The Way to the Tree of Life, Part 2 · Section 1
SECT. I. That the Law of the Sabbath in the fourth Commandement, is Morall, and therefore perpetuall.
FOr the evidencing of this truth, The firſt Argument, it was given to the whole nature of man in Adam.our firſt Argument ſhall be drawn from the Inſtitution of this day of holy Reſt, immediately upon mans creation, recorded Gen. 2.3. which upon the examining thereof, will appeare ſo ſtrong and cleare in it ſelfe, that it might be ſufficient to convince any man, that is not foreſtalled before-hand by too much prejudice. And it may be thus framed. What Law ſoever was given to our firſt Parents in the beginning without relation to their preſent ſtate bindes all mankind to the worlds end. But ſuch was this Law of the Sabbath.
It is true that there happened upon the fall of our firſt Parents, a change in the Law, Two changes of the Law given to Adam, occaſioned by his fall.which was given them by God in the beginning. The Firſt change happened to the whole Law, in reſpect of the conditions, and in part of the uſe of it. For whereas of man in the ſtate of innocency and perfection, full and perfect obedience to the whole Law was required, 1. In reſpect of the whole Law, perfect obedience thereunto being then poſſible,to be performed by him in his own Perſon, whereunto he was ſufficiently enabled by the perfection of his nature, in which he was created, but by the fall of Adam that ability was ſo farre weakned, that ſuch obedience was made impoſſible to him, or any of his poſterity after him: But by his fall made now impoſſible, the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt is accepted for us.now in ſtead of our perſonall obedience, the Righteouſneſſe of Chriſt, who in our nature fulfilled the whole Law, is imputed to us for our juſtification, and our obedience is required, only as a fruit of that faith, by which we are juſtified. This makes ſo great a change in the Covenants made betweene God and man, before, and ſince the Fall, that they are uſually eſteemed to be two diverſe Covenants, the former before the Fall we call the Covenant of workes, and this latter, ſince the Fall, we tearme the Covenant of Grace.
The Second change which happened in the Law, 2. In reſpect of ſome Laws given Adam in reſpect of his condition rather then of his nature.by occaſion of Adams fall, was in reſpect of ſome duties commanded in the Law, the Sacramentall tree of life, and the whole uſe thereof, were of neceſſity taken away, becauſe the promiſe whereof that tree was the Seale was voide, by Adams breach of the Covenant, to which it was annexed. And the charge of keeping, and dreſſing Paradiſe, was by like neceſſity utterly voide, when man for his rebellion was caſt out of that Garden. Other commandements, as thoſe concerning mans labour, and womens ſubjection to their huſbands, were made ſtraighter then they were before, but the ſubſtance of theſe Laws remained ſtill. And theſe changes happened only in ſuch particulars, as reſpected rather the ſtate of mans innocency in which he then ſtood, then the nature of man in generall; and are therefore excepted in the Major propoſition, wherein is aſſerted no more but that theſe laws are perpetuall, which were given to Adam as a man, not as to perfect man.
This propoſition thus underſtood is founded upon this ground of truth, God made his Covenant with Adam in reſpect to his nature, not to his perſon.that God eſtabliſhed his Covenant with Adam principally in reſpect of his nature, and not ſo much in reſpect of his perſon; ſo that by conſequent it muſt follow, that all who are partakers of that nature are bound by that Covenant. Of this faith we have an evident demonſtration, in the puniſhment which light upon the whole nature of man for Adams tranſgreſſion, which of neceſſity ſuppoſeth the ſinne of mans whole nature, in Adams perſon, in whom it was then included: ſeeing otherwiſe we know the ſonne ſhall not beare the iniquity of the father, Ezek. 18.20. So that the argument holds ſtrongly and convincingly in this manner. As appeares becauſe the nature of man becomes guilty of the breach of that Covenant.If Adams breach of Covenant made between God and him, brought guilt upon all his poſterity, that is, upon the whole nature of man, then it muſt needs follow that the Covenant obliged the whole nature of man, it is utterly impoſſible that one ſhould become a guilty perſon by breach of a Covenant to which he was never bound. But the puniſhment inflicted upon the whole nature of man, makes it evident that the whole nature of man was made guilty by Adams tranſgreſſion; wherefore the whole nature of man was bound in the Covenant which God made with Adam, and conſequently is obliged by the Law which was given in that Covenant.
