The Way to the Tree of Life, Part 2 · Section 2
SECT. II. Anſwer to the Arguments againſt the Inſtitution of the Sabbath in Paradiſe.
TO avoid the Inſtitution of the Sabbath, recorded Gen. 2.3. Exceptions againſt this argument from Gen. 2.in expreſſe and plaine tearms, (and ſo diſtinctly related in that place, that any man may juſtly wonder, that any one endewed with reaſon ſhould oppoſe ſo cleer an evidence) the oppoſites have invented ſtrange interpretations of theſe words [Bleſſed and ſanctified] which carry the Inſtitution. 1. There is related onelyonly, what God did, not what he ordained.Some interpret them as relating an act of God, what he did, not as his command what he appointed men to do, as if the words ſignified no more but this, That God honoured and advanced the day by his reſting thereon. This abſurd interpretation the very letter of the text ſufficiently and plainly confutes, which relates Gods reſting, and his ſanctifying that reſt, Anſwer. as two diſtinct Acts, Gods reſting and ſanctifying are related as two diſtinct acts.the one grounded on the other, verſ. 3. That he ſanctified the day, becauſe he had reſted therein. Beſides, men, becauſe they are moſt employed in ſecular affairs, are ſaid to ſanctifie a day by leaving of their labours in ſecular things that they may ſpend their time in holy duties. And how can God ſanctifie a day by his act of reſting?But how God can be ſaid to ſanctifie one time above another; ſeeing he is holy in all his works, (Pſ. 145.17.) who can imagine?
Others interpret the words, Sanctified and Bleſſed, 2. Sanctified means that he decreed to do it only, as Jer. 1.5.to expreſſe, not what God did at preſent, but what he decreed then to act and do afterward, viz. when he gave his Law to his people by the hand of Moſes, upon mount Sinai. And to give the better countenance to this interpretation they parallel it with another place, Jer. 1.5. where God tels Jeremiah, that he ſanctified him before he came out of the womb. In which place, Sanctified, can ſignifie no more, Anſwer. then he decreed to ſanctifie. Now to forbear all other exceptions againſt that parallel place in Jeremiah; Where doth Bleſſed, ſignifie Decreed to bleſſe?admit the word Sanctifie, ſignifie decree to ſanctifie, where doth the word Bleſſed ſignifie decree to bleſſe? But admit ſuch an inſtance might be found for that alſo: Again it is taken ſo in one, proves not that it muſt be ſo in this.This were a mad form of reaſoning. The words, Sanctified and Bleſſed, in one place ſignifie, Decreed to ſanctifie and bleſſe, where the circumſtances of the Text admit other interpretations: therefore the ſame words, where they may have a better conſtruction, according to their uſuall and proper ſignification, muſt be interpreted in a ſenſe leſſe proper and uſuall, though no neceſſity urge us thereunto. If ſuch a liberty as this were admitted, we ſhould never be able to draw any certain concluſion out of any place of Scripture whatſoever.
A third ſort there are, who acknowledge that theſe words, 3. It is related in Geneſis by anticipation.Gen. 2.3. import an inſtitution, but that is (ſay they) related in that place by way of anticipation, referring and pointing out unto us, a time when this was done more then 2400 years after, when the Law was given by Moſes upon mount Sinai. Now this interpretation muſt ſuppoſe the whole third Verſe, Gen. 2. to be inſerted there by a Parentheſis, and then ſome clauſe muſt be added by way of ſupply, to make up ſome ſuch ſenſe as this: But what enforceth to admit an anticipation?This reſting of God upon the ſeventh day, was the reaſon and ground of Gods ſanctifying and bleſſing the ſeventh day, in the Law which God gave unto his people, by the hand of Moſes upon mount Sinai. But firſt what incongruity with the ſcope of this place, or with any circumſtances of the Text, in which this is related; or with any other place of Scripture, or with any principle of faith, enforceth us to allow ſuch an anticipation in this place, as we are forced to admit in ſome other places; becauſe we cannot otherwiſe find how they may agree, either the words with themſelves, or with ſome other place of Scripture, without which neceſſity to admit anticipations were to confound all order of Scripture.
