The Jews Sabbath Antiquated and the Lords Day Instituted, Position 2

The Jews Sabbath Antiquated and the Lords Day Instituted · Position 2

p. 40POSITION II. That the old Sabbath (as to the day) was further manifeſted to be alterable in the ſecond edition of the Sabbath.

I Am not ignorant that as the Sabbaths Firſt Inſtitution is much diſputed, ſo the Second Edition (as to time and place) may be much controverted alſo. But taking it for granted (as I do) that the firſt inſtitution lay neer the worlds foundation, then the ſecond Edition of it will be found in the wilderneſs of Sin at the falling of Mannah, or upon mount Sinai at the giving of the Law, Nehem. 9.13. And here we meet with a double argument to make it further evident that the old ſeventh day was alterable, or liable to change.

1. Firſt, Becauſe it was never propounded as the ſubſtance of any moral Law.

2. Secondly, It ſeems to be pointed at as a ſign under the ceremonial Law.

1. Firſt, That the old ſeventh day from the Creation was never propounded as the ſubſtance of any moral law, that is, ſo as the day could not be changed, but there muſt alſo of neceſſity be a change of the Law in the ſubſtantials of it. For the clearing of which let it be premiſed, that whereas the fourth Commandment is the only precept in the Decalogue which concerns the Sabbath:

p. 41Firſt, I do moſt freely grant, that the fourth Commandment is a moral and perpetual precept, yet not moral natural (unleſs it be in the firſt clauſe concerning a day of reſt in general) but rather moral poſitive, and in the ſubſtance of it perpetual. I ſay in the ſubſtance of it, becauſe it is the judgment of ſome learned and godly, that the whole Decalogue, as well as the fourth Commandment, was in ſome circumſtances peculiar to the Jewes by reaſon of the time, place, and people to whom it was delivered: But the ſubſtance of it is common to all, like as almoſt all Scripture is for ſubſtance common, and for circumſtance proper and peculiar, becauſe much of it was written occaſionally, as Mr. Abbot obſerves. Now that which is circumſtantiall and occaſional in a moral Law may be mutable and yet the ſubſtance of the Law be perpetual; as the preface prefixed to the firſt Commandment, and the promiſe annexed to the fifth, being both circumſtantially peculiar to the Jews, were in that reſpect mutable, yet the Commandments themſelves remain immutable, and belong to us as well as to them. So in this fourth Commandment, that which indirectly and occaſionally reſpected the Jews might admit of a circumſtantial alteration, and yet the Commandment it ſelf in all the ſubſtantials of it be as much in force to us as ever it was to them; that is, for ſuch a numeral day, though not the ſame individual day, for one day in ſeven though not the old ſeventh, which might be, and (for ought I can ſee to the contrary) is changed upon a double account; in reſpect of the promiſe upon which it was inſtituted, as a ceremonial (at leaſt) a temporary ordinance, and in reſpect of the precept by which it was obſerved, as an occaſional circumſtance.In the ſubſtance of it. And therefore we need not (as ſome do) make the Commandment partly moral and partly ceremonial, but grant it wholly moral, and hold the day mutable, as indirectly and occaſionally pointed at as the Land of Canaan was in the fifth commandment. And thus the change of the day is no prejudice at all to the morality of the Commandment, as not being of p. 42the ſubſtance of it. Indeed to have altered the number from one day of ſeven, to one day of ten, or from one of ſeven to two of ſeven ordinarily, had been to wound the precept in the ſubſtantials of it, and in plain terms to blot out one of Gods ten Commandments; not ſo, to alter the day from one ſeventh to another ſeventh, which was but a circumſtantial variation. To thoſe that affirm the fourth Commandment to be temporary in reference to the proportion of one day in ſeven, becauſe in that point we grant it poſitive, I have only this to ſay, that we judg it not to be meerly poſitive, but moral poſitive, and ſo perpetual, as the event hath proved it. For although the particular day were changed by the refurrection of Chriſt, yet the proportion of one day in ſeven has been ſtill preſerved inviolable by the practiſe of the Apoſtles and Churches ever ſince. And (as one well obſerves) no other ſolid reaſon can be rendred why the Apoſtles and primitive Churches ſhould weekly celebrate the day of Chriſts reſurrection, if it had not been in reference to the fourth Commandment: had not their conſciences been under the binding power of this precept, why might they not have done by the reſurrection day, as after ages have by the Incarnation, the Paſſion or the Aſſention day, have kept it once a year only, not once a week, as they did, and we do? But this by the way, to illuſtrate my conceſſion, which is this, that the fourth Commandment for the ſubſtance of it, that is for a Sabbath in general, yea, a ſeventh day Sabbath, and that of Gods appointment, is a moral and perpetual precept, this I freely grant and firmly believe. But

2. That the old ſeventh day is either in part or in the whole,De ſubſtautia praecepti non eſt ut ſeptimum diem preciſe quo etiam Deus ceſſavit ab operibus ſanctificemus, ſed dicm quieti conſecratum à Deo ipſo mediatè vel immediatè. Zanch. in praec. 4. the moral ſubſtance of this Commandment, or that the morality of the law-lyes in the particularity of the p. 43day, this I utterly deny. And I ſhall (with the reſt of my Brethren) affirm and maintain the contrary as an undoubted truth of God: Namely, that the fourth Commandment doth principally, and properly (and as the moral ſubſtance of it) preſcribe only ſuch a proportion, one day in ſeven at Gods appointment, to be ſpent in holy reſt; not this or that particular ſeventh day unleſs it be indirectly and occaſionally. To explicate this, the ſecond commandment is uſually and aptly alledged as a commentary upon the fourth; the form of worſhip and the time of worſhip being neerly allyed to each other. Now as in the ſecond Commandment, we have the rule of ſolemn worſhip in general, without ſpecifying the particular ordinances of worſhip, whether ſacrifices and offerings, as under the Law; or Prayer, Preaching, Baptiſme, and breaking of bread, as under the Goſpel; all which we re conſequentially injoyned in the ſecond Commandment, but neither of them directly: in like manner, in this fourth commandment we have a rule for the ſolemn time of worſhip a ſeventh day, or one in ſeven at Gods appointment; But whether it ſhould be reckoned from the worlds Creation, or from Chriſt reſurrection is not here determined; particular duties of worſhip, and the particular day of worſhip being to vary and change with the different age and ſtate of the Church. The wiſdome of the Law-giver has ſo contrived theſe two Commandments, that both the day and the duties (as occaſionals) might be changed without any change of his moral and immutable Lawes.

But there is native light and evidence enough in the fourth Commandment it ſelf to convince us of this truth.Prov. 6.23.Prov 6:23 For (as Solomon ſayes) the Commandment is a Lamp and the Law is light. Only we muſt look to the ſenſe, and not wholly liften to the ſound of the letter; for in all lawes the meaning of the Law-giver,Iſai. 8.20 Non in verbis ſed inſenſu, non in ſuperficie ſed in medulla, non in foliis ſed in radice ratiouis. Hieron. in G…l. 2. & Tertull. de Carne Chrſti.Isa 8:20 and the ſenſe of the Law p. 44is to be reſpected, not the letter only as he ſayes well, the mind of God is not ſo much in letters and ſyllables, as the ſenſe and meaning: Not in the out-ſide but in the pith and marrow; not in the leaves of words, but in the root of reaſon, for which we muſt digg deep by ſerious ſtudy and prayer, before we can diſcern it. Now if laying aſide all prejudice, we would thus look into this perfect Law of liberty, as thoſe that look to be judged by it another day, Jam. 2.12. I doubt not but we ſhall find one day in ſeven (at Gods choice) not the old Seventh day, to be the ſoul and ſubſtance of it; which that it may the better be demonſtrated, I ſhall for methods ſake diſtribute this fourth Commandment into theſe four parts.

1.Exod. 20.8.Exod 20:8 The preceptive part; Remember the Sabbath, or day of reſt, to keep it holy.

2.V. 9.10. The directive part, Six dayes ſhalt thou labour, but a ſeventh is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God, &c.

3.V. 11. The argumentative part, For in ſix dayes the Lord made heaven and earth, and reſted the ſeventh.

4. The benedictive part, or the concluſion, Therefore the Lord bleſſed the Sabbath day, and ſanctified it.

Now if all theſe four parts of the Commandment be directly for a ſeventh day in number or proportion, and but indirectly occaſionally and conſequentially, for a ſeventh day in order, then the ſubſtance of the Commandment is for one day of ſeven, not the laſt of ſeven. But the premiſes are true, and to demonſtrate their truth, let us come to tryal.