Unto this argument, Secondly, Chriſt urgeth the Law of mariage given in Paradiſe as then in force:may be added another proofe taken from our Saviour Chriſts reaſoning with the Scribes and Phariſees, Mat. 19.48. about their queſtion concerning divorce, which they pretended to be permitted by Moſes his Law, Deut. 24.1, 2. For in diſputing with them our Saviour grounds his argument againſt the divorce pretended to be permitted by the Law of Moſes, becauſe it croſſed that Law given unto Adam. So that all the ſtrength of our Saviours argument againſt their divorce muſt reſt upon this Maxime. Implying that the Law given in the beginning is unalterable.That which the Law given to Adam in the beginning did not allow, that ought not to be allowed: which is all one as if he had ſaid, that the Law given to Adam from the beginning is unalterable, and therefore remaines ſtill in full force, ſo that all men to the worlds end are bound to yeeld obedience thereunto.
Some perhaps may object, Objection. 6 that this anſwer of our Saviour Chriſt unto the Phariſees is applied by him to that particular caſe alone, which was then propoſed, but extends not farther, and therefore determines no more but that the law of marriage, which was given to Adam in the beginning, ſtands ſtill in force, but reſolves nothing concerning the Obligation of the reſt of the Laws which were given to Adam at the ſame time, whether they be of force ſtill or no. Anſwer. To which exception two things may be anſwered: Firſt, we ſay that ſeeing our Saviour reſolves that the divorce ſuppoſed to be permitted by the law of Moſes is therefore not to be allowed, becauſe it was contrary to the law of marriage given by God to Adam in the beginning, then by all the rules of Logick and reaſon, it muſt neceſſarily follow, that whatſoever is contrary to any Law eſtabliſhed in the beginning muſt needs be unlawfull, becauſe the reaſon of diſallowing that kind of divorce, is not drawn frō any thing that is peculiar to the Law of marriage, but from that which is cōmon to all the reſt of the Laws which were given at the ſame time, as well as to that particular, namely, that the Law given by God from the beginning did not permit it.
Secondly, if our Saviours anſwer to the Phariſees, wherein he condemnes the divorce pretended to be permitted by the law of Moſes, be reſtrained to Marriage only, and extend not to the reſt of the Lawes given at the ſame time, it leaves unto the Phariſees a faire ground of exception againſt ſuch a reſolution of the queſtion propoſed. For they might eaſily have replied that this law was not in force any more then the reſt of the Laws given at the ſame time to our firſt Parents: now it is abſurd to imagine that our Saviour who knew their cavilling humours by experience, would leave them that ſtarting hole. Wherefore when he condemnes the divorce pretended to be permitted by Moſes, for that only reaſon becauſe it was contrary to the Law given to Adam in the beginning, he muſt neceſſarily inferre that the Laws which were then given are ſtill in force, both unto us, and unto the end of the world.
The major propoſition of that ſyllogiſme that concludes the morality and perpetuity of the Sabbath (namely, that all laws given to Adam, which had reſpect to his nature, and not to his preſent condition, are morall and perpetuall) being thus fully cleared and confirmed, there remains only the minor or ſecond propoſition to be made good, which conſiſts of two branches: Now the law of the Sabbath was given from the beginning.The firſt that this law of the Sabbath was given to Adam in Paradiſe. The ſecond that it was given to him in reſpect of his nature, and not of his perſon; that is, to him as a man, not as an innocent or perfect man. Of theſe two branches, the oppoſers of the morality of the Sabbath, meddle not with the latter, but oppoſe only the former: affirming that the inſtitution of the Sabbath by God was not from the beginning. The reaſons of which oppoſition we ſhall examine after we have given our reaſons for the proving of the contrary; namely, that the Sabbath was inſtituted by God from the beginning.
The diſpute concerning the day in which Adam fell, whether it was on the ſixth day on which he was created or on the next day; (which ſeems more probable if all things be duly weighed) as alſo of the time when the Sabbath day was firſt inſtituted, whether it was before Adams fall, while he was yet in Paradiſe; or after his fall, when he was driven out of Paradiſe; is not of any great moment to the point which we have in hand; (although ſeeing in the ſeries of the hiſtory written by Moſes, we find the giving of this, and diverſe other laws, recorded before Adams fall, we have reaſon to think all things to have been done in the ſame order in which they are related; unleſſe we had better arguments then meer ſurmiſes to induce us to judge otherwiſe) it is enough to our preſent purpoſe to have that acknowledged, which no man denies, that the law was given, while the whole nature of mankind was in our firſt Parents, upon that ground therefore ſuppoſed and granted by all, we thus argue.