For the countenancing of this anticipation, they ſay, that Moſes (Gen. 2.) having mentioned Gods reſt (verſ. 2.) upon the ſeventh day, had thereupon a fit occaſion to point at the Law, which being given afterwards, It cannot be proved that the Law was given before Geneſis was written.was grounded upon that reſt of God, which is here related. To which we anſwer; Firſt, this conceit ſuppoſeth, that which no man in the world ſhall be ever able to prove, that the book of Geneſis was written by Moſes after the giving of the Law (otherwiſe how could Moſes in this place give a reaſon of that Law which was not then in being?) but it ſeems more probable (if conjectures may have any place in reaſoning) that the book of Geneſis, as it is placed firſt in order, The contrary ſeems more probable.ſo was firſt written. For it is manifeſt by Saint Stephens words, Act. 7.25. that God had revealed himſelf to Moſes before he went out of the land of Aegypt into Midian, and had deſigned him to be the deliverer of his people. Again, that Moſes, during his abode in Midian, had leiſure enough to pen that hiſtory, it is evident in it ſelf. Laſtly, that the penning and reading of that hiſtory might be of ſingular uſe to ſtir up the children of Iſrael to go up out of Aegypt to take poſſeſſion of the land of Canaan in which their Fathers had been ſo long a time ſojourners, and ſo bleſſed and advanced by God, that they were eſteemed as Princes amongſt thoſe with whom they lived, eſpecially God having ſo freely and fully given that land to them and their poſterity, is ſo evident that no man can with any colour deny it. So that it muſt needs follow that in ſetling their anticipation upon ſuch a ſuppoſition they build at the beſt upon a very uncertain ground.
Beſides, 2. The pointing at the Law in Geneſis had been ſuperfluous.it had been meerly ſuperfluous to have pointed at the ground of inſtituting the Sabbath in this place in Geneſis, ſeeing it is cleerly expreſſed in the body of the Law given by Moſes. Now whoſoever conſidereth, what brevity Moſes uſeth in penning the hiſtory of the world, allowing but 6 Chapters to the ſetting out of an hiſtory of 1650 yeares, muſt needs judge it to be very improbable that he would lengthen it with needleſſe and uſeleſſe repetitions. Laſtly, all that can be inferred on it, the faireſt that are produced to countenance this fained anticipation, proves no more but this, (if all were granted that they alleage) that there may be an anticipation; but how will they prove that it muſt be? and that is it which it concerns them to make good, eſpecially ſeeing there are ſo many ſtrong, if not convincing arguments which prove the contrary, as we have ſhewed already.
Hitherto there appears (for ought that we ſee) no great occaſion, Arguments againſt the giving of the Law of the Sabbath to Adam.or uſe at all of this pretended anticipation, Gen. 2.3. which notwithſtanding we muſt be enforced to acknowledge, if it can be proved, that the Sabbath was not Inſtituted before the giving of the Law by Moſes upon mount Sinai, or till the firſt intermiſſion of the raining of Manna, which was not long before it. Wherefore they endeavour to prove that the Law neither was, nor could poſſibly be given to Adam in Paradiſe: This maintainers of that opinion labour to make good by three Arguments. Firſt, 1. It was impoſſible for Adam to obſerve the Sabbath.that it were abſurd to conceive that God would give Adam a law, which was impoſſible for him to obſerve. Secondly, that he ſhould give him a law, 2. It was needleſſe.which to him in the ſtate of innocency, 3. The Patriarchs till Moſes his time never kept the Sabbath.was altogether needleſſe and ſuperfluous. Thirdly, they inſiſt ſtrongly upon this, that if God had given Adam ſuch a law at that time, then had the Patriarchs been bound to the obſervation of that law. Now (ſay they) if the Patriarchs had been bound to the obſervation of that law, they had certainly kept it: but that neither all or any of them obſerved any ſuch, is manifeſt by the hiſtory of their lives written by Moſes, wherein there is no mention of any ſuch thing.
