Thesis 1.

TIme is one of the most precious bles­sings,1 which worthlesse man in this world enjoyes, a jewell of inesti­mable worth, a golden stream dissol­ving, and as it were, continually run­ning downe by us, out of one eter­nity into another; yet seldome taken notice of untill it is quite passed a­way from us; Man (saith Solomon) knowes not his time, Ec­cles. 9.12. It is therefore most just and meet, that he who hath the disposing of all other things lesse precious and momentous, should also be the supreme Lord and dis­poser of all our times.

Thesis 2.

He who is the disposer of all our times, is the soveraigne 2 Lord of our persons also, and is therefore the utmost and last end of both: for if our persons and all our times bee of him, they are then to be improved for him, as he sees most meer.

Thesis 3.

Now although all creatures in the world, are of God,3 and for God, so that being of him, they receive their being from him as their first efficient, and being for him, are therefore Deus qu [...] principium dat esso qua finis firmat & stabi­lit esse datum: Gibbe [...]. de lib. Dei & creat. preserved and governed by him, as their utmost end; yet no other inferiour visible creature is set so near to God, and consequently is not in that manner for God, as man is.

Thesis 4.

For although all inferiour creatures are made lastly for 4 [Page 2] 4 God, yet they are made nextly for man; but man havin [...] nothing better than himselfe, between him and God, therefore made, both lastly and nextly for God, and hence is, that no inferiour Creature, which comes out and issu [...]eth from God, hath such a reflux and returne againe bac [...] unto God, as man hath; because, in and by this reflux an [...] returne into him, mans immortall being is eternally pre [...]served, like water running into the Sea againe, from whence it first came.

Thesis 5.

For whatever is set next, and as it were contiguous to e [...]ternall, 5 is eternall; Omne contiguum ae [...]erno spirituali est a [...]ternum (say some) and hence it is that the soule is eternall because it is made nextly for God, and as it were con [...]tiguous to him. The body also shall bee eternall, be [...]cause contiguous to the eternall soule: But no other in [...]feriour Creatures are thus eternall: For although they b [...] made nextly for man, yet so, as that they are firstly for th [...] body, which is of it selfe mortall, and not eternall, an [...] therefore not being contiguous to that which is spirituall [...] eternall, are not so themselves▪ and the reason of this i [...] because all inferiour Creatures, as they come out from God, so their motion is toward man, for whom they a [...] nextly made,Field of the Church, chap. 2. and they go out strait forward from God as it were in a strait line toward man, to the last end an [...] terme of which strait line when they are come, in the ser [...]vice of man, they then cannot proceed any further, and d [...] therefore perish and cease to be, without reflecting, or re [...]turning back againe immediately unto God. But ma [...] being made immediately and nextly for God, hath therfor [...] his motion so toward God, as that he returnes immediatel [...] unto him againe, and is not led in a strait line, but led ( [...] it were) about in a circular motion, and hence returning immediately to him, he is hereby eternally preserved i [...] him, for whom he is immediately made, and unto whom h [...] is nextly contiguous, as hath been said.

Thesis 6.

6 Now although in this returne of man to God, (suppo [...]sing it to be internall, regular and spirituall) mans blesse [...] being once lost is hereby recovered and preserved in God yet when man is left unto himselfe, the motions of his soul out of this circle, in straying from God, are innumerable and would be endlesse, if God who set him next unto him selfe, did not some time or other, recall, returne, and [Page 3] [...]ead him back again (as it were in a heavenly circle) into himself.

Thesis 7.

Look therefore as when man hath run his race, finished 7 his course, and passed through the bigger and larger circle of his life, he then returnes unto his eternall rest; so it [...] contrived and ordered by divine wisdom, as that he shall [...]n a speciall manner returne unto and into his rest once [...]t least within the lesser and smaller circle of every week, [...]hat so his perfect blessednesse to come might be foretasted every Sabbath day, and so be begun here: that looke as man standing in innocency, had cause thus to returne [...]rom the pleasant labours of his weekly paradise imploy­ments, (as shall be shewn in due place) so man fallen, much more from his toilsome and wearisome labours, to this his rest again: And therefore, as because all creatures were made for man, man was therefore made in the last place after them; so man being made for God and his worship, thence it is that the Sabbath (wherein man was to draw most neare unto God) was appointed after the crea­tion of man, as Tu hic ord [...] ­nem considera, alia creantur prepter homi­nem, ideo post illa co [...]ditur homo. Homo vero ad Dei cultum, ideo statem post illius creatio­nem Sabbathi benedictio, & sanctificatio inducitur. Pet Mart. in prac 4 m. Peter Martyr observes: For although man is not made for the Sabbath meerly in respect of the out­ward rest of it, as the Pharisees dreamed, yet hee is made for the Sabbath in respect of God in it, and the holinesse of it, to both which then the soule is to have its weekly re­volution back againe, as into that Rest, which is the end of all our lives, labour, and in speciall of all our weekly labour and work.

Thesis 8.

As therefore our blessed rest in the fruition of God at 8 the end and period of our lives, is no ceremony, but a glo­rious privilege, and a morall duty, it being our closing with our utmost end to which we are called: so it cannot be that such a Law which cals and commands man in this life to returne to the same rest for substance every Sabbath day, should bee a ceremoniall, but rather a Morall and perpetuall Law: unlesse it should appeare that this weekly Sabbath like the other annuall Sabbath, hath been ordained and instituted principally for some ceremonious ends, rather than to be a part, and indeed the beginning of our rest to come; there being little difference between this and that to come, but onely this, that here our rest is but begun, there it is perfected; here it is interrupted by our weekly labours, there it is continued, here we are led into our rest [Page 4] by meanes and ordinances, but there we shall bee possessed with it, without our need of any helpe from them; our God who is our rest, being then become unto us immedi­ately All in All.

Thesis 9.

Were it not for mans worke and labour ordained and 9 appointed for him in this life, he should enjoy a continuall Sabbath, a perpetuall Rest. And therefore wee see, that when mans life is ended, his sunne set, and his worke done upon earth, nothing else remaines for him, but only to enter into his perpetuall and eternall Rest: All our time should be solemne and sacred to the Lord of time, if there were no common worke and labour h [...]re, which ne­cessarily occasions common time; why then should any think that a weekly Sabbath is ceremoniall, when, were it not for this lifes labour, a perpetuall and continuall Sabbath would then be undoubtedly accounted morall. Its hard for any to thinke a servants awfull attendance on his Lord and Master at certaine speciall times not to bee mo­rally due from him; who but for some more private and personall occassions allowed him to attend unto, should at all times continually be serving of him.

Thesis 10.

10 The word is [...], and no Scripture phrase, and therfore not proper, fitly and fully to expresse the question in con­troversie, to wit, whether the fourth Commandment bee a morall precept. The best friends of this word finde it slip­pery, and can hardly tell what it is, and what they would have to be understood by it, and hence it is become a bone of much Contention, a fit mist, and swampe, for such to fight in, who desire so to contend with their Adversaries, as that themselves may not bee known, ei­ther where they are, or on what ground they stand: Yet it being a word generally taken up, and commonly used, it may not therefore be amisse, to follow the market measure, and to retaine the word with just and meet explications thereof.

Thesis 11.

11 They who describe a morall law, to bee such a law as is not typically ceremoniall, and therefore not durable, doe well and truely expresse what it is not, but they doe not po­sitively expresse what it is.

Thesis 12.

12 Some describe and draw out the proportions of the [Page 5] morall law, by the law of nature, and so make it to bee that law, which every man is taught by the light of nature. ‘That which is morally and universally just (say some) which reason, when it is not mis-led, and the inward law of nature dictateth, by common principles of honesty, or ought to dictate unto all men without any outward usher: It is that (say others) which may be proved not only just but necessary, by principles drawne from the light of nature, which all reasonable men, even in nature cor­rupted, have still in their hearts, which either they doe acknowledge, or may at least bee convinced of without the Scriptures, by principles still left in the hearts of all men.’ But this description seems too narrow: For 1. Although it be true that the law naturall is part of the law morall, yet if the law morall be resolved into the law of nature only, and the law of nature bee shrunke up and drawne into so narrow a compasse, as what the principles left in corrupt man onely suggest and dictate; then it will necessarily follow, that many of those holy rules and prin­ciples are not the law of nature, which were the most per­fect impressions of the law of nature, in mans first creation and perfection, but now by mans apostacy are obliterated and blotted out, unlesse any shall thinke worse than the blinde Papists, either that mans minde is not now corrup­ted by the fall, in losing any of the first impressions of in­nocent nature; or shall maintaine with them, that the Image of God (of which those first impressions were a part) was not naturall to man in that estate. 2. It will then fol­low that there is no morale discipline, (as they call it) that is, nothing morall by discipline informing, or positively mo­rall, but onely by nature dictating, which is crosse not onely to the judgements, but solid Arguments of men ju­dicious and most indifferent. 3. If that onely is to be ac­counted morall which is so easily knowne of all men, by the light of nature corrupted, then the imperfect light of mans corrupt minde must bee the principall judge of that which is morall, rather than the perfect rule of morality contained in the Scripture, which Assertion would not a little advance corrupt and blinde Na­ture, and dethrone the perfection of the holy Scrip­ture.

Thesis 13.

They who define a morall law, to be such a law as 13 is perpetuall and universall, binding all persons in all ages [Page 6] and times, doe come somewhat nearer to the marke, and are not far off from the truth, and such a description is most plaine and obvious to such as are not curious: and in this sense our adversaries in this cause affirme the Sabbath not to be morall, meaning, that it is not a Law perpetu­all and universall. Others on the contrary affirming that it is morall, intend thus much, that it is perpetuall and uni­versall, a law which bindes all persons, all times, and in all ages, and herein lies the chiefe matter of controversie at this day. Now in what respect and how far forth the law of the Sabbath is perpetuall, shall be hereafter shewn; mean while it may not be amisse to enquire more narrowly into the nature of a morall law. For though a Law prima­rily morall is perpetuall, yet perpetuity seems to bee an adjunct rather than of the essence of a morall law, and the difficulty will still remaine untouch'd, viz. to know when a law is perpetuall, and what is internall and intrinsicall to such a law as makes it perpetuall or morall; whereinto I would not search, lest I should seem to affect curiosity, but that our criticall adversaries put us upon it, with whom there is nothing lost in case we [...] gaine nothing by wrast­ling a little with them upon their owne grounds, where for a while we shall come up to them.

Thesis 14.

14 A divine law may be said to be morall two wayes,

• 1. More largely and gene­rally morall.
• 2. More strictly and spe­cially morall.

Thesis 15.

15 A law generally morall is this, that the whole soveraign will of the Lord be done and submitted unto by every crea­ture; and in this large sense every law of God whether ce­remoniall, judiciall, or for speciall triall, may be said to be morall, because the soveraigne will of God is in all these lawes to be adored: It is a morall duty that Gods will be done, and hence it is that so far forth as the will of God is in them, so far forth to yield obedience to them is a morall duty, but the question is not about this morality, nor what things are thus morall.

Thesis 16.

16 A law more strictly and specially morall, which con­cernes the manners of all men, and of which wee now speake, may bee thus described, viz. It is such a Law, which is therefore commanded because it is good, and [Page 7] is not therefore good meerly because it is commanded.

Thesis 17.

This is Austins description of it long since, whom most 17 of the Schoolmen follow,Aug. de lib. arb li. 1 ca. 3. which learned Camer in Matth 16. Cameron with sun­dry late Wri [...] confirme, and which our adversaries in this controversie plead hard for, and unto which the evi­dence of Scripture and reason seemes to incline: for laws meerly judiciall and ceremoniall are good lawes, Deut. 6.18, 24. but this was meerly because they were commanded, and therefore it had been simply evill to burne Incense, offer Sacrifice, or performe any ceremoniall duty in the worship of God, unlesse they had been commanded. What is there therefore in morall lawes which is not in those lawes? ve­rily this inward goodnesse in them which others have not, and because of which goodnesse they are therefore com­manded: For to love God, to honour parents, to pre­serve the life of man, to be mercifull and bountifull and just in all our dealings, &c. are inwardly good, and are therefore commanded, and are therefore morall laws: and hence we see that when the Apostle would set forth the glory and excellency of the morall law (for of no other law can he speake, Rom. 7.7, 12.) he gives these titles to it, that it is holy, just and good: which holines, justice and good­nesse, he opposeth to his owne morall (not ceremoniall) wic­kednesse: I am carnall (saith he) but the law is holy, just and good. And look as it was evill in it selfe for to have a nature contrary to the law, so the Law which was con­trary to that nature, was good in it selfe and was therefore commanded, and therefore in this thing, morall lawes are in a higher degree good, than such as were onely cere­moniall, which were therefore good meerely because com­manded. The Prophet Micah therefore perceiving how for­ward many were in ceremonial duties & sacrifices, in oppo­sition hereunto, he tels them, The Lord hath shewed thee, O man, what is good (speaking of morall duties, of shewing mercy, and walking humbly with God, Micah 6.8.) Was not Sacrifice and Offerings good, as well as mercy and walking humbly? Yes verily, but herein lies the dif­ference (as our most Orthodox generally make it) Sacri­fice and Offerings were not per se and in themselves good, but onely as commanded for higher ends, and to further morall obedience, Ier. 7.22, 23, and 6.19, 20. Isa. 1.14, 16, Psal. 50.13, 14, 15. but such morall obedience as th [...] Prophet mentions, viz. to shew mercy and to walk humbly, [Page 8] were good in themselves, and were therefore commanded of God, and here called by the Prophet good. The summe of morall obedience is love to God and man, Matth. 22. But what love is this? surely tis in such things [...] are in them­selves lovely, and consequently in themsel [...] good, for o­therwise ceremoniall obedience should be a part of morall obedience, because in performing such obediences is meerely ceremoniall, wee shew our love to God also, It being a branch of love to have respect unto all Gods Commandments, Deut. 6.1, 2, 3. with 5, 6. Onely herein our love toward God appeares in ceremoniall duties, be­cause these lawes are commanded, our love appeares in the other, because the things commanded are also lovely in themselves▪ The Image of God is good in it selfe, as God himselfe is good in himselfe, now the morall law is an exact rule of nothing else but Gods Image, as is evident, Eph. 4.24. where the Image of God is made to consist in holinesse and righteousnesse, the first Table being the rule of the one, the second Table being the rule of the other; and hence it followes undenyably, that morall lawes, respecting onely Gods Image, have respect onely to such things as are good in themselves, and wherein we resemble and are made like unto God.C [...]et. Pral. in [...]p. Mat. 16. Some things (saith Cameron) are good in themselves, viz. such things wherein Gods Image shines forth, as hee is holy, just and good, Colos. 3.10. Ephes. 4.24. Some things are indifferent, neither good nor bad in themselves, but meerely as commanded or forbidden, which also bear not Gods Image, unlesse it be sub ratione entis, but not sub ratione boni moralis, i. e. they resemble God as he is a being, but not as he is holy, just and good in himselfe, the rule of which resemblance is the mo­rall law, which therefore commands things because they are good.

Thesis 18.

18 God out of his absolute soveraignty could have made lawes binding all persons in all ages (and in this respect morall) without having any more goodnesse in them, then meerely his owne will, but it is his will and good plea­sure to make all lawes that are morall to be first good in themselves for all men, before he will impose them upon all men. And hence it is a weaknesse for any to affirme, that a morall law is not such a Law which is therefore commanded because it is good, because (say they) tis not the goodnesse of the thing, but the soveraigne will of [Page 9] God which makes all things good; for it is the soveraigne will of God (as is proved) to make every morall law good, and therefore to command it, rather than to make it good by a meer commanding of it.

Thesis 19.

The will of God is indeed the rule of all goodnesse, and 19 consequently of all morall lawes, but we know there is vo­luntas decreti, and voluntas mandati, the first of which, viz. the will of Gods decree (as it appeares in the execution of it) makes a thing to be good, whether it bee creature or law: the second of these, viz. the will of Gods command, enjoynes the practise of such a duty, the rule and law to guide which is first made good (if it bee a morall law) by the wisdome and power of the will of Gods decree; so that the will of God appearing in both these (viz. Gods de­creeing and commanding will) is the compleat rule of e­very morall law: So that as no law is morally good meer­ly because it is commanded, so neither is it thus good unlesse also it be commanded. Gods will in all morall laws, is first to make them good, and then to command them, when they are thus far made good; both which together make up a morall law.

Thesis 20.

Tis true that sin is the transgression of Gods law; there 20 is nothing therefore sinfull but it is the transgression of some law, and hence there is no obedience good, but what is conformable unto some law. But wee must know that as transgression of any law doth not make a thing morally sin­full (for then to breake a ceremoniall law would be a mo­rall sinne) so also obedience to every law doth not make a duty morally lawfull and good (for then obedience to a ceremoniall law, must be a morall obedience;) morall transgression therefore is a breach of such a law, which forbids a thing because it is evill, as morall obedience is our conformity to such a law which commands a thing because it is good: not that anything is morally evill in it selfe before it be forbidden, for then there should bee a mo­rall sinne before, and without any law to forbid it, which is most absurd, but because a thing is evill in it selfe, and is therefore forbidden, it is therefore morally evill: God may and doth make it fundamentally evill before it be forbidden, but it is not morally evill untill it be forbidden. The like may be said concerning moral obedience according to any morall law: No man should therefore thinke, [Page 10] that this description given of a morall law, should give oc­casion to any to imagine, that some things are morally good or evill, before any law passe upon them, and that therefore there are some duties, and some sinnes, which are so without and before any law of God. For wee see that things good in themselves must be commanded, else they are not morall duties, yet withall they are therefore commanded because they are good in themselves. Its true that by the verdict of some of the Schoolemen, some du­ties are morally good, before any law commands them (as to love and magnifie God) and that some sinnes (as to curse and blaspheme God) are morally evill, before any law forbids them: but (to omit other answers) if such suppositions may bee rationally made (which some deny) yet it may bee upon good grounds denyed, that any duty can be morally good, or any sinne morally evill, untill some law passe upon them either to command or for­bid the same. 'Tis indeed sutable and meet in nature for man to love God, and unsutable and unmeet to blaspheme and hate God; but such sutablenesse or unsutablenesse, as they make things fundamentally good or evill, so they cannot make any thing morally good or evill, unlesse we suppose some Law; for it would be in this case with man as 'tis in brute creatures, who doe many things unnatu­rall (as to eate up and destroy their owne young) which yet are not morally sinfull, because they are not under any morall law; and Alex Hal. pa [...]t. 3. Q. 32. Art. 1. one of the most ancient and best of the Schoolemen, though he thinks that the observance of the Sabbath before Moses time was not secund [...]m rationem praecepti, or debitè fieri, i. was not actually commanded; yet that it was secundum rationem honesti, hoc est dignè steri. i. It was congruous, and a thing meet and worthy to bee observed even from the first creation: But will any of our Adversaries hence say, that because it was meet and worthy to bee observed, that therefore it was a morall law from the beginning of the world, while it had no com­mand (as is by them supposed) to be observed? For it must be something meet and congruous, and worthy to be ob­served of man, which when it is commanded makes it to be a morall law, for then the Law commands a thing that is good, and because 'tis good i [...] is therefore commanded, which goodnesse wee must a little more narrowly now en­quire into.

Thesis 21.

21 If it be demanded therefore, What is that goodnesse in a [Page 11] morall law for which it is therefore commanded? The An­swer is given by Vasques, Suarez, Smifinga, and most of the Schoolemen, and sundry of our owne Writers, that it is nothing else, but That comely sutablenesse and meetnesse in the thing commanded unto humane nature as rationall, or unto man as rationall, and consequently unto every man. When I say,Irons Q 2. cap. 8. as Rationall, I understand as Master Ironside doth, viz. as right reason neither blinded nor corrupted doth re­quire. When I say as sutable to man, and consequently to every man, I hereby exclude all lawes meerely Judici­all and Evangelicall from being morall, the first of which are sutable to some men onely, the other are not sutable to men as men, but to man as corrupt and fallen; and therefore binde not all men, but onely those among whom they are sufficiently and actually promulgated, as is evident, Rom. 10.14 Iohn. 15.22. But morall lawes are sutable to all men, and have an inward meetnesse and con­gruity to be observed of all men: For look as when the Lord gives Laws to any particular nation, whether immedi­ately by himself, or mediately by man, he ever makes them sutable to the peoples peace and good of that nation; so when he makes lawes binding all mankinde in all Nati­ons, he makes them sutable to humane nature or all man­kinde therein. And look as nationall Lawes binde not meerly by the meere will of the Law-giver, but from the Driedo de lib. Christ. lib. 3. cap. 3. Vasquez. To. 2. Dis. 12. goodnesse and sutablenesse in the thing unto their com­mon good; so here morall lawes which concerne all Nati­ons, bind not meerly because of the will of God (which of it selfe is sufficient to binde all men, if he had pleased to put no more in morall lawes) but also because of some goodnesse in the things commanded, which is nothing else but such sutablenes as is mentioned unto the common good of man. What this sutablenesse to humane nature is, we shall shew, in due place; meane while, I doe not under­stand by sutablenesse to humane nature, the inclination of humane nature now corrupted by sinne; for infused and supernaturall vertues and graces (to which there­fore humane nature is not inclined) are (as Vasquez truly and strongly maintaines) in some sense naturall and good in themselves, not because humane nature is inclined to them, but because they are very congruous and consen­taneous thereunto, and perfecting humane nature, as such, and consequently sutable thereunto: A good is said to be utile & delectabile in respect of some profit or delight [Page 12] which comes to man by it,Suarez me­taph. Disp. 10. Sect. 2. Surifing [...]. de Deo. Tract. 3. Disp. 1. Sect. 32. but bonum honestum in genere moris (as Suarez and his fellowes call it) consists in a kinde of decency, comlinesse and sweet proportion between such an act, and such a nature as acts by right reason; to which nature it is exceeding comely and suitable, whether any profit or delight come thereby yea or no. As now in the divine nature, it's exceeding beautifull and comely for it (and therefore good in it selfe) to bee bountifull and mercifull, and to doe good unto the creature, although no profit could come to him thereby: It is Gods nature, as I may so say, so to doe; so 'tis in humane nature, it's a comely thing to honour parents, reverence Gods Name, to bee loving and mercifull to all men, in heart, word and deed; to give God a fit and the most meet proportion of time for solemne service of him, who allowes us many dayes to serve our owne good; this is good nature, and being thus seemly and suitable to it, this and such like things are therefore good in themselves, though perhaps neither profit or pleasure should come unto man hereby: And hence it's well observed by some of the Schoolemen, that right reason doth not make a thing morall, but only judgeth and discerneth what is morall; for right reason doth not make a thing suitable, but onely seeth whether it be so or no, a thing may bee suitable before right rea­son see it, yet when 'tis presented to reason it sees it suit­able, as the wall is white before the eye see it, yet when the eye doth see it, it appeares white also: It may bee a meet and comely thing to give God a seventh part of our time, though no mans reason can of it selfe find out such a meet proportion, yet when reason sees it, it's forced to acknowledge a comlinesse of equity, and suitablenesse there­in, as shall hereafter appeare.

Thesis 22.

22 But here let it bee observed, that although all morall lawes are thus suitable to mans nature, yet they are not all alike suitable thereunto, and consequently not equally good in themselves; for some lawes are more immediately suitable and good, others mediately: And as Wallaeus well observes out of Scotus, Wal. disser [...] de 4. prac. ca. 3. that there is a double morality, ‘the first is de lege naturae strictè sumpta, i. e. such laws as are so deeply engraven upon nature, as that these prin­ciples cannot bee blotted out, but by abolishing of na­ture. The second is, de lege naturae latè sumpta, and these lawes doe much depend upon the will of the Law-giver, [Page 13] but yet they are very congruous and suitable to humane nature, even from the light of those principles of nature.’ And hence I suppose it will follow, that the law for a se­venth part of time to be dedicated to God, may well bee a morall law, although it depends much upon the will of the Law-giver, and is not so immediately written upon mans heart, nor so equally suitable to humane nature, as the law of love and thankfulnesse to God our Creator is:Came [...]. pra [...] ▪ in Mat. ca. 16. For (as Cameron well observes) that some things which are good in themselves have more of Gods Image stamped upon them, some have lesse of it: and hence it is that though all morall lawes are good in themselves, yet not equally so▪ there is more unsuitablenesse to hate and curse God, than to lust after another mans house or servant, and yet both are evill in themselves and breaches of morall rules.

Thesis 23.

Hence therefore it followes, that because morall pre­cepts 23 are of such things as are good in themselves, they are therefore perpetuall and unchangeable, and because they are in this respect good in themselves, to wit, because they are suitable and comely to mans nature as rationall; hence also they are universall: so that perpetuity and u­niversality seem to be the inseperable adjuncts, rather than the essence of a morall law: yet when they are called perpetuall and unchangeable, wee must understand them in respect of Gods ordinary dispensation; for hee who is the great Law-giver, may and doth sometime extraordi­narily dispense with morall lawes. Abraham might have kill'd his Sonne by extraordinary dispensation: Adams Sonnes and Daughters did marry one another by speci­all Commission, which now to doe ordinarily would bee incestuous, and consequently against a m [...]ll Law, as is evident, Leviticus 18. Onely let it bee here remem­bred that when I call morall Lawes perpetuall and uni­versall, that I speake of such lawes as are primarily mo­rall, which doe firstly and originally suit with humane nature: for lawes as are at second hand morall and as it were accidentally so, may be changeable as hereafter shall appeare.

Thesis 24.

How these things may evince the morality of a seventh part 24 [Page 14] of time, will be difficult to conceive, unlesse further en­quiry be made, to wit, when and by what rules may it be knowne that any law is sutable and agreeable unto hu­mane nature, and consequently good in it selfe? For re­solution of which doubt, there is great silence generally in most Writers: Bishop White endeavours it by giving three rules to cleare up this mist; but (pace tanti viri) I much feare that he much darkens and obscures the truth herein,White Treat. of Sab. day. p. 26 28. and muds the streames. For 1. Because the Sab­bath is not simply morall, but hath something positive in it, he therefore makes it temporary, as appeares in his con­clusion of that discourse: when as 'tis evident by his own confession, that some lawes positively morall are generall and universall. ‘For lawes positively morall (he saith) are either personall onely, as was Abrahams comming out of his owne Countrey, Gen. 12.1. Some are for one Nation or Republick onely, Exod. 22.1, 3 [...]7. Some are common and generall for all mankinde, as the law of Polygamy.’ 2. Hee seemes to make lawes simply and in­tirely morall to bee such as are in their inward nature morally good, before and without any ex [...]ernall impositi­on of the Law-giver: Now if by externall imposition he meanes the externall manner of Mosaicall administration of the law, there is then some truth in what he affirmes; for doubtlesse before Moses time the Patriarchs had the law revealed after another manner; but if by externall impo­sition bee meant externall Revelation, whether immedi­ately by God himselfe unto mans conscience, or mediately by man, then it's most false that any thing can be morally good or evill, much lesse entirely and simply so, before and without some such law: for though it may be good and sutable to man before a law pas [...]e upon it, yet nothing can be morally good or evill without some law, for then there should bee some sinne which is not the transgression of a law, and some obedience which is not directed by any law, both which are impossible and abominable. 3. He ‘makes morall lawes by externall imposition and consti­tution onely, to be such, as before the externall imposi­tion of them, are a diaphorous, and good or evill onely by reason of some circumstance.’ When as we know that some such lawes as are most entirely morall, yet in respect of their inward nature generally considered, they are indiffe­rent also: for not to kill and take away mans life is a mo­rall law intirely so, yet, in the generall nature of it, it is [Page 15] indifferent, and by circumstance may become either lawfull or unlawfull; lawfull in case of warre or publick execu­tion of justice; unlawfull out of a private spirit and per­sonall revenge. In one word, the whole drift of his dis­course herein, is to shew that the Sabbath is not morall, and this he would prove because the Sabbath is not simply and entirely morall, (which is a most feeble and weake conse­quence) and this hee proves, ‘because the Sabbath day hath (in respect of its inward nature) no more holines and goodnes than any other day, all the dayes of the week being equally good by creation.’ But he might well know that the day is not the law of the fourth Command­ment, but the keeping holy of the Sabbath day, which is a thing inwardly good, and entirely morall if wee speak of some day:Ibid. Nay, (saith the Bishop) the law of nature teacheth that some sufficient and convenient time bee set apart for Gods worship; if therefore some day be morall, although all dayes by creation be indifferent and equall, according to his owne confession, what then should hinder the quota pars, or the seventh part of time from being morall? will he say because all dayes are equally holy, and good by creation? then why should hee grant any day at all to bee entirely morall in respect of a sufficient and convenient time to bee set apart for God? If hee saith the will and imposition of the Law-giver abolisheth its mo­rality, because he bindes to a seventh part of time; then we shall shew that this is most false and feeble in the se­quell.

Thesis 25.

There are therefore four rules to guide our judgments 25 aright herein, whereby we may know when a law is sutable and agreeable to humane nature, and consequently good in it selfe; which will bee sufficient to cleare up the Law of the Sabbath, to be truely morall (whether in a higher or lower degree of morality it makes no matter) and that it is not a law meerly temporary and ceremoniall.

1. Such lawes as necessarily flow from naturall relation, both between God and man, as well as between man and man; these are good in themselves, because sutable and congruous to humane nature: for there is a decency and sweet comlinesse to attend to those rules to which our re­lations binde us. For from this ground the Prophet Ma­lachy cals for feare and honour of God as morall duties, because they are so comely and seemly for us, in respect of [Page 16] the relation between us, If I be your Lord, and Master and Father, where is my feare? where is my honour? Mal. 1.6. Love also between man and wife is pressed as a come­ly duty by the Apostle, from that near relation betweene them, being made one flesh, Ephes. 5.28, 29. there are scarce any who question the morality of the duties of the second Table, because they are so evidently comely, suitable and agreeable to humane nature, considered relatively, as man stands in relation to those who are or should bee unto him as his owne flesh; and therefore he is to honour su­periors, and therefore must not kill, nor steale, nor lye, nor covet, nor defile the flesh, &c. but the morality of all the rules of the first Table is not seen so evidently, because the relation between God and man, which makes them comely and suitable to man, is not so well considered: for if there be a God, and this God be our God, according to the first Commandement, then it's very comely and meet for man to honour, love, feare him, delight, trust in him, &c. and if this God must be worshipped of man, in respect of the mutuall relation between them, then 'tis comely and meet to worship him with his owne worhsip, according to the second Commandment, and to worship him with all holy reverence according to the third Commandment; and if he must be thus worshipped, and yet at all times (in respect of our necessary worldly imploiments) cannot be so solemnly honoured and worshipped as is comely and meet for so great a God, then 'tis very fit and comely for all men to have some set and stated time of worship, ac­cording to some fit proportion, which the Lord of time onely can best make, and therefore a seventh part of time which he doth make, according to the fourth Com­mandment.

2. Such lawes are drawne from the imitable Attributes and Works of God, are congruous and suitable to mans nature: For what greater comelinesse can there be, or what can be more suitable to that nature, which is immedi­ately made for God, then to be like unto God, and to at­tend unto those rules which guide thereunto? Hence to be mercifull to men in misery, to forgive our enemies and those that doe us wrong, to be bountifull to those that be in want, to be patient when we suffer evill, are all morall duties, because they are comely and suitable to man, and that because herein hee resembles and is made like unto God: Hence to labour six dayes and rest a leventh is a [Page 17] morall, because a comely and suitable duty, that be­cause herein man followes the example of God, and be­comes most like unto him. And hence it is that a seventh yeare of rest cannot be urged upon man to be as much morall as a seventh day of rest, because man hath Gods example and patterne in resting a seventh day, but not in resting any seventh yeare; God never made himselfe an example of any ceremoniall duty, it being unsuitable to his glorious excellency so to doe, but onely of morall and spirituall holinesse; and therefore there is somewhat else in a seventh day that is not in a seventh yeare: and it is ut­terly false to thinke (as some doe) that there is as much e­quity for the observation of the one as there is of the other. ‘And here by the way may bee seen a grosse mistake of Mr. Primrose, Prim. par. 2. cap. 7. Sect. 13, 14, 15. who would make Gods example herein not to be morally imitable of us, nor man necessarily bound there­unto, it being not naturally and in respect of it selfe imitable, but onely because it pleased God to command man so to doe: as also because this action of God did not flow from such attributes of God as are in their nature imitable, as mercy, bounty, &c. but from one of those attributes as is not imitable, and which wee ought not to imitate, viz. his omnipotency.’ But suppose it did flow from his omnipotency, and that wee ought not to imitate his omnipotency, and that wee who are weaknesse it selfe cannot imitate omnipotent actions, yet its obvious to com­mon sense, that such acts which arise from such attributes as cannot be imitated of us, in respect of the particular effects which are produced by them, yet in the actings of such attributes there may be something morally good which is imitable of us. As for example, though wee are not to imitate God in his miraculous works (as in the burning of Sodome and such like) yet there may bee that justice and wisedome of God shining therein which wee ought to imitate, for wee ought to see before we censure and condemne, as God did in proceeding against Sodome: So 'tis in this extraordinary worke of making the Word, wherein although we are not to goe about to make ano­ther world within that time as God did, yet therein the labour and rest of God was seene, which is imitable of man; which labour and rest as they are morall du­ties, so they are confirmed by a morall example, and therefore most seemly and comely for man to imitate from such an example: ‘And whereas hee affirmes that this [Page 18] example was not morall, because it was not it self imi­table, being grounded onely upon Gods free will:’ The reason is weake; for to labour in ones Calling is without controversie a morall duty (as idlenesse is a morall sin) yet if one would aske why man is to labour here, and not rather to lead a contemplative life in the vision and fruition of God immediately? I suppose no reason can be given, but the good pleasure of God, who in his deepe wisdome saw it most meet for man to spend some proportio­nable time in labour for himselfe, and some in rest for God, whereunto he gave man such an eminent example from the beginning of the world. Master Primrose cannot deny but that a convenient time for labour and rest in ge­nerall, is morall:Ibid. ‘But (saith he) if God had not de­clared his will by a Commandment particularly to la­bour six dayes and rest the seventh, the Jewes would not have thought themselves bound to this observation from Gods example onely; which shewes that there is no mo­rality in it to bind the conscience for ever.’ But it may be as well doubted whether acts of bounty and mercy (to which hee thinks wee are bound meerely from Gods ex­ample) in respect of the particular application of these acts, to enemies of God and of our selves as well as to friends, be of binding vertue meerly by Gods example, unlesse we had a commandment thereunto: for in morall precepts, as the thing is commanded because it is good, so 'tis not morally good Vid. Thes. 9. unlesse it be commanded: but sup­pose that Gods example of labour six dayes and rest the seventh, should not have been binding as other examples, unlesse there had been a commandment for so doing, yet this is no argument that this example is not morall at all, but onely that it is not so P [...]aecopt [...]rum m [...]ralium t [...] ­p [...]ex est gradus, &c. Aqui. 1 2. q. 10 [...], art. 11. equally morall and knowne to be so, as some other duties bee; for man may spend too much time in labour, and give God too short or too little time for rest, if therefore hee wants the light of a com­mandment or rule to direct and guide him to the fit­test and most meet proportion of time for both, is hee not apt hereby to break the rule of morality, which consists (as hath been shewne) in that which is most suitable, comely and convenient for man to give to God or man? The commandment therefore in this case measuring out and declaring such a proportion, and what time is most conve­nient and comely for man to take to himselfe for labour, or to give to God for rest, it doth not abolish the morality [Page 19] of the example, but doth rather establish and make it: It sets out the most comely and meet proportion of time for labour and rest, and therefore such a time as is most good in it selfe, because most comely and proportio­nable, which being therefore commanded is a morall du­ty in man, and the example hereof morally binding in God.

3. Such lawes which mans reason may see, either by in­nate light, or by any other externall helpe and light to bee just and good and fit for man to observe, such lawes are congruous and suitable to humane nature. I say by any ex­ternal helpe, as well as by innate light, for neither inter­nall nor externall light doe make a thing just and suitable to man, no more than the light of the Sun or the light of a Lanthorne doe make the Kings high-way to the City, but they onely declare and manifest the way, or that which was so in it selfe before: Hence it comes to passe that al­though mans reason cannot see the equity of some lawes, an­tecedenter by innate light, before it bee illuminated by some externall light, yet if by this externall light the minde sees the equity, justice, and holinesse of such a law, this may sufficiently argue the morality of such a law, which was just and good, before any light discovered it, and is now discovered onely, not made to be so, whether by internall or externall light: ‘And hence Aquinas well observes,Aquin. 1.2. q. 99. art. 2. & 100 ar [...]. [...]. that morall lawes (which hee makes to be such as are congruous to right reason) sometimes are such, as not onely command such things which reason doth, rea­dily see to bee comely and meet, but also such lawes a­bout which mans reason may readily and easily erre and go astray from that which is comely and meet.’ And hence it is, that although no reason or wit of man could ever have found out the most just and equall proportion of time, or what proportion is most comely and suitable, or that a se­venth part of time should have been universally observed as holy to God; yet if any externall light and teaching from above, shall reveale this time, and the equity and suit­ableness of it, so that reason shall acknowledge it equall and good, that if we have sixe dayes for our selves, God should have one for himselfe, this is a strong argument that such a command is morall, because reason thus illuminated cannot but acknowledge it most meet and equall: For though reason may not by any naturall or innate light readily see that such a division of time is most suitable, and [Page 20] yet may readily erre and misconceive the most suitable and convenient proportion and division of time, it's then a sufficient proof of the morality of such a command, if the congruity and equity of it be discerned consequenter only (as we lay) and by externall light.

4. What ever law was once writ upon mans heart in pure nature is still suitable and congruous and convenient to humane nature, and consequently good in it selfe and morall. For whatever was so writ upon Adams heart, was not writ there as upon a private person, but as a common person, having the common nature of man, and standing in the roome of all mankinde: Hence as nothing was writ then but what was common to all men, so such things thus writ were good for all men and suitable to all men, it being most injurious to God, to think that any thing evill should be imprinted there: if therefore it bee proved that the law of the Sabbath was then writ upon mans heart, then it undenyably followes that it is meet and suitable to all men still to observe a Sabbath day; and indeed to the right understanding of what is suitable to man as man, and consequently morall, there is nothing more helpfull, than to consider of our primitive estate and what was suit­able to our nature then; for if that which is morall in marriage is to be searched for, in the first and ancient records of our first creation by the appointment of our Sa­viour; I then know no reason (whatever others object) but morality in all other lawes and duties is there to bee sought also; for although our originall perfection is now defaced and lost, and in that respect is a merum non ens, (as some call it) yet it had once a being, and therefore in this controversie we may lawfully enquire after it, considering especially that this being which once it had, may be suffiently knowne by the contrary being of u­niversall corruption that is in us now, as also by the light of the Scriptures, in which the searcher and maker of all hearts declares it unto us, and indeed there are many morall duties which will never appeare good and suitable to man, but rather hard and unreasonable (because im­possible) untill we see and remember from whence we are fallen, and what once we had.

Thesis 26.

26 If therefore a morall law command that which is suitable to humane nature, and good in it selfe, then it followes from hence, (which was toucht before) that divine [Page 21] determination of something in a law, doth not alway take away morality from a law, for divine determination is ma­ny times no more but a plain and positive declaration of that which is suitable, just and good and equall for man to observe: now that which points out and declares unto us the morality of a law, cannot possibly abolish and de­stroy such a law. For a morall law commanding that which is suitable and good (as hath been shewne) it is impossible that the Commandment which determineth and directeth to that which is good, that by this determina­tion it should overthrow the being of such a good law, nay verily particular determination and positivenesse (as some call it) is so farre from abolishing, as that it rather addes to the being, as well as to the clearing up and ma­nifestation of such a law. For if it be not sufficient to make a morall law, that the thing be good in it selfe, but that al­so it must be commanded; then the Commandment which many times onely detemines to that which is good (and consequently determination) doth adde unto the being of a morall law.

Thesis 27.

There is scarce any thing but it is morally indifferent, un­till 27 it falls under some divine determination:Vid. Course of conformi­ty. pag. 114. but divine determination of twofold. 1. Of such things which are not good, fit or needfull for man to observe without a command, as Sacrifices and Sacraments, and such likes: now herein, in such lawes, positive determination may be very well inconsistent with morality; and it may bee safely said that such a law is not morall, but rather posi­tive, and thus the learned sometimes speak. 2. Of such things as are equall, good in themselves, needfull and suitable for man; and here particular determination and morality may kisse each other, and are not to be opposed one to another: and hence it is that if Gods Command­ment positively determines us to observe any part of insti­tuted worship (suppose Sacraments or Sacrifices) yet such lawes are not morall (although it bee morall in generall to worship God after his owne will;) because the things themselves are not good in themselves nor needfull: but if God shall determine us to observe a Sabbath day, this determination doth not take away the morality of the command; because it being good in it selfe to give God the meetest and fittest proportion of time for holy Rest, and the commandment declaring that this seventh part, [Page 22] or so, is such a time, hence it comes to passe that this time is good in it selfe, and therefore determination by the commandment in this case, doth not abolish the morality hereof. It is a morall duty to pay tribute to Caesar, to give to Caesar that which is Caesars: hence because a man may give too much or too little to him, that determination which directs us to that particular which is Caesars due and most meet for him to receive, and us to give, that is best in it selfe, and is therefore morall; so prayer is a morall du­ty, but because a man may bee tempted to pray too oft, or else too seldome, hence determination of the fittest and this fittest season, makes this or that morall. So 'tis here in the Sabbath. I doe willingly and freely professe thus farre with our Adversaries of the morality of the Sabbath; that it is a morall duty to give God some time and day of ho­ly Rest and worship, as 'tis morall to give Caesar his due, and to pray to God: but because we may give God too many dayes, or too few, hence the determination of the most meet and fittest proportion of time, and particular­ly of this time, makes this and that to be also morall. If no day at all in generall was good and fit for man to give to God, and God should notwithstanding command a se­venth day, then the commandment of such a day with such positive determination could not bee morall any more then the determination of sacrrifices and such like. But every day (say some of our Adversaries) some day (say o­thers of them) being acknowledged to be equall, just and good, and most meet to give to God, hence it is that deter­mination of a seventh day doth not abolish but clear up that which is morall, because it points out unto man that which is most meet and equall: Hence therefore it fol­lows, that a seventh day is therefore commanded because it is good, and not good meerly because commanded. De­termination also, declaring what is most meet, decla­reth hereby that this commandment is also morall, and not meerly positive and ceremoniall: which not being well considered by some, this fourth commandment (having some more positivenesse and determination then divers of the rest) hath therefore been the chiefe stumbling stone and rock of offence to many against the morality of it, by which they have miserably bruised themselves, while they have en­deavoured to destroy it, upon so grosse a mistake.

Thesis 28.

28 It is true that God out of his absolute soveraignty and [Page 23] good pleasure of his will, might have determined us to observe a fourth, a ninth, a twentieth part of our time in holy rest more or lesse, as well as to a seven [...]h; yet let us consider of God as acting by counsell, and weighing and considering with himselfe, what is most meet and equall, and what proportion of time is most fit for himselfe; and then (with leave of better thoughts when I see better reason) I suppose no man can prove (unlesse hee bee made privy to the unknowne secrets of the wisdome of God) that any o­ther proportion had been as meet as this now made by the actuall determination of God; there was not therefore the meer and soveraigne will of God which thus determined of this seventh part of time, but also the wisedome of God, which considering all things saw it most mee [...] and suitable for man to give, and God to receive from man, and therefore being commanded, and thus particularly deter­mined, becomes morall.

Thesis 29.

If that commandment be morall which is therefore com­manded 29 because it is good, then hence it followes in the second place, that such lawes onely are not morall lawes, which are known to all men by the light of corrupt nature: For as hath been already said, a law may bee holy, just, good, suitable and meet for all men to observe, whe­ther the light of corrupt nature, by awakening or sleeping principles (as some call them) know it or no, and such a comelinesse and suitablenesse in such a law is sufficient to make it morall. There were many secret morall sinnes in Paul which he never saw, nor could have seene by the light of corrupt nature, untill the law fell upon him with migh­ty efficacy and power,Romans 7. for God is not bound to crook his morall lawes to what our corrupt mindes are actu­ally able of themselves to see, any more than to what our corrupt wils are actually able to doe: If the light of na­ture be imperfect in us since the fall (which no wise man doubts of) then there may be many things truely morall, which the light of nature now sees not, because 'tis im­perfect, which in its perfection it did see, and this consi­deration of the great imperfection of the light of nature, is alone sufficient for ever to stop their mouthes and silence their hearts, who goe about to make an imperfect light and law of nature, the perfect rule and onely measure of morall duties; and who make so narrow a limitation of that which is morall to that which is thus imperfectly naturall: [Page 24] 'tis not now lex nata, but lex data, which is the rule of morall duties: The holy Scriptures containe the perfect rule of all morall actions, whether mans corrupted and imperfect light of nature see them or no. It is a common, but a most perilous, and almost groundlesse mistake of many in this controversie, who when they would know what is morall and what is not so, of such things as are set downe in the Scriptures, they then [...]lye to the light of cor­rupt nature, making it to bee the supream Judge hereof, and there fall to examining of them, whether they are seen by the light of nature or no, which is no lesse folly than to set up a corrupt and blinde Judge to determine and declare that which is morall, to make the perfect rule of morality in Scripture to bow downe its back to the imperfe­ction and weaknesse of nature, to pull out the Sunne in hea­ven from giving light, and to walke by the light of a dim candle, and a stinking snuffe in the socket almost gone out; to make the horne-book of naturall light, the perfe­ction of learning of the deepest matters in morall duties; to make Aristotles Ethicks as compleat a teacher of true mo­rality, as Adams heart in innocency; and in a word to make man fallen and in a manner perfectly corrupt and miserable, to bee as sufficiently furnished with knowledge of morall duties, as man standing, when he was perfectly holy and happy: Imagine therefore that the light of na­ture could never have found out one day in seven to bee comely and most meet for man to give unto God; yet if such a proportion of time be most meet for man to give to God, and it appeares so to be when God reveales it, it may and should then be accounted a morall law, although the light of nature left in all men could never discerne it. The Schoolmen, and most of the popish generation not considering these things (which notwithstanding are some of their owne principles) have digged pits for them­selves, and made snares for some of their followers, in a­bolishing the fourth Commandment from being (in the true sense of it) morall, because they could not see how such a speciall part of time, viz. a seventh part, could be naturall, or by the light of corrupt nature discernable; which things so discernable they sometimes conclude to be onely morall. But how farre the light of corrupt nature may discerne this proportion, shall be spoken to in its pro­per place.

Thesis 30.

If lastly, those things which are thus commanded because 30 they are good, be morall, then the whole Decalogue may hence appeare to be the morall law of God, because there is no one law in it, which is therefore good onely because 'tis commanded, but is therefore commanded, because it is good and suitable to humane nature: When I say, suitable to humane nature, I doe not meane humane na­ture considered absolutely, but relatively, either in rela­tion to God, or relation unto man: for not onely the light of nature, but of common sense also, beare witnesse that every precept of the second Table, wherein man is consi­dered in relation to man, is thus farre good: for how come­ly and good is it to honour Parents, to be tender of other mens lives and comforts, to preserve ones selfe and others from filthy pollutions, to doe no wrong but all the good we can to other mens estates? &c. Nor doe I thinke that any will question any one Commandment of this Table to bee good and suitable to humane nature, unlesse it be some Nimrod or Brennus (that professed he knew no greater justice than for the stronger, like the bigger fishes of the Sea, to swallow up the lesser in case they bee hungry) or some Turkish Tartar or Caniball, or some surfetted Professor, transformed into some licentious opinionist, and so growne Master of his owne Conscience, and that can audaciously out-face the very light of nature and com­mon sense, through the righteous judgement of God blin­ding and hardning his heart: And if the Commandments of the second Table be thus farre good in themselves, are not those of the first Table much more? Is love to man (when drawne out into all the six streames of the second Table) good in it selfe, and shall not love to God, drawn out in the foure precepts of the first Table, as the Spring from whence all our love to man should flow, much more? Are the streams morally sweet, and is not the spring it self of the same nature? Love to God, and love to man are the common principles (saith Aquinas truely) of the law of nature; and all particular precepts (saith hee perhaps unawares) are conclusions flowing from these prin­ciples, out of Matth. 22. And are the principles good in themselves, and suitable to humane nature, and doe not all the conclusions participate of their nature? For what are all particular precepts, but particular unfoldings of love to God, and love to man? If all the precepts of the second [Page 26] Table be morall, which doe onely concerne man, why should any of the first fall short of that glory, which doe immediately concerne God? Shall man have six, and all of them morally good, and God have but foure, and some one or more of them not so? Is it comely and good to have God to be our God in the first Commandment, to worship him after his owne minde in the second, to give him his worship with all the highest respect and reverence of his Name in the third, and is it not as comely, good and suitable, that this great God and King should have some magnificent day of state to be attended on by his poore ser­vants and creatures, both publikely and privately, with spe­ciall respect and service, as oft as himselfe sees meer, and which we cannot but see and confesse to be most equall and just, according to the fourth Commandment? If mans life must bee divided into labour and rest, is it not e­quall and good if wee have six dayes, that God should have a seventh? If the bruit beasts could speake they would say that a seventh dayes rest is good for them, Exod. 23.12. and shall man (who hath more cause and more need of rest, even of holy rest) say that it is not good for him even to rest in the bosome of God himselfe, to which he is called this day? Take away a Sabbath, who can defend us from Atheisme, Barbarisme, and all manner of Devilisme and prophanesse? And is it evill thus to want it, and shall it not be good to have it? I confesse if God had commanded a perpetuall Sabbath, it had not then been good but sinfull to observe any set Sabbath: but if God will have man to labour for himselfe six dayes, and this labour be morally good being now commanded; why is it not then as good to observe a seventh in rest to God, being also commanded of him?

