The 7^th day Sabbath is not abolished.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Page 107] 3 The 3d thing is, that the Iewe might carry no burdenes on the Sabbath day, Ierem. 17.21. Ne­hem. 13.15.

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

[Page 108] 4 A 4^th Text I may add, vvhich I haue often heard alleaged for the former purpose, and tis vvritten, Exod. 16.23. Bake that to day vvhich ye vvill bake, and seeth that vvhich ye vvill seeth, and all that vvhich remaineth, lay it vp till the morning for you, &c. vvhere (say they) here the Iewes vvere commanded to dresse all their meate on the Friday, the day before their Sab­bath day, and by consequence they were forbid­den to dresse any on the Sabbath.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Page 150] 5. Circumcision it was a signe Genes. 17.11, Rom. 4.11. now those infants that were borne, and circumcised a little before Christs passion, the cuting of their foreskine vvas a signe of Christ to come, vntill Christ had suffred vpon the crosse, and no sooner had Christ suffred but their circumcision ceased to be any signe of Christ to come, and yet for all that their circumcision cea­sed not then also, for they remained euer after with the foreskine cut of: yea, and it is not to be passed by vvithout obseruation, that though there was a meanes by the arte of chirurgry to draw on the foreskine againe, and so to nullify and vncircumcise themselues, yet Paul vvould not haue them take away their circumcision, see 1. Cor. 7.18. if then it had beene necessary that at Christs passion, all things that had formerly bene made signes, should then haue bene abolished amongst christians, vvhy then vvould not Paul haue giuen way to these christians newly called, to haue gathered their vncircumcision, or vndo­ne their circumcision, and taken away the scarre? so you see the incision or scarre might and and did remaine, though the signe annexed to it vvas abolished: By all vvhich examples it is more then manifest that though they could proue the Sabbath day a signe, or a shadowe, yet it can not follow that therfore it must be vtterly and absolutly abolisht in all respects, by those two [Page 151]textes Col. 2.16.17. Exod. 31.13. nor vvill it fol­low necessarily, that ought in a Sabbath is abo­lisht, saue its typicalnesse and significatiue na­ture only.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Page 159] 5. A 5^th reason, may fetch its ground from my answere to the reason last aboue, vvhere by Day I vnderstood only the tyme of Light, and not a certaine space and duration of howres, vvhence they may and commonly doe reason against the Iewes Sabbath by an absurdety thus; if all nations be bounde to the Jewes Sabbath day (vvhich you say is all the tyme of light) then in some partes of the vvorld vvhere is halfe a yeere light together, there they must keep half a yeere Sabbath, & then also more inconvenience, for that they are to haue a Sabbath, but once in the space of 3. yeeres and an halfe, that is euery 7^th halfe yeere, now in so long space for people to vvant Gods ordinance of preaching, many a soule may perish for vvant of Gods Word in the meane tyme.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The 7^th day Sabbath, is still in force.

IN the first place I would free the Sabbath day from a prejudicate opinion, arising in mindes of men from calling it, the Iewes Sabbath day: Touching which name, were it vsed in a good or in an indifference sense I should say nothing, but since I finde it so termed in a reprochfull sense, to rescue it herefro, I vvould faine know a reason why the Sabbath day, commanded in the 4^th Com: should rather be called the Iewes Sab­bath day, then the Lord our God, whom wee are commanded to worship in the first Com: should be called, the Iewes Lord God? I can see no rea­son but that the one may be so called as well as [Page 169]the other; Nor any reason but if we may call the Iewes God, our God; so vve may call the Iewish Sabbath day, our Sabbath day: and if vve doe not call it our Sabbath day, because we keepe it not the faute is only in our selues: wherfore to auoide all difference about the name, let it not be called the Jewes Sabbath day, nor the Christians Sabbath day, as proper to eighther; but let vs call it the Lords Sabbath day, as common to Jewes, and to Christians both; and as appertaining vnto all nations, vnto whome soeuer the 10. Comm: doe appertaine: This name you shall finde justi­fy able by Moses in Exod. 20.10. where he cal­les it, the Lord Gods Sabbath; when he said, The 7^th day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God.

1. My first argument to proue the 7^th day Sabbath is still in force, is because the 8^th day Sabbath, or Lords day, is not in force; and thus it may be framed.

If our now Sabbath called the Lords day, which is eighther on the 8^th or on the first day of the week, be not in force, Then must the 7^th day, which is the day next foregoeing the Lords day, be now in force.

But our now Sabbath, called the Lords day, which is on the 8^th or first day of the vveeke, is not in force. Therfore the 7^th day, vvhich is next foregoeing the Lords day, is now in force.

More briefly thus, If the 8^th day be not in for­ce, Then the 7^th day is in force: But the 8^th day is not in force: Ergo the 7^th day is in force.

I proue the consequence to be good, because eighther the 7^th or the 8^th day must be Sabbath, the one of them, for of all the seuen dayes in the weeke, there is no scruple or question betwene them, and me saue only about these two dayes, so as one of these two dayes must be Sabbath by both our consents: especially since we all hould it morall, that one day in euery 7. must be a Sab­bath, which to deny were great impiety: I proue the Minor, that is, That the 8^th day, or Lords day, is not in force: and this I proue, because ther is neither precept, nor practise, neither of Christ, nor of any of his Apostles in Scripture, to put the Lords day in force: and this taske I haue parti­cularly and largely made good in the first parte of my Booke, where I haue shown by way of an­swere, That the Lords day, is not a Sabbath day by Diuiue Institution.

2. My 2^d argument is, because the 7^th day Sabbath is not abolished: and it may thus be framed.

That which is not abolished, that is now in force.

But the 7^th day Sabbath is not abolished: Therfore the 7^th day Sabbath is now in force.

I need not proue the Maior, since tis plaine to euery eye: for the Minor, this I haue proued par­ticularly and largly in the 3^d parte of my booke, where by way of answere I haue shewed, That the 7^th day Sabbath is not abolished.

3. My 3^d argument is, because the 7^th day Sabbath was neuer changed; and it may thus be framed.

That which was neuer altred nor changed, by Christ, or by his Apostles, That is still in force to this day. But the 7^th day Sabbath vvas neuer al­tred nor changed, by Christ, or by his Apostles.

Therfore the 7^th day Sabbath is still in force to this day.

The Maior is cleere of it selfe, since things once instituted by God in the ould Testament, if euer they vvere altred it must be by Christ or his Apostles in the New Testament.

For the Minor, note that the vvord change in­timates two things; thone is the abolishing of the ould; thother is the bringing in of a new, as Dauid, 2. Sam. 12.20. he changed his apparell, that is, he left or laid of his mourning apparell, and he put on other apparell: now thus did nei­ther Christ nor his Apostles change the Sabbath, by abolishing it, and by setting vp a new: if they did change it, it was by precept, for by practise; but not by precept, for they as they did not blot [...]

For the truth of the Maior, 1. the vvrighting of this Law in Tables of stone by God, vvhat could it intimate vnto posterity if not this for one, namly that those Lawes should be perpe­tuall? else they might haue beene vvrote on pa­per or parchement, or the like vanishing things. 2. what reason can be rendered, why God should put such an apparant difference twixt the 10. Com: and the ceremoniall Law, as that he would vvright the one vvith his owne finger, but the other he vvould not, but set Moses to vvright it: the one he deliuered by his audible voice vnto the people; the other was deliuered solely by the voice of Moses: vvhat may be judged to be the reason hereof, but that God did more esteeme of the one, then the other, and so vvould haue it more durable. 3. This Maior is the common re­ceiued truth at the hand of all Diuines, witnes Doctour Ames in his Theologicall Thesis pag. 499. Haec enim regula est certissima, & inter optimos omnes Theologos, recepta; praecepta moralia a ceremonialibus in eorum traditione sic fuisse discriminata, ut omnia & sola moralia pu­blice fuerint coram toto populo Israelis, ex mon­te Sinai, ipsius Dei Voce proclamata, & postea etiam proprio Dei quasi digito scripta, & rescri­pta, idque in tabulis lapideis, ad perpetuam & immutabilem ipsorum durationem indicandam: For this (saith he) is a most certaine rule, and re­ceiued [Page 175]by all best Diuines, that the Morall Com­mandements vvere thus differenced in their de­liuery, from the ceremonials, that all and only, the Morals vvere proclaimed publikly before all the people of Israel, from Mounte Sinay, by the Voice of God himselfe, & after also were wrigh­ten, and againe written as it were by the singer of God, and that in Tables of stone, to declare their perpetuall and immutable continuance.

As for the Minor, this you haue it in the 4^th Comm: and deliuered as a commandement in preceptiue and commanding termes: Remem­ber the Sabbath day &c. In it thou shalt not doe any work &c. now if you aske vvhich day we must remember, the Lord in, the same Com: tel­leth vs, it is the 7^th day: But the seauenth day is the Sabbath &c. So the 7^th Sabbath vvas com­manded; and so it most plaine, Exod. 35.2.