1. We ſhall examine the Preceptive part, Remember the Sabbath day, or day of reſt, to keep it holy. This I hope is not be reſtrained to the old ſeventh day: Sabbath and ſeventh day cannot be terms convertible here, for then there were a tautology in the Commandment, as Mr. Cawdrey obſerves. It were as if God ſhould ſay, Remember the ſeventh day Sabbath, the ſeventh day is the Sabbath; which is ſuch a flat tautology, as the God of Wiſdome will never own in ſo ſhort a ſumme of words; No, its p. 45evident that hitherto the precept is comprehenſive and large, not limitted to one day more then another; for Sabbath day (if you will hear the Hebrew word ſpeak Engliſh) is no more but a day of reſt, and that is any day ſet apart for ſolemn worſhip by divine authority. It is applicable to the firſt day of the week as much as ever it was to the laſt. A judicious Author does piouſly and pithily illuſtrate it by that ſecond table precept, Honour the King; Mr. Bernard late of Batcomb. 1 Pet. 2.17.1 Pet 2:17If Saul be King, honour him, if he be dead or diſplaced, and David be King, then honour King David. To neither of them directly, but ſucceſſively, and conſequentially it might be accommodated to both. So, remember the day of reſt to ſanctifie it, while the old ſeventh day was the day of reſt, the Jews were bound to ſanctifie that; If that be changed, and the firſt day of the week be choſen in its room, we are as much bound to ſanctifie that, and this by the ſame law; for as the change of the perſon took not away the precept of honouring the King,Hac enim ratione nos quoque proeceptum hoc ſervamus, dum ſanctificamus diem dominicum, quia hic quietis nobis eſt dies ſicut Judaels fuit ſeptimus. Zanch. in praec. Col. 2. Syg.Col 2 ſo the change of the day made not void the command of ſanctifying the Sabbath. And thus, as learned Zanchy tells us; We Chriſtians keep the Sabbath as much as ever the Jewes did in keeping holy the Lords day, which is a day of holy reſt as well as their was. For if it be a day of holy rejoycing, it muſt needs be a day of holy reſt, ſince it is both improper and impoſſible to keep a ſet or ſolemn day as a day of holy rejoycing in Chriſt, and at the ſame time to follow our worldly imployments; worldly labour, and the ſweat of the brow has too much of the curſe in it, to conſiſt with a day of thanksgiving or holy rejoycing in the Lord.The Scripture frequently calls feſtival dayes Sabbaths; and if Sabbath be a ſit name for other dayes of the ſame nature, Why not for this? And therefore I cannot but wonder that T.T. who grants the Lords day to be a day of rejoycing, according to that of the Pſalmiſt, Let us rejoyce p. 46and be glad therein, ſhould deny it to be a Sabbath or a day of holy reſt, as he wickedly and profanely doth, calling a mans Sabbath; diſcovering his enmity againſt the thing by carping at the name, yea condemning of it; why has he the face to call the Jewiſh feſtivals, Sabbaths, or dayes of reſt, as being either faſting dayes, or feaſting dayes, and yet deny the Lords day this titular honour?Inenaem. Phil. p. 74. Is it a day of leſs account then the Paſſeover day, Pentecoſt day, Expiation day, and other Ceremonial dayes which the Scripture terms Sabbaths?How ſuitable is a name of reſt to a day of reſt as the Lords day is? Nay, I have already proved, that it is greater then theſe, yea greater then the old Sabbath it ſelf; therefore ſure its a day of reſt, as ſhall be farther proved in the cloſe of this Treatiſe. And if this be a day of holy reſt, it is as much intended in theſe words, Remember the Sabbath day to ſanctifie it, as ever the Jewes Sabbath was.

But the ſeventh day was Sabbath day when the Law was given, Obj. therefore it is to be underſtood of that day and none but that.

You may as well ſay, Anſw. the fifth Commandment, Honour thy father and mother, is to be underſtood of ſuch particular parents as were then living, and none but them: And then the Quakers will have a fine plea for their barbarous rudeneſs and unmannerly behaviour towards ſuperiours. Tell them of honouring their parents; that's a wilderneſs-duty, may they ſay, it intended only the Iſraelites parents, now tis a dead letter and out of date. As ſimple and ſottiſh a plea as this would be, yet it is no better to ſay the fourth Commandment intended only the Jews Sabbath, and the old ſeventh day, becauſe that was only in being when the precept was given. Alas! that was meerly occaſional and accidental to the Commmandment, not at all of the eſſence or ſubſtance of it. True, that was the only weekly Sabbath then, but it was not alwayes ſo to be, as the event hath proved. But the truth is, this firſt clauſe, Remember the Sabath day to keep it holy, did directly point at no peculiar day more then another; but being the law p. 47of nature, it only requires a day of reſt in general to be ſanctified; to wit, what day ſoever it fall upon. And this is very conſiderable, ſince in the judgment of all the learned and godly,Deut. 5.12.Deut 5:12 the prime morality and main ſubſtance of the Commandment lies in this clauſe. And hence it is obſerved that Moſes in the repetition of the Law inſerts this memorable parentheſis, when he had ſaid,See Mr. Shepheard. Theſ. 122 and Dr. Twiſs Sect. 6. Keep the Sabbath day to ſanctifie it, immediately he addes theſe words (as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee) between the preceptive and the following parts; intimating, that the ſubſtance of the command lies mainly (though not only) here. Well, a day of reſt muſt be ſanctified ſometimes,**Natura dictat aliquan to vacuam quieti diem. Gerſon. the light of nature teaches it, and the law of God requires it. But the next queſtion will be in what proportion and number of dayes it muſt be ſtated, how ſeldome or how often it muſt return? If this be left to mans determination, there will be nothing but confuſion, ſuperſtition, or irreligion. One man perhaps will contend that one day in a**As the eighth day of every monethmonth was obſerved by the Grecians, and the ninth day by the Romans. Plutarch in vita Theſ. & Macrobius Saturn. lib. 1. c. 16. monethmonth is ſufficient; another a little more devout, will ſay, nay, it muſt be once a fortnight at leaſt, a third with T.T. will run into another Ebionitiſh extreem, and exact two dayes in a week (though he bear little good will to one of them.) Well, to end the ſtrife, we muſt conſult the Divine oracle, to the law and to the teſtimony, have recourſe to the Commandment in the ſecond part of it.

2. The Directive part, in theſe words (ſix dayes ſhalt thou labour, but the ſeventh day is the Sabbath to the Lord thy God) as if the Lord had ſaid, Your Sabbath ſhall be once a week, or one day in ſeven, at my appointment; this agrees beſt with the order of the precept: The law of nature being ſetled in the firſt clauſe, that a day of reſt muſt ſometimes be kept, and kept holy, the very next ſcruple is about the number, how often it muſt be kept, whether once a quarter, or once a monethmonth, or once a week? The order whether it ſhall be the firſt or laſt day of ſuch a number, p. 48is not the next inquiry; in all reaſon, the number and proportion muſt firſt be ſtated. For the order preſuppoſes the number, the monethmonth muſt be agreed upon before the day of the monethmonth, and the week before ſuch a day of the week. And accordingly this poſitive directory is given us, to point out the number principally: Six dayes ſhalt thou labour but a ſeventh day is the Sabbath; that is, your Sabbath ſhall be neither a daily, nor a monethly, nor a yearly, but a weekly Sabbath. The Phraſe is excluſive, as one obſerves, implying thus much, thou art not to keep the ſixth day or one of ſix,Dies ſeptimus & ipſe unus eſt dierum qui omnes ſeptem ſunt. Auguſt. de Oen. ad lit. l. 4. c. 18. or the tenth day, or one of ten, but the ſeventh day, that is one of ſeven, or one in a week. The terme ſeventh is oppoſed to all other numbers, either ninth, tenth, or twentieth; as alſo to the ſix working-dayes, which clearly intend ſuch a number, as ſix in ſeven, and ſo the ſeventh day is as much as one in ſeven. Six dayes ſhalt thou labour but a ſeventh day is the Sabbath; a ſeventh, what ſeventh? pray note it, the Lord ſayes not, the ſeventh from the Creation, he nameth no day, if he had, the law had been limitted to that day; but becauſe the law-giver intended to chuſe a new day, and not to change his old law, you ſee he has left it in large and general terms, neither can it be reſtrained to one day more then to another. To make it plain by a ſimilitude or two; Suppoſe a rich man who has ſeven Lambs, in a way of unuſual bounty make ſuch a propoſal as this to his poor neighbour, I will freely give you ſix of them, upon condition you keep the ſeventh for me, not naming which ſeventh, muſt he neceſſarily intend one ſeventh more then another? I ſhould rather think no, but any one of the ſeven, being left to his own liberty to chuſe which he pleaſes. Or thus, Suppoſe a liberal Maſter who has ſeven pounds to diſpoſe of, indent thus with his Servant, I freely give or lend thee ſix of them, provided thou improve the ſeventh for me; What, muſt he needs intend this or that ſpecial ſeventh, (ſuppoſing ſome piece of gold among the reſt?) Certainly no, every man may know his meaning, by the ſeventh p. 49pound he intends one pound of ſeven. The accommodation is eaſie and appoſite; the bountiful and bleſſed God freely beſtows ſix dayes in the week upon his creature man, reſerving the ſeventh to himſelf, that is one in ſeven at his own choice and appointment: This is the direct and principal intendment of the Law. Though I deny not that the old ſeventh day was indirectly and occaſionally here pointed at, as a ſeventh day then under Divine ſanction, and the Jewes were bound by this Commandment to keep that day, as by the fifth commandment they were bound to honour their particular parents then living, yet both theſe being but occaſional circumſtances, might be and were altered without any impeachment to the morality of theſe Commands. The altering of a mutable circumſtance either of time, place or perſon, is far from aboliſhing the ſubſtance of a law; indeed if the Sabbath had been changed (as I ſaid before) either to the ſixth day, or the tenth day, the whole frame of the Commandment had been broken and ſhattered; but in the change of one ſeventh day to another, upon a ſufficient ground, and by a ſufficient authority; the ſubſtance of the Law ſuffers not at all; the ſubſtance of it is for one day in ſeven directly and no more; the ſeventh day is the Sabbath. To thoſe forementioned vulgar caſes I will adde ſome Scripture-inſtances for the further clearing of it. As thus, why may not the ſeventh part of mans time, and the tenth part of his temporals be underſtood in a parallel ſenſe?Levit. 27.30. Deut. 18.21.Lev 27:30Deut 18:21 Now one part of ten. is principally intended in the Law of tithes, ſurely when God commandeth the tenth, any man will think he hath more reſpect to the number then the order; ſuch a proportion, then ſuch a particular in it: Although indeed (as judicious Mr. Cawdrey notes) in one particular there was a law to reſtrain it to the laſt of ten; of all their Cattel the tenth that came under the rod was holy to the Lord; which law, as he ſayes well,Levit. 27.23.Lev 27:23 need not have been added, if the general law for tithes had intended the laſt of ten. And this is the very caſe here, one day in ſeven is p. 50chiefly and directly intended in this law of the Sabbath,The ſeventh day in every week Chriſt hath now limited by his Apoſtles to the Lords day. Mr. Perkins in Gal. 4.10.Gal 4:10 neither can any more be well gathered from it, unleſs ſome other law be produced to reſtrain it to the laſt of ſeven as once it was, or to the firſt of ſeven as now it is reſtrained; ſome other law I ſay, for there is no ſuch particular reſtriction in theh fourth Commandment. For I pray obſerve this, the Commandment doth not point out the day by way of inſtitution, but only preſcribe the obſervation of it; ſuppoſing it either as already inſtituted, or to be inſtituted elſewhere, either in the Old Teſtament or the New. Again, to that which others have gathered to my hand, let me adde one Scripture-inſtance more; why may not that tribute of time which God calls for, and that tribute of their lands which Joſeph compacted for with the Egyptians, be taken in a like ſenſe, ſince the things themſelves are not much unlike?Gen. 47.24.Gen 47:24 You ſhall give the fifth part of your increaſe to Pharaoh, and four parts ſhall be your own. V. 27.And Joſeph made it a law over the land of Egypt unto this day that Pharaoh ſhould have the fifth part; that is, ſuch a part in proportion, one part in five,The Gram matical conſtruction of the Commandment will bear this ſenſe, and inforce no more then a ſeventh in proportion, and if other arguments muſt ſway the ſenſe, what better arguments then the analogy of other Scriptures and the received Principles of religion, both which carry it for a ſeventh day in proportion, not the old ſeventh day. Irenaeus Phil. you ſhall have four, and Pharaoh ſhall have one. And truely varying but the circumſtances, me thinks the Lord ſpeaks much to the ſame effect in this fourth Commandment. Six dayes ſhalt thou labour, but a ſeventh, or the ſeventh is the Sabbath; that is, dividing the week into ſeven parts, thou ſhalt have ſix of them for thy common work, and I will have one in ſeven for my ſolemn worſhip: He does not ſay the ſeventh day from Creation, that was ordered elſewhere Gen. 2. But a ſeventh in proportion directly, this or that ſeventh indirectly, and by conſequence only.