Thesis 31.

It is therefore at least an indigested assertion of those 31 who affirme that the Decalogue sets out the precepts of the law of Nature,Aqui [...]. 1, 2, q. 98. Art. 5. Zanchy in 4. Praec. and yet withall doth superad certaine pre­cepts proper to the Jewish people; in which last respect they say all men are not bound to the observance thereof (and they produce the fourth Commandment for proof) but in respect of the first they are: But although in the application of a law, something may bee proper to the Jewish people, yet (with leave of the learned) there is never a law in it but it is morall and common to all: for to make any law in the Decalogue proper, is an assertion [Page 27] springing from a false and blinde principle, viz. That that law onely is morall which is naturall; not naturall, as suitable to humane nature, but which is seene and knowne by the common light of corrupt nature without the helpe of any externall usher or teacher. If also any lawes in the Decalogue be proper, how will any finde out and discerne morall lawes which concerne all, from proper laws which appertaine onely to some? For if God hath made such a mingling, and not severed morall lawes by them­selves, then man hath no law or revelation by any dictinct and severed lawes left unto him to discerne lawes proper and peculiar, from laws morall and common, which how pernicious it may bee to mens soules to bee left to such uncertainty, as also how injurious to God and crosse to his maine ends in discovering morall lawes, let the wise consider; for if they say that wee must flye for help here­in to the light of corrupt nature, then as hath been shewn, an imperfect light, and a blinde guide, and a corrupt judge must be the chief rule of discerning that which is morall, from that which is peculiar and proper, for doubt­lesse such a kinde of light is the light of corrupt nature.

Thesis 32.

Some thinke that those commandments onely are moral­ly 32 good, which the Gospel hath declared and confirmed to be so: and by this shift they thinke to avoid the absurdity of flying to the blinde guide of corrupt nature to judge of these colours, viz. what is morall and what is not, Mr. Primrose therefore excludes the fourth Commandment from being morall, the other nine being ratified by the light of the Gospell, which this (he saith) is not: but if his mea­ning be that there must be a generall ratification of lawes morall by the verdict of the Gospell, then the fourth Com­mandment cannot be excluded from being morall, because it hath a ratification in generall from the Gospell: for therein wee read that the morall law is holy, just and good, Rom. 7. and that Christ came not to destroy the least jot or tittle of the law, Matth. 5. much lesse a whole law of the fourth Commandment. In the Gospel also God promi­seth to write his Law upon our hearts, wherein the fourth Commandment is not excepted. But if his meaning be [...] this, that the Gospell must particularly mention, and so make a particular ratification (as it were) by name of eve­ry morall law, then his assertion is unsound; there being many judiciall lawes of Moses, of which some are wholly [Page 28] morall, others containing in them something of common and morall equity, which we have no expresse mention of in the blessed Gospell: and let him turne over al the leaves of the Gospell, hee shall not finde that proportion of time which himselfe affirmes to be morall in the fourth Commandment, to bee expressely and particularly men­tioned in the Gospell; and therefore that also must be excluded from being morall upon his owne principles, as well as what we contend for in this Commandment so to bee.

Thesis 33.

33 ‘Some of those who maintaine the law of the Sabbath to be ceremoniall,Prim. 2. par. cap. 6. S. 8. Irons. quest. [...]. cap. 9. affirme that every Law in the Deca­logue is not morall upon this ground, to wit, because the Law is called Gods Covenant, which Covenant they shew from sundry instances, not only to comprehend mo­ralls, but also ceremonialls: for they make it the excel­lency of the Decalogue to comprehend, as a short epi­tome, all Gods Ordinances, both morall and cere­moniall, which epitome is more largely opened in the writings of Moses, where not onely morall, but also cere­moniall lawes are expressed and dispersed. And hence they thinke that as the other nine are the summary and epitome of all morall Ordinances, so the fourth Com­mandment which was kept with the practise of Ceremo­nies, was the summary and epitome of all the ceremoni­all ordinances, and hence the fourth Commandment be­comes ceremoniall.’ But for answer to this wily notion, unjustly father'd upon Austin and Calvin by some, it may thus farre be granted, that as the word Law is sometimes taken more strictly for the Decalogue onely, Rom. 3.20. Iames 3.8. and sometimes more largely, for the whole doctrine contained in all the writings of the Old Testa­ment, wherein the Gospel also is comprehended, Psal. 19.7. Psalme 119.1.51, 55. so the word Covenant is sometime taken more strictly for the covenant of works, which is contained compendiously in the Decalogue onely, writ by the finger of God, in two Tables, Deut. 4.13, 14 Exod. 34.38. and sometime more largely for all the holy wri­tings of Moses, Exodus 24.7, 8. and 34.10. Levit. 26.14. Ier. 34.13. Now although all the writings of Moses may be called the Covenant, as it is largely taken; and so the covenant comprehends not onely morall, but ceremoniall lawes; yet they are never called That Covenant which [Page 29] was writ by the finger of God in two Tables of stone, and given to Moses: and in this strict sense the word Covenant comprehends no other lawes but morall, nor can the places and texts which they alleadge evince the contrary, for in that place of Exodus 24.7. it is not said that the Tables of the Covenant, but the Booke of the Covenant was read in the audience of all the people; which Booke, we rea­dily acknowledge to comprehend ceremonials as well as mo­rals, but not the Tables of the Covenant, of which the que­stion now is: so also when the Lord saith, Exod. 34.10. that he will make a Covenant, his meaning is that he will revive his Covenant by writing (as it is there set downe in the same chapter) in which writing it is very true that there is mentioned made of many ceremoniall lawes; but suppose this covenant written by Moses comprehends sundry ceremoniall lawes, will it therefore follow that the Tables of the Covenant written with the finger of God did the like? No such matter, and therefore there is an So Iuni [...], W [...]llet, in loc. expresse diffe­rence put in the same chapter, verse 27, 28. between the covenant written by Moses, and the ten Command­ments written by the finger of God. But secondly, Let it be granted that the Decalogue comprehends summarily all the lawes which are particularly dispersed here and there in the writings of Moses, yet it doth not follow that there must bee one ceremoniall law written by the finger of God, and lifted up in the Decalogue to be the epitome and summarie of all ceremoniall lawes elsewhere explained in the writings of Moses: For all lawes, whether cere­moniall or judiciall, may be referred to the Decalogue as appendices to it or applications of it, and so to compre­hend all other lawes as their summary. But such a summary will no way enforce a necessity of making any one of them the epitome of ceremonialls, and the other nine of them of the morals, for we know that many judi­ciall lawes are comprehended under morall lawes, being referred as appendices thereunto by Calvin, Martyr, Chemni­tius, Ames, and sundry others, and yet it will not follow from hence that one of the lawes in the Decalogue must be a judiciall law as the summary of all judicials, which are branches of the Covenant as well as Master Primrose his ceremonials.

Thesis 34.

It should not seem strange that that law which in the ge­nerall 34 nature of it is moral, may in the particular application [Page 30] of it be unto a thing ceremoniall, and in this respect it cannot be denyed but that the morall law may comprehend all ceremoniall lawes; but it will not hence follow (as Mr. Primrose inferres) that one law in the Decalogue must be ceremoniall as the head and summary of all ceremoniall lawes, because we say ceremoniall lawes may bee com­prehended under some morall law, as speciall applica­tions thereof: ex gr. It is a morall law to worship God ac­cording to his owne will, and not after mans inventions, as the second Commandment holds it forth: Now in the ap­plication of this law the Lord points out his owne instituted worship in sundry significant ceremonies, sacrifices, sacra­ments, &c. which particular institutions (though ceremo­niall) are to be referred unto, and are comprehended un­der the second Commandment which is a morall law: for if God will be worshipped with his owne worship according to this Commandment, then its necessary for the Lord to shew (and that under his Commandment) what those institu­tions be, wherein he will bee worshipped, many of which are ceremoniall, which are therefore directly comprehen­ded here.

Thesis 35.

35 There is therefore no necessity of making one law in the Decalogue to bee ceremoniall, that it may be the sum­mary head of all ceremonials, viz. because ceremonialls are branches of the covenant, which is the Decalogue; for upon the like ground there must bee one judiciall law also as the summary of all judicials, nay one Evangelicall law also as the head of all Evangelicals, sprinkled here and there in Moses his writings, of which we read Iohn 5.43. Rev. 10.6, 7, 8. with Deut. 30.12, 13. Gal. 3.8. with Gen. 12.3. for judicials and Evangelicals are branches of the Covenant, as well as ceremonials, if Mr. Primrose his principle be true; but if by his owne con­fession nine of them are morals, and one of them only the head of ceremonialls, how shall judiciall and Evangelicall summaries come in? which either he must make room for in the Decalogue, or acknowledge his foundation to be rotten, upon which he hath built up one ceremoniall law among the nine moralls.

Thesis 36.

It is true, that among men, the same body of Lawes may 36 be framed up of divers articles, as Mr. Primrose pleads, but that the Decalogue was such a body as had ceremonials [Page 31] mixt with morals, it can never be made good by any colour of proof, except it be that which we have shewn will as strongly enforce an introduction of some one judiciall and another Evangelicall law into the Decalogue, as well as one ceremoniall; but such a confusion of Law and Go­spell, Evangelicals and judicials, ceremonialls and morals, the blessed God abhorres: for it neither suits with Gods wisedome and end in giving the law, nor yet with mans weaknesse (which God pitties) to make such a jumbling and confusion of things together: for who can then tell what law is morall and what Evangelicall, and what ce­remoniall, unlesse it be (as was shewn) by flying for light to the dictates and instinct of nature, to shew unto poore deceitfull man, what lawes are morall and what not, wherein the remedy would have been as bad as the disease?

Thesis 37.

‘If there must be one law in the Decalogue, ceremoni­all,37 Prim. part. 2. cap. 6. S. 8. that so the more Authority may bee procured hereby (as Mr. Primrose pleads) unto all Gods Ordinances, and therefore one of the ceremonials was written in the De­calogue with Gods owne finger, and honoured with the like prerogatives as the morall lawes were, which were immediately spoken by God himselfe:’ Then (if this rea­soning be solid) why was not one judiciall and another E­vangelicall precept alike honoured also? For was there not as much need to procure Authority to this as well as to ce­remonials? and yet wee see their Authority was sufficiently procured without being shusted into the Decalogue, and so might ceremonialls also.

Thesis 38.

There were three sorts of laws which are commonly 38 knowne, and which were most eminently appearing among the Jewes,

• 1. Morall.
• 2. Ceremoniall.
• 3. Judiciall.

Thesis 39.

The morall respected their manners as they were men,39 and are therefore called morall. The ceremoniall respected them as a Church, and as such a kinde of Church. The judicial as a Common wealth, and as that particular Com­mon-wealth. Morall laws were to govern them as an hu­man society. Ceremoniall as a sacred society, Judiciall [Page 32] as a civill society: Thus the Learned speak, and being can­didly understood, are true.

Thesis 40.

40 The morall law contained in the Decalogue, is nothing else but the law of nature revived, or a second edition and impression of that primitive and perfect law of nature, which in the state of innocency was engraven upon mans heart, but now againe written upon Tables of stone, by the finger of God. For man being made in the Image of God, he had therefore the law of holines, and righteousnes, in which Gods Image consisted, written in his heart: but ha­ving by his fall broken this Table, and lost this Image, nei­ther knowing or doing the will of God through the law of sinne now engraven on it: Hence the Lord hath in much pitty made knowne his law again, and given us a faire copy of it in the two Tables of stone, which are the copy of that which was writ upon mans heart at first, be­cause the first Table containes Love to God in holinesse; the second, Love to man in righteousnesse: which holinesse and righteousnesse are the two parts of Gods Image which was once engraven upon mans soule, in his primitive and per­fect estate, Ephes. 4.24. Nor indeed doe I see how that po­pish Argument will be otherwise answered, pleading for a possibility in man to keep the law perfectly in his lapsed and fallen estate in this life, for, say they, God makes no lawes of impossible things, it being unjust for God to require and exact that of a man which hee is not able to doe: to which it is commonly and truely answered, That man had once power to keep the law in his innocent estate, and hence though man be not able to keep it now, yet God may require it, because hee once gave him power to keep it; and that therefore it is no more unjust to exact such obedience which hee cannot performe, than for a cre­ditor to require his money of his broken debtor, or spend-thrift, who is now failed (as they say) and not able to repay. Man therefore having once power to keep the law, and now having no power, this argues strongly that the law of the Decalogue contains nothing but what was once writ­ten as a law of life upon his heart in his innocent estate: for I see not how Gods justice can be cleared if he exacts such obedience in the Decalogue which is impossible for man to give, unlesse the very same law and power of obedience was written upon his heart at first: and therefore it is a wilde notion of theirs who thinke that the Covenant of [Page 34] works which God made with Adam, is not the same for mat­ter with the Covenant of works exprest in the morall law; for wee see that there is the same Image of holinesse and righteousnesse required in the Tables of stone, as the con­dition of this Covenant, which was once written upon mans heart, and required in the same manner of him. Now this law thus revived and reprinted is the Decalogue, be­cause most naturall and suitable to humane nature, when it was made most perfect, therefore it is universall and per­petuall; the substance also of this law being love to God and man, holinesse toward God, and righteousnesse toward man, Matt. 22.37, 39. Luke 1. Hence also this law must needs bee morall, universall and perpetuall, unlesse any should bee so wicked as to imagine it to be no duty of uni­versall or perpetuall equity, either to love God, or to love man, to performe duties of holinesse toward the one, or du­ties of righteousnesse toward the other: Hence again, the things commanded in this law are therefore commanded be­cause they are good, and are therefore morall, unlesse any shall think that it is not good in it selfe to love God or man, to be holy or righteous; and which is still observable, there is such a love required herein, and such a lovelinesse put upon these lawes, as that by vertue of these all our o­bedience in other things, which are not moral, becomes love­ly; for there were many ceremoniall observances, in which and by which the people of God exprest their love to God, as Mr. Primrose truely concludes from Deut. 6.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. and Matth. 22.37, 38, 40. but yet this love did arise by ver­tue of a morall rule,par. 2. cap. 6. l. 12. for therefore it was love to worship God in ceremoniall duties, because it was lovely to wor­ship God with his own worship (of which these were parts) which is the moral rule of the second Commandment. ‘And hence Master Primrose may see his grosse mistake in ma­king one law of the Decalogue ceremoniall, because the summary of the Decalogue being love to God and love to man, and our love to God being shewne in ceremo­niall as well as in morall duties, because our love is seen & shewn in our obedience to all the Commandments of God, ceremonial as well as moral.’ For though there be love in ceremonial dutys, it is not so much in respect of them­selves, as in respect of some morall rule by vertue of which such duties are attended.

Thesis 41.

The ceremoniall law consisting chiefly of types and sha­dowes 41 of things to come, Heb. 8.5. and therefore being to [Page 34] cease when the body was come, Col. 2.17. was not therefore perpetuall (as the law morall) but temporary, and of bind­ing power onely to the nation of the Jewes and their pro­selytes, and not putting any tie upon all Nations, as the morall law did. Every ceremoniall law was temporary, but every temporary law was not ceremoniall (as some say) as is demonstrable from sundry judicials, which in their determinations were proper to that Nation, while that Jewish polity continued, and are not therefore now to be observed.

Thesis 42.

42 The Iudiciall lawes some of them being hedges and fences to safeguard both morall and ceremoniall precepts, their binding power was therefore mixt and various, for those which did safeguard any morall law (which is perpetu­all) whether by just punishments or otherwise, doe still morally binde all Nations:Pisc. pr [...]fat. on Exod. For as Piscator argues, a mo­rall law is as good and as precious now in these times as then, and there is as much need of the preservation of these fences to preserve these lawes, in these times, and at all times, as well as then, there being as much danger of the treading downe of those lawes by the wilde beasts of the world, and brutish men (sometimes even in Churches) now as then; and hence God would have all Nations pre­serve these fences for ever, as hee would have that law preserved for ever which these safeguard: but on the other side these judicialls which did safeguard ceremoniall laws, which wee know were not perpetuall, but proper to that Nation, hence those judicials which compasse these about are not perpetuall nor universall; the ceremonialls being pluckt up by their roots, to what purpose then should their fences and hedges stand? As on the contrary the morals abiding, why should not their judicials and fences remaine? The learned generally doubt not to affirme, that Moses judicials binde all nations, so farre forth as they containe any morall equity in them, which morall equity doth appeare, not onely in respect of the end of the law, when it is ordered for common and uni­versall good, but chiefely in respect of the law which they safeguard and fence,Vid. Pisc. pr [...]f. in Exod. Vid Iun. de Pol. Mos. which if it bee morall, it's most just and equall, that either the same or like judiciall fence (ac­cording to some fit proportion) should preserve it still, be­cause 'tis but just and equall, that a morall and uni­versall law should bee universally preserved: from whence [Page 35] by the way, the weaknesse of their reasonings may bee ob­served, who that they may take away the power of the ci­vill Magistrate in matters of the first Table (which once he had in the Jewish common-wealth) affirm that such ci­vill power, then, did arise from the judiciall, and not from any morall law: when as it's manifest that this his power in preserving Gods worship pure from Idolatrous and pro­phane mixtures, according to the judiciall lawes, was no more but a fence and safeguard set about morall Command­ments; which fences and preservatives are therfore (for sub­stance) to continue in as much power and authority now, as they did in those dayes, as long as such lawes continue in their morality, which these preserve: the duties of the first Table being also as much morall as those of the se­cond, to the preserving of which later from hurt and spoil in respect of their morality, no wise man questions the ex­tent of his power.

Thesis 43.

If therefore the question be now made, whether the law 33 of the fourth Commandment be morall or no, we must then remember that the true state of the question is not in this, to wit, Whether the law of the Sabbath be a principle of the light of nature, knowne and evident of it selfe, or at least such as every man that hath the use of reason may readily finde out, without some externall revelation (as Mr. Ironside injurious­ly states it wrastling herein with his own shadow,Irons. quaest. 2. cap. 8. with many others of his fellowship in this controversie.) For morality (as hath been declared) is of larger extent then such natura­lity. But the question is, whether it is one of those lawes which is therefore commanded, because it is holy, just and good in it selfe, whether man see it by any previous light of corrupt nature, I or no; and being thus commanded as such a law, whether it be not therefore of perpetuall and u­niversall obligation, binding all Nations and persons in all ages, in their hearts, lives, manners, to the observance thereof, as a part of that holinesse we owe to God, and which God requires of all men according to rules of morall equity: or on the contrary whether it be not rather a typicall, cere­moniall, figurative and temporary precept, binding onely some persons, or that one Nation of the Jews for some time, from the obedience of which law, Christians (in respect of any law of God) are now exempted?

Thesis 44.

For clearing up whereof, it may not be amisse to take no­tice 44 [Page 36] of the agreement (at least in words) herein, on all hands, even by those who oppose that morality of the Sabbath which we plead for. All sides agree in this, viz. That the law of this fourth Commandment concerning the Sabbath, is morall. But as the differences about the meaning of Tu es Petrus are many, so here the difficulty lies to know, how, and in what sense and respect it may bee called morall; for Master Iron­side expressely consents in this,Irons. quast. 2. cap. 9. viz. ‘That all the Com­mandments of the Decalogue are morall, but every one in his proportion and degree, and so (saith he) is that of the Sabbath, it is morall for substance, but not for cir­cumstance.’

Prim. par. 2. cap. 6. Sect. 15, 19. ‘Master Primrose also (when he is awake) expressely con­fesseth thus much, viz. That the Sabbath is morall in its foundation, end, marrow and principall substance; and that a stinted time is morall, and grounded on the princi­ples of nature; and therefore the Gentiles (saith he) had their set dayes of religion: and this (he tels us) is ratified by the Gospel, which commendeth to the faithfull the Assembling of themselves together for Word and Sacra­ments, and consequently that they have appointed times to attend upon them, wherein the word of God be read and preached as under the old Testament every Sabbath day: nay he yields yet more, viz. That not onely stinted times, but that also there should be a convenient proportion and suit­able frequency of time for Gods service, now under the Go­spell, as under the Law; and therefore affirmes, that the Jewish annuall Feasts, and new Moons, being but once a yeare or once a moneth, and so being rare and seldome, could not teach us the convenient and most suitable frequency of Gods publick service, as the Sabbath did, which returned weekly, and therefore he saith that the Commandment runs not thus, viz. Remember to keep the new Moons, but Remember to keep holy the Sabbath day. So that by Mr. Primrose concession, not onely a time, but a stinted time, not onely a stinted, but also such a convenient proportion and suitable frequency of time, as is once in seven dayes, is morally holy by vertue of the fourth Command­ment.’

‘Gomarus also concludes that the publick worship of God required in the fourth Commandment,Gom. Invest. Orig. Sab. ca 5 cals for observa­tion, not onely of certain, but also of sufficient dayes for worship; and what these sufficient dayes bee, is to bee ga­thered from the fourth Commandment, viz. that they bee [Page 37] not more rare and lesse frequent, then the weekly Sab­baths of the Israelites, because, if God (as he shewes) challenged a weekly Sabbath of a stiffe-necked peo­ple laden with the burden of many other Festivals and Ceremonies, how then should Christians, freed from their yoaks and burdens, have them lesse fre­quent?’

Master Breerwood also to the like purpose professeth,Breer. p. 47, 48 That Christians should no [...] bee lesse devout and religi­ous in celebrating the Lords day, then the Jews were in celebrating their Sabbath, and his reason (labouring with some spice of a contradiction) is this, viz. because the obliga­tion of our thankfulnesse to God is more then theirs, al­though the obligation of his Commandment to us in that behalfe is lesse: for I confesse its beyond my shallownesse to conceive, how the thankfulnesse should bee more and the Commandment lesse; unlesse he will imagine some such po­pish work, as exceeds the command.

Wallaeus comes almost quite over the threshold unto us, and maintains upon solid arguments,Wal. dissers. de pr [...]c. 4. c 4. ‘that by the force and analogy of this fourth Commandment, all the true worshippers of God, are bound to the exact observation of one day in the circle and compasse of seven;’ and then he produceth a cloud of witnesses, both ancient Fathers, and the chief of our late reformers, testifying to th [...] same mora­lity of one day in seven, which himself maintaines; that whoever shall read him herein, would wonder how it should ever enter into the hearts of learned men (as White, Rogers, Dow, the Heylin. Historian, and many others) to imagine and go about to befoole the world, as if the morality of a seventh day was the late and soure fruit growing out of the crab­bed and rigid stock of some English Puritans and refor­mers, wherein they are forsaken of all their fellowes, whom in all other things they so much admire in other Reformed Churches. It being therefore confessed on all hands that the Sabbath is morall (though I confesse at other times our Adversaries unsay this at least in their Arguments;) the Controversie therefore onely lies in this, viz. How and in what respect it should be so?

Thesis 45.

The generall consent herein also is this, to wit, That the 45 morality of the Sabbath chiefly is in respect of some genera­lity, [Page 38] or in respect of something which is more generall in this Commandment, rather then in respect of that par­ticular day which the Commandment doth also point at: for if the morality of it did lie in observing that particular day only, how could there bee a change of that day to ano­ther? For if the morality of a Sabbath was limited unto a particularity, or to that one particular day, it is then im­possible that any other day to which that first is changed, should be morall by vertue of the same Commandment: but wee shall shew in fit place, that the day is lawfully changed and morally observed, and therfore that which is in this Commandment firstly morall, must of necessity be somewhat more generall.

Thesis 46.

46 The generall which we acknowledge to be morall in this command (rightly understood) is a seventh day. Our ad­versaries would make it more generall, and resolve it into a day or some day for solemne worship, yet when they are forced to see and acknowledge by the dint of argument, that this is too generall, because thus the Commandment may be observed, if one day in a thousand, or once in ones life it be sanctified; they doe therefore many times come nearer to us, to somewhat lesse generall then a day, viz. to a stinted, fixed and appointed day, and to such an appointed day as containes a sufficient proportion of time for God, with convenient frequency, no lesse frequent then theirs in the old Testament, which was every seventh day, as may be seen Thesis 44. and truly thus much being acknow­ledged by them, one would think that the controversie (with this sort of men) was brought unto a comfortable and quiet issue and full agreement, but it is strange to see how contrary the language is of these men sleeping, from what it is when they are awake: They strike fiercely at a seventh day, and a determined time, as impossible to be morall, when they meet with them in the darke, and yet we see, acknow­ledge them (in effect) to be morall, when they meet with them sometimes in the light.

Thesis 47.

47 But because a seventh day may be accounted convenient by some, and morall by others, and because the determi­nation of it may bee made by some, either more lax or narrow, viz. either to any day in seven, which man or the Church may appoint; or to such a seventh day as God shall determine, It is therefore needfull for the clearing up [Page 39] of this controversie, to seek out with an impartiall and so­ber mind, the true meaning of the fourth Commandment, and to enquire more particularly and exactly what is required it it, and what is commanded by vertue of it, which some able men not taking a right observation of in the dark and tempestuous times of controversie, have therefore made mi­serable shipwrack, not onely of the truth, but also of them­selves, and souls of others.

Thesis 48.

The things which are morally enjoyned in this Com­mandment,48 are these two,

• 1. Some things are Primariò; i. Primarily, firstly and more generally morall.
• 2. Some things are secundariò; i. Secondarily, deriva­tively and consequently morall.

A time, a day, a seventh day of rest are in the first respect moral, but in the other respect this or that particular se­venth day may be said to be morall: Things primarily mo­rall are perpetuall; things secondarily morall are not ne­cessarily so: As for example, To honour superiors and fa­thers, whether of Common-wealth or family, is primarily morall, but to honour these or those particular superiors is secondarily morall, because our honouring of them ariseth from that primary and generall law of morall equity, viz. that if our fathers are to be honoured, then in the second place it followes, that these and those particular persons be­ing our lawfull fathers, are to be honoured also: To honor our fathers whom God hath set over us, is perpetuall; to ho­nour these or those particular fathers, is not perpetuall, be­cause themselves are not perpetuall but changeable. It was a morall duty to honour this particular King David, but it was not perpetuall, for when David was taken away, they were not bound to honour King David any more, when King Solomon his sonne became his successor: nor was it a ceremoniall duty to honour this or that particular King, because it was changeable from one to another, but it was a morall duty so to doe; wherein the law and rule is not changed (it being primarily morall) but onely the object, which wee are bound to honour se­condarily in respect of the generall rule: So 'tis in this law of the Sabbath; To keep a day, a seventh dayes Sab­bath, is perpetual, it being primarily morall, but to ob­serve [Page 40] this or that particular day, is of it selfe changeable being secondarily morall: For if it bee a morall duty to sanctifie a seventh day which God shall appoint, then it's morall (as it were) in the second place to sanctifie this or that seventh interchangeably which God doth appoint, and yet it doth not follow that this or that particular seventh is in it selfe ceremoniall, because it is changeable [...] for in such a change the morall rule is not changed, but the mo­rall object onely to which it is morally applyed; the duty is not changed, but onely the day: and in this respect it should not seem hard to make somethings morall which are not perpetuall; for lawes primarily morall are properly perpetuall, but lawes secondarily morall, not necessarily so, but changeable, because, as hath been said, herein there is no change of the rule, but onely of the object or applica­tion of the rule, which may be variously and yet morally observed.

Thesis 49.

49 This distinction of things primarily and secondarily mo­rall is taken from the truth of things, and which those who study this controversie will see themselves forced unto by the shifts and fallacies of the adversaries of the truth here­in; the Commandments of God are exceeding broad ac­cording to Davids measure, Psalme 119 96. and very com­prehensive, and hence the generals include many particu­lars, and sometime the particulars have a speciall respect to things more general, as is evident in the second and fifth Commandment,Broad. Tract. de Sob. cap. 4. which Synechdoche, Master Broad acknow­ledgeth to bee in all other commands except the Sabbath, wherein he wil have no generall understood, but onely a commandment to observe that particular day onely, that so he may go one step further then some of his betters, and utterly abolish the morality of this command: but whether this Commandment is so narrowly restrained, will appeare more fully in shewing the truth of this distinction out of the Cōmandment, more particularly.

Thesis 50.

50 Those things first which are primarily and more generally morall, and morally commanded, are these three,

• 1. That there be some solemne convenient time set apa [...]t for Gods worship.
• 2. That this time be not any small pittance of time, but a solemne day of worship, bearing the most meet proportion to those dayes man hath for himselfe.
• [Page 41]3. That this day be not any day indefinitely which man sees meet, but (as 'tis in the Commandment) the Sabbath or Rest day, which God himself interprets and determines to a seventh day.

Some of our Adversaries in this Controversie, will not acknowledge any set time or day to be morall by vertue of this Commandment, because they think that That particular seventh day from the creation is onely commanded but now abolished under the Gospel; and it onely is comman­ded (they say) because it is onely expressed and made men­tion of in the Commandment; I confesse that That par­ticular seventh is expressed and pointed at, but not onely expressed (as wee shall shew in fit place) but suppose it were granted, that That seventh onely is expressed, yet it will not follow that therefore a seventh day, and conse­quently a day, and consequently a time of worship is excluded: for look as 'tis in the second Commandment, we see the worship of a graven Image is particularly forbid­den, and yet that which is more generall, is also here­in forbidden, viz. the worship of God by humane inventi­ons: and why may not the like generall bee enjoyned by commanding that particular seventh in the fourth Commandment? Others of our adversaries, on the con­trary, acknowledge therefore, that in this particular se­venth (which they make ceremoniall) something more generall and morall is herein required, but this generall they limit to a time or some day of worship, but a seventh day which is more generall then that particular seventh, yet lesse generall then a day or time, they fly from this as from some serpent or bugbear, and will not admit it as a­ny thing generally morall in this Commandment: But it is very observeable in this Controversie, that upon the same grounds on which they would exclude this gene­rall of a seventh from being morall, they may as well exclude their owne generals, viz. a time or a day from be­ing morall: for if they thinke it irrationall, that because a particular seventh day is required, that therefore a seventh day more generall cannot be commanded; why is it not as irrationall upon the same ground to exclude a time, a day also? Surely a seventh day lyes nearer the bo­some of a particular seventh, and is of nearer kin to it then a day. And I marvaile that they should gather a solemne time and day of worship, which is more generall, rather then a seventh out of that particular day, as not [Page 42] possibly to be intended, although in a manner expressed in the Commandment it selfe. I know there are some who thinke that there is nothing generally morall in this Com­mandment, but a seventh day; which unlesse it bee well and warily explicated, I then crave leave to concur thus farre with our adversaries, viz. That a solemne time, and a day of worship are generally morall in this command, but not onely morall, but that a seventh day also which God shall determine is generally, yea principally morall also in this Commandment.

Thesis 51.

51 First therefore, That which is most generally morall in this command, is that which is called Tempus cultus or the time of worship; now this time must either be indeterminate time, which necessarily attends all acts of worship, and duties of piety, or else determinate and solemne time. Indeterminate time is not required here, because to make a speciall commandment about such a time, would be both needlesse and ridiculous, for if it bee impossible that any duty should bee performed without such time, then where­ever that duty is required, the time which necessarily attends it must bee supposed and enjoyned in the same command­ment: Some determinate and solemne time is therefore here­in generally, though not onely commanded.

Thesis 52.

52 Tis a scruple to some to know to what commandment so­lemne time should be referred; to which the answer is ea­sie; that the same things may bee referred in severall re­spects unto severall commandments, and so may this: So­lemne time may be referred to the second Commandment, where solemne worship (in respect of the meanes of wor­ship) is required, in some respect to the first Command­ment, which requiring us to acknowledge God as our sove­raigne Lord and happinesse, he would have us therefore to have some full scope of time to be serlous and solemnly ta­ken up in the worship of him: But it's referred to this fourth Cōmandment as it stands in a generall reference and relation to a seventh dayes Sabbath, wherein this generall of solemne time is swallowed up and preserved; and verily if the six days labour be required in the fourth Command­ment, in case it be done in reference to the seventh days rest, much more all solemne time of worship, as it stands in refe­rence to a Sabbath day.

Thesis 53.

The worship it selfe therefore is not required in this 53 Commandment, if only the time of worship be enjoyned: and if ignorance or prejudice did not by asse and sway mens judgements from the naked and genuine meaning of each Commandment, it would soon appear that the whole wor­ship of God it selfe, is contained in the three first Com­mandments, and therefore nothing left that could pos­sibly be enjoyned by the fourth, but onely the time: I know a time of worship may in some respect be called worship, but the worship it selfe in all other respects is not required in this but in other Commandments; for in the first Commandment we are to have God to be our God, by love of him, trust to him, delight in him, &c. (which nature, as it were, cals for, if God be our God) then all that which we call naturall worship, is required here: and if devi­sed formes of worship bee forbidden in the second Com­mandment, which are of humane invention and instituti­on, then all Gods instituted worship must bee commanded herein: and if vaine and irreverent manner of worship be forbidden in the third Commandment, then all common worship as some call it, or rather all that holy and reverend manner of worship which we owe to God is required in the same command; and if all naturall, instituted and com­mon worship or holy manner of worship be required in the three first commands, I marvaile then how any worship (any further then as a time of worship, may be called wor­ship,) can be required in this fourth command, The time therefore, and not the worship it selfe is required herein: for if any worship be required, it's either the whole wor­ship of God, or some speciall kinde of worship; if the whole worship, then there should be no worship of God required directly in the three first Commandments, but the very same which is commanded in the fourth also, which grosse Tautology is most absurd to imagine in the short summe of these ten words; but if any speciall kinde of worship should be required and not the whole, then the Sabbath day is sanctified to some one kind of worship, ra­ther then to the exercise of all kind of worship, which is most false and prophane: for who will affirme that the Sab­bath is to bee sanctified, suppose by that kinde of wor­ship which is publick, and not private also, by externall, and not by internall worship also; by naturall worship in love and fear God, &c. and not with instituted in the use of all [Page 44] Gods Ordinances, and that with all holy preparation and reverence also?

Thesis 54.

54 The exercise of worship is one thing, the worship it selfe is another; 'tis most true that the holy exercise of all worship is here required, but most false that the worship it selfe is so: The worship it self is required in the three first commands, but the speciall exercise of all this worship at such a time, is required in the fourth Command: the ex­ercise of holinesse and holy duties is here required as the end, and a holy rest as a meanes thereunto, and in this respect it is true which Wallaeus observes,Wal. diss. de 4 pr [...]. cap. 5. viz. That it is not a bare and naked circumstance of time, but the rest it self from labour, and the application of the day to holy uses which is here enjoyned; but doth it therefore follow that the worship it self, and the holy duties themselves are here directly commanded? which he seemes to maintain: no verily, no more then that works of mercy in the se­cond Table, are required in this fourth Command of the first Table, because the exercise of mercy and love as well as of piety and necessity is required also in this Command.

Thesis 55.

55 It is generally and frequently affirmed by those who seek to support the morality of the Sabbath, to wit, that the ex­ercise of worship and holy duties at this time, is required for the duties sake, as at other times, the time is required for the times sake; by which words they seem to make the bare circumstance of time to bee required here; but this assertion had need be understood with much candor, and the true explication of it; for in some sense its most true which our Saviour affirms, that man is not made for the Sabbath or the time of it, Mark 2.27.

Thesis 56.

56 This time therefore may be considered two wayes, 1. Ab­stractly. 2. Concretely. 1. Abstractly, for the bare circumwance of time, abstracted and stript from all o­ther considerations, and so it is very absurd to imagine all the holy duties of the Sabbath to be for the time, as if God and all his holy worship should give homage unto, and attend upon a naked empty circumstance: Time in this respect is rather for the worships sake. 2. Con­cretely, as it is wholly sanctified and set apart for God, [Page 45] or as it is a holy time; set a part for holy rest, that so man might attend upon God: and in this respect all ho­ly duties are for this time, because in this respect they are for God who is all in all in holy time: And therefore Wallaeus need not put us upon search to see whether the holy rest of the day be required in the second or any o­ther Command,Wal. ibid. for 'tis not affirmed by any, that the naked circumstance of time is here onely required, without any holy rest; but that a holy time of rest is herein comman­ded, and therefore to bee referred to this command: hence also it is most false which some affirme,Do [...]. viz. ‘That the rest from ordinary labours on this day, as it is connected with holy duties of worship without which they cannot be performed, is as necessary now, as when the Jewish Sabbath was in being; but otherwise out of these duties there is no holy time of rest commanded.’ For such a re­straint of time to holy duties as makes the time holy for the duties sake, so that no time is holy but in the perfor­mance of holy duties, and these duties (upon narrow ex­amination) onely publick duties, doth but open a gap for licentiousnesse, voluptuousnesse, sports, May-poles and Dog-markets, and such like prophanesse, out of the time of holy publick worship; or what private worship each man shall think most meet. For in this sense holy duties are for the time, because the whole day being sanctified, holy duties are therefore to attend, and in this respect are for this time; and not the time for them, viz. That when the time of the exercise of some holy duties doth cease, the time of holy rest or holy time must then cease also.

Thesis 57.

Nor should it seeme strange that holy duties should at­tend 57 holy time, and be for the sake of such time; because, although it bee true that this time is sanctified, that man may performe holy duties, yet man is now called to the performance of all holy duties, that he may lastly honour God in all holinesse in such a speciall time: Which time if any humane power onely should put any holinesse in, and it therefore should be attended on, what would it bee else but an observing of dayes and times, condemned by the A­postle, Romans 14. Gal. 4. which dirty ditch of observing times, they unawares fall into who plead against a deter­mined Sabbath, sanctified of God, and yet would have [Page 46] some time and day observed by the appointment of men: For the observation of such dayes which God shall ap­point, cannot be condemned as an observing of times: but the observation of dayes which humane wisedome shall think fit may be quickly reduced to such a transgres­sion.

Thesis 58.

58 If any think that there is a peculiar manner of holinesse, and of worshipping God herein required, which is not re­quired in any other Commandment; it may bee readily granted, if by peculiar manner of sanctification, be meant a more speciall degree and manner of exercising the whole worship of God, in respect of such a time: but it doth not therefore follow, that any new kinde of worship (which Wal­laeus hence pleads for) is required herein:Wal. dissert. de 4. praec. c 6. for this higher degree and speciall manner of worship is not the substance of any new worship, it being onely a peculiar degree of worship,In hoc quarto praecept [...] ali­quem peculia­rem sanctifica­tionis modum mandar [...] quae in aliis praecep­tis non manda­tur, a nobis qu [...] (que) extra controversiam deb [...]t coll [...]ari, [...]um in his de­cem verbis Tautologia su­pervacu [...] non committ [...]ur. Wal. Ibid. and therefore varies not the kinde: And if the three first Commandments enjoyne the worship it selfe, then they doe command the highest measures and degrees also severally, for where any duty is required, the highest de­gree and extension of it is also therewithall required. Hence therefore it still followes, that this peculiar manner of exercising holy duties upon this day, is chiefely with re­ference and relation to the time which God hath sanctified, that herein hee might be in a speciall manner worshipped and served: And verily Wallaeus foreseeing the blow, had no other way to expedite himselfe from making the three first Commandments, either to be meere cipers, or the fourth Commandment from labouring with a needlesse Tautology, but by flying for refuge to this peculiar manner of holines which he thinks is required herein, and not in any of the rest; but what hath been said may be sufficient to clear up the ungroundednesse of this mistake.

Thesis 59.

59 A little errour is a great breeder, and begets many more; and hence it is that Wallaeus among many others, that he might make the worship it selfe to be required in the fourth Commandment, disputes therefore against those who place the instituted worship of God▪ directly under the se­cond Commandment, which if hee could make good, he had then the fairer probabilities to shew that the worship it selfe was required directly in the fourth Command; which principle if it was granted, would expose the morality of [Page 47] the Sabbath to sorer blowes and bruises then perhaps ap­pears at first blush: It may not therefore be amisse, but bee rather of speciall use for the clearing up both of the mean­ing and morality of the fourth command,Wal. diss. de 4 praes. cap. 51 to demonstrate, that the instituted worship of God, (which Wallaeus cals, Cultus externus & instrumentalis salutis nostrae, per auditum verbi & sacramentorum usum, &c.) is directly required in the affirmative part of the second command.

Thesis 60.

The clearing up of this, depends much upon a right and 60 true understanding of two things in the se­cond Commandment;

• 1. What the graven Image and likenesse is.
• 2. What is meant by those words. [Love me and keep my Com­mandements.]

Thesis 61.

First, Graven Images, after which the whole world almost 61 hath been enticed, and gone a whoring from the true wor­ship of God; were worshipped two wayes: 1. Terminativè, i. When people terminated their worship upon the dumb Idols themselves, as if they were gods, without looking any further to any God more supreame and glorious: This is the sinne of many of the ignorant sort of Papists by Bel­larmine's owne confession, as also many of the brutish sort of the blinde heathens: And this kinde of worship and Ido­latry is directly forbidden, not in the second, but in the first Commandment; and that appeares upon this undenyable ground, to wit, that if the first Commandment expressely enjoynes us to have no other God but Jehovah, to trust in, pray to, love, feare no other God but Jehovah, then for any to have and worship such Images as their gods which are not Jehovah, is directly forbidden here: Hence there­fore it undenyably follows, that by the making to our selves a graven Image, in the second Commandment, somewhat else must be understood then the worshipping of Images termi­natively as gods. 2. Or else they were worshipped relativè, i. Relatively or in reference to the true God, as meanes and helps, In which, At which, and by which, the true God was worshipped: And thus the learned and well instructed Pa­pists maintaine their abominable worship of Images, whether graven or painted, crosses, crucifixes, &c. to be good and lawfull; for say they, we doe not worship, nor are wee so senselesse as to honour the Image, or Crucifix it self, but [Page 48] onely as helps to devotion, to carry our hearts to God and Christ, resembled by these Images: Thus also the Jewes of old, they did never worship the Images themselves, but God in them and by them: They were not growne so soon, so ex­treamly sottish, as to thinke that the golden Calfe was the true God himself which brought them a few weeks before out of the land of Egypt, but it was a visible help to carry their hearts to God onely, and therefore the Feast was pro­clamed to Iehovah, Exod. 32.4, 5. Micha's Idolatrous mother professeth that shee had dedicated the eleven hundred she­kels of silver to Iehovah to make a molten Image, Iudg 17.3. she was not simple (no not in those confused and blinde times) to thinke that the Image was Iehovah, nor did her son Micah think so, and therefore he doth not say, Now I know that the Teraphim will blesse me, but that Iehovah will now blesse me, having set up an Image for his service. Nay verily, the wisest and best instructed among the Heathens did never think that the Idols and Images themselves were God, but they only worshipped God by them; which if any doubt of,Vid Rain. de Eccles. Rom. Idol. l. 2. c. 3. let him but read Doctor Rainolds, who by preg­nant and most evident proofs demonstrates, that neither the Iewes, nor the Heathens in their deepest apostacies, did e­ver worship their Images any other wayes then relatively, as helps and meanes of the worship of the true God; and hereby sets forth the abominable Idolatry of the Romish Church, for such a worship of their Images, which even themselves condemne in the Idolatrous Iews and Heathens, who had as much to say for their Image worship as the Pa­pists have: Hence therefore it followes, that if the graven Image in the second Commandment, was not worshipped as God, but onely as a means devised and invented by man to carry the heart unto God, then (by a usuall Synechdoche in every command) all humane inventions and institutions, and devised meanes of worship, or of carrying the heart better un­to God, are forbidden in this Commandment; and if all humane institutions and devised meanes of worship, be herein directly forbidden, then certainly All divine institutions and meanes of worship, and consequently All Gods instituted wor­ship, in Ministry, Sacraments, &c. is directly commanded in the affirmative part of this second Command; and conse­quently not in the fourth Command: And if all Orthodox Divines condemn the Popish relative worship of Images, as directly crosse and contrary to the second Command, I then see no reason why any should question, but that all the in­stituted [Page 49] meanes of worship (Images as it were of Gods owne devising) should belong to the affirmitive part of the same Command. The second thing to be explained in this Commandment is, What is love to God and keeping of his Commandments, which we read of in the close of the Commandment? Love to God is here opposed to Hatred of God, and those that Love him, to those that Hate him: Now this Hatred is not hating of God at large (for there is a hatred of God in every sinne, Prov. 1.29. and 8.36.) but in particular, when it appeares in this particular sin of setting up of Images and mens inventions, forbidden in this Commandment, which therefore sets down the proper punishment for this sin: So by love of God, is not meant love of God at large (which is seen in keeping every Command) but in particular, when we love God in his owne Ordinances and institutions. Look therefore as hatred of God in setting up mans inventions and institutions (which superstitious persons thinke to be much love to God) is here condemned in the negative part of the Com­mandment; so on the contrary, love to God in closing with him and seeking of him in his owne Institutions, whe­ther Word or Sacraments, &c. is here enjoyned in the affir­mative part of this Command, and consequently not (as Wallaeus would have it) in the affirmative part of the fourth Command, Keeping my Commandments being set downe as a fruit of this love, and both together being opposed to hatred of God: Hence by Commandments, cannot be meant in generall, all the ten Commandments (as some ima­gine upon miserable weake grounds, which I lift not to mention) but in speciall, Gods Institutions and Ordi­nances commanded in speciall by him, to which humane inventions and Images of mens heads and hands, are com­monly in Scripture opposed, and are therefore condem­ned, because not commanded, or because none of his Com­mandments, Ier. 7.31. Deut. 12.30, 31. Matth. 15.9. If therefore (againe) Gods Institutions and Command­ments are here enjoyned in this second Commandment, they cannot bee directly required in the fourth Com­mand. These things being thus cleared, the objections of Wallaeus are easily answered: For first, he saith, ‘That from the negative part of this second Commandment cannot be gathered such an affirmative part as this is,Object. 1.’ viz. That God will be worshipped by the Word and Sacra­ments. But that this assertion thus barely propounded, [Page 50] but not proved, is false, appeares from what hath been said concerning the true meaning of the negative part of this Command: For if humane inventions, under the name of graven Image bee forbidden, then Divine Institutions, such as Word and Sacraments bee, are here commanded, and from that negative any ordinary capacity may readi­ly see what the affirmative is. Hee saith again second­ly, ‘That if instituted worship was contained under the affirmative part of the second Commandment,Object. 2. then this Commandment is mutable, because God was thus worshipped one way before Christ, and another way since Christ; but (saith he) the second Commandment is morall, and therefore immutable, and therefore such mutable worship cannot be enjoyned herein.’ But we have Vid. Thes. 34 formerly shewne that although this Commandment be morall and immutable in respect of it selfe, yet in re­spect of the application of it to this or that object or thing commanded, it may be in that respect mutable: For it is an immutable law that God must be worshipped with his owne worship, such as hee shall institute (and this is the summe of the second Commandment it selfe) yet the things instituted (wherein there is onely an applicati­on of the command) may be mutable: the second Com­mandment doth not immutably binde to the observance of this or that particular instituted worship onely: But to observe Gods instituted worship, and to attend his appoint­ments, which is the onely morall law and rule in the af­firmative part of this Command. Hee thirdly objects, ‘That the worshipping of God in Word and Sacraments, Object. 3. &c. is never opposed in all the Scripture to the worship­ping of Images.’ But this is false; for Gods Institutions (of which Word and Sacraments are a part) are fre­quently opposed to humane inventions, the worship ap­pointed by God to the worship devised by man: Images of Gods devising, are oft opposed to Images of mens owne inventing; the voice of God which was onely heard with the eare, is opposed to an Image or similitude which might bee seen, Deut. 4.12. A graven Image, a tea­cher of lies, is opposed to the Lords teaching of truth, and also to his presence in his Temple, which was the seat of instituted worship, Habak. 2.18, 19, 20. The worship of Images which God would have abolished, is opposed to the worship of God by Sacrifices and Ceremo­nies, in the place which God should chuse, Deuter. 12.1. [Page 51] to 20. but yet he tels us, That to worship God in Images, and to worship him in Spirit and Truth (which is inward worship) are opposite: as also the lifting up of pure hands in every place, John 4.28. 1 Tim. 2.8. Hee tels us also that ac­knowledging of God in his Immensity and Infinite Majesty, are opposed to Image-worship, Rom. 1.20, 21, 22. Isa. 40.22. Bee it so: But will it therefore follow, that to worship God according to his own Institutions▪ is not to worship him in Spi­rit and in Truth? Is it rather a carnall than a spirituall wor­ship, to attend on God in Word and Sacraments? May we not lift up pure hands in the use of Gods own institutions? Is not Gods Immensity and Majesty acknowledged and seen in the use of his owne Ordinances, as well as crea­tures and providences? I confesse the blinder sort of Hea­thens might worship stocks and stones and Images of cree­ping things, and four-footed Beasts, in the place of God himselfe terminatively, and God might account of all their Image-worship as such, though used relatively, and hence the opposition may well bee made between worshipping them as God, and an infinite God; and this worship (as was said) fals then under the first Commandment: but as­suredly this Image-worship which the Apostle condemnes, Rom. 1.21, 23. in debasing the infinite Majesty, and limiting it to this and that Image wherein they did worship it, is forbidden (being only relative worship) in the second Com­mand: For I think the Apostle in Rom. 1. hath an eye prin­cipally at the most lascivious Idolaters in the world, viz. the Egyptians, among whom principally we read of those Images of creeping things and foure-footed beasts, in their Hier [...] ­gliphicks: and yet we know that all that base worship did set out something or other of the Deity, which therein (and so relatively) they did worship. But I must not enter into the Discourse of these things here: sufficient is said to cleare up this point, viz. That Gods instituted worship fals directly under the second, not fourth Com­mand.