5. My 5^th Argument is, because there can be no day for a Sabbath vveekly and ordenarily but the 7^th day: and it may thus be framed.

If no day of the 7. can be Sabbath vveekly, but the 7^th day, Then must the 7^th day now be Sab­bath day.

But no day of the 7. can be Sabbath weekly but the 7^th day.

Therfore must the 7^th day now be Sabbath day: the consequence is cleere of it selfe, and [Page 176]needs no proofe to him that howlds there ought to be a Sabbath, as we all doe.

The Minor I thus proue, because God with­out repeale or exception hath commanded vs, or at least permitted and freely giuen vs leaue, to labour and vvorke, and doe all that we haue to doe, in those 6. dayes whichgoe next before the Sabbath or 7^th day Exod. 20.9.11. sixe dayes shalt thou labour, and doe all thy worke, for in sixe dayes the Lord made Heauen & Earth &c. so then we may worke vpon the Lords day, or any other of the sixe dayes, and that by Gods au­thority, by his Morall Law; neither may it be thought that this branch of the 4^th Comm: is re­pealed, for the 6. dayes for labour, were neuer made typicall and ceremoniall, these were neuer shadowes of Chtist; yea, the Lords day it selfe vvas neuer excepted, for Christ himselfe after his resurrection did both trauaile vpon the first day of the 6. namly, the Lords day, a matter of 15. myles, and also approued of the like facte in the two disciples by his iournying together with them to Emmaus that day Luk. 24.13. as hath beene more largly declared in the former parte of this booke: now looke what Christ did, the like we may doe safely; follow me as I follow Christ, 1. Cor. 11.1. said Paul: so then Christs example is our pattorne and president, so as we may worke still vpon the first day of the weeke, [Page 177]or on the Lords day: if then we may work vpon any of the 6. dayes, then are we not tyed to keep any of those dayes a Sabbath in resting from vvorke.

If any shall thinke we now keepe the 7^th day and that day which followeth these dayes labour: to him I say, that our Lords day vvhich we keepe is the 8^th day or first day in the vveeke by Di­uine accounte, and the 6. dayes labour spoken of in 4^th Com: are those 6. dayes vvhich goe next before our Saturday, for those are the dayes we are to imitate God by working in them, since we all confesse Saturday was the 7^th day, and that day whereon God rested after his 6. dayes work, and since vve confesse those were the dayes the Jewes till and at Christs death, did labour in.

6. My 6^th Argument is, because God must haue one day in euery 7. dayes, from the crea­tion to the vvorlds end: and it may be thus fra­med.

If God must haue one day in euery 7. dayes for a Sabbath, Then must he haue Saturday the 7^th day for a Sabbath, and not Sunday the first day of the vveeke.

But God must haue one day in euery 7. dayes for a Sabbath.

Therfore must God haue Saturday the 7^th day for a Sabbath, and not Sunday the first day [Page 178]of the vveeke.

For the Minor, it is confessed of all: and it may be proued by the 4^th Comm: vvhere the Lord said, Remember the Sabbath, that is euery Sabbath: Againe, The 7^th day is the Sabbath, that is, euery 7^th day is the Sabbath: like as, Thou shalt not kill, that is euery thou: Loue thy neighbour, that is, euery neighbour &c.

For the Maior, I proue its consequence; Sa­turday the 7^th day, it being the last day of that vveeke, if you omitte it, making a change (for you say that day is changed, and if so, then it is omitted by just consequence) & giue God Sun­day the first day of the next vveeke for it, then it is plaine God hath not a Sabbath in euery vveeke or 7. dayes, for the wanted one Sabbath, in that vveeke, wherin the change vvas made from Saturday to Sunday; now this lacke and want of a Sabbath in that vveeke, can no wayes be supplied, but by returning backe to giue God Saturday the 7^th day againe; So then, if God must haue one day in euery 7 you must giue him Saturday which is the last of 7. vvithout any change to the day after: or else you both deny that in practise, vvhich euery man houldes in judgement to wit, that God must haue one day in euery 7. and also liue in the breach of the 4^th Com: vvhich enioyneth euery 7^th day: neither vvill it serue your turne to say, this change vvas [Page 179]made by others many 100. yeeres a gone, for so long as you vphould their day and change, you treade in their steppes, and justify their facte, and are accessary to it.

7. My 7^th argument is, because God had ex­presly commanded vs the 7^th day Sabbath in his Morall Law: it may be thus framed.

Whatsoeuer God hath commanded in this Morall Law, that is now in force.

But the 7^th day Sabbath, God hath comman­ded in his Morall Law.

Therefore the 7^th day Sabbath, is now in force.

For the Minor, see it expresly proued Exod. 20.8.10. Exod. 23.12. Exod. 31.14.15. Exod. 35.2. Exod. 16.29. Leuit. 23.3. vvhere, both the Sabbath day is commanded, and likewise the 7^th day is commanded equally: and if any shall an­swere, a 7^th day is commanded, but not the 7^th day, I referre him to my exposition vpon the 4^th Comm: and vnto the 2^d thing ther in, vvhere I haue sufficiently proued that God pointed at one singular vvell knowne day from all others, and left vs not at rouers to take any day.

For the Maior, namely, that vvhatsoeuer God hath commanded in his Morall Law, that is now in force: this Maxime is so Orthodoxe, as it should trouble the conscience of any man once to heare it questioned: fearing men hereby goe [Page 180]about to serue God by halues, and by peeces, to take and to leaue out vvhat they lost, not hauing respect vnto all Gods Commandements: the ve­ry naming and mention, that a thing is comman­ded; and that in the 10. Commandements, it beares downe all contradiction: Hereby vve con­troule the Atheist, the Papist, the vaine swearer, the Sabbath breaker, the disobedient childe, the murtherer, adulterer, theife, false witnes bearer, and the couetuouse person: but now if any be­gin to question this truth, and once to make one breache, the flood of iniquity vvill flowe in a­maine, and if any exception be giuen vvay too for the 7^th day commanded, vnder what pre­tense soeuer, why other sinners and prophane persons will and may be looke for the like, and so the vvhole Law shall be of no force to binde vs now: vvhy may not the Papist cauile against 2^d Com: and say, that I indeed, it forbad Ima­ges to the Jewes, but not to Christians: vvhy may not the Atheist cauill at first Command: Thou shalt loue the Lord thy God, with all thy hart Matt. 22.37. I sayes he this belongs not to vs, for tis impossible so intirely to loue God as with all the hearte: why may not the prophane man cauill against the Sabbath day, because tis said, In it thou shalt doe no worke, what not any manner of worke? vvhat not feede our children, nor cut our owne meate? this Commandement [Page 181]is Iewish: Againe, Thou shalt loue thy neigh­bour as thy selfe? vvho is able thus to doe? vvher­fore this Commandement pertained only to the seruitude of the Jewish nation, saith the vncha­ritable person? and againe, Thou shalt not couet thy neighbours vvife, nor any thing that is his, that is, thou shalt not haue the least desire to the least thing of the neighbours; Oh saith the law­lesse Protestant, these things are partly Morall, partly Ceremoniall, this same liuing so accuratly and so strictly pertained to the Iewes, tis to vs a yoke, nor we nor our fathers could beare &c. if I say an exception be once made from this gene­rall truth, for you, for the 7^th day vvhy may not euery of these come in also with his exception too?

Yet farther, since this is that generall truth, vvhich all Ministers both in pulpit, and in their bookes, doe vphould vvhatsoeuer they say or vvright, that it must be so and so, because God had commanded it in the Morall Law: vvhich particular flowes from this generall, that, what­soeuer God hath commanded in his Morall Law [...] now in force: since I say they pay out such coyne to others, why should they not be willing to be paid in the same coyne by others? vvhy therfore should I be put to proue this principle, and fundamentall truth, vvhich in other cases themselues make no scruple of? If so be that this [Page 182]be not sufficient that vvhatsoeuer is commanded in Gods Law, the 10. Comm: is now in force to bind vs, our very principles shall become dispu­table and doubtfull.

If they shall answere by any distinction, wher by they empaire the full force and virtue of any branch of this Law of God, they offend against a plaine texte Deut. 12.32. whatsoeuer I com­mand you, you shall take nothing therefro: yea they falsify Christs words and predication, Mat. 5.18. vvho confirmed the Law, and euery iote & title in it, to abide in such force as it was in, when he preached that sermons in Mat. 5.18. thence forwards vnto the vvorlds end: yea, & they side it vvith these Priestes Zepha. 3.4. who wrested the Law; or, vvho did violence to the Law of Scripture, vve haue but two parts left vs, the one is the Law Morall, the other is the Gospell: now whosoeuer shall enfring or deny any iote or title of eighther of these portions of holy writt, he is no freend to God.