That which Moſes relates God to have done, Proved by the ſeries of the hiſtory, Gen. 2.that he did in the manner and order that he relates: but Moſes relates that God inſtituted the Sabbath from the beginning, as well as marriage, and ſome other Laws: therefore it was ſo and then done. The words of Moſes his relation of the Inſtitution of that day of reſt, Gen. 2.3. are theſe. And God bleſſed the ſeventh day and ſanctified it. Now that theſe words Bleſſed, and Sanctified, in the moſt proper and ordinary conſtruction ſignifie inſtituted and annexed a bleſſing to the obſervation of it, I conceive no man will denie. Wherefore ſeeing this is the moſt uſuall and proper ſignification of theſe words, and ſeeing no incongruity with other clauſes and expreſſions in the letter of that text, no contradiction to any other place of Scripture, nor repugnancy to any principle of faith, enforce us to ſeeke out any other more unuſuall ſignification of them, we have ſufficient warrant to conſtrue, and interpret them according to their uſuall, literall, and proper ſenſe in this place.
Now that Bleſſing and Sanctifying the Sabbath was from the beginning (beſides the ſeries of the hiſtory, And by the tearmes bleſſed and ſanctified,which is a ſtronger & more convincing argument to prove that it was ſo, then any that is, or can be alleadged, to prove the contrary) may be evineed and farther made good by theſe reaſons. Firſt, we find the Lord himſelf in the fourth Commandment affirming that he had bleſſed and ſanctified the Sabbath day (for ſo all the Interpreters render theſe words according to the moſt proper ſignification of them in the originall tongue) as remembring and referring unto an act done before the giving of the Law. Repeated in the fourth Commandement, and pointing at an act paſt.Now we find in no place of Scripture, any mention of the Lords bleſſing, & ſanctifying the Sabbath day, before the publiſhing of the Decalogue upon Mount Sinai, but in this only, Gen. 2.3. Neither doe thoſe that deny the Morality of the Sabbath, mention or ſuppoſe any time, precedent to the delivery of the Law by Moſes, wherein God bleſſed and ſanctified the Sabbath day, neither if any ſuch thing had been done by God, would the Scripture have omitted the recording of it, being a matter of ſo great importance; neither laſtly, 3. Neither was any time ſo fit for giving this Law of the Sabbath as in the beginning:was there any time ſo fit for the giving of this Law, as when the ground of the Inſtitution of this holy Reſt, which was Gods manifeſting of the perfecting of the worlds creation by his reſting on that day, was new and freſh in memory.
This reaſon taken from the fitneſſe of the time for the enacting and publiſhing of this Law, carries with it the greater weight, becauſe we know how carefull God is to make every thing beautifull in its time, Eccl. 3.11. and conſequently, we have no reaſon to imagine, that God would omit the fitteſt time for the giving of this Law, and defer it to a time leſſe ſeaſonable: As appeares in inſtituting other Feaſts.eſpecially ſeing we ſee that in the Inſtitution of the Feaſts of leſſe imporportance, as Eaſter, and Pentecoſt, of leſſe frequent obſervation, and to laſt but for a time, he tooke care to ordaine them, when the mercies were yet freſh and new, for the preſerving of the memory whereof they were appointed. The ſame courſe the Church tooke afterwards, in the ordaining of the Feaſt of Purim, wherein both the occaſion and Inſtitution of the Feaſt went both together. Nay even the Heathen themſelves by the very light of nature were directed to follow the ſame rule, as all men know.
But the ſtrongeſt and cleareſt argument to prove the Inſtitution of the Sabbath by God from the beginning, is the teſtimony of the Apoſtle, The Apoſtle affirmes it, Heb. 4.3, 4.Heb. 4.3.4. in theſe words. Although the works were finiſhed from the foundation of the world, for he ſpake in a certaine place (namely, Gen. 2.2.) of the ſeventh day on this wiſe. And God reſted the ſeventh day from all his workes. To ſhew the force of the argument, which is to be drawne out of this place, we muſt in this whole diſputation of the Apoſtle's, begun chap. 3.12. and ending, chap. 4.11. conſider what he chiefly aimes at, and intends to prove, which is to diſſwade men from unbeleefe; to which purpoſe he ſets before them the dangerous conſequents thereof, namely, that it excludes men out of heaven. To prove this he alleadgeth the teſtimony of the Prophet David, Pſal. 95.11. who threatens the people of his time to be ſhut out of Gods reſt, as their Fathers by hardening their hearts through unbeleefe were ſhut out of Canaan, (a Type of heaven) if they proved unbeleevers, and hardened their hearts thereby, as their fathers had done. If it ſhould be replied unto the Apoſtle, that David in that place alleadged out of the Pſal. meant not heaven by the reſt which he there mentions, the Apoſtle demonſtrates plainly that David in theſe words, which he relates, could not poſſibly by the name of Reſt, meane any thing elſe but the reſt of heaven.