For the firſt of theſe three arguments, which is, Anſwer to the firſt. that it was impoſſible for Adam in Paradiſe to keep a Sabbath, they reaſon thus: The Sabbath (ſay they) was appointed for the publike worſhip of God, 1. That ſuppoſeth publick worſhip to be the whole duty of the Sabbath.as all men muſt needs acknowledge: But Adam and his wife could not make a publike aſſembly, nor conſequently worſhip God publikely, nor by the ſame obſerve a Sabbath according to the Law. To this we anſwer in the Firſt place, Though publike worſhip be the principall, yet it is not the ſole duty of the Sabbath. Honoring God, forbearing to do ones own waies, or to find his own pleaſure, or to ſpeake ones own words are duties of ſuch an holy day of Reſt, as God delights in, Iſa. 58.13. as well as publike worſhip. And the Fourth Commandement, which ſets apart an whole day unto the Lord entirely, and commands therein a totall ceſſation from all our employments in our ordinary calling, makes it evident. The ſequeſtring of our ſelves from our ordinary ſecular affaires for religious duties is the full ſcope of that fourth Commandement, which if a ſingle perſon ſhut out by ſickneſſe, or any other caſuall accident from publike Aſſemblies perform, he keeps an acceptable Sabbath unto God, though he cannot joyne with the Congregation in the duties of publike worſhip.
Againe, why may not two perſons where there are no more, 2. Two, where no more are, may be eſteemed a publike aſſembly.be eſteemed to be a publike Aſſembly? It is cleare that our Saviour eſteems the meeting of two or three for prayer a gathering together, Mat. 18.20. And then it's plaine that Adam and Eve, meeting together in Paradiſe, and employing the whole day in prayer and other holy, and religious exerciſes, may in a true and proper ſenſe be ſaid to worſhip publikely: ſo that in this argument brought againſt poſſibility of keeping a Sabbath by Adam and Eve in Paradiſe, 3. It is no good argument, Adam could not then keep the Sabbath, therefore he had no Law for it.the propoſitions are both faulty. Beſides, this is no good argument, Adam and Eve could not at that preſent keep a Sabbath, therefore they had no Law given them by God to command it. The fifth Commandement preſcribing the duties of Parents to their Children, is queſtionleſſe a Law of nature, ſhall we ſay that this Law was not at the leaſt written in Adams heart from the beginning, becauſe he had then no child? We think it wiſdome to make laws for warres in time of Peace, although there can be no execution of them for the preſent.
The Next Argument againſt the Inſtitution of the Sabbath in Paradiſe, Anſwer to the ſecond. is, that then Adam needed no Sabbath, neither for his body, nor for his mind. For his body (they ſay) he needed no Sabbath, becauſe that he being exerciſed in no painfull or toylſome labour, but exerciſed only in ſuch work as might be accounted rather a recreation then a labour, needed no reſt at all or refreſhing of his body thereby. 1. Eaſe by reſt, though it be a conſequent, is not the ſcope of the Sabbath.To this we anſwer, that the eaſe of man, and beaſt from labour, although it be a conſequent of the reſt of the Sabbath, yet was it never the ſcope of it, ſeeing the moderation of labour belongs properly to the ſame commandement, which enjoynes labour, that is, unto the Eight, as the Apoſtle alſo interprets it, Eph. 4.28. The Fourth Commandement forbids labour indeed, but not ſo much for mercy, as for Piety, nor ſo much for eaſing of the toyle of the body, as for the preventing of the diſtraction of the mind by labour, ſeeing we know the body cannot labour, but the mind muſt needs be more or leſſe employed withall, which therefore at that time cannot ſo freely be wholly exerciſed in Spirituall duties, as it ought. So that Adam might have uſe of a Sabbath in Paradiſe, although he needed it not for the eaſe of his body.2. Adam might make uſe of the Sabbath in reſpect of his minde.
Yea, but (ſay they) Adam much leſſe needed a Sabbath in reſpect of his mind, then he did in reſpect of his bodie, becauſe his mind in that ſtate of Innocency being continually filled with heavenly thoughts, he could not chooſe but keep a perpetuall Sabbath. To this Objection we have anſwered in part already, that the Sabbath requires of us not only the filling of the mind with heavenly Meditations, but beſides a totall ſequeſtration of the whole man to the exerciſe of all holy duties; forbidding us to finde our own pleaſure, or our own waies, Iſa. 58.13. that is, take up any employment either of body, or minde, about any of thoſe affaires which may properly becalled our own, ſuch as are all our ſecular affaires. Now although Adam in Paradiſe had not in that eaſe and pleaſure of his in keeping the Garden, his minde ſo wholly taken up with that buſineſſe, as ours are now in our more toylſome works; yet it muſt needs be and was his duty too to attend, and to have his minde exerciſed in the thoughts of thoſe things that he tooke in hand, which on the Sabbath ought to be wholly laid aſide. In one word, Adam was and ought on other dayes to be wholly heavenly minded in the uſe of earthly things, but on the Sabbath day, he was to be wholly heavenly minded in the uſe of heavenly things.