Thesis 62.

It is true, that the exercise of publick worship of many 62 together, is to be at this time upon the Sabbath, but doth it follow that therefore this publick worship it self falls directly under this command? For if publick Assemblies bee (as some think) a part of naturall worship, so as that the light of nature directs all men dwelling together as creatures, to worship God together publickly as Creator, [Page 52] then this worship fals directly under the first (not fourth) Commandment, where natural worship is directly comman­ded; but if publick Assemblies be considered as distinct Chur­ches politically united and combined, publickly to worship God; then such Churches considered thus as politicall, not mysticall Assemblies, do fall directly under the second Com­mand, as parts of instituted worship: for as all devised formes of Churches, whether Diocesan, Provinciall, Natio­nall, Universall (being the inventions of man to further the worship of God) are condemned directly in the second Command: [...] all such Churches as are framed into a spi­tuall policy, after the fashion and patterne of the Word and primitive institution, are (with leave of Erastus and his dis­ciples) enjoyned in the same Commandment, and therefore not in the fourth.Gom. Inv. sent. & Orig. Sab. ca 5. Prim▪ par. 2. cap. 6. Sect. 15. Gomarus and Master Primrose therefore do much mistake the mark, and scope of the fourth Command­ment, who affirme, That as in the three first Commandments, God ordained the inward and outward service, which hee will have every particular man to yeeld to him in private and seve­rally from the society of men every day, so in the fourth Com­mandment he enjoyneth a service common and publick, which all must yeeld together unto him, forbearing in the mean while all other businesse. But why should they think that publick worship is more required here than private? Will they say that the Sabbath is not to bee sanctified by private and in­ward worship, as well as by publick and externall worship? Is not private preparation, meditation, secret prayer and converse with God, required upon this day, as well as publick praying and hearing the Word? If they say that these are required indeed, but 'tis in reference to the publick, and for the publick worship sake, it may be then as easily re­plyed, that the publick worship is also for the sake of the private, that each man secretly and privately might muse and feed upon the good of publick helps; they are mutually helpfull one to another, and therefore are ap­pointed one for another, unlesse any will thinke that no more holinesse is required upon this day than while publick worship continues; which we hope shall appeare to bee a piece of professed prophanesse: In the meane while, looke as they have no reason to thinke that private worship is re­quired in this command, because the exercise of private worship is at this time required; so they have as little rea­son to thinke that the publick worship it selfe is herein en­joyned, because the exercise of it is to be also at such a [Page 53] time. It is therefore the time, not the worship it self, either publick or private, which is here directly commanded: although it be true that both of them are herein indirectly required, viz. in relation to the Time.

Thesis 63.

If therefore the morall worship it self, whether publick, externall or private, be not directly required in this fourth 63 Command, much lesse is the whole Ceremoniall worship here enjoyned,Prim. par. 2. cap. 6. S. 3, 4, 5. as Master Primrose maintaines, for the whole Ceremoniall worship, both in Sacrifices, Ceremo­nies, Type [...], &c. was significant, and were, as I may so say, Gods Images, or media cultus, meanes of worship, by car­rying the minde and heart to God, by their speciall significations, and therefore were instituted worship, and therefore directly contained under the second, and therefore not under the fourth Command: And if there bee but nine Commandments which are morall, and this one (by his reckoning) is to bee ceremoniall, and the head of all ceremonials, and that therefore unto it all cere­moniall worship is to appertaine, then the observation of a Sabbath is the greatest Ceremony, according as wee see in all other Commandments, the lesser sinnes are con­demned under the grosser, as anger under murder, and lust under adultery; and inferiour duties under the chief and principall, as honouring the aged and Masters, &c. under honouring of parents; and so if all Ceremo­nialls are referred to this, then the Sabbath is the grossest and greatest ceremony one of them; and if so, then 'tis a greater sinne to sanctifie a Sabbath at any time, than to observe new moones and other festivals, which are lesse Ceremoniall, and are therefore wholly cashiered, because ceremoniall; and if so, why then doth Master Primrose tell us, That the Sabbath is morall for substance, principall scope and end, and that its unmeet for us to observe few­er dayes than the Iewes, in respect of weekly Sabbaths? Why is not the name and memoriall of the Sabbath aban­doned wholly and utterly accursed from off the face of the earth, as well as new moones and other Jewish festivals, which upon his principles are lesse ceremoniall than the weekly Sabbath? It may be an audacious Fa­milist, whose Conscience is growne Iron, and whose brow is brasse, through a conceit of his immunity from, and [Page 54] Christian liberty in respect of any thing which hath the superscription of law or works upon it, may aban­don all Sabbaths together with new Moones equally: but those I now aime at, I suppose dare not, nor I hope any pious minde else, who considers but this one thing, viz. that when the Lord commands us to Remember to keep the Sabbath holy, hee must then (according to this interpretation) command us, that above all other Com­mandments wee observe his Ceremoniall worship (which they say is here enjoyned) rather than his morall wor­ship which they acknowledge to be enjoyned in all the other nine Commands, at the gate of none of which Commands is written this word Remember; which un­doubtedly implyes a speciall attendance to bee shewne unto this, above any other; for as wee shall shew, keepe this, keep all, break this, slight this, slight all; and therefore no wonder if no other Command hath this word Remember writ upon the portall of [...]t, which word of fence, denotes speciall affection and action in the Hebrew Language: but I suppose it may strike the hardest brow and heart with terrour and horrour, to go about to affix and impute such a meaning to this Com­mandment, viz. That principally above all other duties we remember to observe those things which are ceremoni­all: for although the observation of Ceremonies bee ur­ged and required of God, as Master Primrose truely ob­serves from Psalme 118.27.Ibid. Sect. 6. Ieremiah 17.26: Ioell 19.13. Malachy 1.7, 8, 10, 13, 14. yet that God should re­quire and urge the observation of these above any o­ther worship, is evidently crosse to reason, and expre­sly crosse to Scripture, Isaiah 1.11, 12, 13, 14, 15. Isaiah 66.3. Psalme 50.13. Ieremiah 6.20. Amos 3.21. Micah 6.7. To remember therefore to keepe the Sabbath, is not to remember to observe Ceremoniall du­ties.

Thesis 64.

Nor should it seem strange, that Jewish holy dayes 64 are not here enjoyned, where a holy time, a Sabbath day is commanded: for those Jewish holy dayes were princi­pally instituted (as Wallaeus well observes) for significati­on of Christ and his benefits (as may appeare from [...] Cor. 5.7.Wal. dissert. de 4. p [...]aec. Luke 4.19. Hebrewes 10.5.) and therefore be­ing significant were parts of instituted worship, belong­ing to the second, not fourth Command, but the Sab­bath [Page 55] day (as shall be shewn) is in its originall instituti­on and consecration of another nature and not significant: yet this may bee granted, that ceremoniall holy dayes may be referred to the fourth Command, as appendices of it; and if Calvin, Vrsin, Danaeus and others aim [...] at no more, it may bee granted, but it will not follow from hence that they therefore belong to the second command indirectly, and directly to the fourth (which Master Prim­rose contends for) but rather directly to the second, and reductively and indirectly, as appendices to the fourth: which appendices, as they may be put to, so they may be taken off againe, the morall Commandment remai­ning entire: even as we know Calvin referres many ce­remoniall duties as appendices to such Commands, con­cerning the morality of which Master Primrose doubts not: and therefore for him to thinke that the Sabbath compre­hends all Iewish Festivall dayes, upon this ground, viz. because the Sabbath is joyned with, and put in among the reckoning of such Festivals, Leviticus 23. Isaiah 1.13, 14. hath no more force in it, than by retorting the argu­ment, and upon the like ground prove it to be morall, be­cause it is joyned with Morall Commandments, as honou­ring of Parents, Leviticus 19.3. and prayer, Isaiah 1.19. and by his owne confession with the other nine which are all of them morall also.

Thesis 65.

Secondly, not onely a solemne time, but more particu­larly 65 a solemne day, a whole day of worship is here also required by vertue of this fou [...]th Command; and the Lord gives us good reason for it, that if he gives us many whole dayes for our owne work, then (not some part of a day) but a day, a whole day, according to the rea­son and expresse words of the Commandment, should bee marked out and set apart for his work and service: if that place, Isaiah 56.6, 7. will not demonstrate a seventh dayes Sabbath under the new Testament, yet [...]suffici­ently and fully clears the point in hand, viz. that a Sab­bath day is to be observed by the sonnes of the stranger or Gentiles who are called strangers to the Common-wealth of Irsael, Ephesians 2.12. and indeed Wallaeus freely con­fesseth and proveth that a whole day is here required;Wal. diss. de 4 pr [...]. cap. 5▪ and if a whole day, I hope none will think that the time [Page 56] out of publick Assemblies is common and prophane, if a whole day be holy:Prim. part 2. c. 6.8.15. and therefore Mr. Primrose tels us, that the Gentiles having no other law but the light of nature, have appointed set dayes, for the exercise of their religion, and that as the Jews had their set days, (which we know were whole dayes) so should Christians have theirs, for their publick Assemblies under the Gospel; which I hope must be therefore whole dayes also: it is also considerable that if the three first Commandments requiring Gods worship, do consequently require some time for that worship (as being a necessary adjunct to all actions whether morall or civill, and without which they cannot be performed) then the fourth Command, must require somewhat more particu­larly than a time of worship: and therefore they that place the morality of the fourth Command in requiring onely a time of worship (because say they a time of worship is ne­cessary,) may upon this ground wholly and perfectly abo­lish the fourth Command as superfluous and needlesse, be­cause such a time of worship is required in all other Com­mandments necessarily. They may also imagine as great a morality in the command of building the Temple the place of worship, because a place of worship is necessary as well as a time: it is not therefore a time, but such a time as is preserved in a day even in a whole day for worship which is here commanded.

Thesis 66.

66 The wise God could have appointed some part of every day to be kept holy rather than a whole day together; but his wisdome saw this proportion of time every day to be more unmeet, in respect of mans daily cumbers, which doe so ea­sily intangle mans thoughts and affections, so as within some smal piece of a day he cannot ordinarily nor so easily recover and unloose himselfe to find the end of a Sabbath service, which is most sweet and full rest in the bosome of his God, as he may within the compasse of a whole day set a part for that end: or suppose he could so doe in a piece and part of a day, yet Gods Name should lose by it, if he should not have the ho [...]ur of some solemne day, which wee see doe serve to adv [...]ce the names of idoll gods, and men on earth: it's meet and just that Gods Name should be magnified by us commonly every day, by setting a part some time which we may well spare (as whet to the sithe) out of our callings for God, and this doth honour him, but a day, much more.

Thesis 67.

They therefore who maintaine that a seventh day is not morall, because it is but a circumstance of time, may as well abolish time to be morall, or any day to be morall, because a day (let it fall out when it will) is but a circumstance of time; which notwithstanding they account to be morall in this command; but we know that much morality lyes in cir­cumstances, and why a day sanctified may not bee as much morall as a duty, I yet see not.

Thesis 68.

The Familists and Antinomians of late, like the Manichees 68 of old, do make All dayes equally holy under the Gospel, and none to bee observed more than another by vertue of any command of God, unlesse it be from some command of man to which the outward man they think should not stick to con­forme, or unlesse it be pro re nata, or upon severall occasions, which speciall occasions are onely to give the Alarums for Church meetings and publick Christian Assemblies: an au­dacious assertion, crosse to the very light of nature among the blind heathens, who have universally allowed the deity whom they ignorantly worshipped, the honour of some so­lemn dayes; crosse to the verdict of popish Schoolmen and Prelatists, whose stomacks never stood much toward any Sabbath at all; crosse to the scope of the Law of the Sab­bath, which if it hath any generall morality (not denyed scarce to any of Moses Judicials,) surely one would think it should lie in the observation of some day or days, though not in a seventh day, for which now we do not contend. Crosse also to the appointment of the Gospel, foretold by Isaiah and Ezekiel, Isa. 56.4, 6. Ezek. 43.27. made mention of by our Saviour to continue long after the abolishing of all ceremo­nies by his death, Mat. 24.20. who therefore bids them pray, that their flight may not be in the winter, nor on the Sabbath day, which whether it be the Jewish or Christian Sabbath, I dis­pute not, only this is evident, that he hath an eye to some spe­ciall set day, and which was lastly ordained by Christ, and observed in the Primitive Churches, commonly called the Lords day, as shall be shewn in due place, and which notion under pretence of more spiritualnes in making every day a Sabbath (which is utterly unlawfull and impossible, unlesse it be lawfull to neglect our own work all the week long and without which there can be no true Sabbath) doth really un­dermine the true Sabbath, in speciall set days; and look as to make every man a King & Judge in a Christian Common­wealth, [Page 58] would be the introduction of confusion, and conse­quently the destruction of a civill government, so to crown every day with equall honour unto Gods set dayes and Sab­baths which he hath anointed and exalted above the rest, this anarchy and confusion of dayes, doth utterly subvert the true Sabbath: to make every day a Sabbath, is a reall debasing and dethroning of Gods Sabbath.

Thesis 69.

69'Tis true, that every day considered materially and phy­sically, as a day, is equally holy, but this is no argument to prove that therefore every day is morally and theologi­cally holy; for those things which of themselves are com­mon, may by divine appointment superadded to them be­come holy, witnesse the dedicated things of the Temple, and so 'tis in dayes and times; under the old Testament we see some dayes were more holy by Gods appointment then others, and yet all dayes then were materially and alike holy.

Thesis 70.

70'Tis true, that under the new Testament, all places (in a safe sence) are equally holy; but it doth not follow from h [...]nce (as our Adversaries would inferre) that therefore all times are so; and Wallaeus himself confesseth the argument to be invalid: for it was not easie nor meet, but very disso­nant from divine and heavenly wisdome, to appoint in his word all particular places where his people should meet, their meetings being to bee in so many thousand se­verall Countries, and various situations, which places are indeed for their generall nature commanded and necessary, but in respect of application to circumstances of this and that place and countrey, the variation of them is almost endlesse, and therefore very incongruous and uselesse to set them downe in the word: but it was not so in respect of solemne time, or a solemne day of worship, for herein the Lord might easily appoint a particular day to be observed, according to the rising and setting of the Sunne propor­tionably throughout all the world: and the Scripture hath expressely fore told in respect of place, that neither in Ierusalem, Iudea, nor Samaria, but that in every place incense should bee offered up to God, Malach. 1.11. but it hath not so spoken, but rather the contrary in respect of time.

Thesis 71.

71 Nor is any time morally holy, in this sense, viz. instru­mentally [Page 59] holy, or as an instrument and meanes by which God will convey any spirituall and supernaturall grace (as Sacraments now doe, and sacrifices of old did) but being sanctified of God, they are holy seasons, in which, God is plea­sed to meet and blesse his people rather then at other times and dayes of our owne devising, or of more common use▪ reserving onely the Lords prerogative to himselfe, to work at other times also more or lesse as he sees meet. Indeed it's true, that by our improvement of our time, and of such times, the Lord sweetly conveyes himself to us, yet still 'tis not by time it self, nor by the day it self, but as he conveyes him­self to us by holy things, and at holy places (as the Ark and Tem­ple) so in holy times.

Thesis 72.

There are indeed sundry Scriptures, which to one 72 who is willing to have all dayes equall, may carry a great bredth, and make a specious shew; and I ingeniously con­fesse, that upon a rigidum examen of them, they are more weighty and heavy than the disputers in this contro­versie usually feele them, and therefore they doe more lightly cast them by and passe them over: and it is to bee wished, that those who doe not think that all dayes are e­quall, yet will not acknowledge a seventh day to be morall, had not put weapons unawares into the hands of others, strengthening them thereby to destroy the morality of any day, and so to lay all dayes levell, for I scarce know an ar­gument or Scripture alledged, by any Germane writer, a­gainst the morality of a seventh day, but it strikes direct­ly against the morality of any day, which yet they acknow­ledge to be morall.

Thesis 73.

The fairest colour and strongest force from Gal 4.10. and 73 Col. 2.16. lies in the gradation which some suppose to be intended in both those places. Ye observe (saith the Apostle) dayes, and moneths, and times, and yeares, Gal. 4.10. Wherein the Apostle seemes to ascend from the les­ser to the greater, from dayes (which are lesse then moneths, and therefore weekly Sabbath dayes) to moneths, from moneths or new moones, to times, which are higher then moneths, and by which is meant their annuall feasts and fasts, ordered according to the [...] or fittest sea­sons of the yeare; and from times he ascends yet higher to yeares, viz. their Sabbaticall yeares, because they were celebrated once in many years, sometime seven, sometime [Page 60] fifty years: by which gradation it seems evident, that the observation of dayes (which are lesse than moneths) and therefore of weekly Sabbaths, are hereby condemned. The like gradation is urged from Col. 2.16. where the A­postle seems to descend from condemning the greater to the condemnation of the lesser: Let no man judge you (saith the Apostle) in respect of a holy day, new moon, or Sab­bath dayes: there holy dayes seem to bee their annuall or Sabbaticall dayes, their new moones are lesse than them, being every moneth; and therefore by Sabbath days (they inferre) must needs be meant the weekly Sabbaths, lesse than new moones: Indeed some understand by dayes and times (in Gal. 4.) heathenish dayes, but hee speaking of such dayes as are beggerly rudiments, under which not the Heathens, but the Children of the old Testament were in bondage, verse 3. hee must therefore speak not of Heathenish but of Iewish dayes. I know also that some understand that of Col. 2.16. to be meant of Iewish and ce­remoniall Sabbaths, which were annuall, but this, the A­postles gradation seems to overthrow.

Thesis 74.

74 To both these places therefore, a threefold Answer may bee given: First, Admit the gradation in them both, yet by dayes, Gal. 4.10. is not necessarily meant, all weekly Sabbath dayes, for there were other dayes Ceremoniall which the Iewes observed, and which the Iewish teachers urged, besides the Sabbath; to instance onely in Circum­cision which they zealously prest, Gal. 5.3. which we know was limited unto the eighth day, and which they might urge as well as Circumcision it selfe. However, look as the Apostle when he condemnes them for observing times, [...] which signifies Fit seasons, he doth not therin condemn them for observing all fit seasons (for then wee must not pray nor heare the word in fit seasons) but hee con­demnes the Iewish Ceremoniall times and seasons; so when he condemnes the observation of dayes, the Apostle doth not condemne the observation of all dayes (for then dayes of fasting and feasting must be condemned, as well as dayes of resting, under the new Testament) but the observation of Ceremoniall dayes, which the Iewes obser­ved, and false teachers urged: and indeed the Apostle speaks of such dayes as were beggerly elements and ru­diments: [Page 61] now Iames speaking of the morall law, which comprehends Sabbath dayes, hee doth not call it a beg­gerly law, but a roiall law, Iam. 2.8.12. nor doth hee make subjection thereunto, to be the bondage of servants (as that was, Gal. 4.9.) but the liberty of children, and therefore cal­led a royall law of liberty.

Secondly, Suppose the weekly Sabbath bee here compre­hended under dayes, as also that by Sabbaths is meant weekly Sabbaths, Col. 2.16. yet hereby cannot be meant the Christian Sabbath, but the Iewish Sabbath: for the A­postle condemnes that Sabbath and those Sabbath dayes, which the Iewish teachers pleaded for, among the Colos­sians; now they never pleaded for the observation of the Christian Sabbath, but were zealous and strong pro­cters for that particular seventh day from the creation, which the Iewes their fore-fathers for many yeares before observed, and for the observation of which, some among us of late begin to struggle at this day: Now, as was said, admit the gradation; we doe not observe the Iewish Sab­bath, nor judge others in respect of that Sabbath, no more than for observing new moones, or holy dayes, we do ut­terly condemne the observation of that Sabbath: If it bee said, why, doe we not observe new moones and holy dayes as well, by substituting other dayes in their roome, as we doe a Christian Sabbath in the room of that Iewish Sab­bath? wee shall give the reason of it in its proper place, which I mention not here, lest I should bis coctam apponere. These places therefore are strong arguments for not obser­ving that seventh day which was Iewish and ceremoniall, but they give no sufficient ground for abandoning all Chri­stian Sabbaths under the Gospel.

Thirdly, there is a double observation of dayes (as Wallaeus and Davenant well observe) 1. Morall. 2. Cere­moniall.Daven in Col. 3. Wall. in 4. praec. Now the Apostle in the places alledged, speakes against the Ceremoniall and Pharisaicall observation of dayes, but not morall: For dayes of fasting are to be observed under the Gospel (the Lord Christ our Bride­groom being now taken from us, when our Saviour ex­pressely tels us that then his Disciples, even when they had the greatest measures of Iohn 16. [...]. Christs spirituall presence, should fast, Matth. 9.15, 16.) But wee are to observe these dayes, with morall, not ceremoniall observation, such as the Iewes had, in sackcloth, ashes, tearing haire, rending Garments, and many other Ceremoniall trappings; we [Page 62] are to rend our hearts, and cry mightily unto God upon those dayes, which is the morall observance of them: So 'tis in respect of the Sabbath, no Sabbath day under the Gospel is to bee observed with ceremoniall or phari­sa [...]call observation, with Jewish preparations, Sacrifices, needlesse abstinence from lawfull worke, and such like for­malities; but doth it hence follow that no dayes are to bee observed under the Gospel with morall observation, in hea­ring the Word, receiving the Sacraments, singing of Psalms? &c. There was no morality in the new moons, by vertue of any speciall commandment, and therefore it is in vaine to aske, why new moons may not be observed still, as well as Sabbaths? provided that it be observatione morali, for there is a morality in observing the Sabbath, and that by a speci­all command, which is not in new moons and holy dayes; and therefore as we utterly abandon all that which was in the Sabbath ceremoniall, so we doe and should heartily re­taine and observe that which is morall herein, with morall observance hereof.

Thesis 75.

75 There were among the Jews, dayes ceremonially holy, as well as meats ceremonially uncleane, now in that other place which they urge against the observation of any dayes under the Gospel, Rom. 14.5. therein dayes ceremoniall are compared with meats ceremoniall, and not morall days with ceremoniall meats. It is therefore readily acknowledged that it was an errour and weaknesse in some, to think them­selves bound to certaine ceremoniall dayes, as well as it was to abstain from certain ceremoniall meats; but will i [...] hence follow that it is a part of Christian liberty & strength to abandon all dayes as ceremoniall? and that it is a part of Christian weaknes to observe any day under the Gospel? this verily hath not the face of any reason for it from this Scripture, wherein the Apostle (doubtlesse) speaks of cere­moniall, not morall dayes, as (shall appear) our Christi­an Sabbaths be: And look as it is duty (not weaknesse) sometime to abstaine from some meats, as in the case of ex­traordinary humiliation, as wee see in Daniel, Dan 9. and 11. so it may be duty (not weaknesse) still to observe some dayes; I say not the seventh day, for that is not now the question, but some dayes are or may be necessary to bee ob­served now.

Thesis 76.

76 If any man shall put any holinesse in a day which God [Page 63] doth not, and so think one day more holy than another, this is most abominable superstition, and this is indeed to observe dayes; and of this the Apostle seems to speak, when he saith, Ye observe dayes: But when the Lord shall put holines upon one day more then upon another, we do not then put any ho­lines in the day, but God doth it, nor doe we place any holi­nes in one day more then in another, but God placeth it first, and this is no observation of dayes, which the Apostle condemns in those that were weak; but of the will of God which he every where commands.

Thesis 77.

There is (as some call it) Sabbathum internum & externum,77 i. an internall and externall Sabbath; the first (if I may lawfully call it a Sabbath) is to be kept every day in a spe­ciall rest from sin; the second is to bee observed at certaine times and on speciall days; now if that other place, Isa. 66.23. (which is much urged for the equality of all days) be meant of a continuall Sabbath, so that those words, from Sab­bath to Sabbath, if they signifie a constant continuall worship of God indefinently, then the Prophet speaks of an internall Sabbath, which shall in speciall be observed under the Gospel; but this doth not abolish the observation of an externall Sabbath also, no more then in the times before the Gospel, when the people of God were bound to observe a continuall Sabbath and rest from sin, and yet were not exempted here­by from externall Sabbaths, onely because more grace is pou­red out upon the people of God under the new Testament then under the old, and under some times and seasons of the new Testament, and some people, more then at and upon others: hence this prophesie points at the times of the Go­spell, wherein Gods people shall worship God more spiritu­ally and continually then in former times: But if by this phrase From Sabbath to Sabbath, be meant, succession, i. one Sabbath after another successively, wherein Gods people shall enjoy blessed fellowship with God from Sabbath to Sabbath, successively in the worship of him, one Sabbath after ano­ther; then this place is such a weapon in their owne hands against themselves, as that it wounds to the heart that ac­cursed conceit, that all dayes should be abandoned by those under the new Testament: But suppose that by Sabbath, is not meant the weekly Sabbath (for then, say some, what will you understand by new moons which are conjoyned with them?) yet these two things are evident, 1. That Sab­baths and new moons were set times of worshipping God [Page 64] under the old Testament. 2. That it is usuall with the Prophets to vaile, (and not alway to type out) the worship, and so the times of worship which were to be under the new Testament, under the Ordinances of God observed in the old, as may appeare Isa. 19.19. Mal. 1.11. as also by Ezeki­els Temple, and such like: hence then it followes, that al­though this place should not evict a seventh dayes Sabbath, yet it demonstrates at least thus much, that some let times and dayes shadowed out under the name of new moons and Sabbaths, are to be observed under the new Testament, and this is sufficient to prove the point in hand, That all daies are not equall under the Gospell.

Thesis 78.

78 The Kindome of heaven indeed doth not consist in meat and drink, as the Apostle saith, Rom. 14.17. i. in the use of externall indifferent things, as those meats and drinks, and some kind of dayes were, or if in some sense it did, yet not chiefely in them, as if almost all religion did chiefely consist in them: but doth it from hence follow, that it consists not in things commanded, nor in any set dayes of worship which are commanded? If because the kingdom of God con­sists in internall peace and righteousnesse, and joy of the holy Ghost, that therefore all externall observances of times and duties of worship are not necessary to be attended by Gospel-worshippers (as some secretly imagine) then farewel all externall Preaching, Sacraments, Profession and Confes­sion of the Name of Christ, as well as Sabbaths: and let such artists of licentiousnesse bring in all prophanesse into the world again, by a law from heaven, not condemning the acts of the outward man, though never so abominable, in abstinence from which (by this rule) the kingdome of hea­ven doth not consist. Is it no honour to the King of glory (as it is to earthly Princes) to be served sometimes upon speciall Festivals, in speciall state, with speciall and glorious atten­dance by his people, as well as after a common and usuall manner every day? We have seen some who have at first held community of dayes onely, to fall at last (through the righteous judgment of God blinding their hearts) to main­taine community of wives; and that because the king­dome of God hath (as they have thought) consisted no more in outward relations (as that is between Husbands and Wives) than in the observation of externall circumstances and dayes.

Thesis 79.

79 But this is not the ordinary principle by which many are [Page 65] led to maintaine an equality of dayes under the Gospel: but this chiefely, viz. that the morall law is not to bee a Christians rule of life; for we aknowledge it to be no Cove­nant of life to a Beleever, that either by the keeping of it he should be justified, or that for the breach of it he should be condemned; but they say that when a Believer hath life by the Covenant of grace, the law is now not so much as a rule of life to such a one; and then 'tis no wonder if they who blow out the light of the whole morall law from being a light to their feet and a lamp to their paths, if they here­by utterly extinguish this part of it, viz. the Command­ment of the Sabbath: This dashing against the whole law, is the very mystery of this iniquity, why some doe cashier this law of the Sabbath: and they doe but hide themselves behinde a thread, when they oppose it by their weapons, who therefore abandon it, because it alone is ceremoniall, above any other law.

Thesis 80.

The Sabbath (saith one) is perpetuall and morall, but not the 80 Sabbath day, H. Den. the Sabbath (which some make continuall and inward onely) is perpetually to be observed, but not the Sab­bath day; a Sabbath is by Divine ordination, but a Sabbath day is to be observed onely as a humane constitution. But they should doe well to consider, whether that which they call an inward continuall Sabbath be inconsistent with a speciall day; for I am sure that they under the old Testament were bound equally with us to observe a continuall Sab­bath in resting from all sinne, and resting in God by Iesus Christ, Heb. 4.1, 2. yet this did not exempt them from observing a speciall day: A speciall day is a most powerfull meanes to Sabbatize every day; Why then may not a Sabbath and a Sabbath day consist together? An eve­ry day Sabbath is equally opposite to a time occasionally set, as to a set day, which the Commandment enjoyns; and therefore if it exempts a Christian from observing a set day, it sets him free also from all observation of any such set time; for if because a Christian Sabbath ought to bee continuall, and that therefore there ought to bee no set dayes, then there should not bee any occasionally set times for the worship of God, because these neither can be continuall; and if there ought to be no such set times, we may then bid good night to all the publick worship and glo­ry of God in the world, like the men with one eye to him who put his other eye quite out: And if any here reply [Page 66] that there is not the like reason, because holy time and days are not necessary, but holy duties are necessary, and there­fore require some occasionall set time for them: I answer, That let the difference be granted, yet that which I now dis­pute on is, this ground and supposition onely, viz. That if all set dayes are to bee abandoned, because a Christi­ans Sabbath ought to bee continuall and inward, then all occasionall set times also are to bee abandoned up­on the same ground, because these cannot bee con­tinuall and inward no more than the other: as for them who think no holy day necessary, but holy duties lawfull e­very day, we have already and shall hereafter cleare up more fully in its proper place: Mean while it is yet doubt­full to me, whether those who follow Master Saltmarsh and some others,Saltmarsh Sparkles of glory. p 265. will acknowledge the lawfulnesse of any occa­sionall set times for publick worship, of hearing the word and prayer, &c. For he makes the bosome of the Father to bee the Christian Sabbath, typified in the seventh day of the first Creation, and he makes the six dayes of worke to be a type, not onely of the Lord Iesus in his active and fulfilling administrati­ons while he was in the flesh, but also to be a figure of the Chri­stian in bondage, or (to use his own words) of a Christian un­der active and working administrations, as those of the law and Gospel are, as all formes of worship, Duties, Graces, Pray­er, Ordinances, &c. From whence it will follow (from his principles, for I know not his practice) that all formes of worship, Duties, Graces, Prayer, Ordinances, are then to cease, as types and shadowes and figures, when once the sub­stance is come, to wit, when they come in this life to the highest attainment, which is the bosome of the Father, which bosome is the true Sabbath of a Christian man. Now I con­fesse that the bosome of God in Christ is our rest, and our All in All in heaven, and our sweet consolation and rest on earth, and that we are not to rest in any meanes, Ordinan­ces, Graces, Duties, but to look beyond them all, and to be carried by them above them all, to him that is better than all, to God in Christ Jesus; but to make this bosome of God a kinde of canker-worme to fret and eat out the heart and being not only of all Sabbaths and Ordinances of worship, but also of all duties and graces of Gods Spirit, nay of Christ Jesus himself, as he is manifested in the flesh, and is an externall Mediator, whom I. S. some lately have also cast into same box with the rest, Being sent onely (as they think) to reveale, but not to procure the Fathers love of delight, and there­fore [Page 67] is little else than a meere forme, and so to cease when the Father comes in the room of all formes, and so is All in All, This I dare say is such a high affront to the precious bloud of Christ, and his glorious Name and blessed Spirit of grace, that he who hath his Furnace in Zion, and his fire in Ierusalem, will not beare it long, without making their judgements and plagues (at least spirituall) exemplary and wonderfull, and leading them forth in such crooked wayes, with the workers of iniquity, when peace shall be upon Is­rael: Are these abstracted notions of a Deity (into the vi­sion and contemplation of whose amazing glory (without seeing him as he is in Christ) a Christian (they say) must be plunged, lost, and swallowed up, and up to which hee must ascend, even to the unaproachable light) the true and onely Sabbath? Are these (I say) the new and glorious light breaking out in these dayes, which this age must wait for? which are nothing else (upon narrow search) than Monkish imaginations, the goodly cob-webs of the brain-imagery of those idolatrous and superstitious hypo­crites the Anchorites, Monks and Fryers; who to make the blinde and simple world admire and gaze upon them, gave it out hereby, like Simon Magus, that they were some great ones, even the very power and familiars of God. Surely in these times of distraction, warre and bloud, if ever the Lord called for sackcloth, humiliation, repen­tance, faith, graces, holinesse, precious esteem of Gods Ordinances, and of that Gospel which hath been the pow­er of God to the salvation of thousands, now is the time; and must Gods people reject these things as their A. B. C? and must the new light of these times be the dreames and visions and slaverings of doting and deluded old Monks? Shall the simplicity of Gospel-ministery bee rejected, as a com­mon thing, and shall Harphius his Theologia Mystica, Au­gustinus Elutherius, Iacob Behmen, Cusanus, Raimundus Se­bund, Theologia Germanica, and such like Monk-admirers, be set up as the new lights and beacons on the mountaine of these elevated times? Surely (if so) God hath his time and wayes of putting a better relish to his precious Gospel, and the crosse of Christ, which was wont in Pauls time to be plainly preached, without such popish paintings, and wherein Gods people knew how to reconcile their swe [...] rest in the bosome of the Father, and their Sabbath day.

Thesis 81.

If sinne (which is the transgression of the law) bee the [Page 68] greatest evill, then holines (which is our conformity to the law) is our greatest good. If sin be mans greatest misery, then holinesse is mans greatest happinesse: It is therefore no bondage for a Christian to be bound to the observance of the law as his rule, because it onely binds him fast to his greatest happinesse, and thereby directs and keeps him- safe from falling into the greatest misery and woe: and if the great designe of Christ in comming into the world, was not so much as to save man from affliction and sorrow (which are lesser evils) but chiefely from sinne (which is the greatest evill) then the chiefe end of his comming was not (as some imagine) to lift his people up into the love and abstracted speculation of the Father above the law of God: but into his owne bosome onely, where only wee have fellowship with the Father above the Law of sinne.

Thesis 82.

82 The bloud of Christ was never shed to destroy all sense of sin and sight of sinne in Beleevers, and consequently all attendance to any rule of the law, by which means chiefely sinne comes to be seen: but he dyed rather to make them sensible of sinne, for if he dyed to save men from sin (as is evident, 1 Iohn 3.5. Tit. 3.14.) then hee dyed to make his people sensible of sinne, because hereby his peoples hearts are chiefely weaned and sever'd from it and saved out of it (as by hardnesse and unsensiblenesse of heart under it, they chiefely cleave to it and it to them) and therefore we know that godly sorrow workes repentance, never to be re­pented of, 2 Cor. 7.10. And that Pharaoh's hardnesse of heart strengthened him in his sin against God unto the last gasp, and hence it is also that the deepest and greatest spirit of mourning for sin is poured out upon Beleevers, after God hath poured out upon them the spirit of grace, as is evident, Zach. 12.10, 11. because the bloud of Christ which was shed for the killing of their sinne, now makes them sensible of their sinne, because it's now sprinkled and applyed to them, which it was not before, for they now see all their sins aggravated, being now not onely sinnes against the law of God, but against the bloud and love of the Son of God: It is therefore a most accursed doctrine of some Libertines, who imagining that (through the bloudshed and righteousnes of Christ in their free justifica­tion) God sees no sinne in his justified people, that there­fore [Page 69] themselves are to see no sinne, because now they are justified and washed with Christs bloud; and therefore lest they should be found out to bee grosse liars, they mince the matte [...], they confesse that they may see sinne by the eye of sense and reason, but (faith being crosse to reason) they are therefore to see the quite contrary, and so to see no sinne in themselves by the eye of faith; from whence it fol­lowes that Christ shed his bloud to destroy all sight and sense of sin to the eye of faith, though not to the eye of rea­son, and thus as by the eye of faith they should see no sin, so (it will follow) that by the same bloud they are bound to see no law, no not so much as their rule, which as a rule is index sui & obliqui, and in revealing mans duty declares his sinne. I know that in beholding our free justification by the bloud of Christ, we are to exclude all law from our consciences as a covenant of life, not to see or feare any con­demnation for sinne, or any sinne able to take away life: But will it hence follow that a justified person must see no sinne by the eye of faith, nor any law as his rule to walke by, to discover sinne? and is this the end and fruit of Christs death too? Surely this doctrine, if it be not blasphemous, yet it may be knowne to be very false and pernicious, by the old rule of judging false Doctrines, viz. if either they tend to extenuate sinne in man, or to vilifie the precious grace of Jesus Christ, as this Doctrine doth.

Thesis 83.

If sinne be the transgression of the law (which is a truth written by the Apostle with the beams of the Sunne, 1 Iohn 83 3.4.) then of necessity a Beleever is bound to attend the law as his rule, that so he may not sinne or transgresse that rule, Psalme 119.11. for whoever makes conscience of sinne, cannot but make conscience of observing the rule, that so he may not sinne, and consequently whoever make no conscience of observing the rule doe openly professe thereby that they make no conscience of committing any sinne, which is palpable and downe-right Atheisme and prophanesse; nay it is such prophanesse (by some mens principles) which Christ hath purchased for them by his bloud; for they make the death of Christ the founda­tion of this liberty and freedome from the law as their rule; the very thought of which abominable doctrine may smite a heart, who hath the least tendernesse, with hor­rour and trembling. Porquius therefore a great Libertine, [Page 70] and the Beelzebub of those flies in Calvins time, shuts his sore eyes against this definition of sinne,Calv. adv. Liber [...]. delivered by the Apostle, and makes this onely to be a sinne, viz. to see, know, or feele sinne, and that the great sinne of man is to thinke that he doth sinne, and that this is to put off the old man, viz. Non cernendo amplius peccatum, i. by not see­ing sinne. So that when the Apostle tels us that sinne is the trangression of the law, Porquius tels us, That sinne is the seeing and taking notice of any such transgression; surely if they that confesse sinne shall finde mercy, then they that will not so much as see sinne shall finde none at all: A Be­leever indeed is to dye unto the Law, and to see no sinne in himselfe in point of imputation (for so he sees the truth, there being no condemnation to them in Christ Jesus) but thus to dye unto the law, so as to see no sinne inherent in himselfe, against the law, this is impious (for so to see no sinne and die unto the law is an untruth, if the Apostle may be believed, 1 Iohn 1.10.) Those that so annihilate a Christi­an, and make him nothing and God all, so that a Christi­an must neither scire, velle or sentire any thing of himselfe, but he must be melted into God, and dye to these (for then they say he is out of the flesh) and live in God, and God must bee himselfe, and such like language, which in truth is nothing else but the swelling leaven of the devout and proud Monks, laid up of late in that little peck of meale of Theologia Ger­manica, out of which some risen up of late have made their cakes, for the ordinary food of their deluded hearers: I say these men had need take heed how they stand upon this precipice, and that they deliver their judgements wa­rlly, for although a Christian is to bee nothing by seeing and loathing himselfe for sinne, that so Christ may bee all in all to him; yet so to bee made nothing, as to see, know, thinke, feele, will, desire nothing in respect of ones selfe, doth inevitably lead to see no sinne in ones selfe, by seeing which the soule is most of all humbled, and so God and Jesus Christ is most of all exalted; and yet such a kind of annihilation the old Monks have pleaded for, and preach­ed also (as I could shew abundantly from out of their own writings) insomuch that sometime they counsell men not to pray, because they must be so farre annihilated, as ni­hil velle; and sometimes they would feigne themselves un­able to beare the burthen of the species of their own pitch­ers in their cels from one end of them unto another, because forsooth they were so farre annihilated (as neither to vel [...] [Page 71] so neither to scire or know any thing beside God, whom they pretended to be all unto them,Vid. Taule [...]i vit [...]. and themselves nothing, when God knowes these things were but braine bubbles, and themselves in these things as arrand hypocrites as the earth bore, and the most subtle underminers of the grace of Christ, and the salvation of mens soules.

Thesis 84.

A true Beleever, though he cannot keep the law perfectly,84 as his rule, yet he loves it dearely, he blames his owne heart when he cannot keep it, but doth not find fau [...]l with the law as too hard, but cries out with Paul, The law is holy and good, but I am carnall: hee loves this Coppy though hee can but scribble after it; when therefore the question is made, viz. Whether a Beleever be bound to the law as his rule? the meaning is not whether he hath pow­er to keep it exactly as his rule, or by what meanes hee is to seek power to keep it; but the question is, whether it bee in its self a Beleevers rule; for to be a rule is one thing, but to be able to keep it, and by what meanes we should keep it, whether by our own strength or no, or by power from on high, is another.

Thesis 85.

If the Apowle had thought that all Beleevers were free 85 from this directive power of the law, he would never have perswaded them to love, upon this ground, viz. because all the law is fulfilled in love, Gal. 5.13, 14. for they might then have c [...]st off this argument as weak and feeble, and have truely said (if this principle were true) what have wee to with the law?

Thesis 86.

There is the inward law written on the heart, called the 86 law of the Spirit of life, Rom. 8.2. and there is the outward law revealed and written in the holy Scriptures, now the externall and outward law is properly the rule of a Chri­stian life, and not the internall and inward law (as some conceive) for to outward law is perfect, in that it perfe­ctly declares what is Gods will and what not; but the in­ward Law (as received and writ in our hearts) is im­perfect in this life, and therefore unfit to bee our rule: The inward law is our actuall (yet imperfect) conformi­ty to the rule of the law without, it is not therfore the rule it selfe: The law within is the thing to bee ruled, Psal. 17.4. Psalme 119.4.5. The outward law therefore is the rule: The law of the Spirit of life (which is the internall law) [Page 72] is called a law, not in respect of perfect direction (which is essentiall to the rule) but in respect of mighty and ef­fectuall operation, there being a power in it as of a strong law effectually and sweetly compelling to the obedience of the law: For as the law of sinne within us (which the A­postle calls, the law of our members, and is contrary to the law of our mindes, or the law of the spirit of life within us) is not the rule of knowing and judging what sinne is, but the law of God without, Romans 7.7. and yet it is cal­led a law, because it hath a compulsive power to act and encline to sin, like a mighty and forcible law; so the law of the spirit of life, the law of our mindes, is called a law, not that it is the rule of a Christians life, but that it compels the heart, and forceth it like a living law to the obedience of that directing rule (when it [...]s made known to it) from without: It is therefore a great mistake to thinke, that because God translates the law without into a Beleevers heart, that therefore this heart-law is his only or principall rule of life, or to imagine that the spirit without the externall law is the rule of life; the spirit is the principle indeed of our obedience, whereby we con­forme unto the rule, but it is not therefore the rule it selfe. It is true indeed, 1. That the spirit inclines the heart to the obedience of the rule; 2. It illuminates the minde also many times to see it by secret shinings of preventing light, as well as brings things to their re­membrance, which they knew before: 3. It acts them al­so sometime, so as that when they know not what to pray, it prompts them, Romans 8.26. When they know not what to speake before their Adversaries, in that day it's given to them, Matth. 10.19. When they know not whither to goe nor how to goe, it's then a voice behinde them, and leads them to fountaines of living waters, Isaiah 30.21. Revel. 7.17. But all these and such like quickning acts of the spirit, doe not argue it to be our rule, according to which wee ought to walke, but only by which or by meanes of which we come to walke, and are enclined, di­rected and inabled to walke according to the rule, which is the law of God without. For the Pilot of the ship is not the compasse of the ship, because that by the Pilot the ship is guided: nor doth it argue that the Spirit is our rule, be­cause he guides us according to the rule: It is not essentiall to the rule to give power to conforme unto it, but to be that according to which we are to be conformed: And therefore [Page 73] it's a crazy argument to prove the law of the Spirit to be the rule of our life, because it chiefly gives us power to conforme unto the rule; for if the law be that according to which are to bee guided, although it should give us no pow­er, yet this is sufficient to make it to be our rule.

Thesis 87.

The Spirit of God which writ the Scriptures, and in them 87 this rule of the holy law, is in the Scriptures and in that law, as well as in a Beleevers heart; and therefore to for­sake and reject the Scriptures or this written rule, is to forsake and reject the holy Spirit speaking in it as their rule; nay, 'tis to forsake that Spirit which is the supreme Judge, according to which all private spirits, nay all the act­ings, dictates, movings, speakings of Gods owne Spirit in us, are to be tried, examined and judged. To the law and the testimony, was the voice of the Prophets in their dayes, Isa. 8.20. The Lord Christ himselfe referres the Jewes to the searching of Scriptures concerning himself, Iohn 5.39. The men of Bereah are commended for examining the holy and infallible dictates of Gods Spirit, in Pauls Ministery, according to what was written in the Scriptures of old. It is therefore but a cracking noise of windy words for any to say that they open no gap to licentiousnesse by renoun­cing the written and externall law as their rule, conside­ring that they cleave to a more inward and better rule, viz. The law of the spirit within: for (as hath beene shewne) they doe indeed renounce the holy Spirit spea­king in the rule, viz. the law without, which though it be no rule of the Spirit (as some object) yet it is that rule according to which the Spirit guides us to walke, and by which we are to judge whether the guidance bee the spirits guidance or no.

Thesis 88.

Some say, That the difference between the old Testament dis­pensation 88 and the new, Saltmarsh Sparkles p. 243. or pure Gospel and new Covenant, is this, to wit, That the one, or that of Moses was a Mi­nistery from without, and that of Christ from within: and hence they say that the meer Commandments or letter of Scrip­ture, is not a law to a Christian why he should walke in holy duties, but the law written on our hearts, the law of life. But if this bee the difference between the old and new Testament dispensation, the ministery of the old, and the ministery of the new, then let all Beleevers burn their Bibles, and cast all the sacred writings of the new Testament & old, [Page 74] unto spiders and cobwebs in old holes and corners, and ne­ver be read, spoken or meditated on, for these externall things are none of Christs Ministery, on which now Be­leevers are to attend: and then I marvaile why the Apostles preached, or why they writ the Gospel for after times (for that was the chiefe end of their writing, as it was of the Prophets in their times, Isaiah 30.8.) that men might be­leeve, and beleeving have eternall life, and know here­by that they have eternall life, Iohn 20.31. 1 Iohn 5.13. For either their writing and preaching the Gospell was not an externall and outward Ministry (which is crosse to com­mon sense) or it was not Christs Ministery, which is blasphe­mous to imagine: and it is a vain shift for any to say, That al­though it was Christs Ministery, yet it was his Ministery as under the Law and in the flesh, and not in meere glory and spirit: for its evident that the Apostles preachings and writings, were the effect of Christs ascension and glo­ry, Ephes. 4.8.11. when hee was most in the spirit, and had received the spirit that hee might poure it out by this outward Ministery, Acts 2.33. and it is a meer New-nothing and dream of Master Saltmarsh and and others, to distin­guish between Christ in the flesh and Christ in the Spirit, as if the one Christ had a divers Ministery from the other: For when the Comforter is come (which is Christ in the Spirit) what will he doe? he will lead (its said) unto all truth, Iohn 16.13 But what truth will he guide us into? Verily no o­ther (for substance) but what Christ in the flesh had spo­ken, and therefore it's said, that he shall bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you, John 14.26. and therefore (if I may use their phrase) Christ in the Spirit leads us to what Christ in the flesh said; inward Christ leads the faithfull to the outward Ministery of Christ; Christ in the Spirit to Christ speaking in the letter, the Spirit of truth to the Word of truth, the Spirit within to the Word without, by which we shall be judged at the last day, Iohn 12.48. and therefore certainly are to be regulated by it now.

Thesis 89.

It is true, that the faithfull receive an unction or an a­noin [...]ing 89 of the Spirit, which teacheth them all things; but is this teaching immediate or mediate? If immediate, why doth Iohn tell them that he writ to them that hereby they might know they had eternall life, 1 Iohn 5.13. but if it be mediate, viz. by the word externally preacht or writ, then [Page 75] the externall word still is to be our rule, which the anoin­ting of the Spirit helps us to know: It is true, the Apostle saith, 1 Iohn 2.27. that they being taught of the Spirit, did not need that any man should teach them; what then? was their teaching therefore immediate? No verily, for the Apostle explaines his meaning in the words following, viz. otherwise, and after another way and manner, then as the Spirit taught them, for so the words runne, You need not that any man should teach you, but as the anointing teach­eth you all things, and is truth. For if Ministers are to preach and write in demonstration of the Spirit, then those that heare them and are taught by them, need no man to teach them otherwise, than as the same Spirit in the same de­monstration teacheth them all things: It might bee truely said that the men of Bereah did need no man to teach them otherwise than as the Spirit in comparing and searching the Scriptures did teach them the things which Paul spake. And Calvin well observes upon this place, that the scope of the A­postle in these words, is to confirme his Doctrine which he writ to them, it being no unknowne thing, but a thing known to them by the anointing of the Spirit, which either they had received by former Ministery of the word, or which now they might receive by this writing: As therefore the Spirit leads us to the Word, so the word leads us to the Spirit, but never to a spirit without and beyond the word, I meane so farre forth as that the outward administration of Christ in the flesh or in the word or letter must cease, and be laid aside, when the inward administration of Christ in the Spirit comes.

Thesis 90.