The Apoſtle's argument by which he demonſtratively proves, that the Prophet in the words which he cites out of him, could meane no other reſt, but the reſt of heaven, is this in briefe. The reſt, which David mentions in that place, muſt needs be ſuch a reſt, as the men to whom he ſpeakes had not entred into; (for then it had beene a vaine thing, to threaten to ſhut them out of that, which they had already in poſſeſſion) but had a poſſibility to enter in it (or elſe it were a like folly to threaten that as a judgement upon them, to deprive them of that, which they ſhould never have any poſſibility to obtain.) But (ſaith the Apoſtle) there was no ſuch reſt to be entred into by them in Davids time, but only the reſt of heaven, therefore David in that place, cited by the Apoſtle, could meane no other reſt, but the reſt of heaven. To make good this argument he gives a ſufficient enumeration of all the kindes of reſts, which were poſſible to be meant by David, in the place alleadged, (which muſt all of them have this condition, that they might be entred into by men) which were three, the reſt of the Sabbath, the reſt of Canaan, and the reſt of heaven: into all which men had a poſſibility to enter. Now the reſt out of which they are threatned to be excluded, muſt be a reſt which they had not already entred into; But (ſaith our Apoſtle) into two of theſe Reſts men had entred before Davids time, into the reſt of the Sabbath, from the foundation of the world, in which God reſted, after he had perfected his workes, and into the reſt of Canaan, in the daies of Ioſhua; therefore David could not threaten them to be excluded out of either of thoſe reſts; there could therefore be no other but the reſt of heaven, out of which they might be excluded, becauſe there was no other, but the reſt of heaven, to be entred into in Davids time, from which yet they might, and were in danger to be ſhut out by unbeleefe.
That the Reſt of the Sabbath was entred into from the foundation of the world, the Apoſtle expreſly affirmes in theſe words, And God reſted the ſeventh day from all his works. But (ſay our oppoſits) the Apoſtle here affirmes no more, but that God entred into that Reſt of the ſeventh, or Sabbath day, but he ſpeakes not one word of mans entring into reſt on that day. Nowun to this we anſwer, that theſe particulars which follow cannot be denied. Firſt, that the concluſion, which the Apoſtle intends to prove, is, that unbeleefe, ſhuts a man out of heaven. Secondly, it is as manifeſt, that to prove this he produceth the Prophet Davids teſtimony, threatning men to be ſhut out of Gods Reſt, if they hardned their hearts by unbeleefe, as their Fathers had done. Thirdly, it is evident that the Apoſtle aſſumes, that David by this reſt could meane nothing elſe but heaven. Fourthly, it is as cleare, that he proves that the Pſalmiſt by the Reſt which he mentions in that place, could meane no other Reſt but heaven, becauſe there was no other reſt left, out of which men might be excluded, but heaven, in Davids dayes. In the Fift place, to make that good the Apoſtle proceeds by way of enumeration or induction, and reckons up three ſeverall ſorts of Reſts, which might be called Gods Reſts, namely, the Reſt of the Sabbath, the reſt of Canaan, and the Reſt of heaven. Sixtly, the Apoſtle farther aſſumes, that the reſt which David mentions, could not be the reſt of the Sabbath, nor the reſt of Canaan. Seventhly, it cannot be denied, but that he affirmes that the people had many yeares, ages before Davids time, entred into Canaan, under the conduct of Ioſhua. Every one of theſe particulars is ſo cleare in it ſelfe, that no man with any colour of reaſon can deny any of them. The queſtion is only, by what argument the Apoſtle proves, that by the Reſt mentioned by David, he could not meane the reſt of the Sabbath, for that only branch was left to be made good, to make up the full demonſtration of the concluſion, that the Apoſtle tooke on him to prove, that by that reſt, out of which David threatens them to be excluded by unbeleefe, the Pſalmiſt could not mean Canaan, all men will acknowledge that the Apoſtle reaſons thus. The Prophet David could not threaten them to be ſhut out by unbeleefe, from that reſt which they had in their own poſſeſſion: but of the reſt of Canaan they had been poſſeſſed long before even from the dayes of Ioſhua. Now it remaining upon the Apoſtle's hand to prove, that David by Gods reſt could not meane the Sabbath, he muſt of neceſſity take up the ſame argument, by which he had before proved, that he could not mean Canaan by Gods reſt, that is, becauſe they had entred into that reſt many yeares before. In like manner, if he will make good his argument, he muſt prove that David could not mean the reſt of the Sabbath, becauſe they had entred into that reſt long before. The oppoſites tell us, that the Apoſtles words can import no more, but that God entred into the reſt of the Sabbath, from the foundation of the world, but there is no mention made of mans entring into that reſt at that time. But how vain this exception is, we are now to ſhew.