Yea to proceed to demonſtration, that this is unqueſtionably the mind of God may be thus made out.

p. 51This proportion is no where directly ſtated by a perpetual precept, unleſs it be in this fourth Commandment: Therefore it muſt be ſo determined here.

That it muſt be ſomewhere determined, is evident, becauſe it is ſubſtantially profitable to Religion, the glory of God and the good of ſouls; (as Mr. Cawdrey has invincibly argued) for if men were left to their own liberty to chuſe their own proportion, in all probability, Religion would be ſubſtantially prejudiced and damnified by it; either it would be ſtarved with too little, or ſurfetted with too much Sabbath-time; either Popery would create almoſt every day in the week a holy day, or profaneneſs would be content with one day in a monethmonth: Let ſinful man have liberty to pluck up Gods bounds, and alter his proportion either one way or other, and experience will ſoon ſhew the inconvenience of it: Let it be altered from one of ſeven to one of ten or twenty, and what a deadly blow to Religion would that be? Yea, let the alteration be on the other hand, from one of ſeven to two of ſeven, may we not juſtly ſuſpect more prejudice then profit by ſuch an alteration? Would not one ſabbath be able to juſtle out another, and one day diſturb the holy reſt of another? Truly as our Saviour ſpeaks in another caſe:Luke 19.30.Luke 19:30 No man can ſerve two maſters, but either he will have the one, and love the other, or hold to the one and diſpiſe the other. So we may probably think in this caſe, no man can ordinarily obſerve two Sabbaths in a week, but either he will ſlight the one to keep the other, or it may be in a little time ſlight both and keep neither.Whether the Sabbath ſhould be kept once a week or once a monethmonth cannot be gathered from any plain or perpetual precept, unleſs from the fourth Commandment: Gen. 2. is not plain and direct; Exod. 16.15. no perpetual precept. The Old Teſtament affords no other but the fourth Commandment for one day in ſeven, as direct.Gen 2Exod 16:15 Alter Gods proportion which way you will, and religion will be ſubſtantially damnified by it, but no ſuch damage ariſes from the change of the particular day for another and a better; ſince God and the ſoul have the ſame proportion ſtill (one day in ſeven) though the old ſeventh day be diſplaced. Therefore I conclude, the proportion and p. 52not the particular day is directly determined in this moral and perpetual law, for elſewhere it is not. As for the particular day, whether firſt or laſt of ſeven it falls under the proportion, as having a ſeventh part of time appointed falling upon it and no otherwiſe. But I might have ſpared this argument, for the term, ſeventh day, is large enough in it ſelf, ſince it is not ſaid, the ſeventh day from the Creation or any other period or date of time, but ſeventh day in general. And what high preſumption is it in T.T. to reſtrain the word ſeventh, where no reaſon doth conſtrain? What's this but to limit the holy one of Iſrael,Iſalm 119.96. to clip the wings of Gods Commandment, and narrow it up to his own notion, when the Commandment in it ſelf is exceeding broad? but to proceed,

3. Let us conſult the argumentative part of the precept, viz. that which contains the principal argument and reaſon to inforce the Sabbaths obſervation, and that is Gods example in theſe words, (for in ſix dayes the Lord made heaven and earth, and reſted the ſeventh day:) as if the Lord had ſaid, the reaſon why I would have you obſerve the forementioned proportion of weekly time, ſix dayes for labour, and a ſeventh for reſt, is this, becauſe I my ſelf kept this proportion in the beginning of time, working ſix dayes and reſting but one in ſeven.

Note it well Gods example is not propounded as an argument for the ſeventh day from Creation directly, but more generally for a ſeventh day in proportion, For the example can intend no more then the foregoing clauſe, of which it is brought as a reaſon, and that is no more but one day in ſeven directly, not appropriated to any particular day, as we proved before.

But that ſpecial ſeventh day is intimated in Gods exampie, Obj. for God not only reſted one day in ſeven, but the laſt of ſeven and the ſeventh from Creation.

What then? Anſw. Does it therefore unavoidably follow, that we muſt obſerve the ſame day? the ſame ſingular ſeventh day we cannot obſerve, for that is paſt and gone, therefore it muſt be ſuch a ſeventh day, in likeneſs and correſpondency to that, and why not ſuch a ſeventh in number, or one in ſeven, as well as ſuch as ſeventh for order, p. 53or the laſt of ſeven? If you ſay, the laſt of ſeven is intended in the argument of Gods example; I anſwer, every circumſtance in an argument is not argumentative; and although that day be intimated in the example, yet it is not ſo much argumentatively as hiſtorically propounded? An example is not to be neceſſarily imitated in every circumſtance of it. I will make it plain by a parallel and pertinent inſtance; I hope you will grant, that we are as much bound to imitate the example of Chriſt in the celebration of the ſupper, as the example of God the Father in the obſervation of the Sabbath; we have a plain command for it, Do this in remembrance of me. What then? does it therefore follow that we are tyed to the ſame night in which Chriſt was betrayed? For this is mentioned in the words of inſtitution, and that expreſly;1 Cor. 11.23.1 Cor 11:23 I have received of the Lord that which I alſo delivered unto you? that the Lord Jeſus the ſame night in which he was betrayed tock bread, &c. Mark it, here is Chriſts inſtitution and example recommended to us as a rule to guide our practiſe; and in the propoſal of his example, not only the ſeaſon (in the night) but alſo the punctual circumſtance of it (the ſame night in which he was betrayed) is ſet down; what followes from hence? Is this a good argument for Eaſter-Communions,Haec verba hiſtoric am tantummodò relationem, nequaquam verò determinatum de tempore mandatum continent Gerar. de S.C Loo. Com. p. 536. ot after ſupper-Sacraments? No ſuch matter, for theſe circumſtances are but hiſtorically in timated, not argumentatively propounded; yet this I muſt needs ſay, we may as well argue for ſacrament-celebration the ſame night in which Chriſt was betrayed and no other, as for Sabbath-obſervation the ſame day, in which God reſted and no other. However,If any one ask why we continue the name of the Lords ſupper, and not the time? we anſwer. 1. Becauſe we keep it as the Lords ſupper, not our own ſupper. It retains the name from the firſt adminiſtration. 2. Becauſe we celebrate it in the evening, though not of the day. this is argumentum ad hominem For T.T. is a great ſtickler for night-celebration of the ſupper, and frequently tells us in his book, That Antic hriſt changed the Lords ſupper-time, as well as the Lords Sabbath-time: And I think as much the one as the other. But by the way let me tell him that in arguing p. 54for the night from Chriſts example,See Mr. Phil, Goodwin Evening Communicant ad finem. he runs himſelf upon an inevitable neceſſity of concluding for the ſame night, in which Chriſt was betrayed, or elſe his argument runs a ground, and concludes juſt nothing; for the ſame night as well as the night is put into the words of inſtitution: Although I judg that neither the one nor the other is obligatory, becauſe both were occaſional. Chriſt inſtituted the ſupper in the evening indeed becauſe it was immediately to ſucceed the Paſſeover, which was an evening ordinance, and the ſame evening or night in which he was betrayed, becauſe the next day he was to ſuffer. Both theſe were occaſional, and therefore neither of them perpetual; and beſides, we may well conceive that our Lord did this in the evening, and after the Paſſeover, to ſignifie the aboliſhing both of the paſſeover and the evening; and to leave the time free to his Church ever after, as a late Writer has judiciouſly obſerved. Let not the Reader call this a digreſſion,Non eſt ocioſum quia non infructuoſum loqua citas nulla in aedificatione turpis, Tertull. de patientia. for there is properly no digreſſion in that which may conduce to edification; neither is it impertinent as long as it is not unprofitable. But to return to our argument, ſuppoſe the old ſeventh day were indirectly and circumſtantially commended to the Jews by Gods example, yet it followes not that the ſame day is ſtill in force to us, becauſe circumſtantials in a moral law (as we ſaid before) are changeable without any change in the ſubſtance of the law: I do not ſay they are abrogable as ceremonies, but alterable as circumſtances; they may be changed for better things, and not a tittle of the law annulled, but rather fulfilled by it; according to that of our Saviour, till heaven and earth paſs one jot, Mat. 5.18.Matt 5:18or one tittle ſhall not paſs from the law till all be fulfilled. I ſay, the law is not deſtroyed, but rather fulfilled by the varying of ſome circumſtances, as by changing their typical deliverance from Egypt, into our ſpiritual deliverance from ſin; and the land of Canaan meant in the fifth Commandment into England where we dwell. And becauſe the fourth Commandment and the fifth are neer neighbours, methinks the one may fairly expound p. 55the other. It cannot be denyed,Epheſ. 6.3. The Apoſtle in repeating that promiſe leaves out the words (which the Lord thy God giveth thee) becauſe they were more appropriate to the Jews, and to us the argument is entire without them, See Weems. Chriſ, Syn.Eph 6:3 that the promiſed land intended occaſionally in the fifth Commandment was the land of Canaan; neither do I deny, that the day on which God is ſaid to reſt in the fourth Commandment was the ſeventh day from Creation; yet all will grant that the argument or inducement of the fifth Commandment is not to be reſtrained to that land only, for then it were no argument at all to us. Now I would ask any rational man, why the argument of this fourth Commandment ſhould be limited to that particular day from Creation, more then the argument of the fifth Commandment to that particular land of Canaan; ſince both the one and the other are but occaſionally inſinuated? And to limit the inducement of a moral law to an occaſional circumſtance, is the ready way to evacuate and make void the whole law. But we ſhall put it out of all doubt, that Gods example here propounded is only for one day in ſeven directly, ſubſtantially and properly; for the old ſeventh only conſequentially, indirectly or occaſionally; and that by a double conſideration.