It's as weak an argument to imagine, That wee are not 90 to be led and guided by any outward commands, in our obedience unto God (because God is to worke all our workes for us, and because we are not to live, but Christ is to live in us) as to thinke that we are not to look to any promises with­out us to direct and support our faith, because Christ is also to fulfill and accomplish all the promises for us: For if the question be, by what are we to live? The Apostles answer is full, Gal. 2.19, 20. that as hee did not live but by the faith of the Son of God, so are we: But if the question be, According to what rule are we to live, and wherein are wee to live? The answer is given by David Psalme 119.4, 5. Thou hast commanded us to keep thy precepts dili­gently, Oh that my heart were directed to keep thy Statutes. [Page 76] Deal bountifully with thy servant that I may live and keep thy word, ver. 17. Let thy mercy come to me that I may live, for thy law is my delight, vers. 27. So that if the question be, What is the rule of faith by which we live? The answer is, the Gospel, Phil. 3.16. But if the question be, What is the rule of life it self? The answer is, the morall law; and of this later is the controversie.

Thesis 91.

91 The commanding will of God, called Voluntas mandati, is to be our rule, and not the working will of God, Vo­luntas decreti, or the will of Gods decree: for we can­not sinne by fulfilling the one, but wee may sin in fulfilling the other. Gods secret and working will was fulfilled when Iosephs brethren sold him into Egypt, and when Nebuchad­nezzar afflicted Gods people seventy yeares, as also when the Scribes and Pharisees caused Christ to bee cru­cified: yet in all these thing [...] they sinned and provo­ked Gods wrath against them; How? Was it in crossing and thwarting Gods working will or the will of Gods De­cree? No verily, for it's expressely said, that Christ was crucified according to the determinate counsell and will of God, Acts 4.28. It was therefore by crossing Gods commanding will. It is therefore a hellish device of Li­bertines to exempt men from all Law, and from the sense of all sinne: Because (say they) all things good and evill come from Gods will, and all things that are done are wrought by him, and all that he doth is good, and therefore all sinfull actions are good, because God workes them; for what have we to doe to take the measure of our wayes by his working will? Gods will is his owne rule to work with, not our rule to worke by: Our actions may bee most sinfull when his working in and about these may bee most just and holy, for though God purposeth to leave the creature to fall and sin, yet he so purposed it, as that it should be onely through their owne fault that so they sinne: And although a Chri­stian is to submit humbly to the just dispensations of God when he leaves it to any evill, yet Gods working will in all such dispensations must not be our rule, for then wee must will not onely our owne sinne, but our owne affliction and perdition for ever, for all these are contained under his working will: It is therefore a most subtle and pernicious practice in many, who when they are overtaken with any sin, or hampered with sinne, they wash all off from themselves, and lay all the blame (if any be) upon God himself, saying, [Page 77] The Lord left mee and he doth not helpe mee, and he must doe all, and hath undertaken to doe all, if therefore I sin, upon him be the blame, or if there be any upon them it is but little: But why should any judge of the evill of their sinne by Gods working will, for that is not your rule, but the com­manding will of God, according to which Samuel convinced Saul (when he was left of God to spare Agag) that his dis­obedience against the commandment was rebellion, and as the sinne of Witchcraft in the eyes of God, 1 Samuel 15.23.

Thesis 92.

It is a great part of Christs love to command us to doe 92 any thing for him, as well as to promise to doe any thing for us: When the King of glory hath given us our lives by promise, its then the next part of his speciall grace and favour to command us to stand before him and at­tend upon his greatnesse continually. They that see how justly they deserve to bee forsaken of God and given over to their owne hearts lusts, and to be for ever sinning and blaspheming God in hell, where God will never com­mand them to think of him, speak of him, doe for him, pray to him more, cannot but account it a high and spe­ciall favour of Jesus Christ to command them any thing, or bid them doe any thing for him; a poore humbled prodigall will account it great love to bee made a hired servant; Iohn Baptist will count it a high favour if he may but un­tie Christs shoe-latchet, and bee commanded by him to doe the meanest worke for him: David wondred at Gods grace toward him, that God should command him, and in some measure enable him to offer willingly, Lord, (saith he) what are wee? I doe therefore marvaile how any can pretend that they are acted by the love of Christ, and not by the law of commands, considering that there is so much love in this for Christ to command, and how they can professe their relish of preaching Gods free grace and love, and yet cannot away with sweet and gracious ex­hortations pressing to holinesse and holy duties, in the re­vealing and urging of which there is so much free-grace and heart-love of Christ Jesus; surely if the love of Christ is to lead us, then the commands of Christ (where­in hee discovers one chiefe part of his love) are to guide us and be a rule of life unto us, The man who in his cool and deliberate thoughts imagines that a Christian under the rule of the law, is a Christian under bondage, may be [Page 78] justly feared that himself is still under the bondage of sin and Satan, and never yet knew what the true love of Christ Iesus is to this day.

Thesis 93.

93 The fundamentall errour of Antinomians ariseth from this, in imagining the great difference between the law and Gospell to be this, viz. That the law requires doing, but the Gospel no doing, and that all beleevers being under the Gospell are therefore under no law of doing: but wee must know that as the Gospell exacts no doing that there­by we may be just, so it requires doing also when by Christ Iesus we are made just: For if the Gospell command us to be holy as God is holy, 1 Pet. 1.15. and perfect as our hea­venly Father is perfect, Matth. 5.48. then the Gospel doth not onely require doing, but also as much perfection of doing as the Law doth; the Law and the Gospell require the same perfection of holinesse, onely here is the diffe­rence (which many have not observed) the Gospel doth not urge this perfection nor require it of us as the Law doth; for the law calling and urging of it that so hereby we may be made just, it therefore accepts of nothing but perfection, but the Gospell requiring it because wee are perfectly just already in Christ, hence though it commands as much as the Law, yet it accepts of lesse, even the least measure of sin­cerity and perfection mixed with the greatest measure of im­perfection.

Thesis 94.

94 The Law (say some of the Antinomians) is to bee kept as an eternall rule of righteousnesse, but their meaning then is, That beleevers are thus to keep it in Christ who hath kept it for them, and if they meant no more but that Christ hath kept it for righteousnesse to their justification, they speak truely: but their meaning herein is not only in respect of their justification, but also in respect of their sanctification, for they make Christs righteousnesse to bee materially and formally their sanctification: hence they say, A beleever hath repented in Christ, and mortified sinne in Christ, and that mortification and vivification is nothing but a beleeving that Christ hath mortified sinne for them, and beene quickned for them, and that That sanctification which is inhe­rent in Christ, and not that which is inherent in us, is an evi­dence of our justification. But this principle which confounds a Christians justification, and sanctification, as it casts the seed of denying all inherent graces in a Beleever, so it [Page 79] layes the basis of refusing to doe any duty, or conforme to any law in our owne persons: for if this principle bee true (which no Orthodox writer doubts of) viz. That we are to seek for no righteousnesse in our selves to our justificati­on, because wee are perfectly just and made righteous for that end in Christ, then it will undenyably follow that wee are not to seek for any holinesse and sanctification in our selves, because we are perfectly sanctified also in Christ Ie­sus, who hath repented, and beleeved, and mortified sinne perfectly for us in his owne person; Look therefore as the perfection of Christs righteousnesse to our justification, should make a Christian abhorre any personall righteous­nesse of his owne to his justification, so if wee bee perfectly sanctified in Christ, then perfection of Christs holinesse to our sanctification should make a beleever not onely re­nounce the Law, but to abhor all personall holines through the Spirit to our sanctification, and then a Beleever must ab­hor to seek any love or feare of God in his heart, which is not painted but professed prophanesse, and the inlet not per accidens but per se, to all manner of loosenesse and wicked­nesse in the world.

Thesis 95.

Wee deny not but that Christ is our sanctification as 95 well as our righteousnesse, 1 Cor. 1.30. but how? not ma­terially and formally, but virtually and meritoriously, and (with meet explications) exemplarily: our righteousnesse to our justification is inherent in him, but our sanctification is inherent in our selves, yet it is derived from him, and therefore it is virtually and meritoriously onely in him: and hence it is that wee are never commanded to justifie our selves, unlesse it be instrumentally and sacramentally, when as we are commanded by faith to wash our selves, Isa. 1.16. and as Paul at his baptisme was commanded to wash away his sinnes, Acts 22.16. but wee are frequently and abundantly exhorted to repent, beleeve, mortifie our affecti­ions upon earth, to walke in newnesse of life, to be holy in all manner of conversation, &c. because these things are wrought by Christ in us to our sanctification, and not wrought in Christ for us as our righteousnesse to our justi­fication.

Thesis 96.

They that are in Christ are said to be compleat in Christ,96 Col. 2.10. and that they receive all grace from his ful­nesse, Iob. 1.16. so that is seemes that there is no grace in [Page 80] themselves, but it is first in him, and consequently that their sanctification is perfected in him: but wee must know that though the perfection and fulnesse of all grace is first in Christ, yet that beleevers have not all in him after one and the same manner, nor for the same end: for our righteousnesse to our justification is so in him as ne­ver to be inherent in us, in this or in the world to come, but our righteousnesse to our sanctification is so farre in him, as that it is to be derived and conveyed unto us, and hence it is formally in our selves, but meritoriously and virtually onely in him: even as our resurrection and glori­fication at last day, are not so in Christ as never to bee derived to us (for then the resurrection were past already) but they are so in him as that they are to bee conveyed to us, and therefore they are meritoriously and virtually in him, and we are meritoriously and virtually risen in him: a Christian therefore may be compleat in Christ, and yet not be perfectly formally sanctified in Christ, our sanctificati­on being compleated in him after another manner, and for other ends than our justification.

Thesis 97.

97 The chiefe end of Christs first comming was to lay down his life a ransome for many in way of satisfaction and me­rit, Phil. 2.8. Matth. 20.28. now by this satisfaction hee did two things, 1. He brought in such a righteousnesse be­fore God as might merit mercy and make us just: now this is wholly in Christ out of our selves; but because there was a righteousnesse of new obedience and thankfulnesse to be wrought in us for this love, therefore, 2. By the same satisfaction hee hath merited (not that this new obedience might justifie us or make us accepted) but that it might be accepted though imperfect and polluted with sinne, 1 Peter 2.5, 6. as also that it might bee crowned and re­compenced: Now hence it followes that the Lord Je­sus hath not performed our duty of thankfulnesse and new obedience for us (sub hoc formali) or as of thankfulnes; for though Christ was thankfull and holy for us, yet it was not under this notion of thankfulnesse for his owne love to us, for this is personally required of us, and it sounds very harsh to say that Christ walked in all holy thankfulnesse to himselfe, for his love to us; but hee was thus thankfull for us, sub ratione meriti, or in way of merit, it being part of that satisfaction which justice exacted. All that which might satisfie justice, and merit any mercy, [Page 81] Christ did for us in himselfe▪ but he did not beleeve and re­pent, and performe duties of thankfulnesse for us, because these and such like are not to satisfie justice, but follow as fruits of that satisfaction, and therefore are wrought within us, and so are personally required of us, and therefore when a Christian findes a want of these things in himselfe, he is not to comfort himselfe with fond thoughts of the imputation of these in Christ onely unto him, but he is to look up to Christ Jesus for derivation of these out of Christ into himselfe; otherwise by making Christ his sanctification, onely in way of imputation, he doth really destroy Christ from being his sanctification; for if Christ be our righteousnesse onely by imputation, then if Christ be our sanctification, it must be by derivation from him, which they must needs destroy who make him their sole sanctifica­tion by meere imputation.

Thesis 98.

Spirituall errours like strong wine make mens judge­ments 98 reele and stagger, who are drunken therewith: And hence the Antinomians speake so variously in this point that we know not where to finde them, or what they will stand to: for sometime they will say that a Beleever is free from the law in all its authority and offices, but this being too grosse, at other times they speake more warily, and affirm that a Christian is to observe the law as his rule perso­nally, thus farre forth, viz. To doe what is commanded, but not in vertue of a command: Town. Ans. to Tayl. the spirit, say they, will binde and conforme their hearts to the law, but they are not bound by any authority of the law to the directions thereof; the spirit, they say, is free, and they are under the government of the spirit, which is not to be controled and ruled by any law. Now if by vertue of a command they meant, by vertue of our owne naturall strength and abilities looking to the command, so it's true that that a Beleever is not so bound to act by vertue of the law, for then he was bound to con­forme to the law pharisaically, for what is our strength but weaknesse and sinne? but if by vertue of a command they meane thus much, viz. that a Beleever is not bound by the commanding power of any law to conforme thereun­to, onely the spirit will conforme his heart thereunto, so that hee shall doe the things (perhaps) which the law re­quires, but not because the law requires or commands them to be done: If this, I say, be their meaning (as surely it seemes to bee) then the mystery of this iniquity is so plain, [Page 82] that he that runnes may read it: For hence it undeniably followes, that in a case a Beleever fall into any sinne, of whordome, murder, theft, witchcraft, &c. These wicked acts though they be sins in themselves (because they are a­gainst the law) yet they are not sinnes unto him, because he is now set free from the law, and not bound to the obe­dience of it by vertue of any command: for where there is no law, there is no transgression; and if there bee no law which bindes him, there is no transgression then at least un­to him: They are sinnes indeed in themselves, but not unto him, they are sinnes (as some say) to sense, but not to faith, sinnes in the conversation, but not to conscience, sinnes before men (because they may crosse their lawes) but not sinnes be­fore God, who exempts them from all law: And it is in vaine here to reply, that they may bee sinnes To him, because they may be against the law of the Spirit which is his rule; for we have already shewn, that although the spirit be the principle by which we obey, yet it is not our rule according to which we are to obey: Indeed it is an high aggravation of sinne when it is against the spirit, but to crosse the spi­rit doth not firstly make these things sinfull, nor could they be sinnes unlesse they crosse such a spirit as speakes in and by some holy law, the very essence of sinne lying in the transgression (not of any law) but of the law, i. the known morall or Evangelicall law. Againe, if these and such like be sinnes, because they are onely against the law of the spirit, then it is no sinne to bow downe before an Image, to commit filthinesse, theft, &c. supposing that the Spirit shall suspend his act and not restraine; nay then it will follow that sinnes of ignorance (of which the spirit hath not convinced a Christian) are no sins, nor to be repented of, which is expressely crosse to the holy practice of David, Who knowes his errours? Psal. 19.12. Lord cleanse me from my secret sinnes. If sinne therefore be the transgression of the law (whether the Spirit worke upon a Christian or no) then certainely, if he be under no commanding power of the law, hee cannot be guilty or be said to commit any sinne, and then the conclusion is this, That every Beleever neither hath sin, or should say he doth sin, no not when he commits murder, adultery, and the foulest enormities in the world: Which Doctrine, though so directly and expressely against the light of Scripture, the confessions of all the Saints, yea of the light of nature and common sense, and is the very filth of the froth of the sume of the bottomlesse pit; yet [Page 83] some there are who are not ashamed to owne it, the very [...] and depth of a perfect Familist consisting in this, viz. when a man can sinne and never feele it,☜ or have a­ny remorse or sorrow for it, and when one hath attained to this measure, He is then Deified, and then they professe the Godhead doth petere fundum animae (as they call it) when beleeving that he hath no sinne, he can therefore neither see it or feele it. From which depth of darknesse the God and Fa­ther of mercies deliver his poore people in these corrupting times, and I with that those who defend this kinde of a Be­leevers immunity from the law, did not lay this corner stone of hell and perdition to their followers; I am sure they lead them hereby to the mouth of this pit, who up­on this principle, refuse either to mourne for sinne, or pray for pardon of sinne, or to imagine that God afflicts for sin, being now freed from the mandatory power of any law of God, they being now not bound to act by vertue of any command.

Thesis 99.

If God did worke upon Beleevers as upon blo [...]ks or brute 99 creatures, they might then have some colour [...]o cast off all attendance to the directive power of the law, and so leave all to the Spirits Omnipotent and immediate acts, as the Starres who being irrationall and uncapable of acting by any rule, they are therefore acted and run their course by the mighty word of Gods power, and therefore attend no rule; but Beleevers are rationall Creatures, and there­fore capable of acting by rule, and they are also sanctified and delivered from the power of their corrupt nature, and therefore have some inherent power so to act, for if they be not now dead in trespasses and sinnes, they have then some new life, and therefore some inherent power to act, according to the rule of life; the Image of God renewed in them, is (in part) like to the same Image which they had in the first creation, which gave man some liberty and power to act according to the will of him that created him: And if the first Adam by his fall conveyes to us, not onely condemnation, but also an in­herent power of corruption, then the second Adam, the Lord Iesus, much more conveyes unto all his posterity, not onely justification, but also some inherent power of grace and holinesse, which is begun here and perfe­cted in glory, for as sinne hath abounded, so grace a­boundeth much more: and yet suppose they had no inhe­rent [Page 84] power thus to act, yet they have an adherent power, the Lord Christ Iesus, by faith in whose Name they may and shall receive power to act: And therefore, although God works in us, both to will & to do of his good pleasure, yet this hinders not, but that we are to work out our sal­vation with feare and trembling, by attending the rule, by vertue of which we are bound to worke, both by putting forth that power which we have already received from God, as also in fetching in that power we have not yet received, but is reserved daily in Christs hands for us, to enable us thereunto.

Thesis 100.

100 If they that say a Beleever is not to act by vertue of a command, do mean this only, viz. That he is not to act by vertue of the bare letter and externall words and syllables of it, they then speak truely, for such kinde of acting is rather witchery than Christianity, to place power and vertue in bare characters and letters, which though migh­ty and powerfull by the spirit, yet are empty and power­lesse without it: But if their meaning be that wee are not to act by vertue of any command in any sense, then the assertion is both pernicious and perilous, for the Lord Iesus being the [...], or first subject of all grace and gracious efficacy and power; hence its true, wee are not to make the command of God the first principle of our obedience, for this is proper unto Christ by the Spi­rit, Iohn 5.40. Iohn 16.13, 14. 2. Tim. 2.1. Ephes. 6.10. Rom. 8.2. But because the Lord Iesus conveyes by his Spi­rit vertue and efficacy through his word, not onely words of promise, but also words of command (as is evident, Ier. 3.22. Acts 2.38, 41. Mat. 9.9. Psalme 19.8.) Hence it is that a Beleever is bound to act from a command, though not as from a first, yet as from a second prin­ciple, though not as from the first efficient, yet as from an instrument in the hand of Christ, who in commanding of the duty works by it, and enables to it; and therefore we see Abraham comes out of his owne Countrey, be­cause called and commanded of God to follow him he knew not whither, Heb 11.8. And Peter cast his net into the [...], meerely because he was commanded, Luke 5.5. And David desired, Oh that my heart were directed to keep thy pre­cepts, because God had commanded, Psa. 119.45. There is a vertue, a vis or efficacy in the finall cause, as well as in the efficient to produce the effect, and every wise agent is [Page 85] bound to act by vertue or for the sake of his utmost and last end. Now the naked commandment of the Lord, may bee and should be the chiefe motive and last end of our obedi­ence to his highnesse; for whatever is done meerely be­cause of Gods command, is done for his glory (which glory should be our utmost end in all our obedience:) And hence it is that that obedience is most absolute and sin­cere (whether it be in doing or suffering the will of God) which is done meerely in respect of commandment and will of God; when the soule can truely say, Lord, I should never submit to such a yoke but meerely for thy sake, and because it's thy will and thou dost command it: What is it to love Christ? but to seek to please him and to give con­tentment to him; What is it to seek to give contentment to him, but to give contentment to his heart or his will? and what is his will, but the will of his commandment? If therefore it bee unlawfull to act by vertue of a command, then it is unlawfull, 1. To love Christ, 2. To be sincere be­fore Christ. 3. Or to act for the glory of Christ. And hence it is that let a man do the most glorious things in the world out of his owne supposed good end (as the blind Papists doe in their will-works and superstitions) which God ne­ver commanded, nay let him doe all things which the law of God requires, give his goods to the poore, and his bo­dy to bee burnt, and yet not doe these things because com­manded, let him then quit himselfe from hypocrisie and himselfe from being a deep hypocrite in all these if he can: Surely those who straine at this gnat, viz. not to doe a duty because commanded, will make no bones of swallowing down this camell, viz. not to forsake sinne, because 'tis forbidden, and whosoever shall forsake sinne from any other ground, shewes manifestly hereby that hee hath little con­science of Gods command; I know the love of Christ should make a Christian forsake every sin, but the last re­solution and reason thereof is because his love forbids us to continue in sinne; for to act by vertue of a command, is not to act onely as a creature to God considered as a Crea­tor, but by vertue of the will and commandment of God in a Redeemer, with whom a Beleever hath now to doe.

Thesis 101.

To act therefore by vertue of a command, and by vertue 103 of Christs Spirit, are subordinate one to another, not oppo­site one against another [...], as these men carry it. This caution being ever remembred, that such acting bee not [Page 86] to make our selves just, but because we are already just in Christ; not that hereby wee might get life, but because we have life given us already; not to pacifie Gods justice, but to please his mercy, being pacified toward us by Christ already; for as Iunius well observes a great diffe­rence between placare Deum, Iun. Thes. de bon. oper. and placere Deo, i. between pacifying God and pleasing God, for Christs bloud onely can pacifie justice when it is provoked, but when reven­ging justice is pacified, mercy may be pleased with the sincere and humble obedience of sons, Col. 1.10. Heb. 13.21. When a Beleever is once justified hee cannot be made more just by all his obedience, nor lesse just by all his sins in point of justification, which is perfected at once: but he who is perfectly justified is but imperfectly sanctified, and in this respect may more or lesse please God or displease him, be more just or lesse just and holy before him: It is I confesse a secret but a common sinne in many, to seek to pacifie God (when they perceive or feare his anger) by some obedience of their own, and so to seek for that in themselves chiefely which they should seek for in Christ, and for that in the Law which is onely to be found in the Gospel; but corrupt practises in others should not breed (as usually they doe) corrupt opinions in us, and to cast off the law from being a rule of pleasing God, be­cause it is no rule to us of pacifying of God: For if wee speak of revenging (not fatherly) anger, Christs bloud can onely pacifie that, and when that is pacified and God is satisfied, our obedience now pleaseth him and his mercy accepts it as very pleasing, the rule of which is the precious law of God.

Thesis 102.

They that say the law is our rule as it is given by Christ, 102 but not as it was given by Moses, doe speak niceties, at least ambiguities; for if the Lord Christ give the law to a Be­leever as his rule, why should any then raise a dust, and affirme that the law is not our rule? For the Law may be considered either materially, or in it selfe, as it containes the matter of the Covenant of works: and thus considered, a Beleever is not to be regulated by it, for he is wholly free from it as a covenant of life; or it may be considered finally, or rather relatively, as it stood in relation and reference unto the people of the God of Abraham, who were already under Abrahams Covenant, which was a Covenant of free-grace, [Page 87] viz. To be his God and the God of his seed, Gen. 17.7. And in this latter respect the law, as it was given by Moses, was given by Christ in Moses, and therefore the rule of love toward man (commanded by Moses) is called the law of Christ, Gal. 6.2. For the law as it was applyed to this peo­ple, doth not run thus, viz. Doe all this, and then I will be your God and redeemer (for this is a Covenant of workes) but thus, viz. I am the Lord thy God (viz. by Abrahams Cove­nant) who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, and house of bondage, Therefore thou shalt doe all this. If therefore the law delivered by Moses, was delivered by Christ in Mo­ses, then there is no reason to set Christ and Moses together by the eares, in this respect I now speake of, and to affirme that the law, not as delivered by Moses, but as given by Christ, is our law and rule.

Thesis 103.

The law therefore which containes in it selfe absolutely 103 considered (which Luther cals Moses Mosissimus) the Cove­nant of works, yet relatively considered as it was delivered by Moses to a people under a Covenant of grace (which the same Author cals Moses Aaronicus) so it is not to bee considered onely as a Covenant of workes, and therefore for any to affirme that the law is no Covenant of works, as it is delivered on Mount Sion, and by Jesus Christ, and that it is a Covenant of works onely, as it is delivered on Mount Sinai and by Moses, is a bold assertion both un­safe and unsound: For if as it was delivered on Mount Si­nai, it was delivered to a people under a Covenant of grace, then it was not delivered to them onely as a Co­venant of workes, for then a people under a Covenant of grace, may againe come under a Covenant of works, to disanull that Covenant of grace, but the Apostle expresse­ly affirmes the quite contrary, and shewes that the Co­venant made with Ahraham and his seed (which was to be a God to them, Gen. 17.7.) and which was confirmed be­fore of God in Christ, the law which was foure hundred and thirty yeares after▪ cannot disanull, Gal. 3.17. Now that the people were under a Covenant of grace when the law was delivered on Mount Sinai, let the Preface of the ten Commandments determine, wherein Gods first words are words of grace, I am the Lord thy God, &c. and there­fore thou shalt have no other Gods but mee, &c. I know Paraeus, Zanchy and others affirme, that the law is abroga­ted as it was in the hands of Moses, but not as it is in [Page 88] the hand of Christ, but their meaning is at sometime in re­spect of the manner of administration of the Law under Mo­ses, and when they speake of the morall law simply conside­red, yet it never entred into their hearts, that the law as de­livered on mount Sinai was delivered onely as a Covenant of works, as some would maintain.

Thesis 104.

104 But there is a greater mystery intended by some in this phrase, as given by Christ, for their meaning is this, to wit, As Christ by his Spirit writes it in our hearts, Saltmarsh Overflowing of Christs bloud. not any way a rule as written by Moses: A Beleevers heart (saith Master Saltmarsh) is the very law of Commands, and the two Tables of Moses, and in this respect it becomes not (saith he) the glory of Christ to be beholding to any of the light upon Mo­ses face. It seemes then that the law written is not to be a Christians rule, but onely so farre as it is written in the heart, a most accursed assertion; for how and why did Christ Jesus himselfe resist temptation to sinne? was it not by cleaving to the written word? Matth. 44.10. and was not this done for our imitation? why did David and Christ Iesus delight to doe Gods will? was it not this, be­cause it was written of them that so they should doe? Psa. 40.7, 8. Did not the law in their hearts make them thus cleave to the written law without? Why did Paul perswade Children to honour their parents? was it not, because this was the first Commandment with promise? Ephes. 6.2. had it not been more Evangelically spoken to perswade them rather to look to the law of Moses written on their hearts within, to direct them hereunto, rather than to be beholding for any light upon Moses face to direct them herein? how comes it to passe that Paul preacheth no o­ther thing but what was in the old Testament of Moses and the Prophets, who were onely the Interpreters of Moses? Acts 22.20. How is it that Christ himselfe borrowes light from Moses, Psalmes and all the Prophets, to cleare up his resurrection and suffering, Luke 24.27, 32▪ if no light must bee borrowed from the face of Moses? if indeed wee were perfect in this life as wee shall bee in heaven, there would then bee no need of the writings of the A­postles, Prophets, or Moses, of Law or Gospell, but we being but imperfectly enlightned, it's no lesse than ex­treame ingratitude and unthankfulnesse to preferre our owne imperfect and impure light, before that perfect, spot­lesse and heavenly Law and counsels of God without us: [Page 89] which when the most perfect beleever doth see he may cry out with Paul, The Law is holy but I am carnall: what is this but painted Popery, to make the spirit within to be the supreame Iudge and superiour to the Spirit of God in the written word without? onely they shrine it up in the Popes private Conclave and Kitchin, or somewhat worse, but these in a company of poore, imperfect, deluded, and perhaps corrupted men: it's true the Covenant of grace (strictly taken) in the Gospel, needs not to borrow any light from the Covenant of works in the Law, but yet for all this the grace of God appearing in the Gospel, will have us to walk worthy of God unto all well pleasing ac­cording to the Law, Tit. 2.12, 13. and to mourne bitterly that we are so unlike the will and image of God revealed in the Law, Rom. 7.23, 24.

Thesis 105.

The Apostle Paul as he sometimes condemnes works and sometime commends them, so he sometimes rejects the Law,105 and sometimes commends the Law, sometime hee would have Beleevers dye to the law, and sometime hee exhorts them to live in all holy obedience to it; the Apostle therefore must speak of the Law under various considerati­ons, or else must speake Daggers and flat contradictions, and therefore of necessity wee are to consider the Law not alway under one respect, but variously; for consider the law as a Covenant of workes, or as the way unto or matter of our justification, and so works are condemned and the Law is rejected and abrogated, and so we are to die to the Law, but consider the Law as a rule of life to a per­son justified already, and so the Law is to be received, and works are to bee commended, and we are to live there­unto.

Thesis 106.

When the Gospel nakedly urgeth Beleevers to good 106 workes and obedience to the Law, it is then considered onely as a rule of life, but when wee meet with such Scriptures as set the Law and Christ, the Law and grace, the Law and promise, the Law and faith, &c. at opposition one against another, then the Law in such places is ever consi­dered as a Covenant of life, from which we are wholly freed, and unto which we should be wholly dead, that we [...] may be married unto Christ, Rom. 7.4. hence therefore their arguings are feeble and weak, who would prove a Chri­stian to be wholly free from the directive power of the Law, [Page 90] because a Christian is said not to be under the law but un­der grace, Rom. 6.14. and because the Law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ, Iohn 1.17. and because the inheritance is not by the law, but by pro­mise and by faith, Gal. 3.12.18. for these and such like Scrip­tures speake of the law as standing in opposition to Christ, and therefore speake of it as of a Covenant of life, by which men seek to be justified: from which (we grant) a Belee­ver is wholly freed, and unto which hee is not bound, nay hee is bound to renounce it, and cast out this bond-woman, but all this doth not prove that he is free from it as his rule of life.

Thesis 107.

107 The Law and mans sinfull heart are quite opposite one to another, Rom. 7.9, 10, 11, 13. but when (through the grace of Christ) the heart is changed, so as there is a new nature or new man in a beleever, then there is a sweet agreement between this new nature and the Law, for (saith Paul) I delight in the Law of God in my inner man: it is therefore a most false assertion to say, that the old man of a Belee­ver is to be kept under the law, but the new man or new nature is above all Law, for though the new nature bee a­bove it as a legall covenant, yet it never comes to be wil­lingly under it as a rule untill now: an imperfect new na­ture is infinitely glad of the guidance of a holy and most perfect law. Psalme 119.140.

Thesis 108.

It is very evident that the children and sonnes of God 108 under the new Testament are not so under the Law as the children and sonnes of God were under the old Testament, for the Apostle expressely tels, Gal. 3.23. that before the faith came, we (i. the children of the Old Testament) were shut up and kept under the Law, and were under it as un­der a Schoolmaster, verse 24. and these of whom the Apostle thus speaks are not onely wicked and carnall Jewes, but the deare children of God and heires of eternall life in those times, as is evident from Gal. 4 1, 2, 3. but the A­postle speaking of the sonnes of God in Gospel-times, since faith is come and revealed, speakes as expresly that we are now no longer under the law as under a Schoolmaster, Gal. 3 25. and that now when the fulnesse of time is come, God sent his sonne, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the Adoption of Sonnes, Gal. 4.3, 4, 5. which though it bee true of all men by nature, viz. that [Page 91] they are under the law, yet an impartiall cleare eye will ea­s [...]ly discerne that the Apostles dispute is not of our being under the Law by nature meerely, but of being under the Law by peculiar dispensation, which was the state not only of the Jewish Church, but of the children of God, heires of the promise (and consequently such as were beleevers) in this Church, in those old Testament times; wee are not therefore now in these new Testament times under the law as they were, the great difficulty therefore remaines to know how we are not under the law as they were. Those who say we are not under the Ceremonial law as they were, doe speak truely, but they doe not resolve the difficulty in this place; for certainly the Apostle speaks, not onely of the Ceremoniall law, but also of that law which was gi­ven because of transgressions, Gal. 3.19. and which shut up (not onely the Jewes) but all men under sinne, verse 22. which being the power of the morall law chiefely, the A­postle must therefore intend the morall law, under which the old Testament Beleevers were shut up, and we now are not: The doubt therefore still remaines, viz. How are we not now under the morall law? Will any say that we are not now under the malediction and curse and condemnati­on of it, but the Jewes under the old Testament were thus under it, even under the curse of it? This cannot be the meaning, for although the carnall Jewes were thus un­der it, yet the faithfull (whom the Apostle cals the heire and Lord of all, Gal. 4.1.) were not thus under it, for Be­leevers then were as much blessed then with faithfull A­braham, as Beleevers now, cap. 3.9. How then are we not now under it as they were? Is it in this, that they were un­der it as a rule of life to walk by, and so are not we? Thus indeed some straine the place, but this cannot bee it; for the Apostle in this very Epistle presseth them to Love one another, upon this ground, because All the Law is ful­filled in love, cap. 5.13, 14. and this walking in love accor­ding to the law, is walking in the Spirit, verse 16. and they that thus walke in the spirit, according to the law, are not (saith the Apostle) under the law, which cannot, without flat contradiction, be meant of not being under the rule or directive power of it; and it would bee a mi­serable weake motive to presse them to love, because all the law is fulfilled in love, if the law was not to bee regar­ded as any rule of life or of love; for they might upon such a ground easily and justly object, and say, What have [Page 92] we to doe with the law? If we therfore as well as they, are thus under the law as a rule of life, how are wee not un­der it as they were? Is it because they were under it as a preparative means for Christ, and not wee? They were under the humbling and terrifying preparing worke of it, but not we: There are some indeed who think that this use of the law under the Gospel is but a back-doore, or an In­dian path, or a crookt-way about, to lead to Jesus Christ; but certainly these men know not what they say, for the text expressely tels us, that the Scripture hath con­cluded (not onely the Jewes) but All under sinne, that so the promise by faith, might be given to them that beleeve, Gal. 3.22. So that the law is subservient to faith and to the promise, that so hereby not onely the Jewes, but all that God saves might hereby feele their need, and fly by faith to the promise made in Iesus Christ; and verily if Christ be the end of the law to every one that beleeves, Rom. 10.4. then the law is the meanes (not of it selfe, so much as by the rich grace of God) not onely to the Iewes, but to all o­thers to the end of the world, to lead them to this end Christ Iesus: If therefore the faithfull under the new Testament, are thus under the preparing worke of the law, as well as those under the old, How were they therefore so under the law, as we are not, and wee not under it as they were? I confesse the place is more full of difficulties than is usually observed by writers upon it, onely for the clearing up of this doubt, omitting many things, I answer briefely, That the children of the old Testament were un­der the law and the pedagogy of it, two wayes, after which the children of the new Testament are not under it now, but are redeemed from it.

1. As the morall law was accompanied with a number of burdensome Ceremonies, thus wee are not under it, thus they were under it; For we know this law was put into the Ark, and there they were to look upon it in that type, if any man then committed any sinne against it, whe­ther through infirmity, ignorance or presumption, they were to have recourse to the Sacrifices and High Priests yearely, and to their bloud and oblations: They were to pray (which was a morall duty) but it must bee with incense and in such a place: They were to be thank­full (another morall duty) but it must bee testified by the offering up of many Sacrifices upon the Altar, &c. They were to confesse their sinnes (a morall duty also) but it [Page 93] must be over the head of the Scape-goat, &c. Thus they were under the law, but we are not: And as 'tis usuall for the Apostle thus to speak of the law in other places of the Scripture, so surely hee speakes of it here, for hence it is that in the beginning of this dispute, cap. 3.19. hee speaks of the morall law which was given because of trans­gressions; and yet in the close of it, Gal. 4.3. he seemes to speak only of the ceremoniall law, which he cals the ele­ments of the world, under which the children were then in bondage, as under Tutors and Governours; which implies thus much, that the children of the old Testament were indeed under the morall law, but yet withall as thus ac­companied with ceremoniall rudiments and elements fit to teach children in their minority: But now in this elder age of the Church, although we are under the morall law in other respects, yet wee are not under it as thus accompa­nied.

2. In respect of the manner and measure of dispensati­on of the morall law, which although it had the revelation of the Gospel conjoyned with it (for Moses writ of Christ, Iohn 5.46. and Abraham had the Gospell preached to him, Gal. 3.8. and the unbeleeving Jewes had the Gospel prea­ched, Heb. 4.2.) yet the law was revealed and pressed more clearely and strongly, with more rigour and terrour, and the Gospel was revealed more obscurely and darkly in re­spect of the manner of externall dispensation of them in those times; there were three things in that manner of dispensation, from which (at least ex parte Dei revelantis) we are now freed.

1. There was then much law urged, externally, clearly, and little Gospel so clearely revealed, indeed Gospel and Christ Iesus was the end of the morall law and the sub­stance of all the shadowes of the ceremoniall law, but the externall face of these things was scarce any thing else but Doing and Law, by reason of which there is a vaile spread over the hearts of the lewes in reading the old Testament unto this day, as is evident 2 Cor. 3.13. so that the inside or end of the morall law being Gospel, and the out-side and meanes appointed to this end being law, hence the Gospel was then lesse clearly, and the law was more clearely revealed in those times; to say that Iesus Christ and his benefits, or eternall life were then dispensed under a Covenant of works, or sub conditione perfectae obedientiae (as some eminent Worthies affirm) is such an errour which [Page 94] wise and able men might easily fall into by seeing how much law was revealed and urged in those times; for though the law simply considered in it selfe contained the matter of the Covenant of works, yet considered relatively in respect of the people of God, and as they were under Abrahams Covenant of grace, so it was given to them as a rule of perfect righteousnesse, by both which they might the better see their owne weaknesse and unrighteousnesse [...]nd flye to Christ; and therefore the Apostle, Gal. 3.17. cals the promise which was made to Abraham, the Cove­nant, and gives not this title to the Law, but calls it the law which (he saith) could not disanull the Covenant, confir­med in Christ: and although it be propounded to them in way of Covenant, Exod. 19.5. yet this is to be understood (as some thinke) of Evangelicall keeping Covenant, not of legall; or if of legall, yet then it is not propounded simply as a Covenant of works, to convey Christ to them, but ex hypothesi or upon supposition, that if they did think to be Gods people and have him to be their God, by doing (as Iunius observes the carnall Jewes did thinke and hope so to have him, and as that young man thought, Mat. 19.17.) as Chamier observes) that then they must keep all these Commandments perfectly, and to bee accursed if they did not continue therein: I dare not therefore say, that Christ and eternall life were dispensed in a Covenant of works, under which Covenant the Iewes were shut in old Testament times: but rather this, that the law was more strongly pressed as a yoke upon their shoulders, and that this law which containes the Covenant of works was more plentifully revealed and insisted on, and the Gospel more sparingly and darkly: but now in Gospel times the day-starre is risen (though in few mens hearts) yet in the do­ctrine and cleare revelation of it therein, and therefore the Gospel is called the mystery hidden from ages and genera­tions past, but now is made manifest to his Saints, Col. 1. [...]6. which cannot bee meant as if they had no knowledge of it, for Abraham saw Christs day, and there is a cloud of witnesses in the Old Testament who dyed in faith, Heb. 11. but not such cleare knowledge of it as now: they were therefore then under the Law as servants (because so much working and doing was urged and chiefely revealed) but indeed were sonnes and heires: but wee now are not so under it, but are as sonnes having the Lord Iesus and our fathers face in him clearely revealed, and faith in him [Page 95] chiefely and most abundantly urged in his blessed Gospel: and thus the Apostle tels us in this Text, Gal. 4.1. with 4.5. that the heires of the Promise under the Old Testa­ment were as servants, but by Christ [...] comming we are now as sonnes; look also as they are said to be under the Law, not as if they had no Gospel revealed or no use of the Gospel, but onely because the Gospel was more dark­ly revealed, and the Law more plentifully urged, so we are said not to be under the Law, not as if there was no Law or no use of the Law belonging to us, but because now the Gospel is more clearely revealed, and the Law not externally so proposed and imposed as it was upon them.

2. The Law was a Schoolmaster, Tutor and Governour to lead them unto Christ to come, for so the Apostle tels us in this place, Gal. 3.23. that before faith came, we were shut up under the Law, unto the faith, which should after­ward be revealed: Thus the Ceremoniall law pointed to Christ to come, the morall law discovered mans sinne and misery, and need of Christ who was to come; nay, all the promises were made with reference to Iesus Christ to come: but now the fulnesse of time being come, that the Sonne of God is come, now we are no longer under the Law after this manner, neither ceremoniall or morall law are of any use to us to lead us unto Christ to come, for Christ is already come: and hence it is that Beleevers now are said to be rather under the Gospel than under the Law, and Beleevers under the Old Testament to be rather under the Law than under the Gospel: because although these had the efficacy of Christs Redemption, yet they were not yet actually redeemed, because the Redeemer was not yet come into the flesh, and in this respect they were under the rigour of the law, and hence it was fit that they should bee handled as servants, and the law and curse thereof principally revealed: but now Christ being come, and having actually redeemed us, having been (not onely virtually but actually) made righteousnesse and a curse for us: now therefore is the time that we should see Christ Iesus with open face, and hear principally concerning faith and the fathers love in him: now Christ is revealed chiefely (being come) the end of the Law, then the Law was revealed chiefely (Christ being not yet come) as the meanes to this end: looke therefore as the promise before Christ, of which the Apostle [Page 98] speaks, Gal. 3.17, 18, 19, 21, 22. was fulfilled in Christ being come (as Divines speak) rather than abolished, and yet a­bolished as it was a promise of grace to come: so the mo­rall law is rather fulfilled than abolished in Christ being come, and yet as it did lead unto Christ to come, it is a­bolished to us now under the Gospel.

3. The law being principally revealed, and yet so re­vealed as to lead unto Christ Jesus to come, hence ariseth a third thing of the law from which we are now delivered, viz. they were therefore under more terrour and feare of the Law than we are (on Gods part revealing the Gospel more clearely) in these times; and therefore saith the A­postle, Gal. 4.4, 5, 6. that when the fulnesse of time came, God sent his Sonne to redeeme us from under the Law, that wee might receive the adoption of Sonnes, and thereby the Spirit of Sonnes crying, Abba, Father: could not they who were Sonnes under the Law call God Father? yes verily, doubtlesse thou art our Father say they, Isaiah 63.17. but they having lesse light they had more feare and lesse of the Spirit of Adoption, I say still (ex parte Dei revelantis) than we have in these dayes: We are not therefore so under the law, i. the feare and terrour of the law as they were: the summe of all this is, that although we are not so un­der the law, 1. so accompanied, and 2. so dispensed, as they were under the Old Testament, yet this hinders not but that we are under the directive power of the Law as well as they.

Thesis 109.

109 The Apostle speakes of a law written and engraven on stones, and therefore of the morall Law, which is now a­bolished by Christ in the Gospel, 2 Cor. 3.6, 7, 11, 13. Is the morall law therefore abolished as a rule of life now? no verily, but the meaning of this place is (as the former, Gal. 3.25.) for the Apostle speaking of the morall Law by a Synecdoche, comprehends the ceremoniall law also, both which the false Teachers, in those times urged as necessary to salvation and justification at least together with Christ, against whom the Apostle here disputes: the morall Law therefore is abolished first as thus accom­panied with a yoke of Ceremonies, secondly, as it was formerly dispensed, the glorious and greater light of the Gospel now obscuring that lesser light under the Law, and therefore the Apostle, vers. 10. doth not say that there was no glory shining in the Law, but it had no comparative [Page 99] glory in this respect, by reason of the glory which excelleth: and lastly the Apostle may speak of the morall Law conside­red as a Covenant of life which the false teachers urged, in which respect he cals it the Ministry of death and the letter which killeth, and the ministers of it (who were called Naza­rei and Minei as Bullinger thinks) the Ministers of the letter,Bulling. in loc. which although it was virtually abolished to the beleeving Jews before Gospell times (the vertue of Christs death exten­ding to all times) yet it was not then abolished actually untill Christ came in the flesh, and actually undertooke to fullfill this Covenant for us to the utmost farthing of doing and suffe­ring which is exacted, and now it is abolished both virtually and actually, that now we may with open face behold the glory of the Lord as the end of the law for righteousnesse to every one that doth beleeve.

Thesis 110.

The Gospell under which Beleevers now are, requires no doing 110 (say some) for doing is proper to the Law; the Law promiseth life, and requires conditions: but the Gospell (say they) promiseth to work the condition, but requires none, and therefore a beleever is now wholly free from all Law: but the Gospell and Law are taken two waies. 1. Largely, the Law for the whole doctrine con­tained in the Old Testament, and the Gospell for the whole doctrine of Christ and the Apostles in the New Testament. 2. Strictly,Chamie [...] d [...] oper. Ne­cess. cap. 3. the Law pro lege operum (as Chamier distinguisheth) and the Gospell pro lege fidei, i. for the Law of faith: the Law of works strictly taken is that Law which reveals the favour of God and eternall life upon condition of doing or of per­fect obedience: the Law of faith strictly taken is that doctrine which reveals remission of sins, reconciliation with God by Christs righteousnesse onely apprehended by faith: now the Gospell in this latter sence excludes all works, and requires no doing in point of justification and remission of sins before God, but only beleeving: but take the Gospel largely for the whole doctrine of Gods love and free grace, and so the Gos­pel requires doing; for as 'tis an act o [...] Gods free grace to justi­fie a man without calling for any works thereunto; so 'tis an act of the same free grace, to require works of a person justi­fied, and that such poor sinners should stand before the Son of God on his throne, to minister unto him, and serve him in righteousnesse and holinesse all the daies of our lives, Tit. 2.14. and for any to think that the Gospell requires no conditi­ons, is a sudden dream against hundreds of Scriptures, which contain conditionall yet evangelicall promises, and against the [Page 100] judgement of the most judicious of our Divines, who in dis­pute against Popish writers cannot but acknowledge them, only thus, viz. conditions and promises annexed to obedience are one thing (saith learned Perable) and conditions annexed to perfect obedience are another: the first are in the Gospel, the other not: works are necessary to salvation (saith Chamier) necessitate praesentiae not efficientiae; and hence he makes two sorts of conditions, some antecedentes which work or merit sal­vation, and these are abandoned in the Gospel, other [...] (he saith) are consequentes which follow the state of a man justified, and these are required of one already justified in the Gospell: there are indeed no conditions required of us in the Gospel, but those onely which the Lord himselfe shall or hath wrought in us, and which by requiring of us he doth worke will it therefore follow that no condition is required, in us: but because every condition is promised? no ve­rily, for requiring the condition is the meanes to worke it (as might be plentifully demonstrated) and meanes and end should not be separated. Faith it selfe is no antecedent condition to our justification or salvation, take antecedent in the usuall sence of some Divines for affecting or meriting condition, which Iunius cals essentialis conditio: but take an­tecedent for a means or instrument of justification, and re­ceiving Christs righteousnesse, in this sence it is the only ante­cedent condition which the Gospel requires therein, because it do [...]h only antecedere or go before our justification (at least in order of nature) not to merit it but to receive it, not to make it but to make it our own, not as the matter of our righ [...]eousness or any part of it, but as the only means of apprehending Christs righteousnesse, which is the only cause why God the Father justifieth, and therefore as Christs righteousnesse must go be­fore, as the matter and moving cause of our justification, or that for which we are justified; so faith must go before this righteousnesse as an instrument or applying cause of it, by which we are justified, that is, by meanes of which we apply that righteousnesse which makes us just. 'Tis true God justifies the ungodly, but how? not immediately without faith, but mediately by faith, as is most evident from that abused text, Rom. 4.5. When works and faith are opposed by the Apostle in point of justification, affirming that we are justified by faith not by works, he doth hereby plainly affirm and give that to faith which he denies to works; look there­fore as he denies works to be antecedent conditions of our justification, he affirms the contrary of faith, which goes be­fore [Page 101] our justification, as hath been explained: and therefore as doe and live hath been accounted good Law, or the Cove­nant of works, so beleeve and live hath been in former times accounted good Gospel, or the Covenant of grace, untill now of late this wilde age hath found out new Gospels that Paul and the Apostles did never dream of.

Thesis 111.

A servant and a son may be set to do the same work, and 111 have the same rule given them to act by; but the motives to this their work, and the stripes and punishments for neglect of their work, may be various and divers; a son may be bound to it, because he is a son and beloved; a servant may be bound to do the same work, because he is hired and shall have wages▪ if the son neglect his work, his punishment is only the cha­stisement of a father for his good; if a servant be faulty, he is turned quite out of doors: So although Beleevers in Christ, and those that are out of Christ haue divers and various mo­tives to the obedience of the law of God, yet these do not va­ry the rule; the law of God is the rule to them both, although they that be out of Christ have nothing but fear and hope of wages to urge them, and those that are in Christ should have nothing but the love of a Father, and the heart-bloud mercy of a tender Saviour and Redeemer to compell them: the one may be bound to do, that so they may live, the other may be bound to do, because they do live; the one may be bound to do, or else they shall be justly plagued, the other may be bound to do the same, or else they shall be mercifully cor­rected: It is therefore a meer feeblenesse to think (as some do) that the law or rule is changed, because the motives to the obedience of it, and punishment for the breach of it, are now (unto a beleever) changed and a [...]t [...]ed; for the Command­ment urged from Ch [...]ists love, may binde strongly yea most strongly to doe the same thing which the same Command­ment propounded and received in way of hi [...]e, may binde also unto.

Thesis 112.