2. Neuerthelesse, some thing may be said to proue, that whatsoeuer God hath commanded in the 10. Commandements, the same is now in force: as 1. because all the 10. Commandements were all and euery one equally and a like deli­uered by the same God, by the same voice, at the fame tyme, and wrote vpon the same tables of stone, therfore one should bind aswell as tho­ther, [Page 183]and one should last as long as any other, they should haue the same duration, in common reason: 2. Our Sauiour Christ himselfe ratified the Morall Law, and euery iote and title of it vnto the vvorlds end, Matt. 5, 17.18. which is to the full, as much as can be desired I should pro­ue: 3. If some thing commanded in the Morall Law doth not binde now, then are there not 10. Commandements, for there is but 9. Comman­dements and an halfe, or but 9. Commandements and three quarters, or there abouts, but sure I am tenne fully there is not, for there wants the ty­me of 7^th day, commanded in the 4^th Comm: if you except it; now Moses telde Iewes and con­sequently vs, that God wrote in the Tables tenne Commandements Deuter. 10.4. if therfore we haue not tenne commandements compleat, then haue we Christians not the Law of God as it was deliuered at first intirely, but defectiuely and maimedely, and some peeces only of it. 4. If that reasoning of S. Iames, Iam. 2.10.11. be sound and good, vvhere by he proueth that, who­soeuer breaketh but one Law, is guilty of all the other precepts, by this reason, because he that commanded one Law, he commanded the other Lawes also; Then so may I reason and proue, whosoeuer shall violate the 7^th day, is guilty of all the other precepts, by this reason, because, he that commanded vs to beepe the Sabbath day, [...] [Page 186]proue it from a like phrase in Scripture, as in Ge­nes. 14.21.23. said Abraham to the King of So­dome, I will not take so much as a threed or shoolatchet of thee &c. and as in Matth. 5.26. said our Sauiour Christ; thou shalt not come out thence till thou hast paid the vtmost farthing: both vvhich phrases intimate thus much, that if the debtor should not come out of prison till he had paid euery farching, thē should he not come out till he had paid euery penny, euery shilling, and euery pownd: & if Abraham would not take a threed or shoolatchet of the King, then would he not take of him raiment, cattell, siluer, or gould: thus you see it the manner of Scripture, by mentioning and denying of the very least; to intimate ther by a deniall of all, any, the whole, and euery part and parcell of that thing, wher to that least belonged: a like phrase you haue Mat. 10.30. yea, and the haires of your head are num­bred &c. if the haires vvere numbred (may we reason) then were the hands, eyes, eares, the teeth, and the fingers numbred also: just so is my at­guing aboue, if euery title of the Law be in for­ce, then so also are thes letters & words in force, to wit, the 7^th day is the Sabbath: so you see the consequence proued good and sound.

I proue the Minor, to wit, that euery title of the Law is in force to the worlds end, by Mat. 5.18. where our Sauiour prophecied of the duratiō [Page 187]of the Law, & of euery iote and title of it, to last to the worlds end, saying; Amen, or verily Isay vnto you, ( [...], donec) vntill Heauen & Earth passe, one iote or one title of the Law shall not passe, &c. vvhere you see, Christ did ratifie this prophecy by a vehement assueueration prefixed to it, Amen, or verily said he &c. Farther note vvhat learned, Chemnitius saith vpon this Text, by way of exposition, saith he; Iote is a letter of the Hebrew Alphabet, and a letter of the least value of all the rest in the Alphabet: and title (saith he) is as a pricke to a letter, or as a comma to a sentence: so you see, Christ did stablish for euer, the very least things of moment in the law: and thus is the minor made good.

Neuerthelesse against this Text many answe­res are brought, as 1. that by Law here is not only meant the Law Morall, but also the Law ce­remoniall: Here vnto I say 1. that it is a grownd­lesse answere, it hath no foundation in the Text, or context, for since all the Lawes, in the sequel of the chapter, which Christ expoundeth, be only Morall Lawes and not Ceremoniall Lawes, why should it be thought here should be any Cere­moniall Lawes meant? anddoe vve not vse to restraine generall words vnto the subiect matter of the text and context; vvere it not a racking of the vvord Law, Heb. 7.12. to vnderstand it of all Lawes, Morall and Ceremoniall, vvhere the sub­iect [Page 188]matter doth occasion vs to limite it to the Leuiticall Ceremoniall Law? I cōfesse Mat. 5.17. there the word Prophetes added to the vvord Jewe: thinke not I am come to destroy the Law or the Prophetes &c. but I see no reason, why the word Prophetes should haue any aime at the Ceremoniall Law, more then the vvord Law in vers. 18. for the Prophetes vvere exer­cised about the Morall Lavv, in vrging and expounding it, as Matth. 22.40. yea, since we finde this phrase of, The Law and Prophetes, to be applied to the Morall, and not to the Ceremoniall Law, by Christ himselfe, and that too in the same Sermon, as Matth. 7.12. why should it be vrged any larger here? 2. By Law, here must not be meante the Law Ceremoniall, but the Law Morall only, for, Christ saith, he came not to destroy or loosen the Law, but to fulfill it; vvhich speech cannot be true of the Law Ceremoniall, for he came both to destroy or loosen it as by his death, and also to fulfill it, as in his life, and by his death. 3. The tyme wherein Christ foretold the duration of this Law, was but about a matter of two yeeres before his death, at vvhich tyme euery iote and title of the Ceremo­niall Lavv, vvas to be vtterly destroyed, novv would Christ foretell touching this Law, that it should endure as long as the Heauens and the Earth, when as with in two or three yeeres after [Page 189]it vvas to be abolished? nay, what likelihoode is there that Christ would conioyne the Morall & the Ceremoniall Law together touching dura­tion, as if they vvere both equally and a like to last, and to vanish together?

A 2^d answere is, that the duration of the Law here is but vntill Christs passion, which they would ground from those vvords Mat. 5.18. Till all things be fulfilled: to this I say 1. This thwar­teth and crosseth Christs vvords, in the prece­dent v. 17. I came not to destroy or loosen ( [...]) the Law &c. but if the Law had retained its force but till his death, then Christ came to destroy or loosen the Law, for it must be his death or nothing that altred the Law, and vvhat vvas done by his death, that he came to doe: 2. This sense were to make Christ words sense­lesse, as if in former parte of the verse he should vowe not one iote of the Law shall passe, vntill heauen and earth passe, that is, not vntill this worlds end; and instantly should adde vntill all things be fulfilled, that is, vntill a two or three yeeres hence. 3. The Law is to last after Christs passiō, as is plaine by that of Paul Ro. 3.31. wher be saith, fayth doth not make the Law of none effect, nor they the Apostles of Christ, but they established the Law: now this was after Christs passion: and indeed the Law must be in force to this day, to shew vs our fine, and to bringe vs to [Page 190]Christ, Gal. 3.24. further, all things shall not be fulfilled, vntill the mistery of God be fulfilled Reuel. 20.7. and vntill Christi seconde coming Act. 3.21. and 1. Cor. 15.24.25.26.54. &c.

A 3d answere is, that some iotes of the Law are passed, and doe not bind vs now, as the pre­face to the Commandements, I am the Lord thy God, that brought the out of the Land of Egypt; and as the promise to the 5^th Comm: That thy dayes may be long in the land, which the Law thy God giueth thee: thone of these concerned Egypt, the other Canaan, and both concerned the Iewes, but neither of them concernes vs Chri­stians, Ergo: Here vnto I say 1. neither of these doe, nor euer did binde any, for these be but rea­sons and motiues to obedience of the Comman­dements, they be no commandements, since they command or forbid nothing, only they be appar­tenances to the Commandements, so the Law whereof Christ spake, may stand still as a Law, though these motiues faile, for God can moue vs to obedience by other motiues Euangelicall, as Rom. 12.1. and though these motiues vvere failed, yet vvere no parte or iote of the Law fai­led or passed, since these motiues were, nor Law, nor parte or iote of the Law: Againe 2. it cannot be said that thes 2. motiues be failed to this day, for looke to vvhome they did at first belonge, to the same nation and people they doe at this day [Page 191]belonge, that is, to the people of the Iewes, for the deliuerance out of Egypt, is yet true of their people, and ought still to be a motiue to them, euen to the vvorlds end, so then though that rea­son concerneth not vs, yet is it not failed, since it is in force as largly as euer to the Iewe: vnto vs Christians it did neuer belonge: for that other annexed to the 5^th Com: I see not but that may be generall to all nations.

9. My 9^th Argument is, because the Sabbath day, is a meanes to keepe in memory the mira­culouse worke of the creation: this argument is taken out of Exod. 31.16.17: and thus it may be framed.

That thing vvhich vvas a speciall meanes and helpe of Gods appointement, to keepe in his church, the memory of that memoriable and re­noumed worke of his to wit the creation of this world: That thinge and meanes, ought now and for euer, to be in vse in Gods Church.

But the 7^th day Sabbath, was that speciall meanes and help of Gods appointement, to keep in his Church, the memory of that memorable & renoumed vvorke of his, to wit, the ereation of this warld.

Therfore the 7^th day Sabbath, ought now and for euer. to be in vse in Gods Church.

