vvill allow his ſeruants, to make a footpath through his corne, in caſe of a neceſſity.

3. A 3^d reaſon is, becauſe all things are become p. 156new, now in the Kingdome of Chriſt 2. Cor. 5.17. and therfore the ould Sabbath is aboliſhed, ſay they.

Where vntounto I anſwere 1. if all things be become new, now in Chriſts Kingdome, I pray ſhew me then vvhere you hauehave a new commandement for the 8^th day, or firſt day of the weeke, or for the Lords day, in ſteade of the ould 4^th commandement for the 7^th day, or Sabbath day: and where the Iſraelites vvere commanded in the firſt comm: to ſerue the true God only; ſhew me vvhere now we are commanded to ſerue any new God. 2. If all things be now become new, vvhy then did S. Iohn ſay, that he vvrote not a new commandement to the elect Lady, but that vvhichwhich they had from the begining, 2. Ioh. 5. to conclude, the Text 2. Corin. 5.17. is ignorantly vvreſted to a ſenſe it neuer meante; fot the Apoſtle treates not of new lawes and ordinances, but of new obedience, and of regeneration; that a man in Chriſt is not an ould man, but a new man in converſation: therfore ſaith the Apoſtle, if any be in Chriſt, he is a new creature &c.

4. A 4^th reaſon is to this effect: That vvhichwhich is changed is aboliſhed; but the 7^th day Sabbath is changed, vvherfore the 4^th day Sabbath is aboliſhed: That the 7^th day Sabbath is changed: they proue by the ſtanding ſtill of the Sunne in p. 157Joſ huahs tyme, Ioſh. 10.13. vvhere tis ſaid, the Sunne abode in the midſt of Heauen, and vvent not downe of a vvhole day; whence they gather, that here tyme vvas changed, and if tyme vvas changed, then ſo vvas the 7^th day changed which vvas a parte of tyme.

I anſwere 1. A man may judge of the ſoundneſſe of this argument, by a like abſurdety that vvill by as good reaſon be thence concluded, for if the ſtanding ſtill of the Sunne in Ioſhuahs tyme, could make, that tyme vvas changed and the Sabbath day, then the ſame ſtanding ſtill of the Sunne then did make that tyme vvas changed, and the Sabbath day too, euen then at that preſent in Ioſhuas tyme, when the Sunne ſtood ſtill; and if then changed, ſo then aboliſhed; and ſo there was no Sabbath in Gods church neuer after Ioſhuas dayes: yea, if tymes formerly appointed in the Law vvere now changed by ſtanding ſtill of the Sunne, how did the Iewes euer after to know vvhichwhich was the 14^th day of the month for the Paſſeouer? and the 50^th day for Pentecoſte?

I anſwere 2. that it doth not followe that the Sunne ſtanding ſtill, tyme is changed; but admit it were, and that the tyme being changed, the 7^th day Sabbath is changed, as a parte of tyme, yet is it not changed in ſuch reſpect as God commanded it, and as I vrge it: Note therfore a day p. 158may be conſidered as a certaine duration and ſpace of tyme, conſiſting of ſo many howres: or, and that more properlie for the Light, as Geneſ. 1.5. God called the Light, Day: Now be it the 7^th day Sabbath vvas changed, conſidered as a parte of tyme, yet was it not changed by the ſtanding ſtill of the Sunne, as a Light; for though ſtanding ſtill of the Sunne made that day a longer day (as in Summer you hauehave a longer day then in Winter) yet not an other day: there was no change of light or day: & for all the ſtanding ſtill of the Sunne, made one day a longer day, yet did it not make the 3^d day or the 7^th day and light, to be the 4^th day or the 8^th day & light: nor did it tranſplace the 7^th day or light, ſo out of its order, as that no man could euer after know vvhichwhich vvas the 6^th, vvhichwhich was the 7^th, or which vvas the 8^th day or light that the Sunne made to the world. Now this is the day which God commandeth in 4^th Comm: and vvhichwhich I vrge here, namly the tyme of Light; as for a day in reſpect of ſo many howres, God in vviſedome hath ſaid nothing of that, leaſt his 4^th Comm: ſhould not be generall and extend to all nations vvho eueryevery one hauehave their day & light, but no certain number of howres, ſuch a day is euer, and in all countries variable, ſome vvhere conſiſting of more, ſome vvhere of fewer howres.

p. 1595. A 5^th reaſon, may fetch its ground from my anſwere to the reaſon laſt aboue, vvhere by Day I vnderſtood only the tyme of Light, and not a certaine ſpace and duration of howres, vvhence they may and commonly doe reaſon againſt the Iewes Sabbath by an abſurdety thus; if all nations be bounde to the Jewes Sabbath day (vvhichwhich you ſay is all the tyme of light) then in ſome partes of the vvorld vvhere is halfe a yeere light together, there they muſt keep half a yeere Sabbath, & then alſo more inconvenience, for that they are to hauehave a Sabbath, but once in the ſpace of 3. yeeres and an halfe, that is eueryevery 7^th halfe yeere, now in ſo long ſpace for people to vvant Gods ordinance of preaching, many a ſoule may periſh for vvant of Gods Word in the meane tyme.