If we underſtand theſe words Heb. 4.4. only of Gods entring into his reſt on the ſeventh day, (as the letter of the Text at the firſt view ſeemes to carry it) the Apoſtles argument, if it be brought into form, muſt be thus framed. That reſt which was entred into already, could not be the reſt which David meant, becauſe he ſpeaks of a reſt yet to come: But the reſt of the Sabbath was entred into long before Davids time, even by God himſelfe, from the foundation of the world; Therefore the reſt of the Sabbath could not be the reſt that David meant in that place. I grant indeed that the concluſion neceſſarily follows out of theſe premiſes. But I affirm withall, that the major propoſition is utterly falſe, and no way futes with the ſcope of the Apoſtle in this diſputation. For it is true, that notwithſtanding Gods entring into the reſt of the Sabbath, David could not mean that reſt in this place, becauſe it is poſſible, that men might not enter into that reſt, although God did, & it is only mens entring into that reſt, that makes it impoſſible to be meant by David here, who ſpeaks of excluding men from entring into that reſt which he there means, from which they could not be ſhut out, if they had entred already, and therefore, if they had entred into the reſt of the Sabbath before, David could not mean that reſt in that place. So then the oppoſition lies not between mens excluding, and Gods entring, both which might perhaps ſtand together; but between mans excluding and mans entring, upon which the whole weight of the diſputation lies, and that ſo evidently that it may be juſtly wondred, that any man that deſires to ſubmit to the truth, ſhould not acknowledge it. If therefore we frame the major propoſition ſo, that it may ſute with the Apoſtles ſcope, which beſt interprets the meaning, it muſt be compoſed in this form, or at leaſt to this purpoſe. That reſt into which the Jews had entred already, could not be the reſt out of which David threatens that they ſhould be excluded by unbeliefe. Whereunto if we adde this minor, or ſecond propoſition; But into the reſt of the Sabbath God had entred from the foundation of the world; there could follow no concluſion at all. But if we adde our minor propoſition, and ſo form our ſyllogiſme thus: That reſt, into which the Jews had entred from the beginning, cannot be the reſt, out of which thoſe that harden their hearts by unbeliefe, are threatned to be excluded: But into the reſt of the Sabbath men had entred from the beginning: Therefore, the reſt of the Sabbath could not be that reſt out of which they are threatned to be excluded, that harden their hearts through unbeliefe: This concluſion naturally and neceſſarily follows out of the premiſes, and fully ſutes with the whole courſe of the Apoſtles diſputation, and with the ſcope at which he aimes.
If there were no other Argument, but this which we have already produced, to prove thta the Apoſtle, although he names onelyonly Gods reſting on the Sabbath day, yet muſt neceſſarily imply mans reſting on that day as wel as Gods, and that mans entring into the reſt of the Sabbath, ſutes moſt fully with the Apoſtles ſcope, but Gods entring into that reſt makes nothing to his purpoſe, in this diſputation, unleſſe it be to ſhew the ground of mans reſt at the ſame time; it might ſufficiently ſatisfie any man that is willing to be guided by reaſon. Notwithſtanding as we have taken notice of the main drift, at which the Apoſtle aims in this diſputation, ſo it will not be amiſſe to conſider the grounds, which the Apoſtle laies, for the raiſing of his argument: To prove then, that David threatens unbelievers to be ſhut out of heaven, which he here calls by the name of Gods reſt, he laies this for his ground, that this name of Gods reſt can be applied onelyonly to three things, the Sabbath, Canaan, and Heaven. Now theſe three being all members under one generall head, and diſtinguiſhed one from another, muſt needs have ſomething common to them all, and ſomething proper and peculiar, wherein they differ. That which is common to them all, is firſt, that they are Gods reſts, that is, reſts which God ordains for, and beſtowes upon men. Secondly, that they are therefore reſts into which men may enter. The difference between theſe reſts is, that two of them were poſſeſſed by men already, and one of them was yet to come. Now the Prophet Davids words expreſly mention a reſt to come, and to conceive and affirm, that the Apoſtle building his argument upon this diſtinction, as it plainly appears he doth, ſhould impertinently intend to bring in Gods reſting in his own perſon, is to confound this diſtinction of reſts, which the Apoſtle lays for the ground of his Argument, and by conſequence his whole diſputation that is built thereupon.