For proofe of the Maior, there is no man in [Page 192]our Church but freely confesseth, that both now and for euer, there ought to be an honourable, admirable, and thankfull remembrance of Gods workmanship in the creation of this world, as well as was in the dayes of Moses, and of ould: if then it be granted, that there ought now to be a memory kept thereof, why should it not be granted also, that that speciall help and meanes, ordeined once of God for that end, should now be in force and in vse? 2. There was neuer any helpe or meanes, once appointed to keep memo­ry of the vvorlds creation, which was afterwards abolisht, and if none were abolished, then euery one that once vvas, remaineth still: true it is, some Sabbathes were abolished, as in Col. 2.16.17. but, we must know, there vvere 2. sortes of Sabbathes: there were Sabbathes vvhich were shadowes or signes of the Redemption, the body whereof vvas Christ; annuall yeerly Sabbaths, these indeed be abolisht by this text; now there vvas also Sabbaths vvhich were signes of the cre­ation, vveekly Sabbaths, euery 7^th day, now these vvhich were Sabbaths and signes of things past, as was the creation, these be no where abolished: great is the difference twixt Sabbathes, as signes of things to come; and Sabbathes as signes of things past. 3. It is of as great necessity, if not of greater, that vve now should haue all or any such speciall helpes and meanes to keepe in remem­brance [Page 193]the vvorlds creation, as had those Israeli­tes in Moses tyme, for, vve are a people as for­getfull of Gods workes of wonder, as were they: yea, and we be in greater danger of forgetting the vvorlds creation then those Israelites, by how much vve liue longer after the creation then they did; ould done things weare out of memory.

For proofe of the Minor; to vvit, that the Sab­bath was an helpe, to keep memory of the crea­tion. 1. All men grant it, when they thus argue, that the Lords day was instituded for the me­mory of the resurrection, as was the Sabbath day, for memory of the creation. 2. I proue it from Exod. 31.16.17. where 2. thinges be to be mar­ked, 1. that the Sabbath is called a signe, 2. whereof it is a signe, and what is the thing signi­fyed: For the latter, the thing signifyed by the Sabbath considered as a signe, is the creation of the vvorld in 6. dayes, and Gods rest vpon the 7^th day: since euery signe, must signifie some thing, and this Text mentioneth nothing but the creation, and againe, where God giueth a signe, he vseth to shew vvhereof it is a signe, and here he mentioneth nothing but the creation, therfore the creation is the thing signified: and this truth may yet farther be showne by the very Text v. 17. for in 6. dayes &c. vvhere note that the He­brew vvord translated, for, may also be transla­ted, that, as those skilfull in the tounge know [Page 194]well, and finde sondry examples in Scripture: yea, the vvord (for) must be translated (that:) to make good sense: so then, reade the Text thus; that in 6. dayes &c. and you haue good sense; & also you see it plaine, that the Sabbath was a sig­ne, that in 6. dayes God created and rested: and the creation vvas the thing signified by the sig­ne.

The other thing to be considered in the text, is, that the Sabbath is called a signe: and hence I thus argue; If signes be helpes and meanes to bringe to minde or keep in memory the things where of they be signes, then doth the Sabbath day helpe vs to minde and keep in memory the vvorlds creation: but signes be helpes & meanes to bringe, to minde, and to keep in memory the things whereof they be signes: therfore the Sab­bath day doth helpe vs to minde and to keepe in memory the worlds creation, the consequence is good, it proceeding from the genus to the spe­cies, the Sabbath day being one kinde of signes; and what belongeth to all signes, appertaineth to euery or any signe. I proue the Minor, by an in­duction of particulares; the raine-bowe in the cloudes, Genes. 4. it is called a signe or a token v. 13. and the Lord said, He vvould looke vpon the bowe, that he might remember the couenant (which vvas the thing signifyed by the bovv) v. 16. The Passeouer vvas a signe or token Exod. [Page 195]12.13. vvhich when the Angell of the Lord saw, then he remembred the couenant, and spared them. Circumcision Genes. 17.11. it vvas a signe and token, to put them in minde of Gods coue­nant made vvith Abraham &c. and see Exod. 31.13. a text pregnant to the same purpose: The Sacrament of the Lords Supper it is a signe; and this signe is to be vsed in remembrance of the thing signified, vvhich is Christ, 1. Cor. 12.24. neither can any example be showne to the con­trary, for, it is the very nature of a signe, to bring to minde the thing signified: I conclude, as the Lords Supper is a signe of the work of redemp­tion; So the Sabbath is a signe of the work of creation.

10. My 10^th Argument is, because the Sab­bath day putteth vs in minde, vvho it is, that is our Sanctifier, namely the Lord our God: This argument is taken out of Exod. 31.13. and it may be thus framed.

That thing vvhich in the tyme of Moses, vvas vsed as an helpe and meanes, to put the children of Israel in minde, vvho it vvas that sanctified them; that meanes and helpe ought now and for euer to be in the Church; to shew vs vvho is our Sanctifyer.

But the 7^th day Sabbath, was vsed in the tyme of Moses, as an helpe and meanes, to minde the [Page 196]children of Israel, vvho it was that sanctifyed them.

Therfore the 7^th day Sabbath, ought now and for euer to be vsed in the Church, as a meane & helpe, to shew vs, vvho is our Sanctifyer.

For proofe of the Maior, 1. vvhat reason can be rendered, or instance giuen to the contrary, to shew that our churchs and people should not now, haue the same meanes and helpes to put vs in minde, & shew vnto vs vvho is the authour of our sanctification, the which the children of Is­rael, and Church of the Jewes had? 2. No helpe or meanes once appointed of God, to minde the Israelites, vvho did sanctify them, vvas ener yet abolished, and if neuer abolished, then must they remaine: True it is, Sabbathes ceremoniall, and annuall, which were signes of Christ, and of ju­stification, such were abolished in Col. 2.16.17. but Sabbathes Morall, and weekly, vvhich vvere signes of God the Father, and of sanctification, such were neuer yet abolished: besides, the Sab­bathes abolished in Col. 2.16. were such as were signes of things to come afterwards, as of Christ: but the Sabbathes Morall in Exod. 31.13. were signes of things present, as of God presently san­ctifying, as you may see in the Textes. 3. Wee now in these tymes, haue as much neede of that help, to put vs in minde of God our Sanctifyer, as they had in former tymes; for instance, let a [Page 197]Christian pray feruently; giue almes bountifully, hate syne vnfainedly; doe the duties of his cal­ling conscionably; preach powerfully; and in a word, liue holily and blamelesly in this euill vvorld; vvhereby he out strippeth the men of this world, and is as a light set vpon an hill; is not this man in greate danger to be puffed vp vvith pride, as vvere those Israelites Deut. 8.17, arrogating to themselues the glory of their a­boundance, forgetting God the author? and is not this man in danger, to vse his giftes as if he had not receiued them, and to glorie in them as his owne, 1. Cor. 4.7. surely vpon a serch, we can not but confesse, vvee Christians are as subiect to spirituall pride, and as backward & sluggish, to giue vnto God the glory of his mercifull work of sanctifying vs, as euer were the Israel of God: now vvhat helpe could be better to foreward vs in this Diuine vvork of hallowing Gods name, then to haue once in euery 7. dayes, that 7^th day appointed of God, to be a signe and remembran­cer vnto vs, that Jehouah the Holy God is that fountaine and authour of our sanctification and holinesse? Well then, since vve Christians haue as much need of helpes and meanes, to minde vs of the authour of our sanctification, as those Is­raelites had, and God hath giuen vs no other helpes or meanes in the roome of those he gaue to the Israelites; then it followeth, that we now [...] [Page 200]and the 7^th day, doe both notify but one tyme, which is the last day of the weeke: so them con­ioyned by God, and also permiseously vsed Exo. 20.10. Leuit. 23.3. Exod. 31.15. there you haue them conioyned by way of apposition, Gen. 2.3. Exod, 20.11. Exod. 16.29. Luk. 13.14. here you haue them permiscously vsed the one for the o­ther: so as the name Sabbath, and the tyme the 7^th day, cannot be separated. 2, Whereas they deny me the accident of tyme, the 7^th day see it expressely commanded in so many words, Exod. 16.29. Exod. 20.10. Exod. 23.12. Exod. 31.15. Exod. 35.2. and so you see not only the Sabbath is in force now, but also the tyme and 7^th day.

The other commone answere is, that the 4^th Com: and so the Sabbath day are now in force indeed, as touching the Morality of them, but not as touching their speciall application vnto the Iewish state: Here vnto I say, it is but a fai­ned thing to thinke that eighther the 4^th Com: or the Sabbath day, were so commanded and ap­pointed of God to the Iewe, as if made peculiar and proper to their state, and not common to all nations; To this end, perpende we the particu­lars of the 4^th Comm: to see if ought there be that might giue vs occasion to thinke it vvas ap­plied to the Iewish nation exclusiuely; or, if all Nationes might not equally participate vvith them, in this Commandement, as vvell as in the [Page 201]other 9. Commandements: In the Com: ye haue these things enioyned: 1. Remember the Sab­bath: 2. to rest in it: 3. to keep it holy: 4. a daye 5. the 7^th day, or last of 7.6. because God re­steth on that day. What is here now, that is pecu­liar to the Iewe, so as other nations cannot ob­serue the same? Cannot we in England, as well as they in Ierusalē, 1. Remember the Sabbath? 2. rest in it? 3. keep it holy? 4. a whole day? 5. the 7^th day, and last of 7? 6. in imitation of God, be­cause he rested on this day? could no nation be­side the Iewe obserue thes 6. things?