I anſwere 1. to this latter inconvenience, what though they had no Sabbath for 3. yeeres and an halfe together, no ſoule needes periſh for lacke of Gods Word preacht, for they may hauehave ſermons in meane ſpace as many as they pleaſe; ſince ther is a Comm: To preach the vvord in ſeaſon and out of ſeaſon, at all tymes and occaſions: I anſwere 2. to the former abſurdety, of keeping a Sabbath halfe a yeere together; I maruaile vvhy it ſhould be thought more abſurde for thoſe nations to keepe one in 3. yeeres and an halfe, half a yeere for a Sabbath, then it vvas for the Iewes p. 160once in 7. yeeres (by Gods expreſſe commandement) to keepe an vvhole yeere for a Sabbath, Leuit. 25.4. I anſwer 3. ſuppoſe it vvere abſurd for thoſe nations to keepe halfe a yeere for a Sabbath, and the Church of God did judge it ſo, & that preſent neceſſity did call for a more frequent Sabbath, as once in 7. twenty fowre howres, in ſuch a caſe of neceſſity, it being foud there is a true neceſſity vponupon ſound judgement, and vponupon vveightie conſultation and deliberation, then I doubt not but God vvould diſpenſe; and we hauehave ſome examples to countenance the matter, as Circumciſion though commanded, yet omitted during the tyme of Iſralites trauailing through the vvilderneſſe, Ioſh. 5.5. and the Paſſeouer commanded to be eaten on the 14^th day of the firſt Month, yet in caſe of neceſſity, a man being on a farre iourney he might eate it on the 14^th day of the ſecond Month, Numb. 9.1.3.10.11. thus in caſes of vrgent neceſſity, God hath diſpenſed, and I doubt not but in like caſes God vvould doe the like againe. But vvhats this to vsus in our countries vvhere vve hauehave intercourſe of day and night much vvhat as had the Iewes? ſay it vvere abſurd or impoſſible to thes countries, ſo as the 4^th Com: cannot properly be extended to thoſe ſo, but they muſt hauehave a diſpenſation touching the vvord day, to take it in an improper ſenſe, would this free vsus from obedience p. 161to the 4^th Com: in its proper ſenſe, vvho hauehave no neede at all to departe from it, or to ſeeke for any diſpenſation? vvhat though Dauid in his hunger and neceſſity did eate the ſhewbreade, Mat. 12.3. vvas it therfore lawfull for all Iſraelites vponupon that to eate the ſhewbreade, who vvere not in like need or hunger? and vvhat though the 5^th Com: of honour thy Father, doth not binde a King whoſe parents be dead, doth it not therfore binde a ſubiect vvhoſe Father is ſtill liuing? and ſo vvhat if 4^th Comm: did not binde that country, vvhere they hauehave not night a day ſo ſucceſſiuely and commodiouſly in ſhort tyme following eache other, to a day light; doth it not therfore binde vsus, vvho hauehave not the like caſe?

And thus you hauehave ſeene their artificiall reaſons, againſt the tyme and day of the Sabbath anſwered, now it remaineth that vve anſwere to their inartificiall reaſons and teſtimonies; the vvhichwhich are fetched from the Primitiue Churchs.

1. The firſt Teſtimony and Authority they produce againſt the 7^th day Sabbath, is that of Ignatius in his Epiſtle to the Magneſianes, ſaith he: Let not vsus keepe Sabbath, in a Jewiſh ſorte, reioycing in idleneſſe, for who ſo doth not work, let not him eate, as ſaith the Scripture: vvhere Ignatius vvould hauehave them not Sabbatize, but p. 162work rather on that day.