Some think that there is no sin but unbelief (which is a sin against 112 the Gospel only) and therefore there being no sin against any law (Christ having by his death abolished all them) the law cannot be a rule to them. An adulterous and an evill generation made drunk with the cup of the wine of the wrath of God, and strong delusion, do thus argue: Are drunkenesse, whoredom, lying, cheating, witchcraft, oppression, theft, buggery, no sins, and consequently not to be repented of, nor watcht against, but [Page 102] only unbelief? Is there no day of judgement, wherein the Lord will judge men (not only for unbelief) but the secrets of all hearts, and whatever hath been done in the body, whe­ther good or evil, according to Pauls Gospel? Rom. 2.16. 2 Cor. 5.10. How comes the wrath of God to be revealed from heaven, not only against unbelief, but against all unrighteous­nesse and ungodlinesse of man? Rom. 1.18 If there was no sin but unbelief, how can all flesh, Jews and Gentiles become guilty before God, that so they may beleeve in the Gospel (as 'tis, Rom. 3 21, 12, [...]3, 24) if they are all guiltlesse untill unbe­lief comes in? There is no sin indeed which shall condemn a man in case he shall beleeve; but will it follow from hence that there is no sin in a man but only unbelief? A sick man shall not die in case he receive the Physick which will recover him; but doth it follow from hence that there is no sicknesse in him, or no such sicknesse which is able to kill him, but on­ly his wilfull refusing of the Physick? surely his refusing of the Physick is not the cause of his sicknesse which was before, not the naturall (for that his sicknesse is) but only the morall cause of his death. Sin is before unbelief comes, a sick sinner before a healing Saviour can be rejected; sin kils the soul, as it were, naturally, unbelief morally; no sin shall kill or con­demn us if we beleeve; but doth it follow from hence that there is no sin before or after faith, because there is no condem­ning sin unlesse we fall by unbelief? No such matter, and yet such is the madnesse of some prophets in these times, who to abandon, not only the directive use of the law, but also all preparing and humbling work of the law, and to make mens sinning the first foundation and ground of their beleeving, do therefore either abolish all the being of any sin, beside unbelief, or the condemned estate of a man for sin, yea for any sin, un­till he refuse Christ by unbelief; for publishing which pernici­ous doctrines it had been well for them if they had never been born.

Thesis 113.

113 One would wonder how any Christians should fall into this pit of perdition, to deny the directive use of the law to one in Christ, if either they read Ps. 119. with any savour, or the Epi­stles of Iohn & Iames with any faith; in which the law is highly commended, and obedience thereto urged as the happinesse and chief evidence of the happinesse of man; but that certainly the root of this accursed doctrine is either a loose heart, which is grown blind and bold and secretly glad of a liberty, not so much from the law of sin, as from the law God; or if the heart [Page 103] be sincere in the main, yet it slights the holy Scriptures at pre­sent, and makes little conscience of judging in the matters of God according unto them; for if it did, it could hardly fall into [...]his dirty ditch, out of which the good Lord deliver, and out of which I am perswaded he will deliver in time all those that are his own: for I much question the salvation of that man, who lives and dies with this opinion: and as every er­rour is fruitfull, so this is in speciall; for from this darkning the directive use of the morall law, arise (amidst many o­thers) these ensuing evils, which are almost, if not altogether deadly to the souls men; they are principally these three.

Thesis 114.

The first is a shamefull neglect (in some affecting foolishly 114 the name of new Testament Ministers) of a wise and powerfull preaching of the law, to make way by the humbling work of it, for the glorious Gospel, and the affectionate entertainment thereof: for through the righteous judgement of God, when men once begin to abandon this use of the law as a rule, they abolish much more readily this use of the law to prepare men thereby for the receiving of Christ: I know there are some who acknowledge this use of the law to be our rule, but not to prepare; but how long they may be orthodox in the one▪ who are heterodox in the other, the Lord only knows; for I finde that the chief arguments against the one, do strike strongly against the other also: It's an easie thing to cast blocks before the blinde, and to cast mists before the face of the clearest truth, and to make many specious shews of new Testament Ministry, free-grace and Covenant, against this supposed legall way and preparing work; but assuredly they that have found and felt the fruit and comfort of this hum­bling way (for which I doubt not but that thousands and thousands are blessing God in heaven that ever they heard of it) do certainly and assuredly know, that these men (at least doctrines in this point) are not of God: The word in these mens mouths being flat contrary to the mercifull, and the for ever to be adored work of God in their hearts: When the Spi­rit comes, his first work (if Christ may be beleeved) even when he comes as a Comforter, is, To convince the world of sinne, Iohn 16.9.10. which we know is chiefly by the law, Rom. 3.20. and shall the Ministers (not of the letter but of the Spirit) refuse to begin here? Especially in these times of wantonnesse, contention, confusion, famine, sword and bloud, wherein every thing almost cries aloud for sackcloth, and therefore not for tiffany and silken Sermons: As if this [Page 204] corrupt and putrifying age stood only in need of sugar to pre­serve and keep them sweet from smelling: As if sublime no­tions about Christ and free grace, Covenant of grace, love of the Father, the kingdome within, and Ch [...]istian exc [...]llen­cies and priviledges, were the only things this age stood in need of, and not in any need of searchings with candles, ter­rours, shakings, [...]ence of sin, or forewarnings of wrath to come: As if this old world did need no Noah to fortell them of flouds of fire and wrath to come: Or as if the men of Sodom and Princes of Gomorah, should do well to mock at Lot for bidding him to hasten out of the city, because God would destroy it: As if the spirit of Paul in these times should not know the terrour of the Lord, and therefore perswade men, 2 Cor. 5.10.11. but only the love and free-grace of the Lord Je­sus, and therefore to exhort men, nay rather therefore to re­late to men stories and notions about [...]ree-grace, generall re­demption, the mystery of the Fathers love, and the Christ in you and in the spirit (not the person of Christ or Christ in the flesh) the hope of glory: What will the Lord Jesus one day say to these sleepy watchmen, that never tell the secure world of their enemies at the door? I finde divers colours and pretences for this course of daubing.

1. Some say this savours of an old Testament spirit, which was w [...]nt to wound and then to heal, to humble and then to raise, to preach law and then Gospell; but now we are to he Ministers of the new Testament; and let no law be heard of. I confesse those that preach the law as the means of our justification, and as the matter of our righteousnesse without Christ, or together with Christ, as the false teachers did, 2 Cor. 3 6. may well be cal­led (as Paul cals them) Ministers of the letter, not of the Spi­rit, of the old Testament, not of the New; but to preach Christ plainly and with open face the end of the law, and to preach the law as the means to prepare for, and advance Christ in our hearts, can never be proved to be the old Testament Ministry, or to put a vail upon mens hearts that they cannot see the end of the law (as the old Testament vail did, 2 Cor. 3.14.) but it is to take away the vail of all conceit of mans own strength and righteousnesse, by seeing his curse, that so he may s [...] to the end thereof the Lord Jesus, and embrace him for righteousnesse: For the Apostle doth not call them Ministers of the letter and of the old Testament, because they did preach the law to humble and leade unto Christ; but because they preached the law for righteousnesse without Christ, whom he calls the spirit, vers. 17. and therefore cals them the Ministers [Page 105] of the letter, and their Ministry of death and condemnation, there is something in the law which is of perpetuall use, and something which is but for a time: the vis coactiva legis (as some call it) i. the force of the law to condemn and curse, to hold a man under the curse, and to hold a man under the power of sin, which the Apostle cals the strength of the Law, 1 Cor. 15.56. is but for a time, and is but accidentall to the law, and may be separated from it, and is separated indeed from it as soon as ever the soul is in Christ, Rom. 8.1. he is then free from the obligation of it to perform personall and perfect obedience to it, that so he may be just; also from the malediction and curse of it, if he be not thus just: But that which is of perpetuall use in it, is not only the directive power of it, but this preparing and humbling vertue of it; for if all men by nature, Jewes and Gentiles are apt to be puft up with their own righteousnesse, and to blesse themselves in their own righteousnesse, and so to feel no such need of Christ, then this humbling work of the law to slay men of all their fond conceits and foolish confidences in their own righteousnesse, and to make men feel the horrible nature of sinne, by revea­ling the curse and malediction due to it, is of morall and per­petuall use: And hence it is that though the Gospell strictly taken (as is intimated Thesis 110.) hath no terrour properly in it, because thus it reveals nothing but reconciliation through Christs righteousnesse applyed by saith; yet the Gospel largely taken, for that doctrine which reveals the glad tidings of Christ already come, so there is terrour in it, because in this respect the Gospell makes use of the law and confirms what is morall and perpetuall therein: The sin and terrour which the Gospell (largely taken) makes use of out of the Law, are but subservient to the Gospel strictly taken, or for that which is principally and most properly Gospel, for thereby the righ­teousnesse and free-grace and love of the Lord Jesus, and pre­tiousnesse and greatnesse of both are the more clearly illustra­ted: The law of it selfe wounds and kils and rather drives from Christ then unto Christ; but in the hand of the Gospel▪ or as Christ handles it, so it drives the soul unto Christ, and (as hath been shewn) is the means to that end: and 'tis a most false and nauseous doctrine to affirm that love only drawes the soul to Christ, unlesse it be understood with this caution and notion, viz. love as revealed to a sinner, and condemned for sin; which sin and condemnation as the law makes known, so the Gospel makes use of to drawn unto Christ: If indeed the Gospel did vulnerare ut vulneraret, i. wound that it may [Page 106] wound and terrifie only (which the law doth) then it (saith Chamier) was all one with law which Bellarmine pleads for) but when it wounds that it may heal,Cham. de Oper. Nec [...]s. cap. 4. this is not contrary but agreeable to the office of a good Physitian whose chiefe work is to heal, and may well sute with the healing Ministry of the Lord Jesus; and hence we see that although Christ was sent to preach the Gospel, yet he came to confirm the law in the Ministry of the Gospel, and therefore shews the spirituall sins against the law more clearly, and the heavy plagues for the breach of it more fully then the Scribes and Pharises: he that is angry with his brother is a murderer, and he that cals him fool is in danger of hell fire, Mat. 5.22. Peter was no Mi­nister of the old Testament, because he first convinced and prickt the Iews to the heart for their murder of Christ Iesus. Paul was no such Minister, neither (when as he would evince our justification by Christs righteousnesse only) in that he be­gins and spends so much time in proving Gentiles and Iews to be under sin and wrath, notwithstanding all the excuses of the one and priviledges of the other; as appears in his three first chapters to the Romans: but herein they were Gospel preachers. Nor can it with any colour of reason be thought that the Prophets in the old Testament were herein Ministers of the letter, viz. when they did first wound and then heal, first humble by the law and then revive by the Gospel. Mr. Saltmarsh hath been so blinded with this notion of the old Testament Ministry, that to make this use of the law in prea­ching the Gospel, or to hold forth the promises of grace to them that are qualified with the grace of the promise (as the old Testament Prophets did) is to give (as he thinks) the wine of the Gospel burning hot, as the covetous gentleman did to his guests, and another (whom I spare to name) profes­seth, That the old Testament (because it urgeth the law to humble) containeth little good news but much bad news; but [...]ow when Christ saith, Go preach the Gospel, thereby he would have them (he saith) Ministers of the new Testament to preach glad tidings (no­thing but Gospel) but no had bidings (not a jot of the law) untill men positively reject the glad tidings of the Gospel. If these men speak true, then neither Peter in his preaching, nor Paul in his writings, nor Christ himself in his Ministry were Ministers of the new Testament, but did overheat their wine and preach much bad tidings to the people of God: Verily if this stuff be not repented of, the Lord hath a time to visit for these in­ventions.

2. Some object, Gal. 3.24, 25. That the children of the old [Page 107] Testament were under the law, as their pedagogue to lead them to Christ; but now (the Apostle saith) we are no longer under this Schoolmaster, who are sons of God in the new Testament. Be it so that the sons of God under the new Testament are past the terrouring of this Schoolmasters is it not therefore the work of the new Testament Ministry to preach the law unto servants and slaves to sin and Satan in new Testament times? No (saith the same au [...]hor) for this is to preach bad news; this is no good news to say Thou art condemned for these things, for the Gospel saith thus, Thou poor drunkard, thou proud woman here is a gracious God that hath loved thee, and sent Christ to die for thee, and Mini­sters to make it known to thee, and here is everlasting salvation by him only, because thou art a sinner; thou art now free from damnati­on: fear not that, Christ hath loved thee, therefore obey him; if not, thou shalt not be damned, that is done away already, &c. I would know whether a proud woman, or a poor drunkard, a villain, who never yet beleeved, are in a state of condemnation, I or no? I have read indeed that There is no condemnation to them that are in Christ, Rom. 8.1. but never of any such freedom to them that are out of Christ, unlesse it was only in destination and merit; and I have read that we are by nature children of wrath, while dead in sin, Eph. 2 1, 2, 3. but never of this, viz. that we are in favour while we be in our sin, much lesse that we are to beleeve this, because we are such: If therefore such persons be in a state of wrath and death and condemnation, is not this like the old false prophets, crying peace, peace and salvation, where there is no peace? There is no peace to the wic­ked saith my God, Isa. 48. ult. Isa. 57. ult. This is truth before they reject the Gospel, is it not? This the law saith (say some) true, But is not this confirmed by the Ministry of the Gospel also? Iob. 3. ult. He that beleeves not, the wrath of God abides upon him, [...], it was upon him before he did be­leeve, and when he beleeves not it abides where it did: Must the Ministers of the new Testament therefore preach lies and falshoods, and tell proud women and poor drunkards and vil­lains before they refuse the Gospel by unbelief, that the Lord Iesus loves them, and that they need not fear condemnation, when the Scripture hath shut up all men under it, that the pro­mise by faith might be given to those that beleeve, and them only? What is this Gospel Ministry but to tell men they are whole, and not sick to death, but healed before they come to the Physitian, the Lord Iesus? surely that is Gospel Ministry which advanceth Christ not onely in word, but in power in the hearts of poor sinners; but doth this Ministry advance [Page 108] the Physitians custome and honour, which where it comes must first tell all the crue of wretched drunkards, proud per­sons and villains, that they are already well and whole, loved and pardoned, blessed and saved, before ever they come to the Lord Jesus? suppose therefore (as some may say) that ser­vants and slaves to sin may have the Law preacht to them, yet the sons and children of God have no use of it in that respect now; 'tis true, I grant, not as the servants have under the new Testament, nor yet as the sons of God had under the old, for the children of God under the old Testament had need of this Schoolmaster to leade them to Christ to come, and ad Chri­stum typecum, i. to Christ typed out in sacrifices and oblati­ons, high Priest and Altar, and so it led them to Christ afar off, and as it were a great way about; but it doth not follow that there is no use of the Law therefore to be a Schoolmaster still to leade unto Christ immediatly and already come; those that are servants to sin under the new Testament have need of the law to shew them the condemnation and curse under which they lie by nature, and are now actually under: but the sons of God, (for whom Christ is made a curse) are not thus under it, and therefore have not this use of it, but only to shew that curse and condemnation which they do of them­selves deserve; and therefore the holy Apostle, when he was in Christ, and did live unto God, he shewes us how he did live unto God, viz. by dying to the Law, and how he did die to the Law, and that was by the Law, i. as it did shew him his condemnation; he did live to God in his justification; as it did shew him his sin, and wants, and weaknesse, it made him die unto it, and expect no life from it, and so live unto God in his sanctification; for so the words are, I through the Law am dead to the Law, that I may live unto God, Gal. 2.19. the issue therefore is this that if the doctrine be taken strictly pro lege fidei (as Chamier cals it) or that doctrine which shews the way of mans righteousnesse and justification only, there indeed all the works of the law, all terrours and threatnings are to be excluded, and nothing else but peace, pardon, grace, favour, eternall reconciliation to be beleeved and received; and there­fore it's no new Testament Ministry to urge the Law, or to thunder out any terrour here, for in this sence it's true (which is commonly received) that in the Law there are terrours, but in the Gospel none; but if the Gospel be taken largely for all that doctrine which brings glad tidings of Christ already come, and shews the love of God in the largest extent of it, and the illustrations and confirmations of it from the law, [Page 109] then such servants of Jesus Christ, who hold forth the law to make way for grace, and to illustrate Ch [...]ists love, must either be accounted New Testament Ministers, or else (as hath been shewne) Christ Jesus and his Apostles were none.

Thesis 115.115

The second is a professed neglect, and casting off the work of repentance and mourning for sin: nay of asking pardon of sin; for if the Law be no rule to shew man his duty, why should any man then trouble himself with sorrow for any sin? for if it be no rule to him, how should any thing be sin to him? and if so, why then should any ask pardon of it, or mourn under it? why should not a man rather harden his heart like an Adamant, and make his forehead brasse and iron, even un­to the death, against the feeling of any sin? but what doctrine is more cross [...] to the Spirit of grace in Gospel times, then this? which is a Spirit of mourning, Z [...]c. 12.10, 11. what doctrin more crosse to the expresse comand of Christ from heaven then this? who writes from heaven to the Church of Ephesus to remember from whence she is fallen and repent, Rev. 2.5. what doctrine more crosse to the example of holy men then this? who after they were converted, then repented and lamented most of all, Ier. 31.18.19. 2 Cor. 7.9.10, 11. what doctrine more crosse to the salvation of souls, the mercy of God, and forgivenesse of sin? for so the promise runs, if we confesse our sinnes, he is faithfull and just to forgive us our sins, 1 Joh. 1.9. what doctrine so crosse to the Spirit of the love of Christ shed abroad in the heart, that when a mans sins are greatest (which is after conversion, because now against more love and more nearnesse to Jesus Christ) that now a beleevers sorrow should be least monkish and macerating? sorrow indeed is loathsome, but godly sorrow is sweet and glorious; doubtlesse those mens blindenesse is ex­ceeding great, who know not how to reconcile joy and sorrow in the same subject, who cannot with one eye behold their free justification, and therein daily rejoyce, and the weaknesse and imperfection of their sanctification with another eye, and for that mourn.

Thesis 116.

The third thing is, a denying sanctification the honour of 116 a faithfull and true witnesse, or cleare evidence of our justifi­cation: for if a beleever be not bound to look unto the Law as his rule, why should he then have any eye to his sanct [...]fica­tion, which is nothing else but our habituall conformity to the Law, as inherent corruption is nothing else but habituall dis­agreement [Page 110] with it: although sanctification be no part of our righteousnesse before God, and in this sence is no evidence of our justification,Ps. 119.4, 5 1 Ioh. 2.3, 4 & 3.14. 2 Thes. 2.1 [...], 14. Isa. [...]8.3. 1 Thes. 1.4, 5, 6. yet there is scarce any clearer truth in all the Scrip [...]u [...]e then this, viz. that it is an evidence that a man is in a justified estate; and yet this leven which denies the Law to be a Christians rule of life, hath sowred some mens spirit [...] against this way of evidencing. It is a doubtfull evidence (saith D [...] Crisp) an argument, not an evidence, it is a carnall and an inferiour evidence, the last and the least, not the first evidence; it is an evidence if justification be first evident (say Den and Salt­marsh) some men may be led to these opinions from other principles then a plain denyall of the directive use of the Law, but this I feare lies undermost; however let these two things be examined.

• 1. Whether sanctification be a doubtfull evidence:
• 2. Whether it be a carnall, inferiour, and may not be a first evidence.

Thesis 117.

117 If to be under the power and dominion of sin and Origi­nall corruption, be a sure and certain evidence of actuall con­demnation, so that he that saith he knows Christ and hath fellowsh [...]p with him, and yet walks in darknesse, and keeps not his Commandments, is a lyar, 1 Ioh. 1.6. & 2.4. why may not sanctification then (whereby we are set free from the power of sin) be a sure and certain evidence of our actuall justification? for hereby we know that we know him, if we keep his Commandements, 1 Joh. 2 3. whereby it is manifest that the Apostle is not of their mindes who think the negative to be true, viz. that they that keep not Christs commandments are in a state of perdition, but they will not make the affirmative true, viz. that they that keep his Commandments may there­by know that they are in a state of salvation: If Jesus Christ be sent to blesse his people in turning them from their iniquities, Act. 3. ult. then they that know they are turned from their iniquities by him, may know certainly that they are blessed in him; and if they be not thus turned they may know certainly that they are yet accursed; If godlinesse hath the promises of this life, and that which is to come, 1 Tim. 4.8. and if the free grace and actuall love of God be revealed clearly to us only by some promise, how then is sanctification (so near akin to godlinesse) excluded from being any evidence? is there no inherent grace in a beleever that no inherent sanctification can be a true evidence? verily thus some do think; but what is this but an open gracelesse profession, thrr every beleever is [Page 111] under the power of inherent sin, if he hath not the being of any inherent grace? or if there be any inherent grace, yet it is (say some) so mixt with corruption, and is such a spotted and blurd evidence, that no man can discern it? I confesse such an answer would well become a blinde Papist who never knew where grace grew (for so they dispute against certitudo salutis certitudine fidei, when the conclusion of faith ariseth from such a proposition as is the word of God, and the assumption the testimony of Gods Spirit to a mans own experience of the work of God in his heart) but it ill beseems a Minister of the Gospel of Christ to plead for such popish ignorance in a Christian as can see no further then his own buttons, and that cannot discern by the Spirit of God the great and wonderfull change from darknesse to light, from death to life, from Satan to God, the visible work of God, and graces of the Spirit of God, the things (which the Apostle cals love) are fr [...]ely given to them of God. 1 Cor. 2.12. Peters was imperfect, blotted and mixed, and yet he could say, Lord, thou knowest I love thee. Ioh. 21.17, the poor doubting mourning man in the Gospel had some faith, and was able to see it and say certainly, Lord, I be­leeve, help my unbeleef. Could Paul discern (without extraor­dinary revelation because he speaks as an ordinary Christian) an inner man and a Law in his minde, delighting in the Law of God, yet mixed with a Law in his members, leading him captive into the Law of sin, and cannot we? and yet the Doctor doth cast such stains upon sincerity, universall obedience, love to the brethren, &c. and heaps up the same cavils against the truth of them in the souls of the Saints, as the Devil himself usually doth by sinfull suspitions and suggestions, when God lets him loose for a season to buffet his people, that so they may never know (if it were possible) what great things the Lord hath done for their souls: and whoever reades his book shall finde that he makes a Beleever such a creature as cannot tell certainly whether he be a sincere-hearted man or an arrand hypocrite, whe [...]her he be under the power of sin and Satan or not: whether one man can be discerned from another to be a Saint or a devill, or whether he hath any charity and goes love to them that are Saints from them that are not: and so abou [...] to befool and non-plus and puzzle the people of God (as the story relates of the German woman desirous to rid the house of her husband) who first making him drunk, and casting him into a sleep did so shave him, and dresse him, and cut and clip him, that when he awakened, he knew not what to thinke of himselfe, or to say who he was: for by looking [Page 112] upon and in himself, he thought he was the womans hus­band, and yet by his new cut and habit, he almost beleeved that he was a Fryar, as his wife affirmed: Sanctification is an evidence alway in it selfe of a justified estate, although it be not alway evident unto us, and therefore what though a Christian sees his sanctification and graces to day, and cannot see them, but is doub [...]full about them, suppose to morrow? shall he therefore reject it as a doubtfull evidence; which is ever clear enough in it self, though not alway to our discer­ning? for I would know what evidence can there be of a justified estate, but partly through dimnesse and weaknesse of faith (which is but imperfect and therefore mixt with some doubtings all a mans life, sometime or other) and partly through the wise and adored providences of God to exercise our faith, but that some time or other it cannot be discerned? is the immediate testimony of Gods Spirit (which some would make the only evidence) alway evident, and the shinings, sheddings and actings of it never suspended, but that by some means or other they will be at a losse? why then should sancti­fication be excluded as a doubtfull evidence, because some­time it is, and at other times not discerned? I know there are some who perceiving the conceived uncertainty of all such evidences, have therefore found out a strange catholicon for these sick times, a sure way of evidencing and leding all mens consciences in a way of peace and unshaken assurance of the love of Christ; and therefore they make (which I name with horrour) the sight of corruption and sinfull pollution, through the promise of the Gospel, the certain and setled evidence of life and salvation, which opinion the least I can say of it, is that which Calvin said in the like case, to be exundantis in mun­dum suroris Dei slagellum. Wo to the dark mountains of Wales, and the fat valleys, towns and cities in England, and sea coasts and Ilands in America, if ever this delusion take place: and yet this flame begins to catch, and this infection to spread, and therefore I finde M. Saltmarsh and W. C. to speak out, and o­penly to own that which the Familists in former times have ei­ther been ashamed or afraid to acknowledge, and that is this, viz: That the promise of the Gosp [...]l do belong to a sinner, quâ sin­ner, or as a sinner; and that the Law speaks good news to a righteous man, quatenus a righteous man; but the Gospel quite contrary, it is to a man quatenus a sinner, not as a regenerate man, or as an hum­ble man, or as a Saint, or as a beleever, but as a sinner; and hence they infer, That a Christian will never have any setled peace, but be off and on, as a bone out of joint, in and out, in and out, a reed [Page 113] tossed with the winde, never knit to Christ, if they lay hold on Christ and Gods love under any other consideration then as to sinners [...] and therefore though they see no good in themselves, though they be not humbled, broken-hearted sinners (as one Preacher tels them) nor be­leeving sinners (as another Preacher tels them) yet if they see them­selves sinners, they must know a sinner is the proper object of the Gospel, and therefore this is ground enough to beleeve: so that if the devil tell a man that he is no Saint, if the soul can say, I am a sinner, if the devil say thou art an hypocrite, I but an hypocrite is but a sinner still; though I be not a broken-hearted sinner, this will be (they say) a refuge of peace to retreat unto in all temptations; and when men have learnt this lesson, their souls will not be in and out any more, but have constant peace: for though they have no interest in Christ as Saints, yet they have reall interest in the promises of Christ as sin­ners: hence also they say, that no Minister is to threaten or declare the curse and wrath of God against drunkards and sinners as such, untill first Christ be offered in the Gospel, and they refuse him, and that if any do this, they are Ministers of the Old Testament not of the new. Sic de [...]init in piscem mulier formosa; let us therefore see what chaff and what corn, what truth and what falsehood there is in this n [...]w divinity. It is true, 1. That the Gospel reveals the free grace and love of God, the death of Christ and salva­tion by him for sinners, and that all those that are or shall be saved, are to acknowledge and aggrava [...]e Gods love toward them, in casting his eye upon them when they were sinners notwithstanding all their si [...]s; this the Scripture everywhere holds forth, Rom. 5.6, 7. 1 Tim. 1.15.2. 'Tis true also, that the Gospel makes an offer of Christ, and salvation and remis­sion of sins to all sinners, where it comes, yea, to all sinners as sinners and as miserable, yea, though they have sinned long by unbeleef, as is evident, Hos. 14.1. Rev. 3.17. Ier. 3 2 [...]. Isa. 55.1. all are invited to come unto these waters freely without money or price: these things no man doubts of that knows the Gospel: but the question is not whether Remis­sion of sins and reconciliation in the Gospel belong to sinners? but whether they belong to sinners immediately as sinners? not whether they are merited by Christs death, and offered out of his rich grace immediately to sinners? but whether they are actually and immediately their own, so as they may chal­lenge them thus as their own, from this as from a full and sufficient evidence, viz. because they are sinners and because they see themselves sinners? for we grant that Jesus Christ came into the world actually to save sinners, yet mediatly by faith, and then they may see salvation: that he justifieth also [Page 116] the ungodly; but how? immediatly? no, but mediatly by faith, Rom. 3.5. and that where sin abounds, grace abounds; to whom? [...]o all sinners? no; but mediatly to all those only who by [...]aith receive this grace, Rom. 5.17. so that the Gospel reveals no actuall love and reconciliation immediatly to a sin­ner as a sinner, but mediatly to a sinner as a beleeving and broken-hearted sinner; and the Scripture is so cleare in this point, that whoever doubts of it, must caecutire cum sole, and we may say to them as Paul to the Galathians, O foolish men, who hath bewitched you that you should not see this truth? For though Christ came to [...]ave sinners, yet he p [...]ofesseth that he came not to call the righteous, but the sick sinners, Mat. 9.13. though God justifieth the ungodly, yet 'tis such an ungodly man as beleeveth in him, whose faith is imputed unto righteousnesse, Rom 3.5. though grace abounds where sin abounds, yet 'tis not to all sinners (for then all should be saved) but to such as receive abundance of grace by faith, Rom. 5.17. although God holds forth Christ to be a propitiation for sinners, yet it's expresly said to be mediatly through faith in his bloud, Rom. 3.24.25: although the Scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise might be given, yet it is not said to be imme­diatly given to sinners as sinners, but mediatly to all that be­leeve; and in one word, though it be true that Christ died for sinners and enemies, that they might have remission of sins (then procured and merited for them) yet we never actually have, nor receive [...]his remission (and consequently cannot see it) as our own, untill we doe beleeve; for unto this truth (saith Peter) do all the Prophets witnesse that whosoever belee­veth in him shall receive remission of sins, Act. 10.43. and hence it is that as all the Prophets preached the actual favour of God only to sinners as beleevers, so the Apostles never preached it in New Testament times otherwise; and hence Peter, Act. 2.38. doth not tell the sorrowfull Jews that they were sinners, and that God loved them, and that Christ had died for them, and that their sins were pardoned because they were sinners, but he first exhorts them to repent, that so they might receive remission of sins; nor doth Paul tell any man that salvation belonged to him, because he is a sinner, but if thou beleeve with all thy heart thou shalt be saved, Rom. 10.5, 6, 7. if the love of God be revealed to a sinner as a sinner, this must be ei­ther, 1. by the witnesse of the Law; but this is impossible, for if the curse of God be herein revealed only to a sinner as a sin­ner, then the love of God cannot; but the Law curseth every sinner, Gal 3.10. Or 2. by the Light and witnesse of the Gos­pel; [Page 115] but this cannot be; for it reveals life and salvation only to a beleever, and confirms the sentence of the Law against such a sinner as beleeves not, Ioh. 3.17, 36. he that beleeves not is condemned already, not only for unbeleef (as some say) for this doth but aggravate condemnation) but also for sin, by which man is first condemned before he beleeves, if the Apo­stle may be beleeved, Rom. 3.19. and if a man be not condem­ned for sin before he beleeve, then he is not a sinner before he beleeve, for look as Christ hath taken away any mans con­demnation in his death, just so hath he taken away his sin. 3. Or else by the witnesse and testimony of Gods spirit: but this is flat contrary to what the Apostle speaks, Gal. 3.26. with 4 6. ye are all the sons of God by faith in Christ Iesus, and because ye are sons (not sinners) he hath sent the spirit of his son crying, Abba, Father, Gal. 4.4, 5, 6, and verily if the love of God be­long to sinners as sinners, then all sinners shall certainly be saved (for a quatenus ad omne val [...] consequentia) so that by this principle, as sinne hath abounded actually to condemn all, so grace hath abounded actually to save all, which is most perni­cious: nor do I know what should make men embrace Viz. that the Gospel belongs to sinners as sinners. this principle, unlesse that they either secretly think that the strait gate and narrow way to life is now so wide and broad, that all men shall in Gospel times enter in thereat, which is prodi­gious, or else they must imagine some Arminian universall Redemption and reconciliation, and so put all men in a sal­vable and reconciled estate (such as it is) before faith, and then the evidence and ground of their assurance must be built on this false and crazy foundation, viz. Iesus Christ had died to reconcile (and so hath reconciled) all sinners.

But I am a sinner,

And therefore I am reconciled:No univer­sall redem­ption the ground of faith. If this be the bottome of this Gospel-Ministry and preaching free grace (as doubtlesse 'tis in some) then I would say these things only.

1. That this doctrine under a colour of free-grace doth as much vilifie and take off the price of free grace in Christs death, as any I know, for what can vilifie this grace of Christ more, then for Christ so to shed his bloud as that Peter and Abraham in heaven shall have no more cause to thank Iesus Christ for his love therein, then Iudas and Cain in hell? it be­ing equally shed for one as much as for the other.

2. That this is a false bottom for faith to rest upon, and gather evidence from: for 1. if Christ hath died for a [...]l, he will then certainly save all: for so Paul reasons, Rom. 8.32. and 6.10. he hath given his Sonne to death for us, how shall [...]e not but with [Page 116] him give us all other things, and therefore he will give faith, and give repentance, and give perseverance, and give eternall life also; which is most false. 2. If he did not pray for all, then he hath not died for all, Ioh. 17.9. which Scripture never yet received scarce the shew of a rationall answer, though some have endeavoured it with all wilinesse.

3. That whereas by this doctrine they would clear up the way to a full and setled evidence and Christian assurance, they do hereby utterly subvert the principall foundation of all set­lednesse, and assurance of faith, which is this, viz. that if Je­sus Christ be given to death for me, then he will certainly give all other things to me, if we were reconciled to God by the death of his son, much more shal we be saved by his life, if Christ hath died and risen for us, who then shall condemn? who shall then seperate us from Gods love? Rom. 8.32. Rom. 6.9, 10. But if they hold no such principles, I would then know how any man can have evidence of this, viz. that God loves him, and that Christ hath died for him while he is a sinner, and as he is a sinner? or how any Minister of the New Testament can say to any man (under the power of his sins and the devil) that he is not condemned for his sins, but that God loves him, and that Christ hath died for him, without preaching falsehoods, and lies, and dreams of their own heart? for 1. God hath not loved nor elected all sinners, nor hath Christ died for all sin­ners. 2. If every man be in a state of condemnation before he beleeve the Gospel, then no man can be said to be in a state of reconciliation, and that God hath loved him untill he refuse the Gospel▪ but every man is in a state of condemnation be­fore he beleeve, because our Saviour expresly tel us, that by faith we passe from death to life, Ioh. 5.24. and he that hath not the son, hath not life, 1 Ioh. 5.12. and therefore if those be Mi­nisters of the new Testament who first preach to all the drun­kards and whoremongers and villaines in a parish, that God loves them, and that they are reconciled by Christ death, and that they may know it because they are sinners, then let the heavens hear, and the earth know that all such Ministers are false Prophets, and cry Peace, Peace, where God proclaims wrath; and that they acquit them whom God condemns: and if they be Ministers of the Old Testament spirit, who first shew men their condemned estate, and then present God as wroth a­gainst them, while they be in their sin, that so they may prize and fly to favour and free grace, then such are Ministers of the old Testament and not of the new, because they preach the truth; and if preaching the truth be an old Testament [Page 117] Ministry, no wise man then I hope will desire the new wine, for the old is better: while the Lion sleeps and God is silent, and conscience slumbers, all the beasts and wilde sinners of the world (and many preachers too) may think that there is no terrour in God, no curse, or wrath upon themselves in the midst of the rage, increase, and power of all their sins; but when this lion roars, and God awakens, and conscience looks above head, they shall then see how miserably they have been deceived, they may slight sin, abolish condemnation, talk of and wonder at free-grace now, and beleeve easily, because they are sinners, but certainly they shall be otherwise minded then: Some men may have good ends in preaching Gods free-grace after this manner in the Gospel, and make the Gospel a reve­lation of Gods actuall love to sinners as sinners; and make a Christians evidence of it nothing else but the sight of his sin, and of his being under the power of it, but little do they think what Satan the father of this false doctrine aims at, which are these four things chiefly.

1. That sanctification, faith, &c. might be no evidence at all to a Christian of a good estate, for this they say is a doubt­full evidence and an unsettling way of assurance; because they will hereby be as bones out of joynt, in and out; humbled to day, and then comforted, but hard-hearted to morrow, and then at a losse: whereas to see ones self a sinner, that is a con­stant evidence, for we are alway sinners, and the Gospel pro­claims peace to sinners as sinners.

2. That so men may keep their lusts and sins and yet keep their peace too, for if peace be the portion of a man under the power of sin and Satan; look then, as he may have it, why may he not keep it upon the same terms: And therefore W. C. saith, That if conscience object, thou art an hypocrite (perhaps truly) yet a hypocrite is but a sinner, and Gods love belongs to sinners as sin­ners: And if this be thus, what doth this doctrine aim at, but to reconcile God and Belial, Christ and Mammon? not onely to open the door to all manner of wickednesse, but to comfort men therein,

3. That so he may bring men in time purposely to sin the more freely, that so they may have the clearer evidence of the love of God; for if Gods love be revealed to sinners as sinners▪ then the more sinfull the more clear evidence he hath of Gods love; and therefore one once intangled with these delusions, was inticed to commit a grosse wickednesse, that more full assurance might be attained.

4. That so the true preaching and Ministry of the Gospel [Page 118] of Gods free-grace might be abolished (at least despised) which is this, viz. Thou poor condemned sinner, here is Christ Je­sus, and with him eternall remission of sins and reconcilia­tion, if thou believe and receive this grace offered humbly and thankfully; for this is Gospel, Mat. 28.19. Mark. 16.16. Rom. 10.5, 6, 7, 8. Rom. 3.14, 25. Act. 8.37. And hence Mr. W.C. hath these words. That if the Gospel hold forth Christ and salvation upon beleeving (as many saith he, preach) it were then little better tidings then the law. Ah wretched & unworthy speech, that when Jesus Christ himselfe would shew the great love of God unto the world, Ioh. 3.16. he makes it out by two expressions of it, 1. That the father sent his only Son; 2. That whosoever did beleeve, in him (or if they did beleeve in him) they should have eternall life; The Lord shews wonderfull love, that whoever beleeve may have Christ and eternall life by beleeving; but this doctrine breathing ou [...] Gods dearest love, by this mans account is little better then law, which breaths out nothing but wrath: But why doth he speak thus? Because (saith he) it is as easie to keep the ten Commandements as to beleeve of ones self: Very true, as to beleeve of ones self, but what is this against the preaching and holding forth Christ and salvation upon con­dition of beleeving? For is not this preaching of the Gospel the instrument and means of working that faith in us, which the Lord requires of us in the Gospel? And must not Jesus Christ use the means for the end? Were not those three thou­sand brought into Christ by faith, by Peters promise of remis­sion of sins upon their repentance? Were not many filled with the holy Ghost when they heard this Gospel thus preached upon condition of beleeving? Act. 10.43. Doth not the A­postle say that the Gospell is the power of God to salvation, because therein is Christs righteousnesse revealed (not to sin­ners as sinners) but from faith to faith? The condition of works is impossible to be wrought in us by the Spirit, but the condition of faith (though it be impossible for us to work it in our hearts) yet it is possible, easie and unusuall for God to work it by requiring of it, Ier. 3.22▪ which is no prejudice to Gods free-grace, because faith is purposely required and wrought, because it chiefly honours and advanceth free-grace, Rom. 4, 16. The promise is of faith that it might be by grace: If Mr W.C. will not preach Christ upon beleeving, how will he or any man else preach it? Will they tell all men that God loves them, and that Christ hath died for them, & that he that gives grace and salvation will work faith in them? Truly thus W.C. seems to affirm; but if they shall preach so to all sinners [Page 119] as sinners, and tell [...]hem absolutely God will work faith in them also, I suppose that the Church wals and plentifull and abundant experience would testifie against this falsehood; and the Scripture testifies sufficiently, that every man shall not have faith to whom the Gospel is preached: Now I do be­seech the God and father of lights to pitty his straying servants who are led into these deep and dangerous delusions thorow feeble mistake of the true difference between old and new Testament Ministries, and that he would pity his people for whose sins God hath let loose these blinding anct hardning doctrines, by means of which they are tempted to receive that as the Gospel of truth, which is but a meer lye, and to take that as an evidence of salvation that is in truth the evidence of perdition and condemnation, as hath been shewn.

Thesis 118.

The second thing remains to be cleared, whether sanctifica­tion may not be a first evidence and therefore more then a car­nall inferiour and last evidence, as Mr Saltmarsh cals it: For if it be (not a doubtfull) but a clear and certain evidence in it self (as hath been proved) why may it not be a first evidence? why may not the Spirit of God who works it in a person ju­stified, first reveal it as an evidence that he is justified? What mortall man can limit the Spirit of God, to what evidence he shall first bring in to the conscience of a justified estate? For let sanctification be taken in the largest sense, for any work of saving grace wrought in the Elect (whether in vocation to faith, or in sanctification which (strictly taken) followes our justification by faith) and take evidence not for evidence of the object (for Christ Jesus in his free-grace must be seen first as the ground on which faith rests) but for evidence of testimony to the subject, and then I thus argue, that this first evidence of speciall actuall love in beholding Gods free-grace to a sinner, it is either

• 1. Without the being of faith and other graces.
• Or 2. Without the seeing of them only, the eye looking up only to Christ and free-grace.

But this first evidence is not without the being of faith and holinesse; for then it should be to a man actually under the power of sin and his filthy lusts and the devil; which hath been already proved in the former Thesis to be a meer delusi­on: there being no such word of the Gospel which reveals Gods free love and actual reconciliation to a sinner as a sinner, and as under the power of his sins, but the Gospel rather re­veals the quite contrary; and to affirm the witnesse of the Spirit clears this up, is to pretend a testimony of the Spirit [Page 220] contrary to the testimony of the world; and yet I strongly fear and do fully beleeve that this is the first evidence which some men plead for, viz. to see Gods love toward them, while they neither see grace or any change of heart in them: or have grace, but are still under the dominion of their sin.

And on the other side, if any affirm that this evidence is not without the being of grace but onely without the seeing of it: so that a Christians first evidence is the seeing of Gods free grace out of himself, without seeing any faith or grace in himself, and seeing nothing else but sin in himself, this I con­fesse is nearer the truth, but it is an errour which leads a man to a precipice and near unto the pit: for if this be so, then these things will unavoidably follow.

1. That a Christian must see the love of God toward him in Christ, and yet must not see himself to be the person to whom this love onely belongs: for (according to this very opinion it self) it belongs only to a beleever, and one that hath the being of grace, and not to a sinner as a sinner.

2. Then a Christian must not see the love of Christ and free grace of God by that proposition or testimony of the Spi­rit which reveals it, and that is this, Tu fidelis, thou Beleever called and sanctified, art freely beloved: and thus a man must not see his estate good by the light of the spirit, nay thus a Christian must receive the testimony of the Spirit which as­sures him that he is loved without understanding the meaning of the Spirit, which is (not thou sinner as such) but thou Be­leever art beloved: not thou that hast no grace, but thou that hast the being of it, art beloved.

3. Then the first evidence is built upon a meer weaknesse, nay upon an untruth and falsehood; for it is a meer weaknesse not to see that which we should see, viz. the being of faith and grace in the heart, in which respect the promise is sealed, and if any man by not seeing it shall think and say there is no grace, no faith, no sanctification, and now he sees Gods love to such a one, and he thinks himself to be such a one when he sees Gods free grace, and hath this first evidence, it is a falsehood and an untruth, for it is supposed to be there in the being of it all this while; suppose therefore that some Christians at their first return and conversion to God or af­terward, have grace and faith, but see it not in their assurance of Gods love (the eminency of the object and good of it swal­lowing up their thoughts and hearts from attending them­selves) yet the question is quo jure, they do not see, nay should not see and take notice of the being of them in themselves? Is [Page 121] not this a meer weaknesse and falsehood which is now made the mystery of this first evidence? and indeed somewhat like Cusanus his summa sapientia, which he makes to be this▪ viz. Attingere illud quod est inattingibile inattingibiliter, That a Christian must see and touch Gods deep love, and yet neither see not touch nor feel any change in himselfe, or any being of grace, when in truth it is there; in which respect also Gods free-grace and love is revealed.

4. If this be the first evidence, then no Minister, no nor any Apostle of Christ Jesus, can give any first evidence of Gods love by the ordinary dispensation of the Gospel; for al­though a Minister may say. Thou art a sinner, therefore the Lord Jesus may save thee, yet he cannot say upon that ground that therefore the Lord Jesus will save him, for then every sinner should be saved: No Minister can say to any unbelee­ver, Christ hath redeemed thee, therefore beleeve, or say ab­solutely Thy sins are pardoned, for then he should preach contrary to the word which expressely tels us, That he that beleeves not is already condemned. No minister can say God will work faith in all you that are sinners, as hath been shewn; but they can say, Thou Beleever are pardoned, thou that art sanctified art reconciled, &c. It is therefore an evill speech of one lately in print, who cals That a bastard assurance, arising from a lying spirit, which first proceeds from the sight of any grace, and thence concludes they are justified and shall be saved. For I would thus argue, that this worke of grace (suppose love to the Saints, hunger and thirst after righteousnesse, universall respect to all Gods Commandments, &c.) it is either common to hypocrites and unsound, or else it is peculiar to the elect and sincere? If the first, then it cannot be either first or second evidence: it can be no evidence at all either without or with seeing, first, Gods free love to sinners as sinners; if the second, then either Gods promise (made to such as are hungry and humble, and have a work peculiar to Gods elect in them) must be fals (which is blasphemous to imagine) or else when­soever it is seen, whether first or last, it must needs be a most blessed and sweet, and sure evidence: for when we say that such a work of grace may be a first evidence, we do not mean, as if the work simply considered in it self could give in any evidence, but only as the free promise of grace is made to such as have such a work of grace; this promise we say to such persons, whensoever they see this work, gives in full and clear evidence of their blessed estate: And if the word of grace to a sinner as a sinner, may give in a first evidence (as some ima­gine) [Page 212] then much more may it give in evidence [...], where there is not only the word of grace, but also the spirit of grace, yea the work of grace to assure the conscience: and for any to affirm that faith and sanctification are good evidences, if justi­fication be first evident, is but a quirk of frothy wit; for it may be as safely affirmed on the contrary, that justification is a good evidence, if faith and sanctification he first evident; for 'tis not these simply, but the promise which is our evidence, which is never to a sinner as such: I shall therefore conclude these things with shewing the true grounds of effectuall evi­dence of the love of Christ.

Thesis 119.

119 The free-grace of God in Christ (not works) is the only sure foundation of justifying faith, or upon which faith is built, Rom. 3.24, 25. 1 Pet. 2.4, 5, 6. Mat. 16.18. This free-grace therefore must first be revealed by the Spirit of God in the Ministry of the Gospel in order unto faith, Rom. 10.14, 15. Eph. 1.13. which generall revelation of free-grace, some make to be the first evidence on which faith rests, and thus far it is true; but now this free-grace is revealed two waies.

• 1. In the free offer of it to be our own by receiving it, Act. 10.43. Gal. 2.16.
• 2. In the free promise of it revealing it as our own already, ha­ving actually and effectually received it, Ioh. 1.12. Rom. 5.1, 2. 1 Ioh. 5.12.

The free offer of grace (containing Gods call, command­ment and beseechings to beleeve and be reconciled) gives us right to this possession of Christ or to come and take and so possesse Christ Jesus by faith. Ierem. 3.22. 1 Cor. 1.9. Rom. 1.5, 6. The free promise of grace (containing revealed im­mutable purposes and actual assurances of present and future grace) gives us right to the fruition of Christ, or to enjoy Christ as a free gift when 'tis offered; the command and desire of the donor to receive it to be our own, gives us right and powet to possesse it: and when it is received, his promise to us assuring us that it is and shall continue our own, gives us right and priviledge to enjoy it and make use of it. For by two immu­table things (the promise confirmed by oath) we have strong consolation who have fled for refuge to the hope before us, Heb. 6.17, 18, 19. The free offer is the first ground of our faith, why we receive Christ to be our own: but the free promise is the first ground of the assurance of faith, why we are assured and per­swaded that he is our own already: for the Gospel containing three things, 1. The revelation of Christ: 2. The offer of Christ. [Page 123] 3. The promise of Christ to all those that receive this offer; Hence faith (which runs parallell with the Gospel, the proper object of it) first sees Christ, secondly receives Christ, thirdly is assured of the love of Christ having received him.

The free offer of grace being made to the soul because it is poor and sinfull, cursed and miserable, and that therefore it would receive Christ, hence it is that in this respect the soul is not bound first to see some good in it self and so to receive him, but rather is bound (at first breathings of God upon it) rather to see no good, i. nothing but sin and perdition, death and darknesse, enmity and weaknesse, and therefore to re­ceive him, Luk. 14.21. Revel. 3.17, 18. Gal. 3.22. Rom. 11.32. Hos. 13.3. But the promise of free-grace being actually given to the soul (and not declared only as it is in the free offer, be­cause it hath received Christ already by which he is actually its own) hence it is that in this respect, the soul is bound to see some good or saving work of grace in it self first, and so embrace and receive the promise and Christ Jesus in it: So that although in receiving Christ to be our own, we are to see no good in our selves wherefore we should receive him or beleeve in him; yet in receiving him as our own already, we must first see some good (the work of free grace in us) or else we have no just ground thus to receive him: No man can challeng any promise belonging to him without having a part in Christ the foundation of them; no man can have Christ but by receiving of him or beleeving in him, Ioh. 1.12. Hence therefore they that say that the first evidence of Gods love and free grace or actuall favour, i [...] to a sinner as a sinner, had need consider what they say; for is it to a sinner as possest with Christ and receiving of him, or as dispossest of Christ not ha­ving of him, but rather refusing and rejecting of him. If they say the first, they then speak the truth, but then they raze down their own pernicious principle, that Christ and Gods love belongs to them As sinners: If they affirm the latter, then they do injuriously destroy Gods free grace and the glory of Christ, who think to possesse promises without possessing Christ, or to have promises of grace, without having Christ the foundation of them all. For though the common love of God (as the bare offer of grace is) may be manifested with­out having Christ, yet speciall actuall love cannot be actually our own, without having and first receiving of him: And if the Spirit of God convince the world of sin (and consequent­ly of condemnation) while they do not beleeve, Ioh. 16.9. I wonder how it can then convince them of pardon of sin and [Page 124] reconciliation, before they do beleeve? unlesse we will ima­gine it to be a lying spirit, which is blasphemous. These things not considered of, have and do occasion much errour at this day in the point of evidencing, and hath been an in­let of deep delusion, and open gaps have been made hereby to the loose waies and depths of Familism and grosse Armini­anism, and therefore being well considered of, are sufficient to clear up the waies of those faithfull servants of the Lord (who dare not sow pillows, nor cry peace to the wicked, much lesse to sinners as sinners) both from the slanderous im­putation of legall ministrations after an old Testament man­ner, as also of making works the ground of faith, or the causes of assurance of faith; the free offer being the ground of the one, and the free promise the cause and ground of the other: Briefly therefore.