1. Becauſe it is here urged as a reaſon of what went before.

2. Becauſe the reaſon of this reaſon is chiefly for one day in ſeven.

1. This example of God (in ſix dayes the Lord made heaven and earth, and reſted the ſeventh day) is alleged as a reaſon of the forementioned clauſe (ſix dayss ſhalt thou labour, but the ſeventh is the Sabbath) ſo much is clearly implyed in the connexive or cauſal particle, For; ſix dayes ſhalt thou labour and reſt a ſeventh, For ſo did Jehovah thy God: Now the reaſon annexed to any rule muſt (if there be any amiguity in it) be expounded by the rule, the rule muſt not be interpreted by the reaſon; for the rule is not brought for the reaſon, but that for the rule: Therefore as the former receives ſtrength by the latter, ſo the p. 56latter muſt receive light from the fotmer. Now the ſtanding rule for the weekly Sabbath is this, Six dayes ſhalt thou labour, but a ſeventh is the Sabbath. Here the term ſeventh is general,foreign Indifferently ſignifies a ſeventh or the ſeventh; a and the being particles proper to the Engliſh tongue are defective in the Hebrew and Latine. To ſupply which defect the ſchooles diſtinguiſh of Diet ſeptimus formaliter, and Dies ſeptimus materialiter. as was noted before. 'Tis not ſaid, this or that ſeventh, but leftat large. And where God has left a latitude, we may not dare to put a limitation, that were to encloſe Gods Common, and intrench upon his Royalty: Well, then the Rule being only expreſs for a ſeventh day in general, the reaſon or argument here brought to perſwade to the obſervation of ſuch a general ſeventh, is taken from Gods example, who alſo reſted a ſeventh day; which although it were the laſt of ſeven, yet being only alledged as a reaſon of the forementioned rule, it can ſignifie no more then the rule it ſelf of which it is a reaſon: And ſo it is clear, that the ſenſe of this latter clauſe (in ſix dayes the Lord made heaven and earth, and reſted the ſeventh) muſt be only according to the ſenſe of the former clauſe (ſix dayes ſhalt thou labour, but a ſeventh is the Sabbath) that is, a ſeventh in proportion directly. And thus the firſt day of the week is as much the Sabbath of the fourth Commandment to Chriſtians, as ever the laſt of the week was to the Jewes, being one day in ſeven as well as that. To diſpute for the ſame day on which God reſted, and infer a neceſſity of obſerving that day, becauſe we muſt obſerve that proportion, is to argue à dicto ſecundum quid, ad dictum ſimpliciter, a well known fallacy. For the argument is only direct for ſuch a proportion (ſix for labour and a ſeventh every week for reſt) not this or that ſeventh from any prefixed period.

2. Let us look into the reaſon of this reaſon, and then the caſe will be yet more clear, the reaſon or equity of any law is the life and ſtrength of the law. And it is the deſign of Gods wiſdome in impoſing laws upon his creatures to propoſe ſuch reaſons in thoſe lawes as ſhall make p. 57them appear congruous and ſuitable to thoſe common principles of right and equity,Pſalm 119.18. Rom. 7.12. Deus ideò leges ſuas judicia vocat quod aequiffima ſunt quae praeſcribit.Ps 119:18Rom 7:12 impreſſed upon the creature. And hence Gods lawes are ſo often ſtyled, Judgments, becauſe in all things they are juſt and equal; and certainly that ſenſe of the argument which doth moſt ſhew the equity of the Commandment is the beſt and trueſt ſenſe. Now let us conſider the equity that Gods example carryes with it in reference to the aforeſaid proportion of ſix dayes for labour, and one in ſeven for reſt. As thus, if the great God who needs not a moment of time either for work or reſt, (as being neither ſubject to weakneſs nor wearineſs) if he, I ſay, were pleaſed when he had work to do (even a world to make) to take ſix dayes for his work, and one in ſeven for reſt, how much more ſhould we men ſtill hold to this proportion, who by reaſon of corporal weakneſs and ſpiritual wants need ſuch a competency of time, both for ſecular imployments and ſoul refreſhments? Thus there is convincing ſtrength of reaſon and equity in it. But now to argue for the particular day; God wrought firſt ſix dayes, and then reſted the laſt of ſeven, therefore we muſt firſt work and then reſt, has no ſuch argumentative force in it, eſpecially to us Chriſtians, who living under a Covenant of pure grace do rather work by reſt, then reſt by works; and therefoe (the Sabbath being ſuitable to the Covenant) we may rather judg it equitable to begin the week with a day of reſt, and work the ſix dayes after, then to work the ſix firſt dayes, and then reſt the laſt ſeventh. Even dim-eyed nature judges it moſt equal toaaA Jove principium. begin with God,bbSupervacua neceſſariis poſt-ponenda ſunt. Senec. ep. 49. and give the precedency to things moſt neceſſary; and grace both not gain-ſay it but rather approve it; for is it not moſt reaſonable that I ſhould ſerve my gracious Lord in the duties of his worſhip, becauſe I ſerve my ſelf in the works of my calling? But the truth is, Gods example is neither directly for firſt or laſt of ſeven, but for one in ſeven perpetually. The force of Gods argument lies in this, that we ſhould dedicate one day in ſeven to reſt, for ſix working dayes indulged to our ſelves. p. 58And herein we imitate Gods example in labouring ſix dayes and reſting one in ſeven weekly. For farther ſatisfaction in this argument let the ingenuous Reader conſult Mr. Cawdrey, and Mr. White of Dorch. two burning and ſhining Lights, who have gone before me: if any little ſpark be here added, let the Father of lights have all the glory.

4. And laſtly let us come to that which for memories-ſake I call the benedictive part of the Commandment (wherefore the Lord bleſſed the Sabbath day, &c.) obſerve the phraſe, not ſeventh day but Sabbath day or day of reſt is bleſſed.The Commandment both opens and ſhuts, begins and ends with the term Sabbath day, not ſeventh day. Certainly, if the foregoing argument drawn from Gods example had intended only the ſeventh day from Creation, this concluſion flowing from that argument had fallen upon that day alſo; but we ſee the term is evidently changed, that we may not miſtake Gods meaning by a ſuppoſed ſtrictneſs in the term ſeventh day; ſee how the Lord condeſcends to our weakneſs writing Sabbath day or day of reſt inſtead of ſeventh day: The Word Abbath like a finger points both forward and backward, directiug us how to expound the whole precept in a large, and not in a limited ſenſe. Doubtleſs if the Lord God had intended to tye up his Church in all ages to the ſeventh day from the Creation, he would have fixed the command upon that day only, eſpecially in the concluſion of it; why ſhould not that preciſe day be mentioned here as well as in the Inſtitution, Gen. 2. There he is ſaid to bleſs and ſanctifie the ſeventh day, here only the Sabbath day: a more probable reaſon to me is not imaginable then this, the Commandment is of a larger extent then the Inſtitution. And beſides, the Inſtitution of the old day, Gen. 2. was but temporary and mutable, whereas the precept it ſelf is more and perpetual; ſee then how wiſely the Lord our Law-giver has contrived it, that it ſhould not be reſtrained to that particular ſeventh day. To conclude with this concluſion, the whole weight and ſtreſs of the Commandment you ſee leans upon large and general terms; the p. 59Preceptive part is for a day of reſt in general, the Benedictive part is of the ſame latitude; and although the ſeventh day be placed in the middle betwixt both, yet it is not fixed upon one day more then another, unleſs it be occaſionally, which indeed is no fixure at all; what hinders therefore but the whole ſubſtance of the precept may ſtand in the fall of the day, ſince it was never incorporated into the moral ſubſtance of this or any other command. It is (I muſt needs ſay) a truth to me as evident as the light it ſelf, that the fourth Commandment in all the ſubſtantials of it makes as much for the Lords day (being one in ſeven of Gods appointment) as ever it did for the old Sabbath? And here I cannot ſufficiently admire and adore the depth of Divine wiſdome that the ever glorious God foreſeeing and foreappointing the change of the day, took care to contrive and pen the commandment in ſuch expreſſions as might aptly ſuite the old day while it laſted, and as equally ſort with the new, now it is ſubſtituted in the roome of the old. That the Jewes (upon the diſcovery of ſo happy a change) might not loath their old Sabbath, the precept was occaſionally and circumſtantially fitted to that, and that we Chriſtians having a new, might not be limited to the old it is ſubſtantially adapted to this. I ſhall need add no more, if men did not wilfully wink, I ſhould thinke here were light enough in this Lamp of the Law to convince them. As for the adverſaries objections ſcattered here and there in his book, they vaniſh like ſo many vapours before the Sun being brought forth and tryed by the evidence of this truth.