All then that can be made good in this parcular is only this, that Adam in ſome reſpects leſſe needed a Sabbath then we doe, whence cannot poſſibly be inferred that he therefore needed none at all; nay, upon the ſame ground it will follow, that becauſe he being riper in knowledge, ſtronger in faith, and more quickned and fervent in affection, leſſe needed the Sacraments, or other like helps as we doe, it was not fit for him to have any Sacrament at all. As well as of the Sacraments, &c.Rather we may conclude, that becauſe Adam infinitely excelled us in all theſe abilities, therefore, though he leſſe needed, yet he was more fit to keep a Sabbath then we are, having more leiſure, and being more heavenly minded then we are. All this while we ſpeake of the Sabbath as if it were given to man only for his own good, whereas the principall ſcope of it is the honouring of God, which was Adam duty as well as ours: So that in reſpect of the principall end of the Sabbath Adam needed that Law for the obſervation thereof, as well as we.
In the laſt place it is urg'd that if the Sabbath had been inſtituted in Paradiſe, Anſwer to the third. then had the Patriarchs been bound to the obſervation of it, and had certainly obſerved it. Now that the Patriarchs did not obſerve it, it is evident (ſay they) becauſe we find no mention, upon record, of the obſervation thereof by any of them either before, or after the Flood, till Exod. 16. immediately before the giving of the Law. We anſwer, that if they can make it appeare that none of the Patriarchs did obſerve the Sabbath, we will be willing to grant them that they had no Law that bound them to any ſuch obſervation: But it will be a very hard matter to make that appeare by any convincing argument. Yes, (ſay they) if they had obſerved it there would have been left ſome record of it by Moſes, who wrote their lives; as (ſay they) he hath left us inſtances of their obſerving of the other Nine Commandements, but for their obſervation of the Sabbath day he makes not ſo much as the leaſt mention at all. To this we anſwer divers things. Firſt, 1. It followes not; we have no recording of the Patriarchs obſerving the Sabbath, therefore they obſerved it not.we except againſt this form of arguing from Negative authority, which according to the ſentence of Logicians proves nothing at all; and hereof, though we might give other inſtances, we will content our ſelves with one only concerning the point which we have in hand. In all the Books of Ioſhua, Iudges, Ruth, For 550 years after Moſes we have no record of keeping the Sabbath.the two books of Samuel, and the firſt booke of Kings, (containing the hiſtory of the Church, for 550. yeares, and written much more largely then the books of Geneſis, and the beginning of Exodus) we finde not upon record ſo much as the very name of the Sabbath; ſhall we therefore conclude from thence that the holy men of thoſe times, eſpecially Ioſhua, Samuel, and David, kept not the Sabbath, when we know they had a Law that bound them thereunto? and yet we have inſtances enough out of the ſame books of their keeping of the other nine Commandements. It will not be ſufficient to except againſt the inſtance produced by us, that we know theſe holy men kept the Sabbath, though there be no record of their keeping of it, becauſe we are ſure that they had a Law, that bound them to keep it, but the Patriarchs had no ſuch law; this I ſay is no juſt exceptiō againſt our inſtance, for it is to beg the point in queſtion. All that they can gaine by this Allegation is, that it is not ſo certaine that the Patriarchs kept the Sabbath, becauſe it is not ſo certaine that they had a Law that bound them to obſerve it. Now this is a wild form of arguing. It is not certaine, (though we prove it is) or at leaſt not ſo certaine that the Patriarchs had a Law that bound them to keep the Sabbath, therefore it is certaine that they kept it not. As for that colour that they make uſe of for the ſtrengthning of their exception againſt our inſtance, that Moſes records the Patriarchs keeping of the other nine Commandements: It were enough that we have ſaid already, that we have the like evidences in the books of Ioſhua, Objection. Iudges, &c. of thoſe holy mens keeping of the other nine Commandements. We have records of the