• 1. The free offer of grace is the first evidence to a poor lost sinner that he may be beloved.
• 2. The receiving of this offer by faith (relatively conside­red in respect of Christs spotlesse righteousnesse) is the first evidence shewing why he is beloved, or what hath moved God actually to love him.
• 3. The worke of sanctification (which is the fruit of our receiving this offer) is the first evidence shewing that he is be­loved.

If therefore a condemned sinner be asked whether God may love him, and why he thinks so? he may answer, Because Jesus Christ is held forth and offered to such a one: If he be further asked, why or what he thinks should move God to love him? he may answer, Because I have received Christs righteousnesse offered, for which righteousnesse sake only I know I am beloved, now I have received it: If he be asked lastly, how he knows certainly that he is be­loved; he may answer safely and confidently, Because I am sanctified: I am poor in spirit, therefore mine is the kingdom of heaven: I do mourn, and therefore I shall be comforted: I do hunger and thirst, and therefore I shall be satisfied, &c. We need in time of distresse and temptation all these eviden­ces, and therefore it is greatest wisdom to pray for that spirit, which may clear them all up unto us, rather then to contend which should be the first.

And thus we see that the whole morall law is our rule of life, and consequently the law of the Sabbath, which is a branch of this rule: We now proceed to shew the third branch, of things generally and primarily morall.

Thesis 120.

Thirdly, Not only a day, nor only a rest day, but the rest day 120 or Sabbath day (which is expressed and expressely interpre­ted in the Commandment to be the seventh day, or a seventh day of Gods determining, and therefore called The Sabbath of the Lord our God) is here also enjoined and commanded, as ge­nerally morall. For if a day be morall, what day must it be? If it be said, that any day which humane wisdom shall deter­mine, whether one day in a hundred or a thousand, or one day in many years; if this only be generally morall, then the rule of morality may be broken because the rule of equality may be thus broken by humane determination: For it may be very unequall and unjust to give God one day in a hundred or a thousand for his worship, and to assume so many beside to our selves for our own use. There is therefore something else more particularly, yet primarily morall in this Command, and that is The Sabbath day, or such a day wherein there ap­pears an equal division, and a fit proportion between time for rest and time for work, a time for God and a time for man, and that is a [...]venth day which God determines: A fit pro­portion of time for God is morall because equal, man cannot determine nor set out this proportion, God therefore only can and must, A day therefore that he shall determine is mo­rall, and if he declares his determination to a seventh, A se­venth day is therefore morall. Gomarus confesseth that by the Analogy of this Commandment, not one day in a thou­sand, or when man pleaseth, but that one day in seven is mo­rall, at least equal, fit, and congruous to observe the same: and if the Analogy he speaks of ariseth virtute mandati divini, or by vertue of Gods Commandment, the cause is in effect yiel­ded; but if this Analogy be made virtute libertatis humanae, so that humane liberty may do well to give God one in seven, because the Jews did so, and why should Christians be more scant? then I see not but humane liberty may assume power to it self to impose monthly and annuall holy daies as well, because the Jews had their new moons and yearly festivals; and by Analogy thereof, why may not Christians who have more grace poured out upon them, and more love shewn unto them under the Gospel, hold some meet proportion with them therein also, as well as in Sabbaths? But it can never be proved that God hath left any humane wisdom at liberty to make holy daies, by the rule of Jewish proporti­ons: Beside, if humane wisdom see it meet and congruous [Page 126] to give God at least one day in seven, this wisdom and reason is either regulated by some law, and then 'tis by vertue of the law of God, that he should have one day in seven, or 'tis not regulated by a law, and then we are left to a loose end again, for man to appoint what day he sees meet in a shorter or a longer time, his own reason being his only law; and this nei­ther Gomaras nor the words of the Commandment will allow, which sets and fixeth the day, which we see is one day in se­ven, which not man but God shall determine and therefore called The Sabbath of the Lord our God.

Thesis 121.

121 The hardest knot herein to unloose, lies in this, to know whether a seventh day in generall which God shall determine, or that particular Seventh day from the creation be here only commanded; the first seems (in Mr. Primrose apprehen­sion) to writhe and wrack the words of the Command­ment; the second (if granted) abolisheth our Christian Sab­baths.

Thesis 122.

122 For clearing up of this difficulty therefore, and leaving the dispute of the change of the Sabbath to it's p [...]per place, it may be made good, that not that seventh day from the crea­tion, so much as a seventh day which God shall determine (and therefore called the seventh day) is primarily morall, and therefore enjoyned in this Commandment, for which end let these things be considered and laid together.

1. Because the expresse words of the Commandment do not run thus, viz. Remember to keep holy That seventh day, but more generally, the Sabbath day; 'tis in the beginning and so 'tis in the end of this Commandment, where it is not said that God blessed That Seventh day, but The Sabbath day, by which expression the wisdom of God, as it points to that particular seventh day that it should be sanctified: so it also opens a door of liberty for change, if God shall see meet, because the substance of the Commandment doth not only contain That seventh day, but The Sabbath day, which may be upon another seventh, as well as upon that which God appointed first: and that the substance of the command is contained in those first words, Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy, may appeare from the repetition of the same Commandment, Deut. 5.12. where these words, As the Lord thy God commanded thee, are immediately inserted before the rest of the words of the Commandement be set down, to shew thus much: that there­in is contained the substance of the fourth command: the [Page 127] words following being added only to presse to the duty, and to point out the particular day, which at that time God would have them to observe.

2. Because in the explication of those words [the Sabbath] it is not called That seventh, but The seventh, for so the words runne, Six daies shalt thou labour, but the seventh day is the Sab­bath of the Lord thy God, the meaning of which is thus much, to wit, that man taking six daies to himself for labour, that he leave the seventh to be the Lords: now unlesse any can shew that no other day but that Seventh could be the seventh for rest, nor no other six daies but those six daies going before tha [...] seventh could be the six daies for labour, they can never prove that this fourth Commandment hath only a respect to That particular Seventh, and it is no small boldnesse necessa­rily to limit where God hath left free: for we know that if God will, man may take other six daies for labour, and leave another Seventh for God, then those six daies and that Se­venth day only.

3. The change of the Sabbath undeniably proves thus much (if it can be proved) that the morality of this command did not lie in that particular day only: for if that only was morall, how could it be changed? and if it did not lie only in that Seventh, wherein then did it more generally lie? was it in a day more largely or in a Seventh day more narrowly? now let any indifferent conscience be herein judge, who they be that come nearest to the truth, whether they that fly so far from the name Seventh, which is expresly mentioned in the Commandment, or they that come as near it as may be? whe­ther they that plead for a Seventh of Gods appointing, or they that plead for a day (but God knowes when) of humane institution? and it's worth considering why any should be offended at the placing of the morality of the command in a Seventh, more then at their own placing of it in a day; for in urging the letter of the Commandment to that particular Seventh, to abolish thereby the morality of a Seventh day, they do withall therein utterly abandon the morality of a day; for if That Seventh only be enjoyned in the letter of the Commandment▪ and they will thence inferre, that a Se­venth therefore cannot be required, how can they upon this ground draw out the morality of a day?

4. Because (we know) that ratio legis est anima legis, i. the reason of a law is the soul and life of the law: now let it be considered, why God should appoint the Seventh rather then the ninth or tenth or twentieth-day, for spirituall rest? and [Page 128] the reason will appear not to be Gods absolute will meerly, but because divine wisdom having just measures and ballances in its hand, in proportioning time between God and man, it saw a seventh part of time (rather then a tenth of twen­tieth) to be most equall for himself to take, and for man to give: and thus much the words of the Commandment im­ply, viz. that it is most equall if man hath six, that God should have the seventh: now if this be the reason of the law, this must needs be the soul and substance of the morality of the law, viz. That a Seventh day be given to God, man ha­ving six, and therefore it consists not in That Seventh day only: for the primary reason, why God appointed this or that Seventh, was not because it was that seventh, but because a Seventh was now equall in the eye of God for God to take to himself, man having the full and fittest proportion of six daies together for himself; and because a seventh was the fit­test proportion of time for God, hence this or that individual and particular seventh in the second place fall out to be mo­rall, because they contain the most equall and fittest propor­tion of a Seventh day in them; there was also another reason why That Seventh was sanctified, viz. Gods rest in it, but this reason is not primary as hath been said, and of which now we speak.

5. Because if no other Commandment be in the Decalogue, but it is comprehensive, and looking many waies at once, why should we then pinion and gird up this only to the nar­row compasse of that Seventh day only?

6. Because our adversaries in this point are forced some­time to acknowledge this morality of a Seventh with us: we have heard the judgement of Gomaras herein, Thesis 44. and M. Primrose who speaks with most weight and spirit in this controversie, professeth plainly, That if God give us six daies for our own affairs, there is then good reason to consecrate a Se­venth to his service, and that in this reason there is manifest justice and equity which abideth for ever, to dedicate to God precisely a seventh day after we have bestowed six daies upon our selves: it cannot be denied (saith he) but that it is most just; Now if it be by his confession, 1. just, 2. most just. 3. manifestly just. 4. perpe­tually just, to give God precisely one day in seven: the cause is then yeelded: the only evasion he makes is this, viz. that though it be most just to give God one day in seven, yet it's not more just, then to give God one in six, or five, or four, there being no na­turall justice in the number of seven more then in the number of six or four: but the answer is easie, that if man may give unto God [Page 129] superstitiously too many, or prophanely too few: and if the appointment of God hath declared it self for a seventh, and that the giving of this seventh be most just and equall, then let it be considered, whether it be not most satisfactory to a scrupling conscience, to allow God a seventh day which he hath appointed, which is confessed to be most just and perpe­tually equall, and consequently morall: and if there be a mo­rall and perpetuall equity to give God one day in seven, then 'tis no matter whether there be any more naturall equity therein, then in one in five or six: the disputers of this worl [...] may please themselves with such speculations and shifts, but the wisdom of God, which hath already appointed one day in seven rather then in six or ten, should be adored herein, by humble mindes, in cutting out this proportion of time, with far greater equity then man can now readily see.

7. Because deep corruption is the ground of this opinion, the plucking up of Gods bounds and land-marks of a se­venth, is to put the stakes into the Churches hands, to set them where she pleaseth; or if she set them at a seventh, where God would have them, yet that this may be submitted to, not because God pleaseth, but because the Church so plea­seth; not because of Gods will and determination, but because of the Churches will and determination, that so it being once granted, that the Church hath liberty to determine of such a day, she may not be denied liberty of making any o­ther holidaies, or holy things in the worship and service of God; and that this is the main scope and root of this opinion is palpably evident from most of the writings of our English adversaries in this controversie.

Thesis 123.

A seventh day therefore is primarily morall, yet (as was 123 formerly said Thesis. 48.) there is something else in this com­mandment which is secundarily morall, viz. This or that par­ticular seventh day, I will not say that it is accidentally morall (as some do) but rather secundarily, and consequently morall: for it is not morall firstly, because it is this particular seventh, but because it hath a seventh part of time, divinely propor­tioned and appointed for rest, falling into it, and of which it participates: to give almes to the needy is a morall duty, and primarily morall; but to give this or that quantity may be morall also, but it is secundarily morall, because it flowes ex consequenti, onely from the first; for if we are to give almes according to our ability and others ne­cessity, then this or that particular quantity thus suting [Page 130] their necessity must be given: which is also a morall duty, so 'tis in this point of the Sabbath.

Thesis 224.

124 Hence it follows, that this Commandment enjoynes two things: 1. More generally a seventh. 2 More particularly this or that seventh, and in speciall that seventh from the Creation, this or that seventh are to be kept holy, because of a seventh part of time appointed falling into them: A seventh day also is to be kept holy by vertue of the Comman­dement; yet not in generall, but with speciall eye and respect to that particular seventh, wherein this generall is involved and preserved. That seventh from the Creation is comman­ded, because of a seventh falling into it; and a seventh also is commanded, yet with a speciall eye to that seventh wherein it is involved: And therefore 'tis a vaine objection to affirm, that if a seventh be commanded, that then [...]o particular se­venth is; or if any particular seventh be so, that then a se­venth is not; for the Commandement we see hath respect to both; for what is there more frequent in Scripture then for generall duties to be wrapt up and set forth in some particu­lar things, instances and examples, and consequently both commanded together? and after narrow search into this Com­mandement we shall finde both the generall and particular seventh, not onely inferring one the other, but both of them in a manner expresly mentioned.

Thesis 125.

125 When those that plead for the morality of the fourth Com­mand, in respect of a seventh day, would prove it to be mo­rall, because it is part of the Decalogue and set in the heart of it, with a speciall note of remembrance affixed to it, &c. Mr. Ironside and others doe usually dash all such reasonings out of countenance, with this answer, viz. That by this argument, That particular seventh from the creation is morall, which we see is changed; for (say they) that also is set in the heart of the De­calogue, with a speciall note of remembrance also. But the reply from what hath ben said is easie, viz. That that also is indeed morall; only 'tis secondarily morall, not primarily; and there­fore (as we have shewn) was mutable and changeable, the primary morality in a seventh immutably remaining; the morall duty of observing a seventh day is not changed, but only the day. If Mr. Primrose could prove that there is no­thing else commanded in this fourth command, but only that particular seventh from the creation, he had then enough to shew that (this day being justly changed) the Command­ment [Page 131] is not morall of perpetuall,Prim. part. 2. cap. 6. S. 24. but out or this particular seventh which now is changed; himself acknowledgeth that out of it may be gathered the morality of a day, and why not of a seventh day also as well as of a day? He saith that it is a bold assertion to say that this genus of a seventh is herein com­manded: But why is it not as bold to affirm the same of a day? for out of that particular seventh whence he would raise the genus of a day, we may as easily, and far more rationally collect the genus of a seventh day.

Thesis 126.

Nor will it follow that because a seventh is morall, that 126 therefore any one of the seven daies in a week may be made a Christian Sabbath: For 1. We do not say that it is any se­venth, but A seventh determined and appointed of God for holy rest, which is herein commanded. 2. The Lord hath in wis­dom appointed such a seventh as that man may have six whole daies together to labour in: and hence it follows that divine determination without crossing that wisdom, could not pos­sibly fall upon any other daies in the Cycle of seven, but ei­ther upon the last of seven which was the Jewish, or the first of seven which now is (as shall be shewn) the Christian Sabbath. 3. As God hath appointed one day in seven for mans rest, so in his wisdom he so orders it, as that it shall be also a day of Gods rest, and that is not to be found in any day of the week, but either in the last of seven, wherein the Father rested, or in the first of seven wherein the Son rested from his work also.

Thesis 127.

'Tis true that the Sabbath day and that seventh day from 127 the creation, are indifferently taken sometimes the one for the other, the one being the exegesis or the explication of the other, as Gen. 2, 2, 3. Exod. 16.29. and elsewhere; but that it should be only so understood in this commandment, Creda [...] Iudaeus Apella—non ego, as he said in another case; I see no convicting argument to clip the wings of the Scripture so short, and to make the Sabbath day and that seventh day of equall dimensions: Although it cannot be denied, but that in some sense the Sabbath day is exegeticall of the seventh day, because the commandment hath a speciall eye to that seventh from the creation, which is secundarily morall, yet not ex­cluding that which is more generally contained in that par­ticular, and consequently commanded, viz. a seventh day or The Sabbath day.

Thesis 128.

128 Prim. part. 2. cap. [...]. S. 24.M. Primrose would prove the exegesis, That by the Sabbath day is meant that seventh day only from the creation, because God actually blessed and sanctified that Sabbath day, because God cannot actually blesse a seventh, being an unlimited, indefinite and uncertain indetermined time: The time (saith he) only wherein he rested, he only actually blessed, which was not in a seventh day in­determined, but in that determined seventh day: But all this may be readily acknowledged and yet the truth remain firm; for that particular seventh being secundarily morall, hence as it was expressely commanded, so it was actually and parti­cularly blessed; but as in this seventh a generall of a seventh is included, so a seventh is also generally blessed and sanctifi­ed. Otherwise how will M. Primrose maintain the morality of a day of worship out of this commandment? for the same objection may be made against a day, which himself acknow­ledgeth, as against a seventh day which we maintain; for it may be said, that That day is here only morall wherein God actually rested, but he did not rest in a day indefinitely, and therefore a day is not morall; let him unloose this knot, and his answer in defence of the morality of a day will help him to see the morality of a seventh day also: That particular day indeed wherein God actually and particularly rested, he particularly blessed, but there was a seventh day also more generall which he generally blessed also; he generally blest the Sabbath day, he particularly blest that Sabbath day, and in blessing of that he did virtually and by Analogy blesse our particular Christian Sabbath also, which was to come: As Moses in his actuall blessing of the tribe of Levi, Deut. 23.7, 10. he did virtually and by Analogy blesse all the Ministers of the Gospel not then in being: And look as when God com­manded them to keep holy the Sabbath in ceremoniall duties, he did therein virtually command us to keep it holy in Evan­gelicall duties; so when he commanded them to observe that day because it was actually appointed and sanctified and bles­sed of God, he commanded us virtually and analogically therein to observe our seventh day also if ever he should actu­ally appoint and blesse this other.

Thesis 129.

129 The distribution of equity and justice consists not alway, in puncto indivisibili, i. in an indivisible point, and a set mea­sure; so as that if more or lesse be done or given in way of justice, that then the rule of justice is thereby broken, ex. gr. it's just to give alms and pay tribute; yet not so just, as that [Page 133] if men give more or lesse, that then they break a rule of justice; so 'tis in this point of the Sabbath, a seventh part of time is morall, because it is just and equall for all men to give unto God, who have six for one given them to serve their own turn, and do their own work in, yet it is not so just but that if God had required the tribute of a third or fourth part of our time, but it might have been just also to have given him one day in three or two or four, for in this case positive de­termination doth not so much make as declare only that which is morall: And therefore if Mr Primrose thinks, that a seventh part of time is not morall, upon this ground, viz. because it is as equall and just to dedicate more time to God, and that a third or fourth day is as equall as a seventh, it is doubtlesse an ungrounded assertion; for so he affirms, That although it be most just to give God one day in seven, Part. 2. cap. 7. S. 4. yet no mo [...]e just then to de­d [...]cate to him one day in three or six: And suppose it be so, yet this doth not prove that a seventh day is not morall, because it is as equall to give six as seven, no more then that it is no morall duty to give an alms, because it may be as equall to give twenty pence as thirty pence to a man in want: If fur­thermore he think that it is as equall and just to give God more daies for his service, as one in seven, out of humane wisdom and by humane consecration, not divine dedication, then it may be doubted whether one day in two or three or six is as equall as one day in seven; for as humane wisdom, if lest to it self, may readily give too few, so it may superstiti­ously give too many (as hath been said:) But if four or three or six be alike equall in themselves to give to God, as one in seven, then if he thinks it a morall duty to observe any such day in case it should be imposed and consecrated by humane determination, I hope he will not be offended at us if we think it a morall duty also to observe a seventh day, which we are certain divine wisdom hath judged most equall, and which is imposed on us by divine determination: we may be uncertain whether the one is as equall, as we are certain that a seventh day is.

Thesis 130.

Actions of worship can no more be imagined to be done 130 without some time, then a body be without some place, and therefore in the three first Commandments, where Gods worship is enjoined, some time together with it is necessarily commanded; if therefore any time for worship be required in the fourth command (which none can deny) it must not be such a time as is connaturall & which is necessarily tyed to the [Page 134] 128 action; but it must be some solemne and speciall time, which depends upon some speciall determination, not which nature, but which Counsel determines; Determination therefore by Counsel of that time which is required in this command doth not abolish the morality of it, but rather declares and esta­blisheth it. God therefore who is Lord of time, may justly challenge the determination of this time into his own hand, and not infringe the morality of this command, considering also that he is more able and fit then men or Angels to see, and so cut out the most equall proportion of time between man and himself; God therefore hath sequestred a seventh part of time to be sanctified, rather then a fifth, a fourth, or a ninth, not simply because it was this seventh, or a seventh, but because in his wise determination thereof, he knew it to be the most just and equall division of time between man and himself; and therefore I know no incongruity to affirm, that if God had seen one day in three or four, or nine, to be as e­quall a proportion of time as one day in seven, that he would then have left it free to man to take and consecrate either the one or the other (the Spirit of God not usually restraining where there is a liberty) and on the other side, if he had seen a third or fifth or ninth or twentieth part of time more equal then a seventh, he would have fixed the bounds of labour and rest out of a seventh; but having now fixed them to a seventh, a seventh day is therefore morall, rather then a fourth or sixt or ninth day, because it is the most equall and fittest propor­tion of time (all things considered) between God and man; the appointment therefore of a seventh rather then a sixt or fourth▪ is not an act of Gods meer will only (as our adversa­ries affirm, and therefore they think it not morall) but it was and is an act of his wisdom also according to a morall rule of justice, viz. to give unto God that which is most fit, most just and most equall; and therefore although there is no naturall justice (as Mr Primrose cals it) in a seventh simply and ab­stractly considered, rather then in a sixth or tenth, yet if the most equall proportion of time for God be lotted out in a se­venth, there is then something naturall and morall in it rather then in any other partition of time, viz. to give God that proportion of time which is most just and most equall; and in this respect a seventh part of time is commanded because it is good (according to the description of a morall law) and not only good because it is commanded.

Thesis 131.

131'Tis true, that in private duties of worship, as to reade the [Page 135] Scriptures, meditate, pray, &c. the time for these and the like duties is left to the will and determination of man accor­ding to generall rules of conveniency and seasonablenesse set down in the word; mans will (in this sence) is the measure of such times of worship, but there is not the like reason here, in determining time for a Sabbath, as if that should be left to mans liberty also; because those private duties are to be done in that time, which is necessarily annexed to the duties them­selves, which time is therefore there commanded, where and when the duty is commanded: but the time for a Sabbath is not such a time as naturally will and must attend the action, but it's such a time as Counsell (not nature) sees most meet, and especially That counsell which is most able to make the most equall proportions of time, which we know is not in the liberty or ability of men or Angels, but of God himself, for do but once imagine a time required out of the limits of what naturally attends the action, and it will be found necessarily to be a time determined by counsell: and therefore our ad­versaries should not think it as free for man to change the Sabbath seasons, from the seventh to the fifth or fourth or tenth day, &c. as to alter and pick our times for p [...]ivate du­ties.

Thesis 132.

There is a double reason of proposing Gods example in the 132 fourth Command, as is evident from the Commandment it self: the first was to perswade, the second was to direct. 1. To perswade man so to labour six daies together, as to give the seventh, or a seventh appointed for holy rest unto God; for so the example speaks, God laboured six daies, and rested the seventh, therefore do you do the like. 2. To direct the people of God to That particular Seventh, which for that time when the Law was given God would have them then to observe, and that was that Seventh which did succeed the six daies labour: and therefore for any to make Gods exam­ple of rest on That Seventh day, an argument that God com­manded the observation of that Seventh day only, is a groundlesse assertion, for there was something more generally aimed at by setting forth this example, viz. to perswade men hereby to labour six daies, and give God the seventh, which he should appoint, as well as to direct to that particu­lar day which for that time (it's granted) it also pointed unto; and therefore let the words in the Commandment be obse [...] ­ved, and we shall finde mans duty 1. More generally set down, viz. to labour six daies, and dedicate the seventh [Page 236] unto God, and then follows Gods perswasion hereunto from his own example, who when he had a world to make, and worke to doe, he did labour six daies together, and rested the seventh; and thus a man is bound to do still: but it doth not follow, that he must rest that particular seventh only, on which God then rested; or that that seventh (though we grant it was pointed unto) was only aimed at in this exam­ple: the binding power of all examples whatsoever (and therefore of this) being ad speciem actus (as they call it) to that kind of act, and not to the individuum actionis only, or to every particular accidentall circumstance therein; If indeed man was to labour six daies in memoriall only of the six daies of creation, and to rest a Seventh day in memoriall only of Gods rest and cessation from creation, it might then carry a faire face, as if this example pointed at the observation of that particular seventh onely; but look as our six daies labour is appointed for other and higher ends, then to remember the six daies worke of God, it being a morall duty to attend our callings therein; so the Seventh day of rest, is appointed for higher and larger ends (as Didoclavius observes) then onely to remember that notable rest of God from all his works, it being a morall duty to rest the Seventh day in all holinesse.

Thesis 133.

133 It was but accidentall, and not of the essence of the Sab­bath day, that that particular Seventh from the creation should be the Sabbath; for the Seventh day Sabbath being to be mans rest day, it was therefore suitable to Gods wisdom to give man an example of rest from himselfe, to encourage him thereunto (for we know how strongly examples per­swade) now rest b [...]ing a cessation from labour, it therefore supposes labour to goe before; hence God could not appoint the first day of the creation to be the Sabbath, because he did then but begin his labour; nor could he take any the other daies, because in them he had not finished his work, nor rested from his labour, therefore Gods rest fell out upon the last of seven succeeding six of labour before; so that if there could have been any other day as fit then for exemplary rest as this; and as afterward it sell out in the finishing of the work of redemption, it might have been as well upon such a day as this, but it was not then so: and hence the rest day fell as it were accidentally upon this: and hence it is that Gods example of rest on that particular day doth not necessarily binde us to observe the same seventh day: morall examples [Page 137] not alway binding in their accidentals (as the case is here) although it be true that in their essentials they alway do.

Thesis 134.

There is no strength in that reason, that because one day 134 in seven is to be consecrated unto God,Wal. dis­ [...]ert. cap. 1. Jun. Annal. Explic. in Lev. 25. that therefore one yeere in seven is to be so also, as of old it was among the Jew [...] for beside what hath been said formerly, viz. that one yeere in seven was meerly ceremoniall, one day in seven is not so (saith Wallaeus) but morall; God gave no example (whose ex­ample is onely in morall things) of resting one yeere in seven, but he did of resting one day in seven. I say, beside all this, it is observable what Iunius notes herein, The Lord (saith he) challengeth one day in seven jure creationis, by right of crea­tion; and hence requires it of all men created: but he chal­lenged one yeere in seven, jure peculiaris possessionis, i. by right of peculiar possession, the Land of Canaan being the Lords land in a peculiar manner, even a type of Heaven, which every other Country is not; and therefore there is no reason that all men should give God one seventh yeer, as they are to give him one seventh day: By the observation of one day in seven (saith he) men professe themselves to be the Lords, and to belong unto him, who created and made them; and this profession all men are bound unto: but by observation of one yeere in seven, they professed thereby that their Countrey was the Lords, and themselves the Lords Tenants therein, which all Countreys (not being types of Heaven) cannot nor ought to doe; and therefore there is not the like reason urged to the observation of a seventh yeere, as of a seventh day.

Thesis 135.

Look therefore as 'tis in the second Commandement, al­though 135 the particular instituted worship is changed under the Gospel, from what it was under the Law, yet the generall duty required therein of observing Gods own instituted wor­ship is morall and unchangeable: so tis in the fourth Com­mandement, where though the particular day be changed, yet the duty remains morall and unchangeable in observing a seventh day; there is therefore no reason to imagine that the generall duty contained in this precept is not morall, because the observance of the particular day is mutable; and yet this is the fairest colour, but the strongest refuge of lies which their cause hath, who hold a seventh day to be meerly cere­moniall.

Thesis 136.

136 If it be a morall duty to observe one day in seven, then the observation of such a day, no more infringeth Christian li­berty, then obedience to any other morall Law, one part of our Christian liberty consisting in our conformity to it, as our [...]ondage consists in being left to sinne against it; and there­fore that argument against the morality of one day in seven is very feeble, as if Christian liberty was hereby infringed.

Thesis 137.

137 It was meet that God should have speciall service from man, and therefore meet for himselfe to appoint a speciall time for it: which time though it be a circumstance, yet its such a circumstance as hath a speciall influence into any busi­nesse, not onely humane, but also divine, and therefore if it be naturally, it may be also ethically and morally good, con­tributing much also to what is morally good; and therefore the determination of such a time for length, frequency, and holinesse, may be justly taken in among the morall Laws: he that shall doubt of such a powerfull influence of speciall time for the furthering of what is specially good, may look upon the art, skill, trade, learning, nay grace it self perhaps, which he hath got by the help of the improvement of time: a pro­phane, and religious heart, are seen and accounted of accor­ding to their improvements of time, more or lesse, in holy things: Time is not therefore such a circumstance as is good only because commanded (as the place of the Temple was) but it is commanded because it is good, because time, nay much time, reiterated in a weekly seventh part of time, doth much advance and set forward that which is good.

Thesis. 138.

138 That Law which is an homogeneall part of the morall Law, is morall: but the fourth Commandment is such a part of the morall Law, and therefore it is morall; I do not say that that Law which is set and placed among the morall Laws in order of writing (as our adversaries too frequently mistake us in) that it is therefore morall, for then it might be said as wel that the Sabbath is ceremoniall, because it it is placed in order of writing among things ceremoniall, Lev. 23. but if it be one link of the chain, and an essentiall part of the morall Law, then its undoubtedly morall; but so it is, for its part of the Decalogue, nine parts whereof all our adversaries we now contend with confesse to be morall; and to make this fourth ceremoniall, which God hath set in the heart of the Decalogue, and commanded us to remember to keep it above [Page 139] any other Law, seems very unlike to truth, to a serene and so­ber minde, not disturbed with such mud, which usually lies at the bottome of the heart, and turns light into darknesse: and why one ceremoniall precept should be shuffled in among the rest which are of another tribe, lineage and language, hath been by many attempted, but never soundly cleared un­to this day: surely if this Commandment be not morall, then there are but nine Commandments left to us of the morall Law, which is expresly contrary to Gods account, Deut. 4.

To affirm that all the commands of the Decalogue are morall, yet every one in his proportion and degree, and that this of the Sab­bath is thus morall, viz. in respect of the purpose and intent of the Lawgiver, viz. That some time he set apart, but not morall in res­pect of the letter in which it is exprest: it is in some sence for­merly explained, true, but in his sence who endeavours to prove the Sabbath ceremoniall, while he saith it is morall, is both dark and false: for if it be said to be morall only in res­pect of some time to be set apart, and this time an individuum vagum, an indeterminate time, beyond the verges of a seventh part of time; then there is no more morality granted to the fourth Commandment, then to the Commandment of buil­ding the temple and observing the new moons, because in Gods command to build the Temple: the generall purpose and intention of the Lawgiver was that some place be appoin­ted for his publike worship, and in commanding to observe New Moons, that some time be set apart for his worship, and so there was no more necessity of putting Remember to keep the Sabbath holy, then to remember to keep holy the new moons: And look as the commandment to observe new moons, cannot in reason be accounted a morall command­ment, because there is some generall morality in it, viz. for to observe some time of worship, so neither should this of the Sabbath be upon the like ground of some generall morality mixed in it; and therefore for M Ironside to say that the law of the Sabbath is set among the rest of the morall precepts, be­cause it is mixtly ceremoniall, having in it something which is morall, which other ceremoniall commands (he saith) have not, is palpably untrue; for there is no ceremoniall law of observing Jewish moons and festivals, but there was some­thing generally morall in them, viz. That (in respect of the purpose and intention of the Law-giver) some time be set apart for God, just as he makes this of keeping the Sab­bath.

Thesis 139.

139 Prim. part. 2. cap. 6.To imagine that there are but nine morall precepts indeed; and that they are called ten in respect of the greater part according to which things are usually denominated, is an in­vention of M. Primrose, which contains a pernicious and poy­sonfull seed of making way for the razing out of the Deca­logue more laws then one: for the same answer will serve the turn for cashiering three or four more, the greater part (sup­pose six) remaining morall, according to which the denomi­nation ariseth: For although it be true that sometime the denomination is according to the greater part, viz. when there is a necessity of mixing divers things together as in a heap of corn with much chaff, or a Butt of wine where there be many lees, yet there was no necessity of such a mixture and jumbling together of morals and ceremonials here: M. Prim­rose tels us that he doth not reade in Scripture, that all the Commandments are without exception called morall, and therefore why may there not (saith he) be one ceremoniall among them? But by this reason he may as well exclude all the other nine from being morall also; for I reade not in Scripture that any one of them is stiled by that name, Morall: And although it be true which he saith, That covenants a­mong men consist sometime together of divers articles, as al­so that Gods Covenant (taken in some sence) sometimes did so; yet the Covenant of God made with all men (as we shall prove the Decalogue is) ought not to be so mingled, neither could it be so without apparent contradiction, viz. That here should be a covenant which bindeth all men in all things to observe it, and yet some part of it being ceremoniall, should not binde all men in all things it commands: nor is there in­deed any need of putting in one ceremoniall law, considering how easily they are and may be reduced to sundry precepts of the morall law as appendices thereof, without such shuffling as is contended for here.

Thesis 140.

140 If this law be not morall, why is it crowned with the same honour, that the rest of the morall precepts are? if its dig­nity be not equall with the rest▪ Why hath it been exalted so high in equall glory with them? Were the other nine spoken immediatly by the voice of God on mount Sinai with great terrour and majesty before all the people? Were they writ­ten upon Tables of stone with Gods owne finger twice? Were they put into the Arke as most holy and sacred? so was this of the Sabbath also: Why hath it the same ho­nour, [Page 141] if it be not of the same nature with the rest?

Thesis 141.

Our adversaries turn every stone to make answer to this 141 known argument, and they tell us that it's disputable and very questionable whether this law was spoken immediatly by God and not rather by Angels: But let it be how it will be, yet this law of the Sabbath was spoken and written, and laid up as all the rest were, and therefore had the same ho­nour as all the rest had which we doubt not to be morall; and yet I think it easie to demonstrate that this law was imme­diatly spoken by God,Jun. Paral. and the reasons against it are long since answered by Iunius, on Heb. 2.2, 3. but it's uselesse here to en­ter into this controversie.

Thesis 142.

Nor do I say that because the law was spoken by God imme­diatly, 142 that therefore it is morall; for he spake with Abraham, Iob, Moses in the mount, immediatly about other matters then morall laws; but because he thus spake and in such a manner openly and to all people, young and old, Jews and Prose­lyte Gentiles then present, with such great glory and terrour and majesty.B. Manus [...]: of Sab. Surely it stands not (saith holy Brigh [...]man) with the majesty of the universall Lord who is God not only of the Jews but also of the Gentiles, speaking thus openly (not pri­vately) and gloriously and most immediatly, to prescribe laws to one people only which were small in number, but where­with all nations alike should be governed: Mr Ironside in­deed thinks that the Lord had gone on to have delivered all the other ceremonials in the like manner of speech from the mount, but that the fear and cry of the people (that he would speak no more to them) stopt him; but the contrary is most evident, viz. that before the people cried out, the Lord made a stop of himself, and therefore is said to adde no more, Deut. 5.22, It was a glory of the Gospel above all other messages in that it was immediatly spoken by Christ, Heb. 1.2. & 2.3. and so Gods immediate publication of the morall law puts a glory and honour upon it above any other laws; and therefore while Mr Ironside goes about to put the same honour upon ceremoniall laws, he doth not a little obscure and cast disho­nour upon those that are morall, by making this honour to be common with ceremoniall and not proper only to morall laws.

Thesis 143.

Nor do I say that the writing of the law on stone argues it 143 to be morall (for some laws not morall were mediatly writ on [Page 142] stone by Ioshuah, Josh. 8.32.) but because it was writ imme­diatly by the finger of God on such Tables of stone, and that not once but twice; not on paper or parchment, but on stone, which argues their continuance; and not on stone in open fields, but on such stone as was laid up in the Ark, a place of most safety, being most sacred, and a type of Christ who kept this law, and upon whose heart it was writ, Psal. 40.6, 7. to satisfie justice, and to make just and righteous before God, all that shall be saved, of all whom the righteousnesse of this Law, according to justice was to be exacted; what doe these things argue, but at least thus much, that if any Law was to be perpetuated, this surely ought so to be? Mr. Primrose tels us, that the writing upon stone did not signifie continuance of the Law, but the hardnesse of their stony hearts, which the Law writ upon them was not able to overcome; and tis true that the stony Tables did signifie stony hearts, but its false that the writing on stone did not signifie continuance also, ac­cording to Scripture phrase: For all the children of God have stony hearts by nature; now God hath promised to write his Law upon such hearts as are by nature stony, and his writing of them there implies the continuance of them there; so that both these may stand together, and the similitude is fully thus, viz. The whole Law of God was writ on Tables of stone, to continue there: so the whole Law of God is writ on stony hearts by nature to continue thereon.

Thesis 144.

Only morall Laws, and all morall Laws, are thus summarily 144 and generally honoured by God; the ten Commandements being Christian pandects and common heads of all morall duties toward God and men: Under which generals, all the particular morall duties in the Commentaries of the Prophets and Apostles, are virtually comprehended and contained; and therefore Mr. Primrose's argument is weake, who thinks that this honour put upon the Decalogue doth not argue it to be morall, Because then many other particular morall Laws set down in Scripture, not in Tables of stone, but in parchments of the Prophets and Apostles, should not be morall: For we doe not say that all morall Laws particularly were thus specially honou­red, but that all and only morall Laws summarily were thus honoured; in which summaries, all the particulars are con­tained, and in that respect equally honoured: It may affect ones heart with great mourning, to see the many inventions of mens hearts to blot out this remembrance of the Sabbath day; they first cast it out of Paradise, and shut it out of the [Page 143] world untill Moses time; when in Moses time its published as a Law, and crowned with the same honour as all other morall Laws, yet then they make it to be but a ceremoniall Law, continuing onely until the comming of Christ; after which time it ceaseth to be any Law at all, unlesse the Churches con­stitution shall please to make it so, which is worst of all.

Thesis 145.

Every thing indeed which was published by Gods imme­diate 145 voyce in promulgating of the Law, is not morall and common to all; but some things so spoken may be peculiar and proper to the Jews, because some things thus spoken were promises or motives only, annexed to the Law to perswade to the obedience thereof; but they were not Laws; for the question is whether all Laws spoken and writ thus immediately were not morall; but the argument which some produce a­gainst this is, From the promise annexed to the fifth Command, con­cerning long life, and from the motive of redemption out of the house of bondage, in the preface to the Commandments, both which (they say) were spoken immediatly, but yet were both of them proper unto the Iews: But suppose the promise annexed to the fifth Com­mandement be proper to the Jews, and ceremoniall, as Master Primrose pleads (which yet many strong reasons from Eph. 6.2. may induce one to deny) what is this to the question, which is not concerning Promises, but Commandements and Laws: Suppose also that the motive in the Preface of the Com­mandments literally understood is proper to the Jews; yet this is also evident, that such reasons and motives as are proper to some, and perhaps ceremoniall, may be annexed to morall laws which are common to all; nor wil it follow, that laws are therefore not common, because the motives thereto are pro­per: We that dwel in America may be perswaded to love and feare God (which are morall duties) in regard of our re­demption and deliverances from out of the vast sea storms we once had, and the tumults in Europe which now are, which motives are proper to our selves. Promises and motives an­nexed to the Commandements, come in as means to a higher end, viz. obedience to the Laws themselves; and hence the Laws themselves may be morall,Wal. di [...]. de 4. prae [...]. cap. 3. and these not so, though im­mediatly spoken, because they be not chiefly nor lastly inten­ded herein. I know Wallaeus makes the preface to the Com­mandments a part of the first Commandment, and therefore he would hence infer, that some part (at least) of a Command­ment is proper to the Jews; but if these words contain a motive pressing to the obedience of the whole, how is it possible that [Page 144] they should be a part of the law or of any one law? For what force of a law can there be in that which only declares unto us who it is that redeemed them out of Egypts bondage? For it cannot be true (which the same Author affirms) that in these words is set forth only who that God is whom we are to have to be our God in the first Commandement; but they are of larger extent, shewing us who that God is whom we are to worship, according to the first Commandement, and that with his own worship according to the second, and that reverently according to the third, and whose day we are to sanctifie according to the fourth, and whose wil we are to doe in all duties of love toward man, according to the severall duties of the second Table; and therefore this declaration of God is no more a part of the first then of any other Com­mandment, and every other Commandement may challenge it as a part of themselves as well as the first.

Thesis 146.

146 It is a truth as immovable as the pillars of Heaven, That God hath given to all men universally a rule of life to conduct them to their end: Now if the whole Decalogue be not it, what shall? The Gospel is the rule of our faith, but not of our spirituall life, which flows from faith, Gal. 2.20. Ioh. 5.24. The law therefore is the rule of our life; now if nine of these be a compleat rule without a tenth, exclude that one, and then who sees not an open gap made for all the rest to goe out at also? For where wil any man stop, if once this principle be laid, viz. That the whole law is not the rule of life? May not Papists blot out the second also, as some of Cassanders followers have done all but two; and as the Antinomians at this day do all? and have they not a good ground laid for it, who may hence safely say that the Decalogue is not a rule of life for all? Mr. Primrose, that he might keep himselfe from a broken head here, sends us for salve to the light of nature and the testimony of tbe Gospel, both which (saith he) maintain and confirm the morality of all the other Commandements, except this one of the Sabbath. But as it shall appeare that the Law of the Sabbath hath confirmation from both (if this direction was sufficient and good) so it may be in the mean time considered why the Gentiles who were universall Idola­ters, and therefore blotted out the light of nature (as Mr. Primrose confesseth) against the second Commandment, might not as wel blot out much of that light of nature about the Sabbath also; and then how shall the light of nature be any sufficient discovery unto us of that which is morall and of that which is not?

Thesis 147.

There is a Law made mention of, Iam. 2.10. whose parts 147 are so inseparably linked together that whosoever breaks any one is guilty of the breach of all, and consequently whosoe­ver is called to the obedience of one, is called to the obedi­ence of all, and consequently all the particular Jaws which it contains are homogeneall parts of the same Totum or whole law: If it be demanded, What is this Law? the answer is writ with the beams of the Sun, that 'tis the whole morall Law contained in the Decalogue: For 1. The Apostle speaks of such a Law which not only the Jews but all the Gentiles are bound to observe: and for the breach of any one of which, not only the Jews but the Gentiles also were guilty of the breach of all, and therefore it cannot be meant of the ceremoniall Law which did neither binde Gentiles or Jews at that time wherein the Apostle writ. 2 He speaks of such a Law as is called a royall Law, and a Law of liberty, vers. 8.12. which cannot be meant of the ceremoniall Law in whole or in part, which is called a Law of bondage, not worthy the royall and kingly spirit of a Christian to stoop to, Gal. 4.9. 3. 'Tis that law by the works of which all men are bound to ma­nifest their faith, and by which fa [...]h is made perfect, vers. 22. which cannot be the Ceremoniall nor Evangelicall, for that is the Law of faith: and therefore it's meant of the Law mo­rall. 4. 'Tis that Law of which, Thou shalt not kill nor commmit adultery are parts, vers. 11. Now these Laws are part of the Decalogue only, and whereof it may be said, he that said Thou shalt not commit adultery, said also, Remember to keep the Sabbath holy: and therefore the whole Decalogue, and not some parts of it only, is the morall Law, from whence it is manifest that the Apostle doth not speak (as M. Primrose would interpret him) of offending against the Word at large, and of which the Ceremoniall Laws were a part,Prim. part. 2. cap. 10. S. 15. but of offen­ding against that part of the word, to wit, the morall Law, of which, he that offends against any one is guilty of the breach of all; hence also, his other answer fals to the dust, viz. that the fourth command is no part of the Law, and therefore the not observing of it is no sinne under the New Testament, because it was given only to the Jews and not to us: for if it be a part of the Decalogue, of which the Apostle only speaks, then 'tis a meer begging of the question to affirm that it is no part of the Law of Christians: but we see the Apostle here speaks of the Law, and the Royall Law, and the Royall Law of Liberty: his meaning therefore must be of some speciall Law which he [Page 146] cals [...] The Law: now if he thus speaks of some spe­ciall Law, what can it be but the whole Decalogue, and not a part of it only? as when he speaks of the Gospel [...], he means not some part, but the whole Gospel also: and if every part of the Decalogue is not morall, how should any man know from any Law or rule of God what was morall, and what not; and consequently what is sinful, and what not? if it be said, the light of nature; we have proved that this is a blind and corrupt-Judge, as it exists in corrupt man: if it be said by the light of the Gospel, this was then to set up a light unto Christians to discern it by, but none to the Jews while they wanted the Gospel, as dispensed to us now: many mo­rall Laws also are not mentioned in the Gospel, it being but accidentall to it to set forth the Commandements of the Law.

Thesis 148.

148 If Christ came to fulfill and not to destroy the Law, Mat. 5.17. then the Commandement of the Sabbath is not abolished by Christs comming; if not one jot, prick or tittle of the Law shall perish, much lesse shall a whole Law perish or be destroy­ed by the comming of Christ.

Thesis 149.

149'Tis true indeed, that by Law and Prophets is sometimes meant their whole doctrine, both ceremoniall, and morall, and propheticall, which Christ fulfilled personally, but not so in this place of Matthew; but by Law is meant the morall Law, and by Prophets those propheticall illustrations and inter­pretations thereof, in which the Prophets do abound▪ for 1. The Lord Christ speaks of that law only, which whosoever should teach men to break and cast off, he should be least in the Kingdom of Heaven, Matth. 5.19. but the Apostles did teach men to cast off the Ceremoniall Law, and yet were ne­ver a whit lesse in the Kingdom of Heaven. 2. He speaks of that Law by conformity to which all his true Disciples should exceed the righteousnesse of Scribes and Pharisees: but that was not by being externally ceremonious or morall, but by internall conformity to the spiritualnesse of Gods Law, which the Pharisees then regarded not. 3. Christ speaks of the least Commandements, and of these least Commandments, [...], now what should those least Commandements be, but those which he afterward inter­prets of rash anger, adulterous eyes, unchaste thoughts, love to enemies? &c. which are called least, in opposition to the Pharisaicall Doctors conceits in those times, who urged the [Page 147] grosse duties commanded, and condemned men onely for grosse sins forbidden; as if therein consisted our compleat conformity to the Law of God: and therefore by the least of those Commandments is meant no other then those which he afterward sets down in his spirituall interpretation of the Law, vers. 21. never a one of which Commandments are Ce­remoniall, but morall Laws; and although Mr. Primrose thinks that there is no connexion between the seventeen, and the other expositors verses of the Law which follow, yet whoso­ever ponders the Analysis impartially, shall finde it other­wise: even from the 17 Verse to the end; the conclusion of which is, to be perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect, who is never made a pattern of perfection to us in ceremoniall, but only in morall matters: 'tis true indeed (which some ob­ject) that there is mention made of Altar and Sacrifice, vers. 23 which were ceremonials: but there is no Law about them, but only a morall Law of love is thereby prest with al­lusion to the ceremoniall practice in those times: he speaks also about divorce, but this is but accidentally brought to shew the morality of the Law of adultery; the Law of reta­liation wants not good witnesses to testifie to the morality of it, but I rather thinke 'tis brought in to set forth a morall Law against private revenge. Our Saviour indeed doth not speak particularly about the law of the Sabbath, as he doth of killing and adultery, &c. but if therefore it be not morall because not spoken of here, then neither the first, second, or fift command are morall, because they are not expresly ope­ned in this Chapter; for the scope of our Saviour was to speak against the Pharisaicall interpretations of the Law, in curtalling of it, in making grosse murder to be forbidden, but not anger; adultery to be forbidden, but not lust; which evil they were not so much guilty of in point of the Sabbath: but they rather made the Phylacteries of it too broad by overmuch strictnesse, which our Saviour therefore elsewhere condemns, but not a word tending to abolish this Law of the Sabbath.

Thesis 150.

If therefore the Commandment is to be accounted morall,150 which the Gospel reinforceth, and commends unto us (ac­cording to Mr. Primrose principles) then the fourth Com­mandment may wel come into the account of such as are morall; but the places mentioned and cleared out of the New Testament evince thus much: The Lord Jesus comming not to destroy the Law of the Sabbath, but to establish [Page 248] it: and of the breach of which one Law he that is guilty, is guilty of the breach of all.

Thesis 151.

151 If the observation of the Sabbath had been first imposed upon man since the fall, and in speciall upon the people of the Jews at mount Sinai, there might be then some colour and reason to cloath the Sabbath with rags, and the worn-out garments of ceremonialnesse: but if it was imposed upon man in innocency not only before all types and ceremonies, but also before all sin: and upon Adam as a common person, as a Com­mandement not proper to that estate, nor as to a particular person and proper to himselfe: then the morality of it is most evident; our adversaries therefore lay about them here, that they might drive the Sabbath out of Paradise, and make it a thing altogether unknown to the state of innocency: which if they cannot make good, their whole frame against the morality of the Sabbath, fals flat to the ground; and therefore it is of no small consequence to clear up this truth, viz. That Adam in innocency, and in him all his posterity were commanded to sanctifie a weekly Sabbath.

Thesis 152.

152 One would thinke that the words of the Text, Gen. 2.2, 3. were so plain to prove a Sabbath in that innocent estate, that there could be no evasion made from the evidence of them; for it is expresly said, that the d [...]y the Lord rested, the same day the Lord blessed and sanctified; but we know he rested the Seventh day immediatly after the Creation, and therefore he immediately blessed and sanctified the same day also: for the words runne copulatively, he rested the Seventh day, and he blessed and sanctified that day; but its strange to see not only what odde evasions men make from this cleare truth, but also what curious Cabilismes and fond interpretations men make of the Hebrew Text, the answer to which learned Rivet hath long since made, which therefore I mention not.

Thesis 153.