To aſſert the whole Lawes morality, T.T. Obj. 1. p. 14. Anſw.and yet plead the Sabbaths mutability, ſcarce ſavours of rationality.

Theſe are fine words but feeble arguments, and indeed his book is full of them. But to anſwer his Jingle; if by Sabbath he mean the ſeventh day from Creation, what irrationality is it to plead the mutability of that day, and yet hold the morality of the Law? Since that day was never a tittle of the Lawes morality? Neither can he affirm p. 60it without groſs abſurdity; prove it, I am ſure he cannot by all his ſophiſtry.

If God by a poſitive moral law bind all men in all ages to ſuch a particular day as himſelf appointed, Obj. 2 p. 119.then either they muſt prove that God hath made his moral law mutable by appointing ſome other day, or elſe reſtore the ſeventh day-Sabbath.

What pitiful chopt Logick is this? Anſ. Why, can the particular day be no where appointed but in the moral law? his not he himſelf often affirmed, that it was inſtituted elſewhere? And muſt the moral law needs go to wrack when a new day is appointed? Let him firſt prove that the old day was any eſſential part of the moral law, till I ſee that I may ſafely affirm, that in the change of the day as an occaſional circumſtance, the ſubſtance of the law remains unchangeable, as a man may change his old clothes for new, yea and alter his temperament too, and yet be ſtill the ſame man, as long as for ſubſtance he has the ſame ſoul and body.

Some do aſſert (but not for want of ignorance) that tis not that ſpecial ſeventh day, Obj. 3 pa. 47.but a ſeventh day that is injoyned; whereas we have not only the pattern in the mount; namely, the preciſe time of Gods reſt to point out the day, but (to end all cavil) he points twice in the Commandment to that very day on which he reſted, by the Emphatical demonſtrative particle foreign; ſo that 'tis not a ſeventh, but Haſhebigni the ſeventh day; therefore they had need make ſure of a very clear word for the change of the day, for fear of being left ſpeechleſs at the day of Judgment.

And ſo he runs on to th end of the page, ſpinning a large web, but when all comes to all, it is but a cobweb, we ſhall ſweep it down by degrees. And

If by the aſſertours of the forementioned truth, Anſw. 1 he mean (as needs he muſt) thoſe that maintain the fourth Commandment to be moral for one day in ſeven, not the old ſeventh day, then let me tell him, his charging them with no want of ignorance, argues in himſelf no want of impudence; for upon whom does this arrogant cenſure p. 61fall, but upon all the Learned, Zealous, and pious ſervants of God (called Puritans) who have encountred the rigid prelatical party in this controverſie? asaap 73. Dr. Bownd, bbHexap in Gen p 43.Dr. Willet, ccSect. 6.Dr. Twiſs, ddDies Domin. l. 1. c. 10Dr. Young, eeMoſaic. Sab. p. 70.Mr. Bernard of Batcomb, ffin Gen. 2. & moral. of the fourth Co.Gen 2Mr. White of Dorch. ggDoctr. of the Sab. vind. p. 236Mr. Byfield, hhof the Sab. p. 78.Mr. Fenner, iiDeclar. the Sab. p. 101.Mr. Cleaver, kkp. 6. & 36.Mr. Sprint, llpart 2. c. 7. throughout.Mr. Cawdrey and Mr. Palmer, and whom not of ſavory name in the Church of Chriſt? do they not all affirm the ſame thing? That the Comandment is ſubſtantially moral for one day in ſeven, not that old ſeventh day? and muſt all theſe modern worthies be branded for meer ignoramus's? And not only theſe but all the Ancients too, whoſe teſtimony they have all along cited? Surely this man is very wiſe in his own conceit, that he can thus look upon the greateſt lights of theſe latter dayes as fools and dunces. But I ſhall not anſwer him in his folly, therefore to proceed.

Whereas he objects that we have Gods pattern in the mount (the preciſe time of his reſt) to point out the day; Anſw. 2 As in the firſt Inſtitution of the ſupper Chriſt made uſe of unleavened bread, yet his example binds us only to the uſe of bread, not that which is unleavened. So for the firſt Inſtitution of the Sabbath, God reſted on the ſeventh day from Creation; yet his example binds us only to a day of that number, not that particular day. See the new Annot. in Exod. 20. & Atterſolls new Cov.Exod 20I anſwer as before, that Gods pattern or example is directly propounded in the Commandment, to point out the proportion not the particular day. The proportion, I ſay, of one day in ſeven for reſt in oppoſition to ſix working dayes. And therefore the number of Gods working dayes is ſpecified in the example, as well as the day of his reſt, (for in ſix dayes the Lord made Heaven, Earth, and Sea, and reſted the ſeventh day) plainly intimating, that the main force of the example is to bind us to ſuch a number of dayes, ſix for labour and one in a week for reſt, not ſuch an order as firſt or laſt of ſeven. Or admit there were ſome thing elſe in it; namely, that indirectly and occaſionally it did lead the Jews to that old ſeventh day, that is, during the ſignificancy of that day, and the ſupereminency of the firſt Creation; yet when a new Creation is finiſhed and a p. 62new reſt from a greater work manifeſted upon another day, that indirect and occaſional force of the example for the old day, muſt needs be out of force to us, being ſubordinated and ſwallowed up by the glory of a greater work and a better reſt upon another day. And that without any violation of the precept at all, yea or the example either, in the direct ſcope of it for one day in ſeven. A new day might be and is inſtituted, and yet the main ſcope both of the precept and example ſtill obſerved, in our labouring ſix dayes and reſting every ſeventh. Only that which was circumſtantial and occaſional, is altered upon the account of the new Creatio or Redemption, which comparatively was to put out the memory of the old Creation, as it is plain, Iſai. 65.17. And that thus it ſhould be, that the occaſional force of Gods example (as to the old day) ſhould be out of force to us, and yet a weekly Sabbath to be ſtill obſerved by the moral and direct force of the command, me thinks it is not obſcurely ſignified in the Commandment it ſelf, if we do but compare two places together, Exod. 20. with Deut. 5. at the firſt giving of the Law in thunder and terrour,Exod. 20.11. compared with Deut. 5.15.Exod 20:11Deut 5:15 the Sabbath is wholly inforced from the Creation, and Gods example in reſting from that work, as was ſaid before; but in the repetition or ſecond-giving of the law by the hand of Moſes, a typical mediatour, Deut. 5. you ſee the reaſon from the Creation is quite left out, and the Sabbath is altogether inforced by a type of our Redemption, viz. their deliverance from the Egyptian bondage, Remember that thou waſt a ſervant in the land of Egypt,Mr. G. Abbot Vindic. Sabb. a moſt accurate Treatiſe never yet anſwered. So alſo ſee learned Ainſworth in Exod. 20.Exod 20 and the Lord brought thee thence by a mighty hand, therefore he commanded thee to keep the Sabbath day; lively intimating, (as a learned Author obſerves) the ſubſiſtence of the fourth Commandment under the Goſpel, and the binding authority of it by the incorporation of a new reaſon drawn from our Redemption or ſpiritual deliverance by Chriſt, inſtead of the old reaſon drawn from the Creation, which is here utterly omitted. And (as he ſayes well) it is worthy to be p. 63conſidere, whether ſuch a repetition of the fourth Commandment (not Seorſim, or by it ſelf alone, but together with the whole decalogue in its proper place and order) with ſuch a material omiſſion or alteration be not very ſignificant? and what can it more properly ſignifie then this, that under the ſecond and beſt diſpenſation of the Law (that is under the Goſpel) the main argument for our weekly Sabbath ſhould be the work of Redemption? Surely their deliverance from Egypt literally conſidered, was not comparable to the work of Creation, that it ſhould here be propounded as the reaſon of the Sabbath, and the other left out; but as a type of the moſt glorious and gracious work of Redemption there was much weight in it. And if the type it ſelf were thus ſignificant, Argum. a minori.as to carry the force of a reaſon for the weekly Sabbath, ſetting aſide the Creation, how much more ſhould the antitype, which excells all types in glory, as much as the Su does the ſhadow?

It will perhaps be objected, That this argues the perpetuity of the old ſeventh day under the Goſpel.

I anſwer, No, it quite overthrowes it, for in as much as it ſignifies the weekly celebration of a Sabbath in memory of Redemption, rather then of Creation, it evidently implyes, that when this greater work ſhould be finiſhed the memory of the Creation upon which the old day was fixed, ſhould be ſwallowed up by the worke of Redemption, and then the day it ſelf muſt unavoidably be changed. Its true, while the type laſted, and Redemption was rather figured then fulfilled, the old day was ſtill to be obſeved; but when the type ſhould give place to the truth, the day alſo which went along with the type muſt neceſſarily expire with it. At leaſt our ſpiritual Redemption by Chriſt being much more glorious then their typical and temporal deliverance from Egypt, muſt needs eate out the memory of the Creation, and ſo tranſlate the day, by antiquating the argument of it, viz. the indirect force of Gods example in reſting upon that day. p. 64I do not ſay, the direct and principal force of the example (for one day in ſeven) is evacuated. But rather that this number and proportion being ſtill obſerved by the Apoſtles in a new day, ſtrongly argues, that the inſerting of the forementioned argument inſtead of Gods example, does only make void the circumſtantial force of the example (for the old ſeventh day) not the ſubſtantial and moral equity of it for one day in ſeven. Quod orat reſpondendum.