Patriarchs keeping the other nine Commandements.But to give a fuller anſwer, I conceive they will not ſay, that in the book of Geneſis, there be inſtances of the Patriarchs obſerving of every duty required and preſcribed in thoſe Nine Commandements, Anſwer. but will name us ſome duties only which they performed in obedience to every one of them. Not of all the duties of all thoſe nine. 4. And we have records of the Patriarchs publike worſhip.And we ſay that we finde inſtances of the Patriarchs obſerving of the Fourth Commandement, for we read that they worſhipped God publikely, Gen. 4.26. chap. 12.8. (which that phraſe of calling upon the name of the Lord implies, as I conceive they themſelves will not deny.) And I am ſure they acknowledge that publike worſhip is a duty of the Sabbath. But hereunto they will reply, that the performing of this publike worſhip proves not the obſervation of the Sabbath, or ſeventh day for that worſhip. To which we anſwer: that uſing of publike worſhip neceſſarily ſuppoſeth a time, a fit time, and a time of Reſt for that worſhip, for ſo much themſelves acknowledg to be of the Law of Nature, And it is probable on the ſeventh day.Adde hereunto what is recorded of the ſending out of Noahs dove juſt at the diſtance of ſeven daies, Gen. 8.10, 12. Surely this could not be done caſually that they ſhould accidentally light juſt upon the diſtance of ſeven daies, ſo many times together: If then it were done purpoſely, why was that number choſen above all others? was there any myſterious holineſſe in that number? If conjectures might take place, we might with great probability conceive that Noah and his children had upon thoſe daies dedicated to his worſhip been ſuing for peace, and ſent out to ſee whether there might be any tydings of a comfortable anſwer to their prayers. Theſe I confeſſe are no infallibly-concluding arguments to prove the Patriarchs obſervation of the Sabbath, or ſeventh day, but ſeeing it is poſſible, nay more, very probable, that Moſes in this relation points at ſome ſuch thing, it is enough to overthrow the oppoſites concluſion which muſt be this; That it is certaine that Moſes makes no mention of the Patriarchs obſervation of the ſeventh or Sabbath day.
Secondly, we anſwer that the place, Exod. 16.23. 2. It appeares Exod. 16.23. that the Sabbath was known before the Law was given.proves evidently that the obſervation of the Sabbath was a thing ſufficiently known to the children of Iſrael before the Law was delivered unto them upon Mount Sinai. For when the Elders of Jſrael wondering that the people had gathered twiſe ſo much Manna on the ſixth day, as they had done each of the five daies going before, come to Moſes to enquire of him what the reaſon of that ſtrange event might be, ver. 22. he anſwers them preſently, To morrow is the holy Sabbath of the Lord, &c. which is all one as if he had ſaid (as he doth afterwards in expreſſe termes, ver. 29.) that the Lord gave them on the ſixth day a ſufficient portion of bread for two daies, that no man might breake the reſt of the Sabbath, by going out to gather food upon that day. In that place you ſee Moſes ſpeaks of the Sabbath as of a thing which the children of Iſrael well knew beforehand, (or elſe he had ſpoken Parables to them in naming a day, and referring the into an Ordinance of which they had never heard before) yea neither the Elders nor any of the people ſo much as enquire of Moſes, what he meant by that name of a Sabbath, as they would have done, if the name had been new unto them, but depart ſatisfied with Moſes his anſwer, without any farther ſcruple or enquiry. Beſides, the Lord by Moſes rebuking thoſe that contrary to Gods Commandement went out to ſeek food on the Sabbath day, expreſſeth himſelfe to them in this manner: How long will ye refuſe to keep my Commandements, and my Laws? implying that this was a continued breach of the Sabbath, as well as of other Laws of God. By all thoſe circumſtances laid together, and duely weighed, it will appeare that the obſervation of the Reſt of the Sabbath, was well known to the Church of God, by a long continued Law, delivered from hand to hand to poſterity, although in proceſſe of time, much diſuſed and neglected by men in the courſe of their practiſe, eſpecially in the Aegyptian bondage.