I anſwere, let the vvords be well weighed, and they make nothing at all againſt the Sabbath; to this end note, a little before he had dehorted the Magneſians that they would not ſuffer themſelues to be ſeduced or deceiued with other doctrines, nor with fables, nor vvith genealogies, nor vvith Jewiſh ſmoke: thus in generall: next, he deſcends to particulares, & firſt he inueighes againſt the Iudiciall Law, and Circumciſion &c. and this done, next he bringes in the vvords citod aboue, Let not vsus keepe Sabbath &c. now it is to be noted vntounto vvhichwhich of thoſe generalles aboue ſaid, from which Ignatius dehorted the Magneſians, theſe words hauehave relation: for my part I muſt thinke, they hauehave reference to thoſe words (fables, and Iewiſh ſmoke:) as if he had ioyned them thus; Suffer not your ſelues to be ſeduced with fables, nor Iewiſh ſmoke, or vanity, but cleaue vntounto Chriſt, and let not vsus keepe Sabbath as doe the Iewes &c. thus he counted their Sabbatizing, ſuch as it was there, no cleaning to Chriſt, but a vaine Iudiciall vanity: now that this relation muſt ſtand thus I proue. 1. Becauſe he ſpake of other doctrines, and of fables: now its fiteſt to referre Circumciſion to Doctrines, becauſe it vvas a Drctrine once; and to referre thoſe things he dehortes from on the Sabbath, as idleneſſe, and daunceinges, to the words p. 163fables, and Iewiſh ſmoke. 2. Becauſe he dehorted them from obſeruance of the Iudaicall Law; now thoſe fables & Iewiſh vanities of idleneſſe and daunceinges on the Sabbath, were neuer any ceremoniall Law, and therfore cannot be referred to that, foreſpoken of the Law. Now if Ignatius in this paſſage did not dehorte from any thing vvritten in the Law, touching the Sabbath, but from other fables and traditions of their owne, then Ignatius did not diſſwade from keeping the Sabbath, as it is commanded in the Law of 4^th Com: but from keeping of it according to their fabulouſe and vaine manner: let theſe two things therfore be noted: 1. that Ignatius did dehorte from things neuer commanded the Iewes in the Morall Law: 2. That the things he did diſſwade from they vvere fabulouſe and vaine things: as from eating meates dreſſed the day before; and from drinking lukewarme drinkes, (what he meanes by lukewarme drinkes foreign I cannot imagine, I neuer reade of any ſuch drinkes forbiden in the Law) and from reioycing in dauncinges, and vnciuill howtings or clapping of hands in the Sabbath day, and other like he diſſwades from; vvhichwhich things are meerely Iewiſh fables and neuer found in Gods Law, vvherfore I conclude, that Ignatius did not forbidd an holy keeping of the Sabbath day, ſuch as ſtood with the Law of God, but he p. 164only forbad that carnall and ſuperſtitious keeping of it fore mentioned, ſuch as vvas neuer commanded by any law. That this is ſo, yet more plainly appeares, in that 1. in this very place and text, He doth exhorte the Magneſians to keepe the Sabbath Spiritually, in meditation of Gods Law, and in admiration of the workes of God. 2. In that Iguatius doth not diſſwade from keeping the Sabbath ſimply, but after a ſorte and in ſome manner: He ſaith not, Let not vsus keep Sabbath: but thus, Let not vsus keepe Sabbath, foreign after a Iewiſh ſorte, and faſhion, as reioycing in idleneſſe foreign: ſo you ſee it is a carnall ſenſuall reſt from labours, that this good man inuaigheth againſt.

Only one thing in his diſſwaſion vvould be cleered, vvhichwhich is that he addeth theſe words; Who ſo doth not labour, let not him eate &c. theſe vvords are not to be taken ſimply, as if he would they ſhould work in their ordenary callings on the Sabbath day, for ſo we make him contrary to himſelfe, who exhorted them to keep the Sabbath day Spiritually, by meditation of Gods Law, and Gods vvorkes: now to work, and to reſt from vvorke (which the word Sabbatizing ſignifieth) are contraries: beſides, how can a man ſo meditate on Gods Law, and the vvorks of God, as in a Sabbath one ſhould, whilſt the boby is in vnquiet labour? yea, in many callings, p. 165mens workes are ſuch as they cannot at all both doe their works, and alſo meditate Gods Law, as in the trades of grocers, and other retailing ſhopkeepers who ſell by little parcelles, and are euer in bargayning: ſo ſcriueners who are euer wrighting; and the like trades which occupie the minde; ſpecially if they kept market on Sabbath day as we doe, how could their mindes in the market be occupied about Gods Lawes? and it is to be noted Ignatius did not oppoſe Spirituall Sabbatizing, or Reſting to Sabbatizing or Reſting ſimply, but thus he oppoſed Spirituall Sabbatizing, to Judiciall Sabbatizing fabulouſly, foreign: vvherfore to ſalue all ſeming contradiction a fit ſenſe may be giuē of the words, taking them to be comparatiuely ſpoken, as that they ſhould rather work on the Sabbath in an honeſt calling then ſo fabulouſly, carnally, and irreligiouſly, to ſpend the Sabbath in daunceing, and vnciuile ſhowting, and the like; and here it ſeemes to me he alludeth to the like manner of ſpeech in Iſa. 1.13. I cannot ſuffer (ſaith the Lord) your new Moones, nor Sabbathes, my ſoule hateth your appointed Feaſtes &c. now here God did not ſimply forbid Sabbaths, but that irreligiouſe, prophane, judiciall keeping of Sabbaths. Thus you ſee Ignatius his vvordes, makes nothing againſt the Sabbath, being vvell conſidered of, but rather page missing p. 168neſſe of the aboliſhing of this Sabbath, becauſe theſe had their hands in it, then I ſhould hauehave done, if I neuer had heard that they had any hand in it.

Thus you ſee, neither their textes alleaged out of Scripture, nor yet their reaſons, nor their teſtimonies can proue the Reſt in the Lords Sabbath day, to be partly ceremoniall; nor yet the tyme and 7^th day to be abrogated: So then in the laſt place I addreſſe my ſelfe to giuegive ſome poſſitiue reaſons to ſhew that the 7^th day Sabbath is ſtill in force, euen to this day, and ſo conſequently muſt be to the worlds end.