153 The words are not thus copulative in order of story, but in order of time; I say not in order of story and discourse; for so things far distant in time, may [...]e coupled together by this copulative particle And, as Mr. Primrose truly shews, Exod. 16.32, 33. 1 Sam. 17.54. but they are coupled and knit toge­ther in respect of time; for it is the like phrase which Moses immediatly after useth, Gen. 5.1, 2. where tis said, God created man in his Image, and blessed them, and called their names, &c. [Page 149] which were together in time; so tis here, the time God rest­ed, that time God blessed; for the scope of the words, Gen 2.1, 2, 3. is to shew what the Lord did that seventh day, after the finishing of the whole creation in six dai [...]s, and that is, He blessed and sanctified it. For look as the scope of Moses in making mention of the six daies orderly, was to shew what God did every particular day; so what else should be the scope in making mention of the seventh day, unlesse it was to shew what God did then on that day? and that is, he then rested, and blessed and sanctified it, even then in that state of innocency.

Thesis 154.

God is said, Gen. 2.1, 2, 3. to blesse the Sabbath as he blessed 154 other creatures, but he blessed the creatures at that time they were made, Gen. 1.22, 28. and therefore he blessed the Sabbath at that time he rested; Shall Gods work be pre­sently blessed, and shall his rest be then without any? Was Gods rest a cause of sanctifying the day many hundred yeers after (as our adversaries say) and was the [...]e not as much cause then when the memory of the creation was most fresh, which was the fittest time to remember Gods work in?Prim. part. 2. cap. 1. S. 14. M. Primrose tels us that the creatures were blessed with a present bene­diction, because they did constantly need it; but there was no necessity (he saith) that man should solemnize the seventh as soon as tis made; but as we shall shew that man did then need a speciall day of blessing, so tis a sufficient ground of believing that then God blessed the day when there was a full and just, and sufficient cause of blessing, which is Gods resting; it being also such a cause as was not peculiar to the Jews many hundred yeers after, but common to all man­kinde.

Thesis 155.

The Rest of God (which none question to be in innocency 155 immediatly after the creation) was either a naturall rest (as I may call it) that is, a bare cessation from labour, or a holy rest, i. a rest set apart in exemplum, or for example, and for holy uses; but it was not a naturall rest meerly: for then it had been enough to have said, that at the end of the sixt day God rested; but we see God speaks of a day▪ the seventh day. God hath rested with a naturall rest or cessation from crea­tion ever since the end of the first sixt day of the world untill now; why then is it said that God rested the seventh day? Or why is it not rather said that he began his rest on that day, but that it is limited to a day? Certainly this argues [Page 150] that he speaks not of naturall rest meerly, or that which ex natura re [...] follows the finishing of his work, for it's then an un­fit and improper speech to limit Gods rest within the ci [...]cle of a day; and therefore he speaks of a holy rest then appointed for holy uses as an example for holy rest; which may well be limited within the compasse of a day; and hence it undenia­bly follows, that if God rested in innocency with such a rest; then the seventh day was then sanctified, it being the day of holy rest.

Thesis 156.

156 It cannot be shewn that ever God made himself an example of any act, but that in the present example there was and is a present rule, binding immediatly to [...]ollow that example: if therefore from the foundation of the world, God made him­self an example in six daies labour and in a seventh daies rest, why should not this example then and at that time of inno­cency be binding? there being no example which God sets before us, but it supposeth a rule binding us immediatly ther­unto? The great and most high God could have made the world in a moment or in a hundred years, why did he make it then in six daies, and rested the seventh day, but that it might be an example to man? Its evident that ever since the world began, mans life was to be spent in labour and action which God could have appointed to contemplation only; nor will any say that his life should be spent only in labour, and never have any speciall day of rest (unlesse the Antinomians, who herein sin against the light of nature) if therefore God was exemplary in his six daies labour, why should any think but that he was thus also in his seventh daies rest? Pointing out unto man most visibly (as it were) thereby on what day he should rest: A meet time for labour was a morall duty since man was framed upon earth, God therefore gives man an example of it in making the world in six daies: A meet time for holy rest, the end of all holy and honest labour, was much more morall (the end being better then the means) why then was not the example of this also seen in Gods rest? M. Ironside indeed is at a stand here,Irons. Q. 1 cap. 4. and confesseth his igno­rance In conceiving how Gods working six daies should be exem­plary to man in innocency, it being not preceptive but permissive on­ly to man in his apostasie. But let a plain analysis be made of the motives used to presse obedience to the fourth command and we shall finde (according to the consent of all the Orthodox not prejudiced in this controversie, that Gods example of working six daies in creating the world, is held forth as a mo­tive [Page 151] to presse Gods people to do all their work within six daies also; and the very reason of our labour and rest now, is the example of Gods labour and rest then, as may also appear, Ex. 31.17. And to say that those words in the Command­ment (viz. Six daies thou shalt labour) are no way preceptive but meerly promissive, is both crosse to the expresse letter of the text, and contrary to morall equity to allow any part of the six daies for sinfull idlenesse or neglect of our weekely work, so far forth as the rest upon the Sabbath be hindered hereby.

Thesis 157.

The word Sanctified is variously taken in Scripture, and 157 various things are variously and differently sanctified: yet in this place when God is said to sanctifie the Sabbath, Gen. 2.2, 3. it must be one of these two waies: either, 1. By infusi­on of holinesse and sanctification into it, as holy men are said to be sanctified: Or, 2. By separation of it from common use, and dedication of it to holy use, as the Temple and Altar are said to be sanctified.

Thesis 158.

God did not sanctifie the Sabbath by infusion of any habi­tuall 158 holinesse into it, for the circumstance of a seventh day is not capable thereof, whereof only rationall creatures, men and Angels are.

Thesis 159.

It must therefore be said to be sanctified in respect of its 159 separation from common use, and dedication to holy use, as the Temple and Tabernacle were, which yet had no inherent holinesse in them.

Thesis 160.

Now if the Sabbath was thus sanctified by dedication; it 160 must be either for the use of God or of man, i. either that God might keep this holy day, or that man might observe it as a holy day to God, but what dishonour is it to God to put him upon the observation of a holy day? and therefore it was dedicated and consecrated for mans sake and use, that so he might observe it as holy unto God.

Thesis 161.

This day therefore is said to be sanctified of God that man 161 might sanctifie it and dedicate it unto God; and hence it follows, that look as man could never have lawfully dedicated it unto God, without a precedent institution from God, so the institution of God implies a known command given by God unto man thereunto.

Thesis 162.

162'Tis therefore evident that when God is said to sanctifie the Sabbath, Gen. 2.2, 3. that man is commanded hereby to san­ctifie it,Jun. in Gen. 2. and dedicate it to the holy use of God: Sanctificare est sanctifica [...] mandare, saith Iunius: And therefore if M Prim­rose and others desire to know where God commandeth the observation of the Sabbath in Gen. 2.2. they may see it here necessarily implied in the word Sanctifie: And therefore if God did sanctifie the Sabbath immediatly after the creation, he commanded man to sanctifie it then; for so the word San­ctified is expressely expounded by the holy Ghost himself, Deut. 5.15. We need not therefore seek for wood among trees, and enquire where and when and upon what ground the Patriarchs before Moses observed a Sabbath, when as it was famously dedicated and sanctified, i. commanded to be sanctified from the first foundation of the world.

Thesis 163.

163 Our adversaries therefore dazled with the clearnesse of the light shining forth from the text, Gen. 2.2. to wit, that the Sabbath was comman [...]ed to be sanctified before the fall, do fly to their shifts and seek for refuge from severall answers; sometimes they say 'tis sanctified by way of destination, some­times they [...]ell u [...] of anticipation, sometime they think the Book of Genesis was writ after Exodus, and many such inven­tions; which because they cannot possibly stand one with another, are therefore more fit to vex and perplex the mind, then to satisfie conscience; and indeed do argue much un­certainty to be in the mindes of those that make these and the like answers, a [...] not knowing certainly what to say, nor where to stand: yet let us examine them.

Thesis 164.

164 To imagine that the Book of Genesis was writ after Exodus, and yet to affirm that the Sabbath in Genesis is said to be san­ctified and blest, only in way of destination, i. because God destinated and ordained that it should be sanctified many years after; seems to be an ill favoured and mishapen answer, and no way fit to serve their turn who invent it: for if it was writ after Exodus; what need was there to say that it was desti­nated and ordained to be sanctified for time to come? when as upon this supposition the Sabbath was already sanctified for time past, as appears in the story of Exodus 19.20. And therefore M. Primrose translates the words thus, that God rested, and hath blessed and hath sanctified the seventh day, as if Moses writ of it as a thing past already; but what truth is [Page 153] there then to speak of a destination for time to come? I know Iunius so renders the Hebrew words, as also the word Rested, but we know how many waies some of the Hebrew [...]enses look, nor is it any matter now to trouble our selves about them, this only may be considered; That it is a meer uncer­tain shift to affirm that Genesis was writ after Exodus; M. Iron­side tels us he could give strong reasons for it, but he produ­ceth none; and as for his authorities from humane testimo­nies, we know it is not fit to weigh out truth by humane suf­frages; and yet herein they do not cast the scale for Genesis to be writ after Exodus; for although Beda, Abulensi [...], and di­vers late Jesuites do affirm it; yet Eusebius, Catharinus, Al­cuinns, a Lapide, and sundry others, both Popish and Protestant writers, are better judgmented herein; and their reasons for Genesis to be the first-born as it is first set down, seem to be most strong: The casting of this cause therefore depends not upon such uncertainties; and yet if this disorder were gran­ted, i [...] will do their cause no good, as, if need were, might be made manifest.

Thesis 165.

M. Ironside confesseth, That Gods resting and sanctifying the 165 Sabbath, Irons. Q. 1 cap. 4. are [...]etaneous, and acknowledgeth the connexion of them together at the same time, by the c [...]pulative And, and that as God actually rested, so he actually sanctifed the day: but this sancti­fication which he means is nothing else but destination, or Gods purpose and intention to sanctifie [...]t afterward: so that in effect this evasion amounts to thus much, viz. that God did actually purpose to sanctifie it, about 2500. years after the gi­ving of the Law, but yet did not actually sanctifie it, and if this be the meaning, it is all one as if he had said in plain terms, viz. that when God is said to sanctifie the Sabbath, he did not indeed sanctifie it, only he purposed so to do, and although M. Primrose and himself tels us that the word sanctifie signifies in the Originall some time to pr [...]pare and ordain: so it may be said that the word signifies sometimes to publish and pro­claim: if they say that this latter cannot be the meaning, be­cause we reade not in Scripture of any such proclamation that this should be the Sabbath, the like may be said (upon the reasons mentioned) concerning their destination of it there­unto: Again, if to sanctifie the day be only to purpose and ordain to sanctifie it, then the Sabbath was no more sanctified since the Creation, then ab aeterno, and before the world be­gan, for then God did purpose that it should be sanctified: but this sanctification here spoken of seems to follow Gods [Page 154] resting which was in time, and therefore it must be under­stood of another sanctification then that which seems to be before all time: again as God did not blesse the Sabbath in way of destination, so neither did he sanctiffe it in way of destination: but he did not blesse it in way of destination, for let them produce but one Scripture where the word blessed is taken in this sence, for a purpose only to blesse: indeed they think they have found out this purpose to sanctifie in the word sanctified. Isa. 13.3. but where will they finde the like for the word blessed also? for as the day was blessed so it was sanctified, and yet I think that the Medes and Persians in Isa. 13.3. are not called Gods sanctified ones, because they were destinated to be sanctified for that work, but because they were so prepared fo [...] it as that they were actually separa­ted by Gods word for the accomplishment of such work: but our adversaries will not say that God did thus sanctifie the Sabbath in Paradice by his word: and yet suppose they are called his sanctified ones in way of destination, yet there is not the like reason so to interpret it here, for in Isa. 13.3. God himselfe is brought in immediatly speaking, before whose eternall eyes all things to come are as present, and hence he might call them his sanctified ones, but in this place of Gen. 2.2. Moses (not God immediatly) speaks of this sanctifying in way of Historicall narration only; this destination which is stood so much upon is but a meer ima­gination.

Thesis 166.

166 It cannot be denied but that it is a usuall thing in Scrip­ture to set down things in way of Prolepsis and Anticipation, as they call it, i. to set down things aforehand in the history, which many years hapned and came after in order of time, but there is no such Prolepsis or Anticipation here (as our ad­versaries dream) so that when God is said to sanctifie the Sab­bath in Genesis, the meaning should be, that this he did 2500. years after the creation, for this assertion wants all proof, and hath no other prop to bear it up, then some instances of An­ticipations in other places of Scripture: the Jesuites from some unwary expressions of some of the Fathers, first started this answer, whom Gomarus followed, and after him sundry others prelatically minded: but Rivet, Ames, and others have scattered this mist long since, and therefore I shall leave but this one consideration against it, viz. That throughout all the Scripture we shall not finde one Prolepsis, but that the history is evident and apparently false, unlesse we do acknow­ledge [Page 155] a Prolepsis and Anticipation to be in the story: so that necessity of establishing the truth of the history, only can establish the truth of a Prolepsis in the history: I forbear to give a taste thereof by any particular instances, but leave it to triall; bu [...] in this place alledged of Gen. 2.2. can any say that the story is apparently false, unlesse we imagine a Pro­lepsis? and the Sabbath to be first sanctified in mount Sinai, Exod. 20. for might not God sanctifie it in Paradise, as soon as Gods rest, the cause and foundation of sanctifying of it, was existing? will any say with Gomarus that the Sabbath was first sanctified,Gomar. Inv. Se [...]. & Orig. Sab. 126. Exod. 16. because God blessed them so much the day before with Manna, whenas in the Commandment it selfe, Exod. 20. the reason of it is plainly set down to be Gods resting on the seveth day, and sanctifying of it long before?

Thesis 167.

There is not the least colour of Scripture to make this 167 blessing and sanctifying of the day to be nothing else but Gods magnifying, and liking of it in his own mind, rejoycing and as it were glorying in it,Prim. part. 2. cap. 2. S. 1. when he had rested from his works, and yet M. Primrose casts this block in the way for the blind to stumble at, supposing that there should be no such Anticipation as he pleads for: for surely if God blessed and sanctified the day, it was a reall and an effectuall sanctification and blessing, but this magnifying and glorying in it, in Gods minde, is no reall thing in the blessed God, he having no such affections in him, but what is said to be in him that way is ever by some speciall effects: the simple and pure essence of God admitting no affections, per modum affectus sed affectus, as is truly and commonly maintained.

Thesis 168.

If God sanctified and commanded Adam to sanctifie the 168 Sabbath, it was either that he himselfe should observe it per­sonally, or successively in his posterity also: now there is no reason to thinke that this is a command peculiarly binding Adam himselfe only, there being the same cause for his poste­rity to observe a Sabbath, as himselfe had, which was Gods example of labour and rest; and if this was given to his po­sterity also then it was a morall duty, and not a point of meer order proper to Adam to attend unto: yet Mr. Primrose for feare lest he should shoot short in one of his answers,Prim. part. 2. cap. 2. S. 5. wherein he tels us, that it did derogate much from the excellency of Adams condition to have any one day for God appointed unto him:Prim. part. 2. cap. 2. s. 19. yet here notwithstanding hee tels us, that if God [Page 156] had appointed such a day, it was no morall thing, nor yet a cere­mony directing to Christ, but only as a point of order, which God was pleased then to subject him unto: and that a man may as well conclude that it was a morall thing to serve God in Eden, because it was a place which God had appointed Adam to serve him in, as the seventh day to be morall because it was the time thereof: but this assertion is but a meer [...]; for the text tels us ex­presly, that God did both blesse and sanctifie the Seventh day in a speciall manner, as a thing of common concernment, but is never said to blesse and sanctifie the place of Eden. All men in Adam were made in the image of God, and was there but one thing in innocency wherein God made himself emi­nen [...]ly exemplary in labour and rest? & shal we think that that one thing was rather a point of order proper to Adam, then a part of Gods image common to all? the appointment of that royall seat of Eden, was an act of heavenly bounty, and ther­fore might well be proper to him in that estate; but the ap­pointment of the time for Gods speciall honour, was an act of justice, made and built upon a rule of common equity, as may appear out of the second edition of this Law in the fourth Commandment, and therefore might well be morally binding unto all, and not a point of meer order only for Adam to observe.

169 Thesis 169.

If Adam had stood, all mankinde might, and perhaps should have observed that particular seventh day for ever on earth: but look as Adam observed it not meerly because it was That Seventh (as hath been shewn) which was but secun­darily and as it were accidentally morall: but because it was the Seventh day appointed of God, which is firstly and prima­rily morall: so although we now do not observe that Se­venth day which Adam did, yet the substance of the morality of this command given unto him is observed still by us, in observing the Seventh day which God hath appointed, to which the equity of this command bindes generally all mankinde: hence therefore it is of little force which some object, that if the Commandment to man in innocency be morall, that then we are bound to observe the same Seventh day, which Adam in innocency did: this is oft laid in our dish; but the answer is easie from what hath been said.

Thesis 170.

170 If because we reade not any expresse mention that the Pa­triarchs before Moses time did sanctifie a Sabbath, that there­fore the Sabbath was not sanctified at that time, we may as [Page 157] well argue that it was not observed all the time of the Jud­ges, nor of the books of Samuel, because no express mention is made in those books of any such thing: for if it be said that there is no doubt but that they observed it because it was published on Mount Sinai, the like we may say concern­ing the Patriarchall times, who had such a fam [...]us manifesta­tion of Gods minde herein, from the known story, Com­mandment and example of God in the first creation, Gen. 2.2. it is not [...]aid expresly that Abram kept the Sabbath, but he is commended for keeping Gods Commandments, Gen. 26.5. and is not the Sabbath one of those Commandments, the breach of which is accounted the breaking of all? Exod. 16.27, 28. and may we lawfully and charitably think that Abram neglected other morall duties because they are not exp [...]esly mentioned? again it may be as well doubted of, whether the Patriarchs observed any day at all (which our adversaries confesse to be morall) because it n [...]ither is exp [...]esly mentio­ned [...]: again it may be said with as good reason, th [...] the sa­crifices which they offered were without warrant from God, because the Commandment for them is not expresly mentio­ned: but we know that Abel by faith offered, and faith must arise from a precedent word: so that as the approved practise of holy men doth necessarily imply a command, so the com­mand given (as hath been shewn) to Adam, doth as necessari­ly inferre a practise: again if no duties to God were perfor­med by the Patriarchs, but such as are expresly mentioned and held forth in their examples, we should then behold a strange face of a Church for many hundred years together, and necessarily condemn the generatio [...] of the just▪ for living in grosse neglects and impieties, t [...]ere being many singular and speciall duties which doubtlesse were done that were not meet particularly to be mentioned in that short epitome of above 2000 years together, in the book [...]f Genesis: and there­fore for M. Ironside and Primrose to conclude that the keeping of the Sabbath had certainly been mentioned if it had been observed, is very unsound. M. Primrose thinks that if the Sab­bath had been observed, Irons. Q. 1 cap. 2. Prim. par [...]. 1. cap. 2 [...] S. 4. it had been then mentioned, because lesser things then the Sabbath are made mention of, there being also frequent occasion to speak of the Sabbath, and that Moses and the Prophets would have pressed the observation of it from the Patri­archs example if they had so practised. But what is this kinde of arguing, but to teach the holy Ghost, what and when and how to speak? for there be many lesser matters exprest in many other historicall parts of the Scripture, and good occasion as [Page 158] man may fancy to speake of the Sabbath, and yet we see it is past by in [...]ence: but it is no wonder if he who questions whether there were any daies of fasting and prayer for 2000 yeeres together, because they are not expresly mentioned, if that he doubts also whether there were any Sabbath all that time, upon the same ground: but can any question that con­siders the sorrows of those times, which all ages have put men to seek God in such duties, but that they had such daies of fasting, as well as their betters in Evangelicall times, when the Bridegroom was gone.

Thesis 171.

171 It is not improbable but that the Sacrifices of Cain and Abel, Gen. 4.3. were upon the Sabbath day, the usuall stated time then for such services; for that which our Translation renders, In processe of time, the Hebrew cals it, [...] i. The end of daies; and why may not this be the end of the daies of the week (a known division of time, and most fa­mous from the beginning of the world, as R [...]vet demon­strates out of the best Antiquaries) rather then at the end of the moneths of the yeere? But 'tis not good to wrastle with probabilities, of which many are given, which do rather dar­ken then clear up this cause: This only may be added, that suppose the Patriarks observed no Sabbath from mans fall to Moses time; yet it will not follow that man in innocency was a stranger to it, because man in his apostacy forgot, or did not regard to keep it.

Thesis. 172.

172 If therefore it was a duty which Adam and his posterity were bound to keepe by a Law given them in innocency: Then it undeniably follows, that the observance of a Sabbath doth not depend upon great numbers of people to sanctifie it; for at first creation the number was but two, and yet they both were bound to observe it then: nor yet is it to be cast aside through any mans freedom from worldly imcumbran­ces, whereby he hath liberty to serve God more frequently every day; for thus it was also in the state of innocency, and yet the Sabbath to be observed then: It is therefore unsound which M. Primrose affirms herein, viz. That the consecration of a certain day for Gods service is not necessary, but then only, when many troop together and make up the body of a great Assembly; and that therefore it may be doubted whether the Patriarks having but small families and little cumber, observed any Sabbath, but rather served God alike every day with great ease and assiduity; and that therefore there was no need nor cause of a Sabbath till they be­came [Page 169] a numerous people at mount Sinai. But beside what hath been said, how will it appeare that the posterity of Seth called the sons of God, Gen. 6.1, 2. were not a numerous people? Or that Abrahams family was so small? out of which he could gather three hundred fighting men to pursue five mighty Princes in battell? But suppose they were few, yet have not small companies, and particular persons as much need of the blessing of a Sabbath? and speciall communion with God therein, as great numbers and troops of people? Is not the ob­servation of the Sabbath built upon better and surer grounds mentioned in Scripture, then bignesse of number, and freedom from cumbers, not mentioned at all?

Thesis 173.

If Adams fall was before the Sabbath (as Mr. Broad and some 173 others otherwise orthodox in this point of the Sabbath, con­ceive, by too much inconsiderate wresting of Psal. 49.12. Iohn 8.44.) yet it will not hence follow that he had no such command in innocency to observe the Sabbath before his fall: For whether man had fallen or no, yet the thing it selfe speaks that God was determined to work six dayes in making the world, and to rest and so to sanctifie the seventh, that hee might therein be exemplary to man; and consequently God would have given this law, and it should have been a rule to him whether he fell or no; and indeed the seventh daies rest depends no more upon mans fall, then the six daies worke of creation, which we see were all finished before the fall; the seventh daies holinesse being more sutable to that state then the six daies labour, to which we see he was appointed, if Gods example had any force to direct and lead him there­unto. Againe, if the law of labour was writ upon his heart before he was actually called forth to labour, viz. To dresse and keep the garden, Gen. 2.15. why might not also the law of holy rest be revealed unto him by God, and so answera­bly writ upon his heart before he fell, or came actually to rest upon the Sabbath? Little of Adams universall obedience to the Law of workes, was as yet actuall while he remained innocent; and yet all his obedience in time to come was writ upon his heart the first moment of his creation in the Image of God, as it were aforehand, and why might not thi [...] Law of the Sabbath be writ so aforehand?Broad. Tract. c. 1. And therefore M. Broad need not trouble himself or others in enquiring whether God sanctified the Sabbath before or after the first seventh day wherein God rested; and if before it, how Adam could know of the Sabbath before Gods compleat rest upon the first [Page 160] seventh day, the cause of it? for God was as well able to make Adam privy to his counsell aforehand concerning that day, before Gods rest on it, which was a motive to the observance of it, as he was to acquaint his people with his purpose for a holy Passeover before the occasion of it fell out:Ibid. Mr. Broad indeed tels us that its most probable that God did not blesse and sanctifie the first Sabbath or seventh day of rest, because it is not said that God blessed the Sabbath because he would, but because he had rested in it; but by his leave it is most proper to say that God at the end of the six daies worke had then rested from all his works; and thence God is said to sanctifie and rest the seventh day; his cessation from worke which is the naturall rest being the cause of resting the se­venth day with a holy rest (as we have shewn) and therefore there is no reason to stay till the seventh day was past and then to sanctifie it against the next seventh day; the first se­venth day, upon the ground mentioned, being first sanctified, and which Adam might be well enought acquainted with a­forehand, as hath been shewn.

Thesis 174.

174 If the Scriptures may be judge of the time of mans fall (which yet is not momentous to cast the balance either way in this controversie) it will be found that neither Angels nor men did fall the sixt day before the Sabbath; for then God looked upon all his works, and they were very good, Gen. 1.31. and therefore could not as yet be bad and evill by any sin or fall; and now because it's more then probable that if Adam had compleatly sanctified and stood one Sabbath, he had stood immutably, as I think might be demonstrated; he therefo [...]e not standing a whole seventh day, for then he could not have fallen, and yet not being fallen the sixt day, he therefore fell upon the Sabbath day, that as the breach of e­very other command was wrapt up in that first sin, so this of the Sabbath. The objections against this from Iohn 8.44. that Satan was a murderer from the beginning, and from Psal. 49.12. that man in honour did not [...] or abide one night in that estate, with some other conjecturall reasons ta­ken from some of the Schoolmens Obs and Sols are easily an­swered by a serious and sober minde, and therefore I leave them.

Thesis 175.

175 Adams soul (say some) did not need a Sabbath, because every day was a Sabbath to him; Greg. Val. Tom. 5. disp. 7. Q. 4. nor did his body need it, because it was impassible, say some, nor subject to wearinesse in its work, say [Page 161] others truly:Alex. Ales. part. 2 Q. 86. Ri [...]et. in Com. 4. to what purpose then should any Sabbath be appoin­ted unto him in that estate? But we must know, that the He­brew word for Sabbath, signifies holy rest, and therefore as Rivet well shews, it's called [...] not [...] Menuchah, which signifies common rest from wearinesse; hence it fol­lows that the Sabbath being originally sanctified for holy rest, not for common rest or rest from naturall wearinesse in la­bour; Adam might therefore stand in need of a Sabbath, though his body was not subject to any wearinesse in or after his labour. Hence also although he was to live holily every day, yet this hinders not but that his soul might then have need of the holy rest of a Sabbath: For 1. Adam was to serve God in a particular calling then, as is manifest from, Gen▪ 2.15. for he was then to keep and dresse the garden, and to act with and under God in the government of many inferiour creatures, Gen. 1.26. And thus his time being filled in ser­ving God with all holinesse in his calling, he might need a Sabbath; nor was it lawfull for him to turn daies of work in his calling into daies of rest, and so to keep a Sabbath every day, no not in that innocent and happy estate: for if it was contrary to Adams holy estate to work six daies, how could it be agreeable or sutable to the holinesse of God to work six daies? If God did labour six daies and rested a seventh with­out any need of a rest in respect of any wearinesse in his work, why might not, nay why should not man imitate and be like to his God in labour and rest, although he was not subject to any wearinesse in his holy work? 2. Though every day was to be spent in holinesse mediatly, both in seeing God in the creatures and meeting with God in his labour and calling: yet it was not unsutable, nay it was very needfull in that estate to have one day in the week for more immediate and speciall con­verse with God, and for God more immediatly and specially to converse with him. Nor indeed was it suitable to Gods wisdom to confine mans holinesse either then or now, either to holy labour only, or to holy rest only, for then he should not have been so like unto God who was exemplary holy un­to man in both. Speciall time for action wherein he closed with God more mediatly throughout the six daies labour, might well stand with speciall time for contemplation of God upon the Sabbath, wherein he was to enjoy God more imme­diatly. Adam did not need a Sabbath upon the same ground of weaknesse that we do, viz. because we cannot be earnest enough (as M. Primrose objects) in holy services to God upon the week daies, but we see it did not sute Gods wisdom nor [Page 162] mans holy estate, then to be intent and earnest only in the enjoyment of his rest, to which his intention on his calling and labour then, could not be any hinderance when the Sab­bath came; being free from such clogs of sin then, as we are now prest down withall: and therefore it is an unworthy ex­pression, but oft used by the same author and others: viz. That it did derogate from the excellency of Adams condition to ob­serve a seventh daies Sabbath, Ibid. s 19. and that the determination of a time then, did argue Adams inability, or want of inclination and af­fection to serve God ordinarily, and that the observance of a Sab­bath is a mark of a servile condition, as of other holy daies under the law; and that if Adam was able to serve God continually, that it was then needlesse to limit him to a particular day; and that if a day were needfull God would have left the choice thereof to his own freedom, considering the wisdom and godlinesse wherewith God had endowed him: These and such like expressions are but hay and stubble, which the light of the truth delivered may easily consume.

Thesis 176.

176'Tis true the Saints and Angels in heaven have no set Sab­bath; but doth it therefore follow that the state of innocen­cy on earth, should have been in all things like (and particu­larly in this) to the sta [...]e of glory in heaven? No such matter; For should there have been no marriage, no dressing of the garden, no day nor night, &c. in Paradise? because there is no marriage nor dressing of gardens, nor weeks, nor recko­nings of day and night in heaven? If God hath work for A­dam to do, not only upon the Sabbath, but upon the week daies also, why might he not be said to glorifie God without stint or ceasing, as the Angels do in heaven, unlesse M. Prim­rose will say that Adams marriage and dressing the garden, was a stinting and ceasing from glorifying God; which either he must affirm, or else his argument fals flat upon all four, who thinks that Adam could not have any set day for a Sabbath, because then he should not be like the Saints and Angels in heaven,Ibid. s. 18. who glorifie God continually without stint or cea­sing.

Thesis 177.

177 They that think that the Sabbath was not given to Adam, because it was given as a peculiar perogative and priviledge to the Jews:Irons. Q. 1 cap. 2. and they that think that it was the Jews prero­gative and priviledge because of such Scriptures as affirm that God gave unto them his Sabbaths, Exod. 16.29. Nehem. 9.14. Ezek. 20.12. and such like; they may as well imagine that [Page 163] neither the whole Decalogue or any part of it did belong to Adam, because the very same thing is affirmed of it, viz. That he gave his laws to Iacob, his statutes and judgements to Israel, Psal. 147.19. to them also it's said were committed the Oracles of God, Rom. 3.2. The Sabbath therefore is not said to be given to them as a peculiar propriety to the Jews no more then other parts of the Decalogue, but as a speciall mercy, yea as a sweeter mercy in some respect then the gi­ving of any other laws, it being the sweetest mercy upon earth to rest in the bosom of God (which the law of the Sab­bath cals to) and to know that it is our heavenly Fathers minde that we should do so upon every Sabbath day in a spe­ciall manner, without the knowledge of which law we have lesse light of nature to hold the candle to us to the obser­vance of it, then from any other laws to direct us to the obe­dience of them.

Thesis 178.

It is affirmed (but unwarily) by some, that the tree of life 178 in Paradise was a type of Christ, and thence some would in­fer, that it was not unsutable to Adams estate and condition in innocency, to be taught by types, and that the Sabbath might therefore be ceremoniall, supposing that it was obser­ved by Adam in his innocent estate: but although the tree of life and sundry other things in Paradise, are made Simili­tudes to set forth Christ Jesus in his Church by the holy Ghost, Rev. 22. yet it's a grosse mistake and most absurd to make every metaphor or similitude and allusion, to be a type: for the husbandman sowing of the seed is a similitede of preaching of the word, Mat. 13. and yet it's no type of it, an effectionate lover and husband is in sundry Scriptures a si­militude and resemblance of Christs affection and love to his Church and spouse, the head and members of mans body are similitudes of Christ the head and the Church his members; but will any affirm that these are also types of Christ? and just thus was Paradise and the Tree of life in it, they were simili­tudes to which the holy Ghost alludes in making mention of Christ and his Church, but they were no types of them: there was typus fictus in them or arbitrarius (which is all one with a similitude) but there was no Typus destinatus therein, being never purposely ordained to shadow out Christ: for the Co­venant of works by which Adam was to live, is directly con­trary to the Covenant of grace by faith in Christ, Rom. 11.6. [Page 164] by which we are to live, Christ is revealed only in the Co­venant of grace, and therefore could not be so revealed in the Covenant of works directly contrary thereunto. Adam ther­fore was not capable of any types then to reveal Christ to him: of whom the first Covenant cannot speak, and of whom Adam stood in no need, no not so much as to confirm him in that estate, for (with leave) I think that look as Adam brea­king the first Covenant by sinne, he is become immutably e­vill and miserable in himself, according to the rule of justice in that Covenant; so suppose him to have kept that Covenant, all his posterity had been immutably happy and holy, (not meerly by grace) but by the same equity and justice of that first Covenant, and hence it follows that he stood in no need of Christ or any Revelation of him by types, no not to con­firm him in that Covenant: I know in some sence whatever God communicates to his creature in way of justice, may be saîd to be conveyed in a way of grace, if grace be taken larg­ly for that which is conveyed out of Gods free will and good pleasure, as all things in the world are, even to the acceptance of that wherein there is most merit, and that is Christs death and satisfaction for sinne: but this is but to play with words; for it's clear enough by the Apostles verdict that grace strict­ly taken, is opposite to works, Rom. 11.6. the law of works which only reveals doing and life, to the law of faith which only reveals Christ and life; under which Covenant of grace Adam was not, and therefore had no types then to shadow out Christ: to say that Paradise and the Tree of life were types by way of anticipation (as some lately affirm) is as much as to say that they were not types then: and therefore nei­ther these nor the Sabbath were Ceremoniall then, and that is sufficient for what we aim at; only 'tis observable that this unsound expression leads into more palpable errours; for as they make the Tree of life Typicall by Anticipation, so they make the marriage of Adam and Eve, and consequently the marriage of all mankinde typicall, and then why should not all marriages cease, when Christ the Antitype is come? nay they make the rivers and precious stones and gold in Paradise thus Typicall of Christ and his Church, Rev. 21. and then why may they not make the Angels in heaven Typicall, be­cause men on earth who pour out the Vials are resembled to them? and why may not men riding upon white Horses be typicall, because Christ is so resembled? Rev. 19.11. Pererius [Page 165] who collects out of Hugo de vict. a type of the whole new Creation, in all the works of six daies first Creation, may please himself (as other Popish Proctors do) with such like shady speculations and Phantasmes, and so bring in the Se­venth day for company to be Typicall also; but a good and healthfull stomack should be exceeding fearfull of a little feeding on such windy meat: nor do I think that Hugo's new creation is any more Antitypicall to the first six daies Crea­tion, then Damascenes types in the fourth Commandment,Damas. [...]4 [...]id. Orth. cap. 24. who makes, Thou, thy son, thy daughter, thy servant, the stranger, to be types of our sinfull affections of spirit, and the oxe and the asse figures of the flesh and sensuall part [...] both which he saith must rest upon the Sabbath day.

Thesis 179.

If therefore the Sabbath was given to Adam in innocency 179 before all types, nay before the least promise of Christ, whom such types must shadow forth, then it cannot be in its first and native institution typicall and ceremoniall, but morall: and therefore in it's first and originall institution, of which we speak, it did not typifie either our rest in Christ from sinne in this life, or our rest with God in heaven in another life, or any other imagined rest, which mans wit can easily invent and invest the Sabbath with: but look as our Saviour in refor­ming the abuses in marriage c [...]ls us to the first institution; so to know what is perpetuall in the Sabbath, it's most safe to have recourse hither; which when it was first observed we see was no way typicall, but morall; and if man no way clogg'd with sin and earth had then need of a Sabbath, have not we much more?

Thesis 180.

As before the Fall, the Sabbath was originally and essen­tially 180 morall, so after the fall it became accidentally typicall, i. it had a type affixed to it, though of it's own nature it nei­ther was nor is any type at all: God affixed a farther end un­to it after the Fall, to be of farther use, to type out somewhat to Gods people, while in the substance of it it remaineth mo­rall, and hence it is that a Seventh day remains morall and to be observed, but not that Seventh day which was formerly kept; nor have we that end of resting which was under the Law, but this end only, that we might more immediatly and specially converse with God, which was the main end of the [Page 166] Sabbaths rest before mans fall; for if the Sabbath had been essentially typicall, then it should be abolished, wholly, and no more remembrance of it then of new moones and Jubilees, but because it was for substance morall, being extant before the fall, and yet had a type affixed to it after the fall, hence a Seventh day is still preserved, but that Seventh day is now abolished: and hence new moons and other Jewish Festivals as they are wholly Ceremoniall in their birth, so they are wholly abolished (without any change of them into other daies as this of the Sabbath is) in their very being.

Thesis 181.

181 There are sundry Scriptures alledged to prove the Sab­bath to be typicall and ceremoniall, out of the old and new Testament, as Isa. 66.23. Gal, 4.10. Rom. 14.4, 5. Col. 2.16. but if we suppose that these places be meant of the weekly Sabbath (which some deny) and rigidly urge them, we may quickly presse blood instead of milke out of them, and wholy abol [...]sh (as Wallaeus well observes) the observation of any Christian Sabbath: but this one consideration of a type affix­ed to it to make it so far forth ceremoniall, and therefore al­te [...]ble, which for substance is morall, may be as a right th [...]ed to lead us into a way of truth in this great contoversie, and to untie many knots, which I see not how possibly they can be otherwise unloosed, and therefore we may safely say, that that Seventh day is abolished, because it hath a type af­fixed to it; but that a Seventh daies Sabbath is still continued wherein there is no type at all.

Thesis 182.

182 If any say, why was now the ceremony affixed, washt off and removed after Christs comming, and so that Seventh day still continued: as we see publique prayer is still used, but the type of incense removed, and the first-borne still retaine that which is morall, the type affixed to them being now abolished? The reason of this is, because there is a necessity of the being of both, both prayer and first-born; for publique prayer must be, and first-born must be, and they cannot be changed into any other; but there was no necessity of the continuance of that first Seventh day to be the Sabbath▪ nay there was some cause to change it, and another day might be our Sabbath as wel as that first: look therefore as the Lord could have kept the Temple at Ierusalem, meerly as a place of worship, which at [Page 167] this day in the generall is necessary, and have washed and wiped off the typicall use of it in respect of Christ; yet the wisdom of the Lord abolished the very being of the Temple, because that place might be as well changed into another; and least through the typicalnesse of it mans corrupt heart should abuse it, so I may say concerning the Sabbath, it did not sute with the wisdom of God to wipe off the ceremony affixed to that Seventh day, when it might well be changed, and so keep that day, considering how apt mens ceremonious and superstitious hearts are to abuse such times or places, un­lesse the very types be abolished with the things themselves.

Thesis 183.

'Tis true, the Sabbath is called a sign between God and us,183 Exod. 31.13. Ezek. 20.20. but it doth not follow that there­fore it is originally significative and typicall; for it may be only accidentall [...]o, by reason of a type and signe affixed; yet upon narrow search of this place so much stood upon, no type at all can hence be proved, because a signe is mentio­ned: for it is not necessary to think that that it is a typicall and sacramentall signe, as circumcision and the Passeover were; for it might be only an indicant sign and declarative, as Num. 16.38. & 17.10. and as the fruits of Gods regene­rating Spirit are signs of our translation from death to life, 1 Ioh. 3, 14. which signes still continue: and if it be such a signe, it is rather a strong argument for the continuance of the Sabbath, then for any abolition or change thereof.

Thesis 184.

The Sabbath being no visible signe of invisible grace, it 184 cannot therefore be any Sacramentall sign or typicall, tis therefore an indicant and declarative signe of our communion with God, and God with us, of our interest in him, and of his in us: and therefore in those places, Exod. 13.31. and Ezek. 20.20. where tis called a sign, it is not made a signe simply and nakedly considered in it selfe (as all Sacramentall and typicall signes be) but it is so called in respect of our kee­ping of it, or as it is observed and kept; and therefore it runs in way of promise, Ezek. 20.20. If ye hallow my Sabbaths they shall then be a signe between me and you, and you shall know (hereby) that I am the Lord your God; and although the Sabbath it selfe be called a signe, Exod 31. yet it is explai­ned [Page 168] vers. 13. to be such a signe as to know hereby that the Lord our God sanctifies us; and in Ezek. 20.20. that we may know hereby that he is the Lord our God: for we know he is the Lord our God if he sanctifies us; and that we are his people, if we sanctifie, or be sanctified of him; and in this respect it becomes not onely a signe, but a mutuall signe be­tween God and us, and in no other respect (as Wallaeus would stretch it) and hence it is that whoever makes a con­science of sanctifying the Sabbath aright, shall not long want assurance of Gods love, by this blessed signe.

Thesis 185.

185 What type should be affixed to the Sabbath, and of what it is thus typicall and significative, is not a little difficult to finde out, and being found out to prove it so to be; in hand­ling the Change of the Sabbath I shall positively set down what I apprehend; only at the present it [...] not be amisse to cast in a few negatives of what it is not; for mens wits in ima­gining types and allegories are very sinfully luxurant, unlesse God check them in such kinde of divinity.

Thesis 186.

186 The type lies not in the day of worship; for the greatest adversaries of the Sabbath place a morality therein; nor doth it lie in a seventh day; for though seven be made a number of perfection; yet what sober minde ever made a type of se­ven, more then of six or ten? Some have made the week a short summary and epitome and resemblance of that old prophesie of the worlds continuance for 6000. yeares (a thousand years being with God but as one day) and the se­venth thousand the great day of rest and peace to the weary world; but this is a doubtfull assertion at best, or if true, yet it is not therefore properly a type, or if it be, yet not such a type as was to cease at the comming of Christ (as our adver­saries would have the Sabbath) but when the Antitype is come of that seven thousand years: If therefore it lies any where, it is in it as in a rest day, or a day of rest.

Thesis 187.

187 Some make the rest of the Sabbath, a type of Christs rest in the grave, and if it could be proved, I durst not oppose it; but it is but gratis dictum, affirmed by some godly learned, [Page 169] who herein symbolize with Popish postillers, who please themselves much in this and such like allegoricall significati­ons of the Sabbaths rest: For if Christ did neither enter in­to the state of rest till his resurrection, nor into the place of rest untill his ascension, how then could the rest of the Sab­bath type out his rest in the grave, which was part of his most heavy labour of humiliation, Act. 2.24. and no part of his rest, unlesse it was in respect of cessation therein from actions of naturall life? but the rest of one day is very unfit to re­semble and type out the rest of three daies in the grave; and why may not Christs rest from labour in his sleep be as well the antitype, as Christs rest from the actions of this life in his grave?

Thesis 188.

Why may not our labour in the six daies be made a type 188 of our labou [...]ing in sin, as well as the Sabbath a type of our sanctification and rest from sin? as some would have it; Why may not our Libertines make abstinence from adultery for­bidden in the seventh Command, a type of our spirituall chastity (as the Gnosticks did of old) as well as the rest from labour on the Sabbath a type of our rest from sin? And by this liberty how easie is it for f [...]othy allegorizing wits, which my heart abhors, to typifie (as it were) and allegorize all the commandments out of the world.

The [...] 189.

The rest on the Sabbath may be considered either in re­spect 189 of Gods example in himself, or his command to man out of himself: Now the rest of the Sabbath as it is exemplary in God cannot be a type of any thing, because God never made himself an example of any ceremoniall thing; Gods own im­mediate acts cannot without much injury to God be made types and ceremonies; if therefore there be any thing of the rest of the Sabbath typicall, it is so in respect of mans rest on it commanded unto him of God: but whether and what it doth typifie, we shall speak to in its Change of Sabbath proper place.

Thesis 190.

There wants not sufficient proof that the Gentiles gene­rally 190 practised and approved a seventh daies Sabbath, and that it was highly honoured among them as very sacred: This truth both Tertullian, Eusebius, Iosephus and Philo have for­merly [Page 170] affirmed; Aretus also, especially learned Rivet, have lately vindicated and made good against all the exceptions of Gomarus and others;Aret. loc. Com. de Sab. Rivet. in Com. 4 & dissert. de orig. Sab. Prim. part. 1. cap. 3. s. 9. insomuch as that the last refuge both of Gomarus and Primrose is this, viz. That all those Heathens who writ about the Sabbath and in honour of it, received not their light from nature, but from the writings of the Iewish Common­wealth, all those heathenish testimonies about the Sabbath, being published and writ long after the delivering of the law upon mount Sinai: And therefore they think this no argument to prove that this law was practised ever since the world began, or that it was known by the light of nature, by which it might be evinced to be morall: but by this answer we shall scarce know any thing to be according to the light of nature by the writings of the Heathens, for all their writings are since Mo­ses time, if they be of any credit; but suppose they did not know it by the working power of the light of nature, yet if they approved of, and honoured this day when it was made known by other means, so that rhey knew it by the appro­ving light of nature, as the authors alleaged make good, its then sufficient to prove the seventh day morall, even by the light of nature: And although Seneca and some others scoft at the Jewish Sabbaths, as if they lost the seventh part of their time thereby; yet we know that mens lusts wil give them leave to scoffe at that which yet their consciences cha­stise them for; beside I think those scoffs were not so much at the seventh day as at their [...]ict and ceremonious obser­vance thereof, as also of their seventh yeeres, wherein its no wonder if that the light of nature should not so clear­ly see.

Thesis 191.

191 The light of nature in the Gentiles, especially in matters of the first Table, was very imperfect, dim, and corrupt; Hence it is that we cannot expect to [...]inde any perfect light of nature in matters of the Sabbath; some glimmerings and dark practices herein are sufficient to prove that this Law is naturall, although the exact proportion of time for rest should not or could not by any reasoning of corrupt nature be perfectly found out; their observation of holy daies and festivals did argue some imperfect light of nature left, con­cerning the Sabbath, which once nature had more perfectly, as old walls and rubbish doe argue old and great buildings in former times; but suppose they could not finde out exactly [Page 171] the seventh part of time, and so dedicate it to God for his Sabbath; yet the want of such light argues only the want of perfection of the light of nature, which we should not ex­pect to finde in the present light of nature in matters of the first Table, and in this of the Sabbath; and therefore tis no argument to prove the Sabbath not to be of the Law of na­ture, because the perfect knowled of the exact time thereof is not left in corrupt nature now.

Thesis 192.

Suppose the Gentiles did neither know, nor were ever re­proved 192 particularly by any of the Prophets for breaking the Sabbath; yet this doth not argue that they were not bound to sanctifie a Sabbath, and that it was no sin for them to neg­lect the Sabbath: for it was a priviledge of the Jews to have Gods Oracles revealed to them, and especially this of the Sabbath, Nehem. 9.14. Rom. 3.2. so it was a curse upon the Gentiles to live without Christ, and so also without Sab­baths, Ephes. 2.12. The times of which ignorance God is said to wink at, Acts 17.30. not by excusing them for the breach of Sabbath or other sins, but by not reproving them for it, as neither he did for many other morall transgressions, which notwithstanding were sins. The Patriarchs were not con­demned expressely till Moses time (by Mr. Primrose account) for their Polygamie, that we read of, and yet it was a sin all that time against the very first institution of marriage; and why might not the breach of the Sabbath be a sin much more longer among the Gentiles, and yet none of the Pro­phets reprove them particularly for the same? And there­fore M. Primrose hath no cause to mark this argument with chalke, and with all attention, as he cals it; viz. That the breach of the Sabbath among the Gentiles was no sin, be­cause it was not any where particularly reproved by the Pro­phets of God: for we see by what hath been said upon what weake crutches it stands.

Thesis 193.

The Gentiles shall not be condemned only for what they 193 did actually know, and did not practice; but also for what they did not actually know, yet might and should have known: The Gentiles did know that that some daies were to be kept holy to God (saith M. Primrose) and they should have known the fittest proportion and most suitable frequency of such daies, which the same author acknowledgeth to be [Page 172] morall; therefore they should have known the seventh daies Sabbath, and possibly might have known it if they had not held truth in righteousnesse, but made improvement thereof; for in this sense habenti dabitur, to him that hath shall be given, to wit, more of the same kind of l [...]ght, whether naturall, morall, or Evangelicall; if common light in all these, more common light; if speciall light in them, they shall then have more speciall and saving light.

Thesis 194.

194 As it is no argument that that Law is according to the light of nature, which the Gentiles generally practised (for then Polytheisme and Sacrificing of beasts, yea wil-worship should be according to the light of nature, because these sins were generally practised) so it is no argument that that Law is not according to the light of nature which they ge­nerally neglected; and therefore suppose the Gentiles never observed a Sabbath, yet this is no argument that it is there­fore no morall Law.Prim part. 1. cap. 3. S. 3. I know M. Primrose thinks that the Sa­crifices were by an instinct of nature, Because it dictates that all sinnes whereof mortall men are guilty, are to be expiated by Sacrifice and Offerings to God offended: Which assertion hath some truth in it, if those words By Sacrifices and Offerings be left out; for what light of nature could make men think that an infinite Deity offended could be pacified by such carnall observances as the Sacrifices of brute beasts, and their blood, which never offended? This custome the Gen­tiles might retain as a Relique of former instruction and in­stitution, by their first Fathers after the flood: which being matters meerly ceremonious, might be retained more firmly then other morall duties of great consequence; however we see that the practice of the Gentiles is no fit guide to direct that which is according to the law and light of nature.

Thesis 195.

195 If more narrow enquiry be made, what the Law of nature is? these distinctions must be observed.

1. The Law of nature is either of

• pure,
• or corrupt

nature.

The Law of pure nature was the Law of God writ on A­dams heart in innocency, which was nothing else but that ho­ly [Page 173] bent and inclination of the heart within, to act according to the holy Law of God revealed, or Covenant made with him without,Aqu [...] 1 [...], 2 [...]. Q. 91. art. 1. and thus Aquinas places the law of nature in this inclination.