To elude the force of this Argument, Objection. 16 The Sabbath was not inſtituted till Exod. 16. And upon occaſion of a double miracle. 1. The giving of a double portion of Manna on the ſixt day. 2. And preſerving it uncorrupted till the next day.there are that affirme that Moſes, Exod. 16. mentions not the Sabbath as a thing formerly known, but delivers it at that time as a new Ordinance from God himſelfe, inſtituted by him by occaſion of giving them a double portion of Manna upon the ſixth day, and conſequently, being a Commandement then firſt given, it was impoſſible to be known before. Thus they make this declaration of Moſes, Exod. 16.23. to be the firſt inſtitution of the Sabbath, whereunto (they ſay) God prepares the people by a double miracle. The Firſt, the giving a double portion of Manna on the ſixth day: The Second, the preſerving of that Manna, which was left on the ſixth day, uncorrupted, that it might ſerve them for food on the ſeventh day, whereas upon other daies that which was reſerved and kept till the next morning ſtanck, and was full of wormes, Exod. 16.20. And beſides the words [To morrow ſhall be the Sabbath] carry the forme of an inſtitution.And that it may carry the full form of an Inſtitution, they render that clauſe, ver. 23. not as we doe, To morrow is the Sabbath of the Lord, but as it beſt ſuites with their owne purpoſe, To morrow ſhall be the Sabbath of the Lord, that the whole ſentence joyned together in this form, [This is that which the Lord hath ſaid, to morrow ſhall be the Reſt of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord] may carry with it the compleat forme of an Inſtitution.
To begin, Anſwer. 17 firſt, with the double miracle; the former of them which was the giving of a double portion of Manna on the ſixth day, 1. The firſt miracle 1. Perhaps was none at all.may be queſtioned, whether it were a miracle or no, it is out of queſtion that the ſtinting of the gathering of Manna upon the other daies, was by the melting of it through the heate of the Sun, ver. 21. Now if it were longer before the heate of the Sunne did breake out upon the ſixth day, and by that meanes they had more time for the gathering of their Manna upon that day then they had upon other dayes, what miracle was that, that the ſame perſons in a longer time gathered twiſe ſo much, as they had done in a ſhorter time before? 2. If it were, it honoured the ſixth day, not the ſeventh.Beſides, if it ſhould be eſteemed a miracle, it honoured the ſixth day on which it happened, and not the ſeventh day which ſucceeded it. 2. The ſecond was certainly no miracle at all.The ſecond pretended miracle was queſtionleſſe none at all. For Manna being ſo pure a food might eaſily without a miracle be kept uncorrupted a day and an halfe, as our ordinary proviſions are preſerved much longer without any corruption at all. Nay rather the corrupting of that food ſo ſuddenly-upon other daies, that being ſweet at night it ſhould not only ſtinck, but be full of wormes too by the next morning, ſeemes, if any thing to be miraculous.
As for the formality of the words of this pretended inſtitution, which they make out of them by tranſlating them according to their own phantaſie. Firſt, the Originall no more favours their interpretation then ours; 3. The words in the Originall are only [to morrow the Sabbath] without [is, or, ſhall be.]the words tranſlated exactly are theſe; To morrow the Sabbath of the Lord, without is, or ſhall be. Secondly, the context, if it be well examined, ſeemes rather to favour our, then their interpretation: neither can it be proved, that there lies any command at all in that clauſe, which they take for the inſtitution, And are a reaſon, not acommand.which ſeems more probably to be a reaſon of the command it ſelfe. It is true, the clauſe prefixed, gives notice of a command to follow, but of what Commandement? Not of any command expreſſed in the clauſe immediately following, but of that which comes after: Bake that which ye will bake, &c. Which is indeed an expreſſe command, & ſeems to be the only direction given by Moſes from God to the Elders, the former words expreſſing only the reaſon of that which they enquired after, why God had given them a double portion of Manna on the ſixth day. Namely, becauſe he would not have the Reſt of the holy Sabbath, violated by gathering of Manna upon the ſeventh day.
To examin things ſomewhat more diſtinctly. Firſt, we have inſtructions given by God unto Moſes, and appointed to be delivered by him unto the people, containing a promiſe of giving them Quailes and Manna, and of Manna a double portion on the ſixth day, Reaſons why thoſe words. Exod. 16.23. can be no inſtitution of the Sabbath.that they might not be put to the labour of gathering any upon the ſeventh day, and withall a direction to prepare that overplus which they ſhould gather, that it might ſerve for proviſion for the day following; but in theſe inſtructions which God gives to Moſes, there is not a word of the Sabbath, 1. God mentions not the Sabbath in his directions to Moſes.but only upon the by. Againe, in Moſes his directions which he gives unto the people from God, all that he commands them is concerning Manna, the Sabbath is mentioned only occaſionally. If God had minded to give this charge to Moſes to deliver this Law for the obſervation thereof to his people, he would not have given him ſuch exact rules concerning the uſe of Manna, and paſſed over the Sabbath almoſt in ſilence. But it appeares plainly that only the direction of God concerning Manna, and the uſe thereof, was that new Commandement which he was to deliver to the people, and therefore is fully and cleerely expreſſed, whereas the Sabbath as being mentioned by him occaſionally is paſſed over in few words.