As for the Hebrew Article or Particle foreign with which he makes ſuch a noyſe, Anſw. 3 By the ſame rule we muſt in the next verſe tranſlate foreign Thoſe heavens and that earth as though there were ſome others, Num. 18.26. foreignNum 18:26who knows not that it is more frequently a cypher then a figure, ſerving rather for ornament, then for argument, and to fill up the ſentence then to form the ſenſe? Mr. White of Dorch. has given many clear inſtances where foreign prefixed to a numeral, notes nothing at all, and if need were I could adde twice as many more; let theſe two ſuffice, the tithes or tenth part has ha ſet before it, yet it ſignifies indefinitely one part of ten.bbEzek. 5. v. 2.12. foreign Bp. White p. 183.Ezek 5:2Ezek 5:12 So Ezek. 5. it is no leſs then four times prophets hair without any Emphaſis at all, denoting only one part of three; and I ſee no reaſon why it might not alſo ſignifie one day of ſeven in the Commandment. I wonder T.T. will trouble the world with ſuch common cirtifiſmes; ſure he cannot be ignorant that this was Bp. Whites notion long before it was his. And the truth is, that unhappy proverb may be written upon many of his arguments. The Biſhops foot hath trodden here; yet this is the man that cyres down Biſhops (as every coward will draw his ſword upon a conquered enemy) when there is no truth in me if the weapons with which he fights againſt the truth be not the very ſame which they formed againſt their Puritant adverſaries. What ſhameful hypocriſie is this? But ſuppoſe the Particle ha in this place be Emphatical, yet why muſt it needs point out the day on which God reſted? Why, not rather ſuch a day in proportion? Therefore inſtead of ending all cavils, this is but a meer cavil.

p. 65Oh but he bleſſed it and ſanctified it, ſays the Objector.

Anſ. This is either an ignorant or an impudent cavil; for there is but one it in the clauſe, and that refers to the word Sabbath, and not the ſeventh day, and ſo I make bold to retort his own words with a little addition. Take heed of adding to the commandement of the living God to ſerve your own turn, or putting ſeventh day inſtead of Sabbath day, for feare of being left ſpeechleſſe at the day of Judgment.

As for thoſe that ſuppoſe a ſeventh day is the morality of the fourth Commandement, T. T. Obj. 4. p. 47.they will never help themſelves by it, for if it be a ſeventh it cannot be a ſixth or an eighth or any other number.

This ſhaft ſeemes to be taken out of T. Bs. or James Ockfords Quiver, who argued at the ſame rate, Anſw. and are ſufficiently anſwerd by others: The ſumme of what hath been ſaid is this; That the Lords day ay in one account be termed the firſt day of the week or the 8^th day,As 2 Pet. 2.5. compared with 1 Pet. 3.20. Noah is ſtiled the 8^th perſon as one that made up the number of eight, although in reſpect of dignity he was the firſt perſon.2 Pet 2:51 Pet 3:20 and yet in another account the ſeventh day. And it is a pithy ſaying of Mr. Shepheard: If the Lords day may be ſtyled the firſt day of the week in one reſpect, and yet the eighth day in another reſpect, why may it not in a third reſpect put on the name ſevent day? and ſo Mr. Cawdrey ſeconds him as Adam, ſays he, (excepting but the firſt ſeventh day) might be ſaid to worke the firſt ſix dayes and reſt the ſeventh, ſo ſuppoſing Chriſt kept the firſt Lords day, we may be ſayd ever after to work ſix days and reſt the ſeventh. And that thus it was (ſays another) in the account of the primitive Chriſtians, appeareth 1. Cor. 16.2. upon the firſt day of the weeke let every one of you lay be him in ſtore as God hath proſpered him; to wit,So Mr. Sheph. Octavus dicitur quod cum aliis ſeptem ſervatus fuit. Beze in locum. So alſo Act. 20 6.7. where no day but the firſt of the week is thus diſpoſed of, to be the ſeventh day. G. A.Acts 20:6Acts 20:7 in the ſix foregoing work dayes. In a word, although our Chriſtian Sabbath be the firſt day of the week in order, yet it is p. 66ſtill the ſeventh in number, having ſix working dayes going before it in one weeke, and following it in another continually, and this ſatisfies the Commandement.

The like may be ſayd for that notion of a ſeventh part of time which they confeſs to be purely moral. T.T. Ob. 5. p. 47.If ſo, then no other but ſimply the ſeventh part muſt from week to week be devoted to Gods worſhip; for when ever the ſeventh part of time is altered, p. 117.the morality muſt needs be deſtroyed. Which is thus pieced up in another page. The wiſeſt Chriſtian in the world cannot contrive a change of the day but he muſt deſtroy the morality of the law; This Objection was long ago ſtarted by Mr. Primroſe in his zeal againſt the Engliſh Puritans. part 2. ch. 7. p. 162,for let him change it to a ſixth day, and that cannot be a ſeventh part of time; let him tranſlate it to the eighth day, and then ſeven days paſſe without any one Sabbath; let him keep the ſeventh or the eighth or firſt, at his change of the day, and then he keepes two Sabbaths within the compaſſe of ſeven dayes. — This is his Gordian knot, but we need not cut it, it is eaſily untyed. For

A ſeventh part of time (which here he derides as a notion, Anſw. 1 when as ap. 43. little before it was his own conceſſion) we grant indeed to be morall, yet not morall natural, if he intend that by purely moral, but we ſay it is moral poſitive. And to grant him as much as we can,If moral natural be taken for that which is known by the light of nature without revelation, ſo one day in ſeven is not purely moral. But if it be taken for that which nature informed by a written word, judges moſt agreeable to moral and religious equity ſo we may grant it. we alſo affirme, that a ſeventh part of time muſt be perpetually devoted to God from week to week, that is one part of ſeven. Neither did this proportion receive any interruption by the change of the day; for the Jewes Sabbath (being in uſe while Chriſt lay in the grave) was the ſeventh part of time for the week going before the reſurrection, and the Lords day was the ſeventh part of time for the weeke following the reſurrection, what inconvenience in all this? Anſw. 2

If by the ſeventh part of time ſimply conſidered he will p. 67needs underſtend the laſt of ſeven in order, he muſt firſt convince us, that this is the morality of the Commandment; which if (by working miracles in Logick and Divinity) he can do, yet it will at no hand follow, that the altering or adjourning of this proportion from the laſt to the firſt day of the week was any violation of the precepts morality. In this caſe (as one ſayes) alteration is no diſſolution, no more then to adjourn the Parliament to another time, is to diſſolve the Parliament. Beſides, an extraordinary caſe can be no violation of an ordinary rule. As the Suns ſtanding ſtill in Joſhuahs, and going back in Hezekiahs time, which did undoubtedly alter the ſetled courſe of time, for man had more then ſix parts, and God had leſs then ſimply a ſeventh part of time for thoſe two weeks; yet being extroardinary caſes they were no infringment of that ordinary ſtanding rule for a ſeventh part of time from week to week. So here ſuppoſing ſome variation, in the ordinary courſe of time at the firſt change of the day, yet being by a perſon extraordinary (the Lord of glory who made the law and is above the law) as alſo upon an occaſion extraordinary (his reſurrection from the dead) who would dare to ſay, as this objectour does, that the morality of the law was hereby deſtroyed?

Whereas he further ſuggeſts, That if the Sabbath were tranſlated to the eighth or first day, Anſw. 3 This was T. Brabourns Objection. p. 178.then ſeven dayes must paſs without any one Sabbath; it is already anſwered, there is not the leaſt neceſſity of that; for as the Paſchal ſupper was in uſe till the Goſpel-ſupper was inſtituted, ſo was the old Sabbath till the Lords days was conſecrated by the Lords reſurrection. Hence the holy women are commended for keeping it;Luk. 23.56.Luke 23:56 they were (as one ſayes) commended for keeping the Jews Sabbath before Chriſts reſurrection,Note that. but never were any commended for keeping it after his reſurrection. Hitherto therefore it appears, what feeble, unjoynted, unſinnewed ſhadows of arguments this Author pleaſes himſelf, and perverts the ſimple withall. Neither

p. 68Is there any ſtrength in that which comes up in the rear, Anſw. 4 that whoever ſhould keep the old ſeventh day, and the firſt day of the week at the change of the day, he muſt keep two Sabbaths within the circuit of ſeven dayes. What then? as long as theſe two Sabbaths fell in two ſeveral weeks, this brake no ſquares in the morality of the law; for the Commandment is only for one day of ſeven in the circle of every week.Levir. 23.15. Deut. 16.9. Luk. 18.12.Deut 16:9Luke 18:12 Hence the Sabbath (being the boundary of weekly time) is ſometimes termed week, intimating, that as it was ever a ſeventh day Sabbath, ſo alſo a weekly Sabbath; one day in a week, and but one in a week ordinarily. And this rule was exactly kept in the change of the day; for as there were two Sabbaths, ſo two diſtinct weeks in which the forementioned proportion of ſix dayes for work, and one for reſt was punctually obſerved. In a word, the ſuppoſed diſorder objected againſt the change of the day, is but a dart flung againſt heaven, a cavil raiſed againſt Chriſt and his bleſſed Apoſtles, who were well enough able to anſwer it, and ſo are we alſo, building upon the foundation of the Prophets and Apoſtles, Epheſ. 2.20.Eph 2:20and Jeſus Chriſt the chief corner-ſtone; who when he was made the head of the corner did crown the Reſurrection-day above all other dayes; intimating as much by an illuſtrious Prophet, Pſalm 118.24. and expounding it by his inſpired Apoſtles both in their doctrine, Acts 4.11. and their practiſe, Acts 20.7. ſo that the Lords day having Chriſt himſelf for its corner-ſtone, Prophets and Apoſtles for its foundation, we may look upon all objections of this nature, as groundleſs and graceleſs cavillations, which like proud waves daſhing againſt the rock diſſipate themſelves with their own fury.Mark 2.28.Mark 2:28 Sure we are, that the Lord Jeſus being Lord of the Sabbath, had power to change it, and in the change it was fit the Sabbath ſhould waite upon him who was Lord of it, not he upon it. And if the order or conſtituted courſe of time received ſome ſmall interruption (for once) by the change of the day, yet it was no more then what had happened twice before, viz. upon p. 69the ſtanding ſtill and going back of the Sun,Joſhu. 10.13. Iſai. 38.8.Isa 38:8 far leſs events then the glorious ſhining forth of the Sun of righteouſneſs after a three dayes, eclipſe in the chambers of death.