Perhaps it vvill be said, The Sabbath, and so the Comm: was applied to the Iewish state, be­cause of that reason mouing them to obedience of it, which is annexed to the Com: Deut. 5.15. namely, Gods bringing them out of Egypt: Here vnto I say, This motiue and reason may be said to be applied indeed to the Iewish state exclusi­uely, as not belonging to other nations, and if they meane no more but thus: that the 4^th Com: and so the Sabbath, are not now in force, as tou­ching this speciall application only to the Iewish state, because the Lord brought them out of E­gypt, & that this reason should not now be pro­perly pressed vpon vs Christians; I am not against it, nor doth it at all helpe them: who goeth about to proue the Sabbath is in force now to vs, with relation to that reason, of Gods bringing Israel [Page 202]out of Egypt? or to moue Christianes to obe­dience by that reason? The 4^th Com: stands on two partes; The one is Law, commanding or for­bidding some thing to be done, this part only I vrge: The other part is reason or motiue, to en­force to obedience of the Law, now this I vrge not, nor neede I, for it is no Law properly, for it nor forbides, nor commandes any thing: Be it, that the Law as touching the motiues be applied specially to the Iewish state, yet the Law as tou­ching all things commanded or forbidden in it, is vniuersall to all nations.

Thus hauing proued the 7^th day Sabbath is still in force to this day: in next place I will shew you how this Sabbath hath beene practised and in vse in the Christian Church both in the dayes of the Apostles, after Christ his resurrection; and after also in the more primitiue churches: for the practise of the Apostles I doe the rather produce it, because the contrary side I see leane much vpō their practise, labouring much though all in vai­ne (as hath beene showne) to proue the practise of the Apostles vpon the Lords day; vvherfore since Apostles practise, is vvith them of so great strength, if I shall proue now, that the Apostles practised the 7^th day Sabbath, I trust they will forth with yeeld, that the 7^th day Sabbath is now in force, & make no further question of the mat­ter.

For this purpose looke Act. 13.14.15.16. Act. 13.42.44. Act. 16.13. here ye see 3. seuerall Sab­baths, and in two seuerall places, the Apostles preached vpon the Sabbath day: and see Act. 17.2. Paul as his manner was, vvēt in vnto them, and three Sabbath dayes, disputed with them, by the Scriptures: Here you see in an other place and Church, three Sabbaths more kept by Paul and those that trauailed with him; nor was this any extraordenary thing: for the Text saith; it vvas an vsuall thing for Paul so to doe, Paul as his manner vvas &c. and see Act. 18.4 here Paul in an other place and Church, namely, in the Church of Corinthe v. 1. disputed in the Syna­gogue euery Sabbath day: so here was a constant practise, Sabbath by Sabbath; Euery Sabbath day saith the Text: and thus I trust I haue more soundly proued, that the Apostles kept the Sab­bath day; and that constantly, and the same in soundery Churches, then they haue proued that the Apostles kept the Lords day: The keeping the Sabbath day, was an Apostolicall practise, but so was not the Lords day: Let the indifferent reader judge now and let him choose to practise that day of the twaine, vvhich he seeth most soundly and plainly proued before his eyes, pra­ctised by the Apostles.

Against this be sondry answeres brought, as 1. True, Paul preached on the Sabbath day amongst [...] [Page 206]the Sabbath day, but they vndertooke indeed, but neuer did, nor euer will be able to proue the Apostles did constantly keep the Lords day, so in this point of Apostles practise, I haue the bet­ter of them, since they can not proue Apostles constantly kept the Lords day amongst nor Ie­wes, nor Gentiles, no nor Iewes and Gentiles mixt.

Secondly, I produce an other Text against theire answere, shewing the Apostles preached amongst the Gentiles, in which Text is not the least grownd for any such exception, as to say, there was a mixture of Iewes and Gentiles: see Act. 16.12.13. here Paul and Timothie preached on the Sabbath day: and note 1. that there was no thing constrayning them to preach, rather on this then on any other day, vnles it were the 4^th Comm: they had beene there as the Text saith, certaine dayes; and of all thes dayes, the Sabbath day vvas chosen; & what can be thought should incline them to this choise, but the 4^th Comm: 2. Note, here is not any reason to thinke here were any Iewes, because vve reade not of any Sy­nagues the Iewes had here: & the people assem­bled in the open fields, besides a riuer to pray, as the Text speaketh, and therfore not with the Ie­wes in their Synagogues, as they were wonte to doe where the Jewes had Synagogues. As for Lydia, it will not follow shee was a Iewesse, be­cause [Page 207]the Text saith, shee was a vvorshipper of God: for so was Cornelius Act. 10.2. but yet no Iewe, no nor any proselyte, for he vvas vncir­cumcised then, Act. 11.3. finally, I say, suppose here was a mixture of Iewes and Gentiles, and also in that other place Act, 13.42.44. yet ther is no cause of scruple or doubt, that the Apostles would vse any ceremonies (as they suppose the Sabbath) to be amongst those Iewes that vvere mingled with the Gentiles, no more then they would amongst the Gentiles alone; for, saith the Text Act. 21.21. Paul taught those Jewes that were mixed among the Gentiles, to forsake Ce­remonies &c. and you see it his practise Gal. 2.11. he would not endure no not a Peter to Iu­daize it amongst the Gentiles; and can we thinke himselfe would doe vvhat he reproued in an o­ther? besides, it was against reason, for so he should builde vp things (as ceremonies) which he labored to destroy, Gal. 5.1.2. I say build vp, for Paul counted Judaising amongst Gentiles, a constraining of those Gentiles vnto Judaizme, Gal. 2.14. for all this, I deny not, but Paul did Iudaize, but it was only in such places of assem­blie where vvere none but Iewes only, as at Ie­rusalem, and the like places, Act. 21.17.20.26. but in assemblies mixed of Iewes and Gentiles, there he would not Iudaize, lest he should con­straine the Gentiles to Iudaizme, as hath beene said.

An other and seconde answer vsually brought against this practise of the Apostles is, that Paul did keepe Sabbath here vvith the Iewes, to beare with their weakenesse for a tyme, and as he did Iudaize it by circumcision of Timothie: Here vnto I say 1. it appeareth he did not keepe Sab­bath only for the Iewes sake, for then vvould he not haue kept the Sabbath with the Gentiles, as he did: 2. vvas it a weakenesse in the Iewes to yeeld obedience to a morall precepts, to the 4^th Com? 3. The things vvherin properly Paul was said to Iudaize, were Ceremoniall things, stan­ding in force by the Ceremoniall Law, as Cir­cumcision and the Rest, but things standing in force by the Morall Law, as doth the Sabbath day, performance of these is no Iudaizing, but Moralizing, if I may so speake.

A 3^d answere is, that the Apostles must take such dayes, as they found in vse in the Church then, or else they cold not preach and divulge the Gospell: and the Iewes then would assemble on no dayes but the Sabbath: Here vnto I say, the Apostles cold make knowne the Gospell, though they had neuer frequented the Iewes vsuall assemblies, for the Apostles taught and preached Christ, in priuate housen, from house to house Act. 5.42. and when Paul forsooke prea­ching in the Synagogue, he taught else, where as in the Schoole of one Tyrannus, and there fre­quented [Page 209]him both Iewes and Grecians Act. 19.9.10. yea, Paul cold assemble the Iewes them selues vpon occasion, & the very chiefe of them refused not to assemble at his calle, Act. 28.17.20. wherefore, necessity compelled him not to keepe the Sabbath vvith them.

To make a more full answere to those com­mon obiections vvhich they bring against the practise of the Apostles, in keeping the Sabbath day: one of vvhich maine obiections is that fore spoken of to this effecte, true the Apostles pra­ctised the 7^th day Sabbath, but it was amongst the Iewes, not amongst the Gentiles: where vnto I say, vvhat and if it vvere only amongst the Ie­vves? are therefore the Apostles practises and actions vnvvareantable and vnimitable, because they vvere done amongst the Iewes? are all their actions amongst Jewes but, of an indifferent na­ture? if such obiections be lawfull, if a preacher confirmes his doctrines in the pulp it, by the pra­ctise of the Apostles, then is it lawfull for any thus to cauill against it, oh but that, it vvas done among Jewes: for instance, suppose this the do­ctrine; Ministers must preach constantly on the Sabbath day: novv after it is proued, &c. then he confirmes it by the constant practise of the A­postles, Act. 13.14.44. Act. 17.2. Act. 18.4. is it tollerable for an auditor to cauill thus, oh this it [...] [Page 212]dience and reference vnto some of those Com­mandements.