To conclude, the Apoſtle not only laies downe a diſtinction of the ſeverall kinds of Gods reſts, in that diſpute, Heb. 4. but farther in applying it to his purpoſe inſiſts moſt ſtrongly upon the oppoſition between the words in Gen. 2. and the words of David, Pſal. 45. by which he makes it manifeſt, that David could not mean that reſt of the Sabbath, that Moſes ſpeaks of, Gen. 2. For Heb. 4.3. thus he reaſons: David ſpeaks of a reſt to come, but Moſes ſpeaks of a reſt paſt, therefore David cannot mean the reſt of the Sabbath of which Moſes ſpeaks, which was entred into ſo long before. And again, v. 5. he takes up the ſame oppoſition, in theſe words. And in this place (of David) again, If they ſhall enter: both in the 3. and 5. verſ. the Apoſtle inſiſts upon Davids expreſſions [If they ſhall enter] which he ſhews cannot refer to the reſt of the Sabbath which was entred into (as Moſes relates) long before. Now wherein ſtands this oppoſition between the relation of Moſes that [God reſted] the ſeventh day, & Davids intermination [they ſhall not enter?] there is no oppoſition between theſe two expreſſions, God hath entred, and, They ſhall not enter, but between theſe two, They have entred, and, They ſhall not enter, there is a manifeſt oppoſition; whereas therefore the Apoſtle preſſeth ſtrongly this oppoſition, ver. 3. & ver. 5. it muſt be granted, that though he expreſſeth only Gods reſting on the ſeventh day, yet he ſpecially intends mans reſting, which was grounded thereupon.
Some amongſt the oppoſites grant that the Apoſtle may in the 3. & 4. verſes of Heb. 4. though he mention Gods reſting too, as being inſtituted and grounded upon Gods reſting upon the ſame day. But this (they ſay) was intended only indirectly and by conſequence. Neither (ſay they) doth the Apoſtle limit Gods reſting, and mans reſting unto the ſame time, but mentions only Gods reſt, which was indeed from the foundation of the world, but not mans reſt, which began only from the delivering of the Law by Moſes. To this we anſwer, that it muſt needs be that mans reſting is principally and directly intended in that place by the Apoſtle, although it be not expreſly mentioned, & that Gods reſting is only named as the ground of the inſtitution of mans reſt: ſo that when he affirmeth that God reſted from the foundation of the world, he implies, that man reſted with him at the ſame time; ſeeing (as we have ſhewed) the whole weight of his Argument lies upon mans, and not upon Gods reſting. And when he affirms that man had already entred into that reſt, it was fit for him to aſſigne the time when he entred into that reſt, as he doth afterwards ſet down the time when he entred into the reſt of Canaan: becauſe the expreſſing of the time of entring into that reſt, is that which gives moſt ſtrength to his Argument. Beſides, if mans reſting upon the giving of the Law by Moſes, were meant by the Apoſtle, it was eaſie for the Apoſtle to have named that time, as it was to name the other.
But what may be the reaſon (may ſome ſay) why the Apoſtle in this place, principally intending and meaning mans reſting on the Sabbath, mentions notwithſtanding only Gods reſting on the Sabbath day, but ſpeaks not a word of mans reſting on that day; and proves that out of Gen. 2.2. when he might as eaſily have proved the other out of the verſe following? To this we anſwer, that the whole courſe of the Apoſtles diſpute, ſhews evidently what he means. Secondly, we ſay that Gods reſt ſufficiently implies mans reſting at the ſame time, as being the very ground and foundation upon which the reſt of man on the Sabbath day was grounded. Thirdly, why the Holy Ghoſt was pleaſed rather to imply mans reſting on the Sabbath day, under the phraſe of Gods reſting, then to expreſſe in plainer tearms, we can no more give a reaſon, then we can tell why the ſame ſpirit of God ſets downe divers diſputations in ſuch broken expreſſions, that need the ſupply of many clauſes to make up the ſenſe cleer and full, or why in other places of Scripture he ſhadows out many things, under obſcure phraſes, which might as eaſily have been expreſſed in clearer and plainer forms.