He has but one diſcharge more againſt the truth; and then all his powder is ſpent to no purpoſe. He charges our doctrine with a groſs abſurdity as thus, Obj. 6 p. 116.That we render Gods reaſon of Janctifiing-the Sabbath in this wiſe; for in ſix dayes the Lord made heaven and earth, and reſted the firſt day, Wherefore the Lord bleſſed the firſt day for his Sabbath, and ſanctified it.

But we anſwer, Anſw. this pretended abſurdity is a meer calumny; we are not ſo deſtitute of reaſon as to render Gods reaſon in ſuch a miſhapen form; we only argue thus, that we muſt ſanctifie one day in ſeven, becauſe God did ſo. As for the particular day whether firſt or laſt of ſeven, we ground it not directly either upon the precept or example of God; but we ſay it is inſtituted elſewhere. And when we have found the inſtitution or deſignation of the Lords day ſomewhere elſe (as ſhortly we ſhall) we only go to the Commandment as a rule for the obſervation of it, and accordingly we urge conſcience with Gods example, not as directly pointing out the day (for ſo it was never intended) but as perſwading us to ſuch a proportion (one day in ſeven) of his own appointment. And therefore we reject all his lame conſequences, That unleſs we will caſt this abſurdity upon God, we muſt caſt off the fourth Commandment, at leaſt the reaſon of it muſt be rejected, &c. Theſe are his own coined ſuppoſitions, our concluſions are nothing akin to theſe wild inferences, as any man may ſee that has but half an eye in this controverſie. As for thoſe popular paſſages up and down his book, That if the day be changed more then a tittle of the Law is abrogated; I look upon them as words' of courſe (which in a Controverſie weigh no more then a feather) yea, as beggerly fallacies, for they all along begge the queſtion, taking that for granted, which hath been ſoundly whipt with a denyal by ſundry learned pens, viz. that the ſeventh day from p. 70the Creation was ever an expreſs tittle of the Commandment; a ſeventh day in a week indeed is more then a tittle of the Law, and this number is ſtill continued in the obſervation of the Lords day all the Chriſtian world over: And I doubt not but it ſhall continue to the end of the world, although the old day be changed; as in the celebration of the Paſſeover the preciſe order of time was ſometimes altered; for whereas the fourteenth day of the firſt monethmonth was the time appointed at firſt,Exod. 12.18.Exod 12:18 yet Hezekiahs great paſſeover was kept on the fourteenth day of the ſecond monethmonth.2 Chron. 30.5.2 Chr 30:5 Where you ſee the preciſe individual day altered upon occaſion; yet the number (the fourteenth day) ſtill obſerved.See this illuſtration further cleared by Mr. G. Abbot. p. 37. and Mr. Walker. p. 49. So upon a greater and better occaſion the Sabbath is altered (as to the day) yet the ſeventh day in number ſtill kept intire in this, as the fourteenth in the other. And ſo the Sabbath now as well as the Paſſeover then, for ſubſtance preſerved; notwithſtanding the circumſtantial and occaſional change of the day. And thus through the conduct of my gracious Guide leading me by Scripture light, and the foot-ſteps of my dear companions in the cauſe of Chriſt, I have ſafely paſſed the pikes of oppoſition, and vindicated this royal law from the falſe gloſſes and erroneous diſcants of the adverſary, carrying this concluſion all along before me as a truth triumphing over all contradiction, That the old ſeventh day was never propounded as the ſubſtance or ſpecial ſubject of any moral law. I ſhall but touch upon the ſecond.

2. That it ſeems to be pointed at as a ſign under the ceremonial law, yea it does more then ſeem ſo, if the text be impartially viewed, Exod. 31. from v. 13. to v. 18. where we find a ſpecial charge impoſed upon the Jews to obſerve the Sabbath, and that upon ſundry conſiderations.

1. From the end of it. Verily my Sabbath ye ſhall keep for it a ſign between me and you, V. 13.throughout your generations to know that I am Jehovah that ſanctifieth you, foreignfor ſo the words run in the Hebrew. And this is farther explicated. v. V. 14.14. ye ſhall keep the Sabbath therefore, for it is holy, or p. 71holineſs to you; thereby expounding what was meant by his ſanctifying of them in the verſe before:foreign As if the Lord had ſaid, the keeping of my Sabbaths ſhall be a diſtinctive badge and cogniſance of your Covenant-holineſs,Sabbathum eſt ſignum quod Deus Iſraclem ſanctificat, ut Sabbathum ſanctifionvit, ſcil. ſegregando eosex Gentibns profanls in peculiarem ſibi popnlum. Lavat in Exek. Hom. 26. a ſign that I do ſanctifie you and ſeparate you to my ſelf above all the people of the earth, for an holy and peculiar people: for as the Lord is ſaid to ſanctifie the Sabbath, ſo alſo to ſanctifie Iſrael; that is, by ſeparating it from all other dayes, and them from all other nations to be holineſs to himfelf. And this is the firſt ſpecial reaſon why they ſhould keep the Sabbath throughout their generations, as a ſign or mark of diſtinction to difference them from the reſt of the profane world.

2. From the perill of profaning it. v. 14.15. Every one that defileth it ſhall ſurely be put to death, for whoſoever doth any work therein, that ſoul ſhall be cut off from amongſt his people, &c. A law ſhortly after executed in the letter of it, by ſtoning to death one that gathered ſticks on the Sabbath day;Numb. 15.36.Num 15:36 which rigour (for ought I can find to the contrary) laſted no longer then the Iſraelites peregrination in the wilderneſs, where (as one ſayes) an extraordinary ſtrict reſt was impoſed upon them, becauſe they were extraordinarily accommodated for it. Being (as the Saints in heaven are) immediately at Gods finding, having Mannah without means daily provided for them; and hence it is ſaid, Numb. 15.32. While the children of Iſrael were in the wilderneſs, they found a man that gathered ſticks on the Sabbath day, and ſtoned him to death: Note the Phraſe, while they wore in the wilderneſs, not elſewhere; for when they were out of the wilderneſs we never read of the like puniſhment inflicted. It ſeems then that this ſtrict kind of reſt and rigour was reſtrained to that time and place only.

3. Another argument to inforce their obſervation of the Sabbath, is taken, from the moral equity of it, verſe 15. Six dayes may work be done, but the ſeventhis the Sabbath: As if the Lord had ſaid, ye may well afford me one day p. 72in ſeven, ſince I have given you ſix in ſeven. And this again is reinforced by Gods example in the latter part of v. 17. For in ſix dayes the Lord made heaven and earth, and reſted the ſeventh day, Now it concerns us to inquire in this context what was proper to the Jews, and what common with them to us? What is moral and perpetual, what judicial or ceremonial and temporary? For that morals and judicials are here mingled together none can deny; and the difficulty will be, how to ſever the one from the other, and to ſhew in what ſenſe the Sabbath was made a ſign; what the ſignificancy of it was; and eſpecially what kind of ſign, whether a permanent ſign, as the Rain bow, or a tranſient ſign, as the cloudly pillar in the wilderneſs. There are ſundry ſorts of ſigns ſpoken of in Scripture, I ſhall onelyonly inſtance in thoſe that are of prime note, and pertinency to reſolve the caſe in hand.

1.foreign Joſh. 4.6, 7. So alſo the Paſſeover was and the Lords ſupper is a ſign being both memorative Exod. 12.26. Mat. 26.26. 1 Cor. 11.24.Josh 4:6Josh 4:7Exod 12:26Matt 26:261 Cor 11:24 There are remembrancing ſigns, as the twelve ſtones taken out of Jordan (for every tribe one) were ſet up as a ſign to after-ages, for a memorial to the childen of Iſrael that the waters of Jordan were cut off before the ark. And ſuch a kind of ſign, it is commonly thought the Sabbath was a memorial of the Creation. But that it is ſo propounded or intended here, cannot eaſily be proved, ſince the Lord does not ſay, I have given you my Sabbaths as a ſign that I created the world, but for a ſign that I the Lord do ſanctifie you. And although it be added, v. 17. It is a ſign betwixt me and the Children of Iſrael for ever; Ainach majoris diſtinctionis & pauſae eſt accentus. Buxtorf. Theſ. Gram.for in ſix dayes the Lord made heaven and earth &c. Yet it is not ſaid, it ſhall be a ſign, that in ſix dayes the Lord made heaven and earth. For there is a notable pauſe in the middle, which divides the ſentence and the ſenſe alſo. The ſeventeenth verſe containes two diſtinct arguments, or reaſons why they ſhould keep the Sabbath.