The last obiection is, that tis true indeed, the Apostles kept the Sabbath, but it was but for a tyme, till the Iewes vvere better instructed, the vvhich if they had refused to keepe, the Iewes vvould neuer haue heard them preach of Christ &c. Here vnto I answere, this obiection presup­poseth now as granted, two false suppositions; the one, that the Apostles vvould not (if they cold haue auoided it) haue kept this Sabbath: the o­ther, that the Iewes vvere needlesly religiouse, making conscience of this Sabbath now, vvhen they neded not: for the former, for any thus to imagine or say is growndlesse, for vvhere hath any of the Apostles declared themselues any ene­mies to the Morall Sabbath, that it should be thought they had rather not to haue kept the Sabbath, then to haue kept it? for the latter, tis true, of Circumcision, it might be said the Iewes vvere needlessely religious and carefull of it, be­cause vve finde the Apostle inueighing against it Galat. 5.2. but how can vve say so of the Iewes as touching the Sabbath day, since vve no where finde the Apostles inueighing against it, or repre­hending the Iewes for keeping it, as they did for Circumcision? The maine errour in these obie­ctions is, that they take it for granted vvhich is not granted, that is, supposing the Sabbath day in [Page 213]the 10. Commandements to be a Ceremony, as vvell as Circumcision, and that so it vvas abo­lisht by Christ; vvhereof there is no grownd in Scripture, as else vvhere I haue largely shewed; nay farther, for any to say, the Sabbath is a cere­mony, or that any vvord or letter of the Law or 10. Commandements is Ceremoniall, is no better then blasphemy against Gods Law and Truth, & to speake euill of the way of God.

Thus you see, I haue proued, the practise of the Apostles, vvas constantly to keep the Sabbath day, and the keeping of the Sabbath day vvas an Apostolicall practise; the vvhich proofe I haue made to this end, that you might see vve haue better grounds for the Apostles keeping the Sab­bath day, then for their keeping the Lords day, nay there is good ground for the Sabbath day, but no ground at all, for the Lords day; Further more, as by the way, you may see it hath beene showne the Apostles kept the Sabbath day, 1. constantly, not once, or twice, or thrice, and no no more. 2. In sondry places & in diuerse chur­ches, not at one place or two, but at more. 3. that vvhere they abode diuerse dayes, they chose the Sabbath day, not the Lords day, to teache and to preache in, as Act. 16.12.13. Act. 13.42.44. Act. 17.2. Act. 18.4. 4. They kept Sabbath with both Jewes and Gentiles together, & sometyme with [...] [Page 216]you see the duties of a Sabbath, meditation in Gods Law vvith ioy and delight; and admiration of the workes of God. There be I confesse, that would haue all this vnderstood of the Lords day; but Ignatius speakes both of the Sabbath, & also of the Lords day, distinctly in the same Text: for the very next words are thus, And after the Sab­bath, let the Lords day be celebrated &c. Atha­nasius in his Homilie de semente, saith thus; We assemble together in the Sabbath day, not as if vve were sicke of Iudaizme: but therefore we meete on the Sabbath, that we may vvorship Ie­sus, the Lord of the Sabbath: vvhere ye see Atha­nasius not only auowching that they of this tyme kept the Sabbath, but also he defendeth theire keeping of it from superstition or Iudaizme: but our tymes are now of a contrary minde, thin­king and saying, if we should keepe the Sabbath day, we should play the Iewes, and be infected with Judaizme. Socrates in his History chap, 8. booke 6^th saith: Assemblies were vvonte to be in the Churches, euery weeke vpon the Sabbath, & vpon the Lords day: Zanchie ypon the 4^th Com: Thes. 1. saith out of Sozomen, That thos of Con­stantinople, & almost all others, haue Ecclesiasti­call assemblies, to heare Gods Word, on the Sab­bath day, and on the Lords day: Doctour Pri­deaux on the Sabbath; saith, The Churches after Christ, kept both the Sabbath, & the Lords day, [Page 217]for diuerse yeeres, with holy assemblies, and this thing is so manifest (saith he) as it needeth no proofe &c. In a word, is it not plaine the Sabbath was in vse in the Church, vntill the yeere of Christ 364. at vvhat tyme the Laodicean coun­saile enacted a Law against it, and for the Lords day? Hosp. de Orig. Fest. cap. 9. pag. 27. but how vniustifiable this their acte was, may appeare, in that they enacted a Law against Gods Law: and were guilty of that brande in Dan. 7.25. of vn­lawfull changing of Tymes, and the Law: yea, how full of suspition this their facte was, may appeare in this that Church of Laodicea, it was the worst of all the 7. churches that S. Iohn wrote vnto in his Reuelations: yea, and in that this change was not made till the yeere 364. tis of small accounte, since the elder the church grewe, the more corrupt it grewe; for, 364. yeeres after Christ crept into the church superstition, and so dayly thence forwards popery by degrees: But how soeuer, it is plaine that the Sabbath day was in vse in the church at that tyme, in which they enacted a Lavv against it; or else they made a Law against nothing.

Here it shall not be amisse to adde the testi­mony of two or three of our owne Diuines, a­uowching the morality of the 7^th day Sabbath, I could produce many, but two or three for all; [...] [Page 220]strengthen my selfe, and vvronge not them. 3. Doctour Prideaux vpon the Sabbath, lately comne forth, pag. 140. saith. Where did Christ abrogate the Sabbath? vvhere is there any men­tion of setting the Lords day in the roome of it? well, Christ ascendeth, he left his Apostles prea­chers, and did not they vvithout any scruple ob­serue the Sabbath of the Iewes, wich the Iewes? did not they institute most freely assemblies in the Sabbath day? & did not the succeding chur­ches the like, &c?

And now let me propounded vnto your choi­se, these two dayes, The Sabbath day on Satur­day; or the Lords day on Suneday, and keepe whither of the twaine you shall in conscience finde the more safe; If you keepe the Lords day, but prophane the Sabbath day, you vvalke in great danger and perill (to say the last) of trans­gressing one of Gods eternall & inviolable Laws the 4^th Com: but on the other side, if you keep the Sabbath day, though you prophane the Lords day, you are out of all guneshot and danger, for so you transgresse no Law at all, since Christ, nor his Apostles did euer leaue any Law for it.

1. To conclude, let me take away two or three obiections and so an end; Say some what a doe is here about a day, is God so strict for a day? so be he hath the duties, it matters not so much for the [Page 221]tyme: To whom I answere; and make not you as much a doe too as you can, for the Lords day, the 8^th day, else why may not Mooneday, or Tewsday, or some other day, be kept in memory of Christs Resurrection, as well as Sunday, the first day of the vveeke? and doe not our diuines of best ranke, lay it downe as their judgement, that the Church, the whole Church cannot now alter the Lords day to any other? it seemes then in your owne judgement, that tyme and day, how light a circumstance soeuer you make it, when you dispute about the 7^th day in the 4^th Com: yet it is a matter of vveight and moment when you argue for the Lords day, for vvhich yet you haue no Com: 2. Thinke you it a light matter, the which God hath beene pleased to stampe his Commandement vpon Exod. 35.2. The 7^th day shall be vnto you the Holy Sabbath &c. Will you sleight Gods Commandements? admite the tyme, and 7^th day, be as thing little profitable to God, as was the fruite of the tree of knowledge of good & euill, in Paradise, dareth any man hazard with God as Adam did? The lesse the thing is, vvith the more ease vve may shew our obedience, and the greater our sine, if disobedient. 3. We dare not forfighte a bonde with man, vpon such shiftes, saying whē tis paia­ble on 7^th day of Ianuary, oh my neighbour re­gardeth not so much the day, so I carry him the [Page 222]full some, though it be the day after tis due: nor durst those faithfull Israelites so sleight Gods tymes, as to circumcise on the 9^th day, to call Passeouer on the 15^th day, vvhen God hath com­manded CIrcumcision on the 8^th day, and the Passeouer on the 14^th day.

2. Saith an other, this vvere to bringe into the Church Iudaizme againe, and that strict ri­gorous obseruation of the Sabbath vvhich they vsed: Here to I answere; Athanasius afore cited, said: They kept the Sabbath day in their tymes, and yet he saith, they were not infected with Ju­daizme; Further, Iudaizme is when obedience is yeelded to a Law Ceremoniall, but he that keepes the Sabbath day, doth it in obedience to a Law Morall: And as touching the rigorous stri­ctenesse of the Iewish Rest or Sabbath, it is not better than an euill reporte, brought vp vpon the Lords Sabbath, to loathe men of it; vvhat and if men erroniously thinke, the Iewes vvere more strictly tyed then indeed they vvere, that is their errour: and what and if the Scribes and Pharises vvere superstitious in keeping the 4^th Com: and forbad vvorkes of charity to be done on the Sab­bath, vvere they not erroniouse too in expoun­ding and obseruing other of the Commande­ments? But sure I am our Sauiour Christ the true expounder of the Law, he gaue leaue euen to the [Page 223]Iewes in his tyme, (before any Ceremonies were abolisht) to doe vvorks of charity and works of necessity euen vpon the Sabbath day, as to rubbe eares of corne: to carry a bedd: to lift a beast out of a ditch, and the like: yea, doe not vve hold our selues now thus strictly tyed vpon the Lords day, as not to doe any vvorks thereon saue works of necessity and charity? I finde not that a belee­uing Iewe vvas any thing more strictly tyed then so: For my parte I see no difference twixt the doctrine of our Church of Engeland, touching keeping the Lords day for strictnesse: and the doctrine of Moses and of Christ, touching the keeping of the Sabbath day: nor can I see how a beleeuing Iewe, vvas more strictly tyed then a beleeuing Christian is, in right account.