Again, for three reaſons we cannot conceive that in this Exod. 16. there is any inſtitution of the Sabbath at all. For, firſt, 2. There happened at that time no memorable event to ground an inſtitution.here is no ground of inſtituting a feſtivall day, ſeeing that muſt needs be ſome memorable event which dignifies that day, that is to be conſecrated above other days, which is a rule which God and the Church, and even heathen men by the light of nature guided themſelves by. Secondly, here is no convocation of the people, 3. The people are not convened as they ought to have been to receive this law.who ought to have been aſſembled to hear that law that they muſt all obey, as they were not only Exod. 20. when God himſelf delivered them the morall law upon mount Sinai, but alſo when Moſes his ſervant delivers unto them from God the Ceremoniall and Judiciall Laws, Exod. 34.32. & 35.1. whereas here we find only a meeting of the Elders, But only the Elders, and that occaſionally only.and that too occaſionally, not by the call of Moſes, but their voluntary recourſe to him, to enquire the reaſon why the people had gathered a double portion of Manna on the ſixth day, and what ſhould be done with it. Thirdly, 4. Here is no direction for the obſervation of this new feaſt.here is no direction for the obſervation of this new feaſt, and without it the law is not only imperfect, but in effect no law at all: Whereas there is a full direction for the uſe of their double portion of Manna, which makes it evident that the ordering of their Manna muſt needs be the only charge which the Lord ſent by Moſes to the people.
Others therefore there are who go not ſo far as to plead for the inſtitution of the Sabbath in this Exod. 16. Objection. 21 Though the words amounted to an inſtitution, yet they are a preparation to a following inſtitution.but will have theſe words of Moſes to be only in the nature of a preparation to an inſtitution which was to follow. To this alſo we anſwer; Firſt, that this opinion is preſſed with the ſame difficulties that the former is, if things be duly weighed. Anſwer. 1. The ſame reaſons are againſt that too. 2. There is no like inſtance in giving any other law. 3. What needs it? 4. Why is this ground omitted in the fourth Commandement?Secondly, let them but give us one inſtance of any ſuch kind of preparation uſed before the giving of any other law. Thirdly, let them ſhew us what need there is of any ſuch preparation at all, when the people were almoſt immediately after to be prepared in ſo ſolemn a manner for the receiving of that and the reſt of the laws. Laſtly, if the giving of a double portion of Manna on the ſixth day, or the ceaſing of Manna on the ſeventh, were ſuch great means to win credit to this new Sabbath, how is it that neither the one nor other is ſo much as once mentioned in that whole fourth Commandement wherein notwithſtanding, is ſo fully and largely laid down the ground of the inſtitution of that law, eſpecially, this mercy being ſo new and freſh in memory, whereas God in the fourth Commandement goes back to the beginning of the world to ſeek out another and firmer foundation of inſtituting the Sabbath, without mentioning of this at all. Thus when all circumſtances are duly weighed, it will eaſily appear to any not foreſtalled by prejudice, that in this Exod. 16. Moſes ſpeaks of the Sabbath to the Elders of Iſraël, Whence it appears that Moſes mentions the Sabbath to the Elders, Exod. 16.23. as a thing known.as of a thing well known unto them before-hand, and by conſequent which the Jewes were wel-acquainted with before the Law was given to Moſes on mount Sinai, whereupon it muſt needs follow, that they received it from the Patriarchs, delivered from hand to hand as other truths and laws of God were, and conſequently by that the Patriarchs in their generations obſerved the Sabbath, although their obſervation thereof be not left upon record by Moſes, whoſe task was not to write a diary of the Fathers lives, but to leave to poſterity the remembrance of the moſt memorable examples both of their actions, and of the events that befell them, both for Gods honour and our inſtruction.