1. Becauſe it was a ſign. 2. Becauſe it was ſet apart upon the occaſion of Gods work and reſt in the beginning.

2.foreign 1 Joh. 2.3. 1 Joh. 3.18.1 John 2:31 John 3:18 There are indicating or evidencing ſignes; ſuch are the Characters of ſaving grace. But neither can this be p. 73the ſenſe of the word ſign in this place. It is a ſign that I the Lord do ſanctifie you: What ſavingly? why then all were Iſrael that were of Iſrael, for the Sabbath was given to all; neither was it ſo much their keeping the Sabbath as Gods giving them a Sabbath to keep which is here made a ſign: Witneſs Ezekiel, Moſes his interpretor. I have given them my Sabbath for a ſign, Ezek. 20.13.Ezek 20:13to know that I the Lord do ſanctifie them. Therefore

3. There are diſtinguiſhing, or differencing ſigns, foreignſuch as do viſibly mark out a people for Gods peculiar, ſelect and ſanctified ones, above all other people of the earth. And in this ſenſe the Sabbath is here given the Jews as a ſign, a ſign of his ſanctifying them, that is in one word (as Calvin ſpeaks) a ſign of his ſegregating and ſingling them out from the reſt of the nations, as his peculiar people.Siquis un… verbo reddere vellet ſanctificare eſt ſegregare. Cal. Praelec. in Ezek. 20. Ita Simler. in Exo: Levit. 21.8. ch. 2.32.Ezek 20Lev 21:8 So alſo Simlerus, and to the ſame effect is that of Lavater aforementioned. The Sabbath was a ſign of Gods ſanctifying them, as the Sabbath it ſelf was ſanctified; that is ſeparated from other common dayes, and ſet a part for holy ends and uſes. And ſo the Word ſanctifie is uſually, if not only taken in Scripture, when it is applyed to the whole bulk, or body of a people (as here it is:) Well, the Sabbath was given to the people of Iſrael as a ſign of Gods ſanctifying them; but how long, throughout their generations. That is, during the Oeconomy of the Law, as long as the people of Iſrael ſhould be the only peculiar people of God.Exod. 12.14.Exod 12:14 The very ſame Phraſe is uſed concerning the Paſſeover, ye ſhall keep it a feaſt to the Lord throughout your generations by an ordinance or ever; which clearly ſpeaks it a temporary ordinance. But

Secondly, We muſt diſtinguiſh of Sabbaths as well as of ſignes; very briefly, the Word Sabbath ſignifies one of theſe three things; either

1. The moral duty; holy reſt, or

2. The penal rigour of that reſt, or

3. The preciſe day of reſt, Now

p. 741. It cannot be meant of the moral duty ſimply conſidered, ſince that extends beyond their generations, for there remaineth a reſt, Heb. 4.9, 10.Heb 4:9Heb 4:10or keeping of a Sabbath, to the people of God ſtill: neither

2. Can itwell be underſtood of that penal rigour, reſting from all work upon pain of corporal death; for this in all likelihood laſted not out half their generations, being calculated chiefly for their wilderneſs eſtate as was ſaidbefore. Therefore

3. It muſt be the preciſe day of reſt (the old ſeventh-day-Sabbath) or nothing, which is here ſet as a ſign throughout their generations; and this I take to be the true intent of the Holy-Ghoſt both here and Ezek. 20. The caſe ſeems clearly to me to be ſtated in this wiſe: The old ſeventh day was at firſt given to Adam and his poſterity as the only true Sabbath during the pre-eminency of the Creation, and Chriſt in the promiſe; and that it was conſcientiouſly kept by the holy Patriarchs for ſome ages after I doubt not (though ſome of the Ancients ſeem to deny it) but to be ſure, in tract of time the ſinful race of Adam, forſaking the true God, did alſo forget the true Sabbath. Now when it pleaſed God out of that degenerate lump of mankind to form Iſrael, or the ſeed of Abraham a peculiar people to himſelf, he gave them his old Sabbath again in a new Edition. That (among other ends) it might be a viſible ſign to diſtinguiſh them from the reſt of the world. Other nations, no doubt, had their Sabbaths as well as their gods; but as Iſrael muſt ſerve the only true God, ſo they muſt alſo obſerve the (then) only true Sabbath:Ezod. 31.13. So much is implyed in the text, Verily my Sabbath ye ſhall keep, ſaith the Lord. The Word my is Emphatical,foreign it points at the preciſe day of Gods appointment, the ſeventh and laſt day of the week; therefore this, and mainly this was made a ſign of Gods ſanctifying the Jews throughout their generations; which being ſo, how evidently doth it follow, that the day was deſign'd for change, and that now it is certainly changed p. 75by the will and appointment of God? For if the Jews generation be extinct, and they that were once the people of God, have now a Lo-ammi written upon them,Ho. 11.20. 1 Theſ. 2.15, 16.1 Thess 2:151 Thess 2:16 Ye are none of my people, how ſhall that day any longer ſtand as a Sabbath, wich was given them as a ſign of their being the peculiar people of God, and that for a ſeaſon only till their generations were expired.Maledic domine Nazarais. Lord curſe the Chriſtians, is one of their daily imprecations, vid Trapp. in Hoſea. Either let the adverſay ſay, the blaſpheming Jews (who powre out daily curſes inſtead of prayers) are ſtill the Covenant-people of God, in ſo much as ſtill they retain that Saturday-Sabbath, (And then he ſhall ſpeak like a true Jew indeed) or let him confeſs, their ſaturday-Sabbath (which was once the crown of their glory) is now no better then the badge of their blaſphemy, whereby they would make the world believe, that they are ſtill the ſanctified people of God, though they trample underfoot the blood of his Son whereby they ſhould be ſanctified. I ſpeak not this, as inſulting over the miſery of the Jews, but as lamenting the ſin of apoſtate Chriſtians, who take up that day as a badge of their Saintſhip, which the infidel Jews wear as a badge of their blaſphemy and enmity againſt Chriſt and Chriſtians. Indeed it was once an illuſtrious ſign of their ſanctification; but it was limited to their generations, as the Paſſeover was, and therefore if the one be expired, ſo is the other upon the ſame account. And in this reſpect I dare boldly affirm, and I doubt not to maintain it, that it is every whit as lawful for a Chriſtian to celebrate that old Sacrament, the Paſſeover, as to obſerve the old Sabbath. For the one was as well a ſign as the other, and the one was ordained for a ſeaſon as well as the other. There are a few feeble objections to face this argument, but the bare repetion (with the premiſes) will be ſufficient refutation of them

1. The ſeventh day being a ſign, makes it not a ceremony; T.T. Obj. 1. p. 18.for Chriſt was a ſign, Iſai. 7.14. Luk. 2.34. the Saints are ſet for ſigns, Iſai. 8.18. So is the holy Spirit, 1 Joh. 4.13. yea, for the ſame ſign as the Sabbath is, &c.

p. 76He might have added that circumciſion, Anſw. Exod. 13.9. Rom. 4.11.Exod 13:9Rom 4:11and the Paſſe over alſo were ſigns; but then he had ſpoiled his argument; for it is certain, that both theſe were ceremonial, yet doubtleſss it had been more proper and pertinent to have compared the old Sabbath with other old Ordinances then to have thus equalized it with Chriſt and his bleſſed ſpirit. But to anſwer his inſtances, Chriſt was propounded as a ſign of Confirmation, Iſai. 7. as a ſign of Contradiction, or a ſign to be ſpoken againſt, Luke 2. The Saints were ſet for ſigns of Wonder, Iſai. 8. The holy ſpirit for a Witneſs, and not properly a ſign; now what cognation and alliance is there betwixt theſe and the old Sabbath? which (as to the day) was a diſtinguiſhing ſign, and that for a ſeaſon only; therefore temporary, I will not ſay ceremonial.

The Sabbath is ſet for a ſign of things paſt (as the worlds Creation) not of good things to come, Obj. 2 as the ceremonial Sabbaths.

So alſo are the annual Sabbaths, Anſw. Deut. 16.1. &c.Deut 16:1Paſſeover and Pentecoſt, ordained in memorial of things paſt, as their deliverance from Egypt, and the giving of the Law on Mount Sinai; yet both are aboliſhed, although I grant the Sabbath was never aboliſhed. or abrogated as to the ſubſtance of it; only altered in reſpect of the circumſtance.

If the morality of the Sabbath ceaſe by being a ſign, Obj. 3 upon the ſame account muſt the whole law ceaſe to be moral, ſince Gods ſpirit hath ſet it alſo for ſuch a ſign, Deut. 8.6. Thou ſhalt bind it as a ſign upon thine hand. But

This is frivolous, for every child can diſtinguiſh between the book and the binding of it. Anſw. Numb. 15.38, 39, 40.Num 15:38Num 15:39Num 15:40The law it ſelf was not a ſign, but the binding it on their hands, and that for a remembrancing ſign only, the proper uſe of their fringes and Phylacteries. By the way (if I miſtake not) here is a plain contradiction: for a little before he had argued, that the Sabbath was ſuch a ſign as the holy ſpirit is, and now he makes it ſuch a ſign as the wearing of the law upon their hands was: If one of theſe be true, the other muſt p. 77needs be falſe; for the one is internal, the other was external and viſible only. And this is the Goliahs ſward he talks of, wherewith

He fights with his own fancy; Anſw. 2 for who of ſound judgment ever affirmed that the morality of the Sabbath muſt ceaſe as a ſign? ſtill he runs upon his ol miſtake, that the old ſeventh day was the morality of the Sabbath, which we have conſtantly denyed and diſproved.

The term, ſeventh day, is not ſet for a ſign, but the term, Obj. 4 p. 19.Sabbath.

The Word Sabbath is very often, Anſw. Levit. 19.3. Iſai. 1.13. Lam. 1.7. Mat. 12.5.11. Mark 1.21. Luk. 4.31. Acts 13.14. Chap. 17.2.Lev 19:3Isa 1:13Lam 1:7Matt 12:5Matt 12:11Mark 1:21Luke 4:31Acts 13:14(though not alwayes) put for the old ſeventh day eſpecially when it is uſed in the plural number as here it is. Therefore I conclude, as before, that the day and not the duty is hee ſet for a temporary ſign, the duty no otherwiſe then as it is peculiarly related to the day. Tis not a Sabbath in general, much leſs the Commandment concerning a weekly Sabbath, but the old Sabbath then in uſe which was given the Jews as a ſign, and ſo deſigned for change; for change, I mean in reſpect of the time, not of the thing; according to that of Auguſtine, who writing againſt Fauſtus the Manichee (who ſought to overthrow the faith of Chriſtians, by maintaining that Moſes and Chriſt were oppoſite in their Doctrines, alledging among other things, that there was one tradition of Moſes, another of Chriſt concerning the Sabbath) anſwers him thus: Their doctrine was not divers,Non diverſa doctrina, ſed diverſum tempus. Auguſt. contra Fauſt. Man lib. 16. cap. 28. only the time or day was different; intimating, that Moſes and Chriſt were both for a weekly Sabbath, but Moſes for the laſt, Chriſt for the firſt day of the week. And thus we have made good the ſecond Poſition,

That the old Sabbath being made alterable in the firſt Inſtitution, was further manifeſted to be alterable in the ſecond Edition of the Sabbath. A few words ſhall ſuffice for the third.