3. Saith a 3^d. Should vve embrace the Sab­bath day, then should vve be accused of nouelty, and the neighbour Churches of Papists vvould vpbraide vs: Here too I answere, vvhat if man accuseth, where God commendeth; it vvas new doctrine, that Paul brought to Berea, but it vvas theire commendations, that they receiued the word, vvith all readinesse, and serched the Scrip­tures daily, to see vvhither those things vvere so or not: it vvas not the newenesse of the Gospell, nor the singularity of Paul the teacher, that cold daunte them: and for Papistes it is not the first tyme that they haue vpbraided vs for nouelty, if [Page 224]they thinke it a matter of reproche, to confesse vve know but in parte, and that the best Church and purest may be more pure, and growe nerer to God in knowledge and reformation daily, let them scoffe on, what Dauid vvill regard a Mi­chal, or Isaack an Ishmael? what and if vve offend the Church of Papistes, if vve may gaine the Church of the Iewes; doe vve not vvright of, & speake of, and pray for, and hope for conversion of the Iewes, and can there be a better vvay for their entrance into our Church, then by remo­uing a way this great stumbling blocke, that is, our prophanation of the Lords Sabbath day? said not the Iewes of Christ, this man is not of God, because he keept not the Sabbath day Ioh. 9.16. & can the Jewes say any better of vs at this day, who are not causelesly taxed as vvas Christ; why these Christians (may they say) vvere their reli­gion good, they vvold neuer liue in so manifest a breache of the 4^th Commandement vveekly, as they doe, prophaning the Lords Sabbathes.

4. Saith a 4^th: This vvere to bringe an im­putation vpon our Church, that haue not seene this, of 1600. yeeres &c. I answere, for 300. or 400. yeeres after Christ; this Sabbath vvas kept, and that by the purest Churches of the primitine tymes; so the ouer sight vvas not aboue a matter of 1200, yeeres: Againe, at these tyme, when the Lords Sabbath vvas abolisht, by the Laodicean [Page 225]counsaile in the yeere 364. euen then the chur­ches began to decline strangly, and then began superstition & popery to creep into the Church, and by little & little it ouerspreade the Christian world, vntill about Luthers tyme, all vvhich ty­me our Church vvas couered in the Romish Church, as corne in the chaffe, and vve vvere as captiues in a forraine nation, vvhere we vvere kept from knowledge of the Lawes of our Law­full and rightfull soueraigne, the Lord our God: now vvhat imputation is it to our Church, that the Romish Church did ouersee this, and blott out the 4^th Com: as they had done the 2^d Com? Since Luthers tyme indeed by the mercy of God, the chaffe hath beene fanned away, yet haue we not had a setteled constant shine of the Sune of the Gospell, but twixt tymes it hath beene elou­ded, as in the raigne of Quene Mary &c. and for this short breating tyme, since Quene Elizabeth of blessed memory, hath not our Church had worke enough to hould the ground, which our forefathers wone for vs, haue vve not beene in a continued warfare battailing vvith Romish do­ctrine, both by penne, and by preaching, euen vn­till now of late yeeres, during vvhich conflict, our church hath had scarce leisure to bethinke hir selfe of any further purification: but now, since God hath in some sorte giuen vs rest from our enemies, labour vve to growe in grace, both [Page 226]in knowledge and in obedience; labour vve to perfect Holinesse daily more and more: & let vs rather imitate the more pure primitiue churchs, (from vvhom the Church of Roome is fled in practise of the Sabbath day,) then the corrupted Romish church, from whom vve suckte this euill milke. Neither is it to be thought a thing vnpos­sible, for a Church of God ignorantly, to lye in the breache of one branch of Gods Law for a season; for did not the Church of God in Iosiah his tyme as much vvhen the booke of the Law of God it selfe had beene lost, for I know not how long tyme, 2. King. 22. now to vvhom vvas this great sine of carelesnes in loosing the booke of Gods Law to be imputed, vvas it not vnto the Idolatrous tymes and church, vvhich vvent last before the Raigne of Iosiah? & so who is mostly to be blamed for our ignorance in this, but the idolatry and superstition & irreligion of former tymes, which began at the Counsaill held at Lao­dicea Anno 364. for they first puft out this light?

There are two sortes of people to vvhom this discourse doth pertaine, the Laitie, and the Cler­gye: as for the Laity, God he knoweth they can doe no more then they can doe; though of vvi­ling minds that all should goe vvell, and that God might haue this owne tymes, and tis not a farr thing gaine to them, whither they giue God [Page 227]the Saturday or the Sunday: but since they want the Artes & tounges, those instruments of know­ledge in this points they must be guided by their Ministers, The Priests lippes must preserue knowledge, and they must aske the Law of their mouths, I say the lesser care of this matter per­taines to the people, I doe not say no care, for their is a spurre for them in Ezek. 33.6. and a president, in those Noble men of Berea, for ser­ching the Scriptures: and let them in Gods feare both priuately pray to God, to direct their Mi­nisters vvith Spirituall illumination; and also let them often call vpon them to see to their Mini­stry, shewing them the price of their soules is in their hands, and if Ministers neglect, the soules of people pay for it.

As for these of the Ministry, these doe knowe, this matter mostly conserueth them, to knovv vvhither Saturday, or Sunday, or Sabbath day by Gods appointement: And hereof it is that our Sauiour Christ hauing ratified the Law, and eue­ry iote and title of it, to the vvorlds end Matth. 5.18. He turnetb himselfe to thos of the Ministry to looke to it afore others, that by their liefe and doctrine, they teach, not breake not one of the last of those Cemmandements, saying v. 19. who­soeuer therfore shall breake one of the last of those commandements, & teach men so, he shall be called the last of the Kingdome of Heauen: [...] [Page 230]my selfe, so farr forth, as to cause me liften redily to what may be said to the contrary, and to scan­ne and serch it to my vtmost: yea so farre forth too, as in partt to vvith hould me from the pra­ctise of it, and so accordingly vpon the same ground, to counsaill others to doe the like.

If it please God to blesse this point, so as it be generally found to be a truth of Gods, then will there be a farre more comfortable and laudable course, to goe together vvith ioynte petitions, & humble requestes, vnto his Maiesty, and that ho­norable house of Parlament, desiring them to take this matter into their considerations, whose it is properly to reforme Ministers may informe, but Magistrats should reforme; it was Nehe­miah chapt. 13.15.16.17.18.19.20.21.22. that reformed the prophanation of the Sabbath day, in his tyme: and hauing done it; Remember mee, O my God, conseruing this, saith he &c. it was Christ a King, as well as a Prophet, who whipped the buyers & scelleres out of the Tem­ple, that holy place; and it is the office of Gods Anoynted a King, to purge the Lords Sabbath day, on our Saturday, that sacred Tyme, from buyers and scellers, and markelinges; Let vs pa­tiently therfore vvith prayers to God wait and expect, vntill God shall be pleased first to moue the harts of mcn generally to embrace this truth, and then to stirre vp the harte, and couradge and [Page 231]zeale of King to doe this great vvorke.

For conclusion of all, one scruple and case of conscience would be satisfied, and tis this; If our consciences be once rightely informed, (as we thinke) that Saturday is the true Sabbath, by force of the 4^th Comm: how can vve dispence with Gods Commandement, and still our con­sciences, vntill a publike reformation cometh? and is it not hypocrisy, to thinke one thing, and practise an other, judging Saturday to be Sabbath day, & yet keeping Sunday Sabbath? For, thus a Diuine of note deliuered it in publike; that for a man to diuide betwixt his profession, or (in jud­gement) and his practise, is a note of hypocrisy. Here to I answere, 1. Hypocrisy is vvhen a man maketh an outward shew of doeing some thing, but indeed he doth it not: now this agreeth not to vs, since we make no shew to men, that vve keep Saturday Sabbath, but the quite contrary, for both our actions, and our shewes, and appea­rances to men are both one, that is, to labour on the Saturday, so we vse no hypocriticall dissimu­lations: Paul, when he became all things to all men, that he might wine some, therfore he cir­cumcised Timothie Act. 16.3. the which fact him selfe else where, in an other case speakes against, Gal. 5.2. and it vvas vnlawfull to be done. It was a Law of God, who so shedeth mans blood, by [Page 232]man shall his blood be shede, Genes. 9.6. and the Magistrat is Gods Minister to take vengeance &c. Rom. 13.14. now Dauid being King, Ioab murthered 2. Captaines, 1. King. 2.5. here it was the duty of Dauid, to haue taken vengeance for God, but Dauid finding Joab to strong for him, 2. Sam. 3.27.39. omitted execution, and gaue it in charge to his Sonne Salomon, to execute it af­ter his death, 1. King. 2.6. I trust no man vvill counte Dauid or Paul herein Hypocrites, & yet their judgement and practise was diuided.

2. To the scruple of conscience, in a case of necessity, you reade vvhat Dauid did, vvhen he was an hungred, he prophaned hallowed breade, contrary to Gods Law, and Christ justified him, Math. 12.3.4. you reade how Circumcision vvas omitted all the tyme the Israelites vvere in the wildernesse Iosh. 5.5? if in case of necessity thes might doe thus, I trust there is mercy for vs also, if our case be like; specially, since vve doe not vtterly abolish all dayes, for we doe but change the day, and for a tyme giue God one day for an other: That necessity is vpon vs, as it was on those Israelites, is plaine; doe not vve liue in a Church whose gouernement is establisht by law, the which law cannot be transgressed with safety to our persons, & goods? besides, is not necessity vpon vs, as touching the good of our soules? A Sabbath should be celebrated with publike and [Page 233]holy conuocations and assemblies Leuit. 23.3. [...] with publike preaching and reading Luk. 4.16. now can we haue in safety assemblies in priuate housen? or can vve haue possible a preacher in euery family? & how shall they heare without a preacher? Rom. 10.14. vvere not these the very causes, vvhy the good King Hezekiah 2. Chron. 30.3. altered the day of the passeouer. 1. Be­cause they had not Priests, who had fitted them­selues for that day; 2. Because the people, were not togeather assembled in publike, on that first day? It may be said, how doe they in a voyage at Sea keep Sabbath, who cannot haue these? I an­swer, the case is not a like, for, would they put of the Sabbath day, from one day vnto an other, they cold not amende themselues, but we by a change and defering the day, we may obtaine all those comfortes which else we cannot enioy: and if any shall say, Keep both dayes: I answere, tis more then euer God required; nor vvill the ne­cessity of our callings permitte it, God himselfe thought it needfull we should haue 6. dayes for our workes, to one day for his seruice, as in the 4^th Com.

One instance more, shewing God permitted a change of a day, in case of necessity; The Passeo­uer was to be eaten ordenarily on the 14^th day of the first Moneth, Numb. 9.1.2.3. but in case a man were in a farr iourney, then he might keep [Page 234]the Passeouer in the 14^th day of the second Mo­neth, Numb. 9.10.11. now it is farther to be no­ted, that euer the next day after the Passeouer, it was a Sabbath, Leuit. 23.7. so that as the Passeo­uer day was altered, so also this Annuall Sabbath vvas changed answerablie: so that not only the Passeouer day, but also the Passeouer Sabbath day, in a case of necessity might be altered and changed: But it vvill be said, these vvere Cere­monials, and what is this to a Morall? I answere, vvhy Ceremoniales in theire tyme, vvhilst they stood in force, called for obedience, as vvell as Moralls, yea the first Sabbath of the Passeouer; which followed next day after Passeouer day, it vvas eommanded to be kept just as a Sabbath, in holy conuocations, and in resting from seruile la­bour, Leuit. 23.7. yea, death vvas to be inflicted vpon the breakers of this Ceremoniall Sabbath, Numb. 9.13. as vvell as vpon thos that violated the Morall Sabbath, Exod. 31.15. The summe of vvhich is this; That since the Ceremoniall Sab­baths, whilst in force, did binde as strictly, as did the Morall Sabbath, therfore there is the same reason and the regard, of the Ceremoniall and of the Morall Sabbath, for strictnes of obseruation; and therfore it followeth by like reason (as farre as man may judge) that if a dispensatiō be gran­ted in case of necessity, for a change of that day, so a dispensation likewise in like case, is granted [Page 235]for a change of the Morall Sabbath, so long as that necessity vnauoidably lasteth, vnles ground­lesly we should think, God is more strict towards Christians about the Sabbath, then he vvas to­wards Iewes about the Sabbath of the Passeouer.

One obiection more, vvhat and if vve cannot haue publike assemblies in the congregatiō, may are vve not bounde to keep the Sabbath as vve can priuately, euery man in his owne familie? I answere, since God had ordeined the Sabbath to be kept, vvith publike assemblies, and with the helpe of Priestes or Ministers, as hath beene showne, therefore I judge it better to alter the day, vntill the tyme of reformation, that so we might enioy the publike assemblies, and benefite of an able Minister on an other day, then without these, to keep the very selfe same day; that this opinion is justifiable, see the like practise of the good King Hezekiah, fore mentioned 2. Chron. 30.1.2.3. vvho because the Priests were not pre­pared to keep the Passeouer, in the first Month: nor vvere the people publikely assembled toge­ther in the same month, for these two causes the King with his Princes altered the day of the Pas­seouer to the second month. If any shall obiect or doubt that I straine things to farre, when I wold justifie the change of the Sabbath, by the change of the Passeouer, because these two are things of a different kinde &c. and because the reasons [Page 236]mouing vs to change the Sabbath, are not the same that God mentioned in the Law of the Pas­seouers change Numb. 9.10. for satisfaction of the vveakest in this point, I thus answer 1. to the latter, touching the reasons of our change: they be not the same indeed euery way, yet if they be (as they are) as necessary to enforce a change, as thes, Numb. 9.10. it is sufficient; and for proofe hereof, see it in the practise of King Hezekiah, who changed the day of the Passeouer, 2. Chron. 30.3. not vpon these very particular grounds, which God specified in Numb. 9.10. for God specified onely these two defilment by a dead corps: and being in a farre iourney: but Heze­kiah by like reason gatheted, that they might al­ter the day vpon other grounds also, if as weigh­tie as those first, and namely vpon these, 1. Be­cause the Priests vvere not sanctified: 2. because the people were not assembled: so thes two differ both in the persons, and also in the things, as may be seen by cōparing thos two textes together. Se­condly, I answere to the former, and I justifie my arguing from the Passeouer to the Sabbath, from the practise of our Sauiour, who argued from Dauids eating the Shewbread, to the Sabbath, Math. 1.12.2.3. which were things farre more different, then the Passeouer day, & the Sabbath day, for both these are of day and tyme, but thos were of bread and tyme: Further, by this practise [Page 237]of Christ, I finde it lavvfull for vs to reason from a ceremoniall, as the shewe breade was, or by like reason, from a ceremoniall as the Passeouer was to a morall, as the Sabbath was: concluding that the same exceptions, and dispensations be­longe to the morall Sabbath, which God granted to the ceremoniall Law of Shewbread, or to the Law of Passeouer, if there be necessity in the one as vvas in the other.

For a conclusion let me stopp vp one gapp, wher at I perceiue some will be redy to breek out, saying, since that we haue not now the very day vvhich God sanctified, but an other day in its roome, vve are not tied so strictly to keepe this day, in the duties of Reste and Holinesse, as we shold be if we had the righte day, and ther­fore vve may take liberty &c. where vnto I ansvvere, hovv euer the right day is to be desired principally, and before any other, and all good meanes to be vsed for obtayning it, yet vntill a tyme of reformation, I hould this day ought as strictly to be Sanctified, as that other: suppose a debtor bound in a bond to pay 10^li. on the sea­uenth day of March, and his creditor seing him in a streight, and necessity is vpon him, so as he he cannot bring the mony iust vpon the day, in mercy the creditor permitteth him, to make payment on the next day after, on the 8^th. day of March; shall novv this vnthankfull debtor, [Page 238]thus revvard his mercifull creditor, saying, since I carry not my 10^li. vpon the right day of my bond, being dispensed vvith all for the tyme; why therfore I nede not be strict neighther in the some, nor yet in the currantnesse of the mo­ny, I may take liberty and carry but 9^li. 10^s. therfore, yea and I care not if also I put in some light gould, and clipt siluer: is this good dea­ling thinke you by the debtor towards his mer­cifull creditor? Why apply this, the case is thine, if thou vvilt giue Godlesse dutie and seruice on this 8^th. day, then on the 7^th. day: yea farther, consider of that text Num. 9.12. vvhere though the Lord had permitted, that in a case of necessi­ty, the tyme and day might be changed for the Passeouer, yet as touching the duties of the Pas­seouer, to be by the Law performed in the tyme and in the first day, God vvold abate none of them, though vpon another day, for so saith the text, According to all the ordinances of the Pas­seouer they shall keepe it. So may I say, of this first day of the vveeke (vntill a tyme of refor­mation, and necessity be remoued) According to all the ordinances of the Sabbath, on the seauenth day, shall yee keep it.