The Law of corrupt nature is that dimme light left in the minde, and morall inclination left in the will in respect of some things contained in the Law of God, which the Apostle cals Conscience, Rom. 2.15. which naturall conscience is no­thing but the remnants and generall principles of the law of pure nature, left in all men since the fall, which may be in­creased by more knowledge of the Law of God, or more diminished and defaced by the wickednesse of man, Titus 1.15.

2. The Law of corrupt nature is taken either more

• largely,
• or strictly.

As it is taken more largely, so it comprehends all that which is agreeable and sutable to naturall reason, and that from a naturall innate equity in the thing, when it is made known, either by divine instruction or humane wisdom, al­though it be not immediatly known by the light of nature, and thus many judiciall laws are naturall and morall (though positive) and of binding nature unto this day.

As it is taken strictly, so it comprehends no more but what nature immediatly knows, or may know without externall instruction, as parents to be honoured, mans life to be pre­served.

3. The Law of nature strictly taken, are either

• principles of nature,
• or conclusions from such principles.

The principles of the law of nature are in some respect many, yet may be reduced to this one head, viz. That good is to be followed, evill to be avoided.

Conclusions are deductions from those principles, like severall streames from the same spring, which though lesse evident then the principles, yet may be readily found out by discourse and sad search.

4. Conclusions arising from these principles, are more

• immediate,
• or mediate.

Immediate are made (by Aquinas) to be two. 1. Love God with all thy heart. 2. Love thy neighbour as thy selfe.

[Page 174]Mediate are such as arise from the former principles, by means of those two more immediate conclusions: and of this kinde are some (as he thinks▪) yea, all the laws of the Decalogue, if right reason may be judge. Now to apply these.

Thesis 196.

196 If the question be whether the Sabbath be known by the light of pure nature? the answer is, yea; for Adams minde knew of it, and his heart was inclined and bent to the kee­ping of it, although it be true that now this light in corrupt nature (as in many other morall duties) is almost wholly ex­tinct and worn out, as hath been formerly shewn; And to speak plainly, this great and first impression left on mans heart in pure nature, is the first rule according to which we are now to judge of what is the law of nature, and it serves to dash to peeces and grinde to powder and dust most effectually and strongly, the dreams and devices of such as would make the Sabbath not morall, because not natu­rall, or not easily known by the present light of corrupt nature, when as corrupt nature is no perfect copy, but a blotted discovery of some part of the light of nature, which was fully imprinted at large in pure nature: and therefore it is no wonder, if our adversaries so much op­pose the Commandment of the Sabbath in the state of innocency: such therefore as are otherwise Orthodox in this point, and yet make this description of the Law of nature (viz. which was written on mans heart in his first first Creation) to be both uncertain and impertinent, doe unwarily pull down one of the strongest bulwarks, and the first that ever God made to defend the morality of the Sab­bath: there is indeed no expresse Scripture which makes this description of the Law of nature (as they object) and so it is of many other things which are virtually and for substance contained in the Scripture, although there be no formall description set down of the same, and the like I say of this description here.

Thesis 197.

197 If we speak of the Law of nature strictly taken, for that which is immediatly and readily known by the common light of nature in all men, then it may be safely affirmed, that although the Sabbath should not be in this sence natu­rall, [Page 175] yet it will not follow that it is not therefore morall: for the moral law once writ on mans heart in pure nature is al­most blotted out; only some rudera and old rubbish is left of it in a perverse minde and a corrupt heart, Eph. 4.18. we see the wisest of the heathens making those things to be morall vertues (Iunius instanceth in the Law of private revenge, and we know they magnified will-worship) which the Scripture condemns as morall vices and sins: God would have common-wealths preserved in all places of the world, from the inundation and deluge of mans wicked­nesse, and therefore he hath generally printed the notions of the second Table upon mens hearts to set bounds (as by sea-banks) unto the overflowings thereof, and hence it is that they are generally known: but he would not have Churches every where, and therefore there is but little known concerning matters of the first Table, and conse­quently about this Law of the Sabbath, which notwith­standing may be morall although it be not so immediatly known.

Thesis 198.

If we speak of the law of corrupt nature largely taken,198 for that law which when 'tis made known by divine deter­mination and declaration is both sutable and congruous to naturall reason and equity, we may then say that the Law of the Sabbath is according to the light of nature, even of corrupt nature it self: for do but suppose that God is to be worshipped, and then these three things appear to be most equall. 1. That he is not only to have a time, but a speciall time and a fit proportion of time for worship. 2. That it's most meet that he should make this proportion. 3. The Lord having given man six daies and taken a Seventh to himself, mans reason cannot but confesse that it is most just to dedicate that time to God: and for my own part I think that in this respect the law of the Sabbath was as fair­ly writ on mans hea [...] in innocency as many other morall laws, which none question the morality of at this day: but disputes about this are herein perhaps uselesse.

Thesis 199.

The Sacrament of the Lords Supper may be admini­stred 199 (meet circumstances concurring) every Lords day, nay upon the week daies often, as they did in the pri­mitive [Page 176] persecutions: and hence our Saviour limits no time for it, in the first institution thereof, as he did for the Passeover of old, but only this, As oft as you doe it, doe it in remembrance of me:Prim. part. 1. cap. 6. Hence it will follow, that now under the Gospel there is no set Sabbath (as M. Primrose would) because our Saviour at the first institution of the Lords Supper limits no particular day for the celebration thereof, as once he did for the Passeover; for though there is an appointed speciall time (as shall hereafter ap­peare) for the publique exercise of all holy duties not be­ing limited to those times, but enlarged to other times also; hence there is no reason why our Saviour should in­stitute a set Sabbath, when he instituted the Lords Supper, as the proper time of the celebration thereof, as it was in case of the Passeover.

Thesis 200.

200 Prim. part. 2. cap. 2. Wal. diss. de 4. prae. cap. 2.It is no argument to prove the Sabbath to be ceremoni­all, because it is reckoned among ceremonials, viz. shew-bread and sacrifices, as M. Primrose and Wallaeus urge it out of Mat. 12.1, 2, 3. for 1. upon the same ground fornication and eating of idolothytes are ceremoniall, because they are ranked among ceremonials, viz. bloud and things strang­led, Act. 15.29.2. upon this ground the Sabbath hath no morality at all in it, no more then shew-bread and sacrifices which were wholly ceremoniall. 3. The Sabbath is in the same place reckoned among things which are morall, as pulling a sheep out of a pit upon the Sabbath day, an act of humanity; why may it not then be as well accounted mo­rall? 4. One may as well argue that the not keeping com­pany with Publicanes and sinners was a ceremoniall thing, because the Lord Jesus useth the same Proverbiall speech, I will have mercy not sacrifice, Mat. 9.13. upon which he defends the lawfullnesse of pulling the ears of corn upon the Sabbath day, in this Mat. 12.15. the scope therefore of this place is not to shew the nature of the Sabbath day, whether it be ceremoniall or morall, but the lawfullnesse and morality of his act in eating the ears of corn upon this day; and thus the arguments of our Saviour are very strong and convicting to prove the morality of such an act, but no way to prove the ceremoniality of the Sabbath: for that is the scope of our Saviour, that mercy to the hungry is to be preferred before the Sacrifice of bodily resting upon the [Page 177] Sabbath. M. Primrose indeed replies hereto and tels us, that mercy is to be preferred before sacrifice or ceremoniall duties, but not before morall duties, Prim. part. 1. cap. 7. s. 3. and therefore Christ preferring it before the rest on the Sabbath, the Sabbath could not be morall: but we know that mercy in the second table is sometimes to be preferred before morall duties in the first table: a man is bound to neglect solemn praier sometime to attend upon the sick; it's a morall duty to sanctifie some day for a Sab­bath (saith M. Primrose) and yet suppose a fire be kindled in a town upon that day, or any sick to be helped, must not mercy be prefer'd before hearing the word? which him­self will acknowledge to be then a morall duty.

Thesis 201.

When Christ is said to be Lord of the Sabbath, Mat. 12.8 201 the meaning is not as if he was such a Lord as had power to break it, but rather such a Lord as had power to appoint it, and consequently to order the work of it for his own ser­vice. M. Primrose thinks That he is said to be Lord of it, because he had power to dispense with the keeping of it, by whom & when he would: and that Christ did chuse to do such works upon the Sabbath day, which were neither works of mercy or necessity, nay, which were servile, which the Law forbade: for Christ (saith he) as mediatour had no power to dispense with things morall, but he might with matters ceremoniall, and therefore with the Sabbath. How far Christ Jesus might and may dispence with morall laws, I dispute not now, I think Biell comes nearest the truth in this controversie; only this is considerable, suppose the Sabbath was ceremoniall, yet it's doubtfull whether Christ Jesus who came in the daies of his flesh to fulfill all righteousnesse, could abolish or break the law ceremoniall untill his death was past, by which this hand­writing of Ordinances was blotted out, Colos. 2.14. and this middle wall of partition was broken down, Ephes. 2.14, 15, 16. But let it be yeelded that Christ had power to break ceremoniall laws then before his death, yet in this place there is no such matter; for the words contain a clear proof for the right observance of the Sabbath against the over-rigid conceptions of the superstitious and proud Pha­risees, who as they thought it unlawfull for Christ to heal the sick upon the Sabbath, so to rub out, and eat a few corn ears upon it, although hunger and want (and perhaps more [Page 178] then ordinary in the Disciples here) should force men here­unto, which was no servile work (as Mr Primrose would) but a work of necessity and mercy in this case; and our Sa­viour proves the morality of it, from the example of David eating the Shew-bread, and those that were with him, pre­ferring that act of mercy before sacrifice and abstinence from Shew-bread; and hence our Saviour argues, That if they attending upon David might eat the Shew-bread, much more his hungry Disciples might eat the corn while they attended upon him that day, who was Lord of the Sabbath, and that they might be the better strengthened hereby to do him service: These things being thus; where now is there to be found any reall breach of the Sabbath, or doing of any servile work, or maintenance of any unne­cessary work, which the fame learned and acute writer im­putes to our Saviour? which I had almost said is almost blasphemous.

Thesis 202.

202 It's no argument that the Sabbath is not morall, because it's said, Mark 2.27. that man is not made for it, but it for man; for saith Mr Ironside, man is made for morall duties, not they for man: For let the Sabbath be taken for the bare rest of the Sabbath, as the Pharisees did, who placed so much Religion in the bare rest, as that they thought it unlawfull to heal the sick on that day, or feed the hungry; so man is not made as lastly for the b [...]re rest, but rather it for man and for his good; but if by Sabbath be meant the Sanctification of that rest, so man is made for it, by Mr Prim­rose own confession: Nor our Saviour speaks of the Sab­bath in the first respect; for the rest of it is but a means to a further and a better end, viz. The true sanctification of it which the Pharisees little lookt unto, and therefore he might well say that the Sabbath was made for man, the rest of it being no further good then as it was helpfull to man in duties of piety or mercy required of man, in the sanctifi­cation thereof: M. Primrose confessing that man is made for the sanctification of the Sabbath, would therefore winde out from this, by making this sanctification on the Sabbath to be no more then what is equally required of man all the week beside: but he is herein also much mistaken; for though works of piety and mercy are requi­red every day, yet they are required with a certain emi­nency [Page 179] and specialty upon the Sabbath day, and thence 'tis that God cals mens to rest from all worldly occasions (which he doth not on the weeke daies) that they might honour God in speciall upon the Sabbath, as shall here­after appear.

Thesis 203.203

It's a monkish speculation of M. Broad to distinguish so of the Sabbath in sensu mystico, and sensu literali, as that the mysticall sense like the lean and ill-favoured kine in Pha­roah's dream shall eat up the literal sense, and devour Gods blessed and sweet Sabbath; for the Lord never meant by the Sabbath such a mysticall thing as the resting from the works of the old man only every day, no more then when he commands us to labour six daies, he permits us to la­bour in the works of the old man all the six daies.

Thesis 204.

For though it be true that we are to rest every day 204 from sin, yet it will not hence follow, that every day is to be a Christians Sabbath, and that no one day in seven is to be set apart for it: For 1. Upon the same ground Adam should have had no Sabbath, because he was to rest from sin every day. 2. The Jews also before Christ, should have rejected all Sabbaths, because they were then bound to rest from sin as well as Christians now. 3. Upon the same ground there must be no daies of fasting or feasting under the Gospel, because we are to fast from sinne every day, and to be joyfull and thankfull every day. I know some Libertines of late say so; but upon the same ground there should have been none under the law neither, for they were then bound as well as we to fast from sin. 4. Hence neither should any man pay his debts, because he is bound to be paying his debt of love to God and all men every day. 5. Hence also no man should pray at any time in his family, nor alone by himself so­lemnly, because a Christian is bound to pray continually: And indeed I did not think that any forehead could be so bold and brazen as to make such a conclusion; but while I was writing this, came to my hearing concerning a sea­man who came to these coasts from London, miserably deluded with principles of Familisme, who when an ho­nest New-English man his Cabbin-mate invited him to go [Page 180] along and pray together, considering their necessities, he would professedly refuse to doe it upon this ground, viz. Dost not pray continually? Why then should we pray together now? 6. The Commandment of the Sabbath doth not therefore presse us to rest only from such works as are in themselves evil, which God allows at no ti [...] ▪ but from the works of our callings and weekly imployments which are in themselves lawfull and of necessity to be attended on at some time. It is therefore a loose and groundlesse assertion to make every day under the Gospel to be a Christians Sabbath day.

Thesis 205.

205 To think that the Sabbath was proper to the Jews, be­cause they only were able to keep and exactly observe the time of it, being shut up (as M. Primrose saith) within a little corner of the earth, and that the Gentiles there­fore are not bound to it, because they cannot exactly observe the time of it, in severall quarters of the earth so far distant, is a very feeble argument: For why might not all nations exactly observe the rising and the setting of the sun according to severall climates by which the natu­rall day and so this of a Sabbath is exactly measured? and which God hath appointed (without limitation to any hour) to be the bounds of the Sabbath as it sooner or later rises or sets? were not the mariners of the men of Iudah bound to observe the Seventh day in all the severall coasts where they made their voyages? did God limit them to the rising or setting sun of Iudaea only? what colour is there to think thus of them? indeed it's true that in some habitable Northern coasts, the Sun is not out of sight some moneths together, but yet this is certain, if they know how the year spends into moneths, they can exact­ly reckon the weeks of those moneths, and therefore can exactly tell you the daies of which those weeks consist, and therefore they have their exact rules and measures to know East and West, the place of the sun-rising and sun-setting, and consequently to know the Sabbath daies; and yet if they should not exactly know it, their will to do it is herein (as in other things) accepted of God.

Thesis 206.

If this truth concerning the morality of the Sabbath 206 did depend upon the testimony of ancient writers, it were easie to bring them up here in the rear, notwithstan­ding the flourishes of the great Historian; but this hath been done sufficiently by others, nor doth it sute our scope who aim at only the clearing up of the meaning of the fourth command, which must stand firm; the hea­ven and earth shall fall asunder, the Lord will rather waste kingdomes and the whole Christian world with fire and sword, then let one tittle of his Law perish; the land must rest when Gods Sabbaths cannot, Lev. 26.34. and although I wish the Ministry of Christ Jesus a comely and comfortable maintenance, as may richly testifie his peoples abundant thankfullnesse, for the feet of those his messengers as preach peace, yet me thinks it argues great blindnesse in those men who plead for a morality in a tenth pigge or sheaf of corn, and yet will acknowledge no morality in a Seventh day.

Thesis 207.

I shall therefore conclude and shut up these things with 207 answer to M. Carpenters and Heylins [...] an argument against the Sabbath, which they have gone compassing the whole earth and heavens about to finde out, never heard of till their daies, and now it's brought to light. I would not make mirth with it (as some have done and left the scruple untoucht) but in words of sobriety, and serious­nesse and plainnesse. If the Sabbath or Lords day (say they) be morall, then the morall Law is subject to manifold mutation, because the nations issuing out of Noahs ark spread themelves from thence over the face of the whole earth, some farther, some at a shorter distance, whereby changing the longitude with their habitation, they must of necessity alter the differen­ces of times, neither can any exactly and precisely observe any one day, either as it was appointed by Moses, or as it was instituted by Christs Apostles afterwards, by reason of the manifold transportation of Colonies, and transmigration of na­tions, from one region into another, whereby the times must necessarily be supposed to vary. The answer is ready and easie, viz. Although the nations issued out of Noahs ark, [Page 182] and spread themselves over the face of the whole earth, some farther, some at a shorter distance, and thereby changing their longitude altered the differences of time, some beginning the day sooner, some later, yet they might observe the same day; for the day is regulated and measured by the Sun, and the Sun comes to one meridi­an sooner or later then to another, and hence the day begins in one place sooner or later then in another, and so the beginning of the day is (respectively) varied, but yet the day it self remains unchangeably the same: what though our countreymen in old England begin their Sab­bath above 4. hours before us in new, they beginning at their evening, we at our evening, yet both may and do observe the same day: all nations are bound to keep ho­ly a Seventh part of time; but that time must be regula­ted by the Sun, neither is it necessary that the same in­dividuall 24. hours should be observed by all, but the same day as it is measured by the Sun in this or that place, which may begin in places more easterly many hours sooner then in other places more westerly; a day is not properly time but a measure of time, and therefore the manifold transportation of Colonies, and transmigration of nations from one region unto another, hinder not at all, but that they may exactly and precisely observe the same day, which was instituted and appointed: for al­though the time of the beginning of the day be varied, yet the day it self is not, cannot be varied or changed. Now whereas they say, that if any man should travell the world about, a whole day must needs be varied, and if two men from the same place travell, the one Eastward, the other Westward, round about the earth, and meet in the same place again, they shall finde that he who hath gone Eastward hath gotten, and the other going Westward hath lost a day in their account; yea, the Hollanders after their discovery of Fre­tum de Mayre, comming home to their countrey, found by comparing their accounts with thtir countreymen at home, that they had lost a day, having gone Westward, and so compassed the earth round. I answet, what though a traveller vary­ing perpetually the quantity of the day, by reason of his continuall moving with or against the Suns motion, in time get or loose a day in his account, is the day there­fore of it's own nature variable or changeable? God hath [Page] placed the Sun in the Firmament, and appointed it for times and seasons, and in speciall for the regulating of the day; and as the motion of the Sun is constant, so there is an ordinary and constant succession of daies with­out variation; for unlesse the Suns course be changed, the day which is regulated by it, is not changed, Now if any shall travell round about the world, and so anticipate or second the diurnall motion of the Sun, and thereby varying continually the quantity of the day, at length gain or loose a day, according to their reckoning, they may and ought then to correct their accounts: Gregory the 13. having found the Julian year to be too great for the Motion of the Sun, cut off ten daies by which the AE­quinoxes and Solstices had anticipated their proper pla­ces, that so the year might be kept at it's right periods: and is it not as good reason that a traveller who opposing the Suns diurnall course continually shortens somewhat of his day, till at last in compassing the earth round he gains a whole day, should cut off in his accounts that day which he hath gained by anticipating the Suns course, and so rectifie his account of the day? For in every regi­on and countrey whatsoever and howsoever situate, as men are to begin the day at that time when the day na­turally begins in that place, so likewise they are to reckon and count the daies as they are there regulated and orde­red by the Sun, and that should be the first or second day of the week to them, which is naturally the first or second day of the week to that place where they are: and thus their doubts are easily satisfied when they return to the place from whence they first came. But if any shall say it's very difficult for men thus to rectifie their accounts, and to observe that time in every place which was at first instituted, and it's probable that the nations in their severall transmigrati­ons and transportations never used any such course. The ans­wer is obvious; mens weaknesse, or neglect and carelesse­nesse to do what they ought, is not a sufficient argument to prove that not to be their duty; besides 'tis not proba­ble that any nations were thus put to it to travell round about the whole earth (although some particular persons in this later age have sailed round about it) and therefore could not vary a whole day possibly, but going some Eastward, some Westward, some Southward, some [Page] Northward, they spread themselves over the face of the whole earth, some at a shorter, some at a farther di­stance, and so some began the day sooner, some later, and yet all (as hath been shewn) might ob­serve the same day: the morality of the Sab­hath is not built upon Astronomicall or Geometricall principles, and there­fore it cannot fall by any shady speculations so far fetcht.

THESIS 1.

THe change of this day from the last to the first of 1 the week, although it be confirmed by an ancient custome, yet the true reason and grounds of so great a change are not so fully known: Sacred writings not so expresly setting down (as it doth in some things of lesse concernment) the causes hereof.Vide Spri [...] on Sabb. Ironsides answer to 30 Argum. Qu. 5. c. 17. And many of the Arguments heaped up, and multiplyed by some for the change of it, which may seem of great weight, while they want an adversary at the other end of the Scale to bal­lance them: Yet upon sad examination and search into them they prove too light, and consequently occasion the temptati­on of scrupling the truth and validity of others more cleare. We are therefore with more warinesse and humility of mind to search into this Controversie, and with much thankful­nesse and modesty to accept that little light which God gives us in greater, as well as of much light which he is pleased to lend us in smaller matters.Austin. Pascimur apertis, exercemur obscuris, was his speech long since concerning the Scriptures. There is no truth so clear, but mans loose wit can invent and mint many pernicious Cavils against it; and therefore in those things which shine forth with lesse evidence, it is no wonder if it casts such blots and staines upon them as that they can fear [...] discerned, Nil magis inimicum veritati, acumine [...] therfore be wise with sobriety, & remember [Page 2] that in this and such like Controversies, the Scriptures were not written to answer all the scruples and objections of Cavil­lers, but to satisfie and stablish the consciences of poor belee­vers. And verily when I meet with such like speeches and ob­jections as these, viz. Where is it expressely said that the old Sab­bath is abrogated? and what one Scripture is there in the N. Testa­ment declaring expressely that the Lords day is substituted and put in its roome? I cannot from such expressions but think and fear that the ignorance of this change in some doth not spring so much from deficiency and want of light on Gods part, but ra­ther from perversnes on mans part, which will not see nor own the t [...]uth, because it is not revealed and dispensed after that manner and fashion of expression as mans wit and phan­tasie would have it: Like Naaman, who, because the Prophet went not about the cure of his Leprosie in that way and fashi­on which he would have him, did not therefore (for a time) see that way of cure which God had revealed to him. For the Holy Ghost is not bound to write all the principles of Religi­on under Common-place heads, nor to say expressely, In this place of Scripture you may see the old Sabbath abrogated, and the new instituted; for we find no such kind of expressions concerning Pauls Epistles and many books of Scripture, that this or that Epistle or book is Canonical; which yet we know to be so by other evidences. We know also that the Holy Ghost by brief hints of Truth, gives occasion of large Comments; and by writing about other matters tanquam aliud agens, it brings forth to light by the By revelations of great concernment, which it saw meet purposely in that manner to make known. And as in many other things it hath thus done, so especially in this of the Sabbath. So that if our hearts like Locks were fitted to Gods Key, they would be soon opened to see thorough the difficulties of this point; which I confesse of all practicall points hath been most fu [...]l of knots and difficulties to my own weaknesse.

Thesis 2.

2 To make Apostolicall unwritten inspirations notified and made known in their dayes to the Churches, to be the cause of the change of the Day, is to plough with a Popish Heifer, and to cast that Anchor on which deceivers rely, and by which they hope to save themselves when they know not how other­wise to defend their falshoods.

3 Thesis 3.

To make Ecclesiasticall Custome, established [...] by the Imperiall Law of Constantine, to be the [...] of [Page 3] the change, Prim. part- cap. [...]. Hey. lin. Hist. l. 2. is to make a prop for Prelacy, and a step to Popery, and to open a gap to all humane inventions. For if it be in the Churches power to appoint the greatest Holy day; why may not any other Rite and Ceremony be imposed also? and if it be free to observe this day or not in respect of it selfe, because it wants a divine institution, and yet necessary to observe it in respect of the Churches Custome and constitution (as some pretend) why may not the Chu [...]ches Commandment be a rule of obedience in a thousand things else as well as in this? and so introduce Will-Worship, and to serve God after the tradition of men which God abhors?

Thesis 4.

The observation of the first day of the weeke for the 4 Christian Sabbath ariseth from the force of the fourth Commandment, as strongly as the observation of the media cultus, or means of worship now under the New Testament, doth from the force of the second Commandment; only let this be supposed, that the day is now changed (as we shall hereafter prove) as also that the worship it self is changed by divine institution; for Gospel-institutions when they be ap­pointed by divine and soveraign Authority, yet they may then be observed and practised by vertue of some morall Law. The Gospel appointed new Sacraments, but we are to use them by vertue of the second Commandment: so here the Gospel ap­points a new seventh day for the Sabbath, but it stands by ver­tue of the fourth Commandment: and therefore the observa­tion of it is not an Act of Christian Liberty, but of Christian duty imposed by divine Auth [...]rity and by vertue of the mo­ral Law.

Thesis 5.

For the morality of the fourth Commandment (as hath 5 been proved) being preserved in observing not that Sab­bath only, nor yet a Sabbath meerly when man sees meet: but in observing the Sabbath, i. e. such a Sabbath as is deter­mined and appointed of God, (which may therefore be either the first or last of the seven dayes) Hence it is that the first of the seven, if it be determined and instituted of God under the New Testament, ariseth equally from the fourth Com­mandment, as the last seventh day did under the old Testa­ment; and therefore it is no such piaculum nor delusion of the common People, as Mr. Brabourne would make it, to put the Title of the Lords Sabbath upon the Lords day, and to call it the Sabbath day; for if it be borne out of the same wombe the first seventh was, if it arise (I mean) from the same Com­mandment, [Page 4] Remember to keep holy the Sabbath day; why may it not bear the name of the Sabbath n [...]w, as the first-born did in former times?

Thesis 6.

6 If the Lord would have man to worke six dayes toge­ther, according to his own example, and the morality of the fourth Commandement, that so a seventh day determi­ned by himselfe might be observed; Hence it is that neither two Sabbaths in a week can stand with the morality of the fourth Commandement, nor yet could the former Sabbath be justly changed into any other day then into the first day of the week; the first day could not belong to the week before; for then there should be eight days in a week; and if it did belong to the week following, then (if we suppose that the second day had been the Sabbath) there must be one working day, viz. the first day to go before it, and five working dayes after it, and so there should not nor could not be six working dayes continued together, that the seventh might be the Lords according to the morality of the fourth Commandement. And hence it is that no Humane or Ecclesiasticall power can change the Sabbath to what day of the week they please, from the first, which now is.

Thesis 7.

7 It should not seem an uncouth Phrase, or a hard saying, to call the first day of the weeke a seventh or the seventh day: for though it be the first absolutely in order of exi­stence from the Creation, yet relatively in way of relation, and in respect of the number of seven in a week, it may be in­vested with the name and title of a seventh, even of such a se­venth as may lawfully be c [...]owned and annointed to be the Sabbath day; for look as Noah, though he was the first in order of yeares and dignity of entrance into the Ark, yet he is called the eight, 2 Pet. 2.5. in that he was one of them (as the learned observe) qui octonarium numerum perficiebant, or who made up the number of eight: so it is in respect of the first day, which in divers respects may be called the first, and yet the seventh also. Mr. Brabournes Argument therefore is of no solidity, who goes about to prove the Christian Sabbath to be no Sabbath▪ Because, ‘That Sabbath which the fourth Com­mandement injoynes is called the seventh day; but all the Evan­gelists cal the Lords day the first day of the week, not the se­venth day.’ For he should remember that the same day in di­vers respects may be called the first day, and yet the seventh day; for in respect of its naturall existence and being, it may [Page 5] be and is called the first day, and yet in respect of divine use and application, it may be and is called the seventh day, even by vertue of the fourth Commandement, which is the Lords day, which is confessed to be the first day.

Thesis 8.

For although in numero numerante (as they call it,)8 i. e. in number num [...]ing there can be but one seventh, which immediately follows the number six: yet in numero numerato. i. e. in number numbred, or things which are num­bred, (as are the dayes of the week) any of the seven may be so in way of relation and proportion. As suppose seven men stand together, take the last man in order from the other six, who stand about him, and he is the seventh: so againe take the first in order, and set him apart from the six who stand below him, and if the number of them who are taken from him make up the number of six, he then may and must necessarily be called the seventh. Just thus it is in the dayes of the week; the first Sabbath from the Creation might be cal­led the seventh day in respect of the six dayes before it; and this first day of the week may be called the seventh day also, in respect of the six working dayes together after it. That may be called the last seventh; this the first seventh, without any absurdity of account which some would imagine: and if this first day of the week is called the eight day according to Ezekiels Prophesie of Evangelicall times, and his reckoning onward from the Creation, Ezek. 43.27. why may it not then in other respects put on the name of a seventh day also?

Thesis 9.

The reason why the Lord should depose the last se­venth, and exalt and crowne the first of seven to be the day 9 of the Christian Sabbath, is not so well considered, and there­fore to be here narrowly examined. For as for those Easterne Christians, who in the primitive times observed two Sab­baths in a week, the Jewish and the Christian, doubtlesse their milke sod over, and their zeale went beyond the Rule. The number of Jewes who were beleevers, and yet too too zealous of their old customes, we know, did fill those places in their dispersion and before more then the Westerne and more re­mote parts, and therefore they might more powerfully infect those in the East; and they to gaine or keep them, might more readily comply with them. Let us therfore see into the reason [...] of this change from one seventh unto another.

Thesis 10.

The good will of him who is Lord of the Sabbath, is 10 [Page 6] the first efficient and primary cause of the institution of a new Sabbath; but the Resurrection of Christ being upon the first day of the week, Mark 16.9. is the secondary, mo­rall or moving cause hereof: the day of Christs resurrection being Christs joyfull day for his Peoples deliverance, and the worlds restitution and new Creation, it is no wonder if the Lord Christ appoint it, and the Apostles preach and publish it, and the primitive Christians observe it as their holy and joyfull day of rest and consolation. For some notable work of God upon a day, being ever the morall cause of sanctifying the day: hence the work of redemption being finished upon the day of Christs Resurrection, and it being the most glori­ous work that ever was, and wherein Christ was fi [...]st most glo­riously manifested to have rested from it, Rom. 1.4, hence th [...] Lord Christ might have good cause to honour this day a­bove all others: and what other cause there should be of the publike solemne Assemblies in the primitive Churches, up [...]n the first day of the week, then this glorious work of Christs Resurrection, upon the same day which began their great joy for the rising of the Sun of righteousness, is scarce imaginable.

Thesis 11.

11 No action of Christ doth of it selfe sanctifie any time; for if it did, why should we not then keepe as many Ho­ly dayes every year as we find holy actions of Christ recorded in Scripture, as the superstitious Crew of blind Papists do at this day? But if God who is the Lord of time shall sanctifie any such day or time wherein any such action is done, such a day then is to be kept holy; and therefore if the will of God hath sanctified the day of Christs Resurrection, we may law­fully sanctify the same day; and therefore Mr. Brabourne doth us wrong, as if we made the Resurrection of Christ, meerly to be the cause of the change of this day.

Thesis 12.

12 Why the Will of God should honour the day of Christs Resurrection as holy, rather then any other day of his In­carnation, Birth, Passion, Ascension: It is this; because Christs rising day was his resting or Sabbath day, wherein he first entred into his rest, and whereon his rest began. For the Sabbath or Rest-day of the Lord our God, only can be our Rest-day according to the fourth Commandement. Hence the day of Gods rest from the work of Gods Rest from the work of Creation, and the day of Christs Rest from the work of Redemption, are only fit and capable of being our Sabbaths. Now the Lord Christ in the day of his incarnation and birth [Page 7] did not enter into his rest, but rather made entrance into his labour and sorrow, who then began the wo [...]k of Humiliation, Gal. 4.4, 5. and in the day of his passion, he was then under the so [...]est part and feeling of his labour, [...]n bitter Agonies up­on the Crosse and in the Garden. And hence it is that none of those days were consecrated to be ou [...] Sabbath or rest-dayes, which were days of Christs labour and sorrow; nor could the day of his Ascension be fit to be made out Sabbath, be­cause although Christ then and thereby entred into his place of Rest (the third Heavens) yet he did not then make his first entrance into his estate of rest, which was in the day of his Resurrection; the wisedome and will of God did therefore choose this day above any other to be the Sabbath day.

Thesis 13.13

Those that goe about (as some of late have done) to make Christs Ascension-day the ground of our Sabbath-day, had need be fearefull left they lose the truth and goe beyond it, while they affect some new discoveries of it, which seems to be the case here. For through Christ at his Ascen­sion entred into his place of Rest, yet the place is but an Ac­cidental thing to Christs Rest it selfe, the State of which was begun in the day of his Resurrection; and therefore there is no reason to prefer that which is but accidental above that which is most substantiall; or the day of entrance into the place of his Rest in his Ascension, before the day of Rest in his Resurrection: beside, its very uncertain whether Christ ascended upon the first day of the week; we are certain that he arose then; and why we should build such a vast change upon an uncertainty, I know not. And yet suppose that by deduction and strength of wit [...]t might be found out, yet wee see not the Holy Ghost expressely setting it down, viz. That Christ ascended upon the first day of the week, which if he had intended to have made the ground of our Christian Sab­bath, he would surely have done: the first day in the week being ever accounted the Lords day in Holy Scriptures; and no other first day do we find mentioned on which he ascended, but only on that day wherein he arose from the dead.

Thesis 14.14

And looke as Christ was a Lambe slaine from the foundation of the World meritoriously, but not actually: So he was also risen againe in the like manner from the foun­dation of the world meritoriously, but not actually. Hence it is that look as God the father actually instituted no Sabbath day, untill he had actually finished his work of Creation, so [Page 8] neither was it meet that this day should be changed, untill Christ Jesus had actually finished (and not meritoriously on­ly) the work of Redemption or Restoration: And hence it is that the Church before Christs coming might have good reason to sanctifie that day, which was instituted upon the actuall finishing of the work of Creation, and yet might have no reason to observe our Christian Sabbath; the work of Re­storation and new Creation, and rest from it, not being then so much as actually begun.

15 Thesis 15.

Whether our Saviour appointed that first individuall day of his resurrection to be the first Christian Sabbath, is somewhat difficult to determine; and I would not tie knots and leave them for others to unloose; This only I aime at, that although the first individuall day of Christs Resurrection should not possibly be the first individuall Sabbath, yet still the Resurrection of Christ is the ground of the institution of the Sabbath, which one consideration dasheth all those devi­ces of some mens Heads, who puzzle their Readers with ma­ny intricacies and difficulties, in shewing that the first day of Christs Resurrection could not be the first Sabbath, and thence would inferre that the day of his Resurrection, was not the ground of the institution of the Sabbath, which infer [...]nce is most false; for it was easie with Christ to make that great worke on this day to be the ground of the institution of it, some time after that work was Past.

16 Thesis 16.

The sinne and fall of man having defaced and spoyl­ed (de jure though not de facto) the whole worke of Crea­tion, as that learned Lake Theses. Bishop well observes; It was not so meet therefore that the Sabbath should be ever kept in respect of that work, but rather in respect of this new Creation or Re­storation of all things by Christ, after the actuall Accom­plishment thereof in the day of his Resurrection. But look as God the father having created the world in six dayes, he rest­ed therefore and sanctified the seventh: So this work being spoiled and marred by mans sin, and the new Creation being finished and ended, the Lord therefore rested the first day of the week, and therefore sanctified it.

Thesis 17.

17 The fourth commandment gives in the reason why God sanctified the seventh day from the Creation, viz. because God rested on that day, and as it is in Exod. 31.17. was refreshed in it, that is, took a complacency and delight [Page 9] in his [...] so done and so finished. But the sin of man in fal­ling from his first Creation, made God repent that ever he made man, Gen. 6. and consequently the world for man, and therefore it tooke off that complacency or rest and refreshing in this his work; if therefore the Lord betake himselfe to work a new work, new Creation or Renovation of all things in and by his Son, in which he will for ever Rest, may not the day of his rest be then justly changed into the first of se­ven, on which day his rest in his new work began, whereof he will never repent? If the Lord vary his rest, may not be vary the time and day of it,? nay must not the time and day of our rest be varied, because the ground of Gods rest in a new work is changed?

Thesis 18.18

As it was no necessary duty therefore, perpetually to observe that seventh day wherein God first rested, be­cause his rest on that day is now changed; so also it is not necessary orderly to observe those six dayes of labour, where­in He first laboured and built the world, of which for the sin of man he is said to have repented; yet notwithstanding, though it be no necessary duty to observe those particular six dayes of labour, and that seventh of Rest, yet it is a morall duty (as hath been proved) to observe six dayes for labour, and a seventh for Rest; and hence it follows that although the Lord Christs Rest on the Day of his Resurrection (the first day of the week) might and may justly be taken as a ground of our rest on the same day; yet his labour in the work of Redemption three and thirty yeers and upward, all the dayes of his life and humiliation, could not nor cannot justly be made the ground or example of our labour, so as we must labour and worke thirty three yeeres together before we keep a Sabbath the Day of Christs Rest. Because although God could alter and change the Day of Rest without infring­ment of the Morality of the fourth Commandment; Yet he could not make the example of Christs labour thirty three yeers together, the ground or example of our continuance in our work, without manifest breach of that Morall Rule, viz. That man shal have six dayes together for labour, & the seventh for Rest. For man may rest the first day of the week, and with­all observe six dayes for labour, and so keep the fourth Com­mandment; but he cannot labour 33. yeers together, and then keep a Sabbath without apparent breach of the same Com­mandment: and therefore that Argument of Master Brabourne against [...] Christian Sabbath melt [...] into Vanity, wherein he [Page 10] urgeth an equity of the Change of the Dayes of our [...], ei­ther three Dayes onely together (as Christ did lie in the grave) or 33. yeers together (as he did all the dayes of his Humiliation) in case we will make a Change of the Sabbath, from the Change of the Day of Christs Rest. And yet I confesse ingenuously with him, that if the Lord had not instituted the first Day of the week to be our Christian Sabbath, all these, and such like arguings and reasonings were invalid to prove a Change; for mans reason hath nothing to do to Change dayes without Divine appoint­ment and institution: these things onely I mention why the wisdome of God might well alter the Day. The proofs that he hath changed it, shall follow in due place.

19 Thesis 19.

The Resurrection of Christ may therefore be one ground, not onely of the Sanctification of the Christian Sab­bath, but also a sufficient ground of the abrogation of the Jewish Sabbath. For, first, the greater light may darken the lesse, and a greater work (as the Restoration of the World a­bove the Creation of it) may overshadow the lesse, Ierem 23.7, 8. Exod. 12.2. Secondly, Mans sinne spoyled the first Rest, and therefore the day of it might be justly ab [...]ogated. For the horrible wrath of God had been immediatly poured out upon man (as might be proved, and as it was upon the lapsed Angels) and consequently upon all Creatures for mans sake, if Christ had not given the Father Rest, for whose sake the world was made, Revel. 4.11. and by whose meanes and mediation the World continues as now it doth, Ioh. 5.22.

20 Thesis 20.

Yet although Christs Resurrection be one ground not onely of the Institution of the new Sabbath, but also of the abrogation of the Old, yet it is not the onely ground why the Old was abrogated; For, (as hath been shewen) there was some type affixed to the Jewish Sabbath, by reason of which there was just cause to abrogate, or rather (as Calvin calls it) to translate the Sabbath to another Day. And therefore this dasheth another of Mr. Brabournes dreames, who argues the continuance of the Jewish Sabbath, because there is a possibility for all Nations still to observe it. For (saith he) cannot we in England as well as they at Jerusalem re­member that Sabbath? Secondly rest in it. Thirdly, Keep it ho­ly. Fourthly, keep the whole day holy. Fifthly, the last of seven. Sixthly, and all this in imitation of God. Could no Nation (saith he) besides the Iewes observe these six things? Yes verily that [Page 11] they could in respect of naturall ability; but the question is not what men may or might do, but what they ought to do, and should do. For besides the change of Gods Rest through the work of the Sonne, there was a Type affixed to that Jewish Sabbath, for which cause it may justly vanish at Christs death, as well as other types, in respect of the affixed Type, which was but accidentall; and yet be continued and preserved in another Day, being originally, and essentially Moral: A Sabbath was instituted in Paradise, equally honoured by God in the Decalogue with all other Moral Lawes, foretold to continue in the dayes of the Gospel by Ezekiel and Isaiah, Ezek. 43. ult. Isa. 56.4.6. and commended by Christ, who bids his people pray, that their flight may not be in the winter or Sabbath-day, as it were easie to open these places against all Cavils; and therefore it is for substance Moral. Yet the word Sabbatisme, Heb. 4.9. and the Apostles gradation from yeerely Holy-dayes to monthly new-moons, and from them to weekly Sab­baths, which are called shadowes of things to come, Colos. 2.16. seemes strongly to argue some type affixed to those individual Sabbaths, or Jewish seventh dayes; and hence it is perhaps that the Sabbath is set among Moral Lawes in the Decalogue, being originally and essentially Moral, and yet is set among ceremonial Feast-dayes, Levit. 23.2, 3. because it is acciden­tally typical. And therefore Mr. Brabourne need not raise such a dust, and cry out, Oh monstrous! very strange! what a mingle-mangle! what a h [...]tch-potch have we here! what a confusion and jumbling of things so farre distant, as when Morals and Ceremonials are here mingled together! No verily, we do not make the fourth Commandment essentially Ceremonial; but being acidental­ly so, why may it notwithstanding this be mingled among the rest of the Morals? Let one solid reason be given, but a­way with words.

Thesis 21.21

If the question be, what Type is affixed and annexed to the Sabbath? I think it difficult to find out, although mans wanton wit can easily allegorize and readily frame ima­ginations enough in this point. Some thing it typified Christs Rest in the grave; but I feare this will not hold, no more then many other Popish conjectures, wherein their al­legorizing Postillers abound. Bullinger and some others think that it was Typical in respect of the peculiar Sacrifices annexed to it, which Sacrifices were Types of Christ, Numb, 28.9. And although much might be said for this against that which Mr. Brabourne replies, yet I see nothing cogent in this; for the mul­tiplying [Page 12] of Sacrifice (which were [...]) on this Day proves rather a specialty of worshipping God more a­boundantly on this Day, then any Ceremonialnesse in it; for if the offering of Sacrifices meerly, should make a day Cere­monial, why did it not make every Day Ceremonial in re­spect of every dayes offering of the Morning and Evening Sa­crifice? Some think that our Rest upon the Sabbath (not God the Fathers Rest, as Mr. Brabourne turnes it) was made not onely a resemblance, but also a Type of our Rest in Christ, of which the Apostle speaks, Heb. 4.3. which is therefore called a Sabbatisme, v [...]r. 9. or a keeping of a Sabbath at the word sig­nifies. What others would inferre from this place to make the Sabbath to be meerly Cermonial: and what Mr. Brabourne would answer from hence, that it is not at all Ceremonial, may both of them be easily answered here again as already they have been in some of the former Theses. Some scruples I see not yet through about this text, inforce me herein to be si­lent, and therefore to leave it to such as think they may de­fend it, as one ground of some affixed Type unto the Jewish Sabbath.

22 Thesis 22.

Learned Iunius goes before us herein, and points out the Type affixed to that Sabbath; For, besides the first in­stitution of it in Paradise, he makes two other causes which he calls Accessory, or affixed and added to it. 1. One was Ci­vill or Civil;Jun. Ann. in Gen. 2.3. that men and beasts might rest from their toil­some labour every week. 2. Ceremoniall or Ceremonial; for their solemne Commemoration of their deliverance out of Egypt, which we know typified our deliverance by Christ, Deut. 5.15. Some think indeed that their deliverance out of Egypt was upon the Sabbath day; but this I do not urge; be­cause though it be very probable, yet it is not certaine; onely this is certaine, that they were to Sanctifie this Day because of this their Deliverance; and 'tis certaine this Deliverance was Typical of our deliverance by Christ: and hence 'tis certaine that there was a Type affixed to this Sabbath; and be­cause the Scripture is so plain and expresse in it, I [...] inclined to think the same which Iunius doth, that this is the Type ra­ther then any other I have yet heard of: against which I know many things may be objected; onely it may be sufficient to clear up the place against that which Mr. Brabourne answer [...] to it.

23 Thesis 23.

The Deliverance [...] of Egypt, saith he, is not [...] [Page 13] as the ground of the Institution of the Sabbath, but onely as a motive to the observation thereof; as it was more generall in the Preface to the Decalogue to the obedience of every other command which notwithstanding are not Ceremonial; for God saith, I am the Lord who brought thee out of Egypt, therefore keepe thou the first, the second, the third, the fifth, the sixth, as well as the fourth Commandment; and therefore (saith he) we may make every Com­mandment Ceremonial as well as the Sabbath, if the motive of deli­verance out of Egypt makes the Sabbath to be so. This is the sub­stance and sinewes of his discourse herein; and I confesse its true, their Deliverance out of Egypt was not the first ground of the institution of it, but Gods Rest after his six dayes la­bour; yet it was such a ground as we contend for, viz. a secondary and an annexed or affixed ground. And that it was not a Motive only to observe that day (as it is in the Preface to the Decalogue) but a superadded ground of it, may appear from this one consideration, viz. because that very ground on which the Lord urgeth the observation of the Sabbath in Exod. 20.11, it is wholly left out in the repetition of the Law, Deut. 5.15. and their deliverance out of Egypt put into the rome thereof: for the ground in Exod. 20.11. is this, Six daies God made Heaven and Earth, and rested the seventh day and sanctified it; but instead of these words, and of this ground, we finde other words put into their roome, Deut. 5.15. Remem­ber thou wast a servant in the Land of Egypt, and that the Lord brought thee out thence with a mighty hand, therefore the Lord thy God commandeth thee to Keepe the Sabbath. Which seems to argue strongly that these words are not a meer Motive but another ground of the observation of the Sabbath. And why might not the generall Motive in the Preface of the Decalogue, serve as a sufficient Motive to the obedience of this Commandment, if there was no more but a Motive in these words of Deutr. and therefore I suppose this was also the ground and affixed Type unto the Jewish Sabbath.

Thesis 24.

But still the difficulty remains; for Master Brabourne 24 will say that those were but humane reasons; but what ground is there from Scripture for the institution of another Sabbath, as well as of the abrogation of the old? which if it be not cleared. I confesse this cause sinks; here therefore let it be again observed, that we are not to expect such evidence from Scripture concerning this Change, (as fond and humo­rous wit sometimes pleads for) In this controversie, namely, That Christ should [...] with [...] and [...], as it were upon [Page 14] Mount Zion, and proclaime by word or writing in so many expresse words, That the Iewish Sabbath is abrogated, and the first day of the week instituted in its roome to be observed of all Christians to the end of the world. For tis not the Lords manner so to speak in many other things which concerne his King­dome, but as it were occasionally, or in way of History, or Epistle to some particular Church or people; and thus he doth concerning the Sabbath: and yet Wisdomes mind is plain enough to them that understand. Nor do I doubt but that those Scriptures which are sometimes alledged for the Change of the Sabbath, although at first blush they may not seeme to heare up the we [...]ght of this cause, yet being throughly con­sidered, they are not onely sufficent to stablish modest minds, but are also such as may [...] or stop the mouths even of wranglers themselves.

25 Thesis 25.

I doe not thinke that the exercise of holy duties on a Day argues that such a Day is the Christian Sabbath Day; for the Apostles preached commonly upon the Jewish Sabbath, sometime upon the first day of the week also: and therefore the bare exercise of holy du [...]ies on a day is no sufficient Argu­ment that either the one or the other is the Christian Sabbath; for then there might be two Sabbaths, yea many Sabbaths in a week, because there may be many holy duties in severall dayes of the week, which we know is against the Morality of the fourth Commandment.

26 Thesis 26.

Yet notwithstanding although holy duties on a Day doe not argue such a Day to be our Sabbath ▪ yet that Day which is set apart for Sabbath services rather then any other Day, and is honoured above any other Day for that end, sure­ly such a day is the Christian Sabbath. Now, if it may ap­pear that the first Day of the week was thus honoured, then certainly it is to be accounted the Christian Sabbath.

27 Thesis 27.

The Primitive patterne Churches thus honoured the fi [...]st Day of the weeke; and what they practised without reproof, that the Apostles (who planted those Churches) en­joyned and preached unto them so to do; at least in such weighty matters as the Change of Dayes, of preferring one be­fore that other which the Lord had honoured before; and what the Apostles preached, that the Lord Jesus commanded Matth. 28.20. Go teach all Nations that which I Command you: unlesse any shall think that the Apostles sometime went be­yond [Page 15] their Commission to teach that to others which Christ never commanded, which is blasphemous to imagine; for though they might erre in practise as men, and as Peter did at Antioch, and Paul and Barnabas in their contention; yet in in their publike ministry they were infallibly and extraordina­rily assisted, especially in such things which they hold forth as patterns for after times: if therefore the Primitive Chur­ches thus honoured the first day of the week above any other day for Sabbath services, then certainly they were instituted and taught thus to do by the Apostles approving of them herein; and what the Apostles taught the Churches, that, the Lord Iesus commanded to the Apostles. So that the approved practise of the churches herein shewes what was the Doctrine of the Apostles; and the Doctrine of the Apostles shewes what was the command of Christ: so that the sanctification of this Fi [...]st Day of the week is no humane tradition but a Divine institution from Christ himselfe.

Thesis 28.

That the Churches honoured this Day above any other,28 shall appeare in its place, as also that the Apostles com­manded them so to doe. Yet Mr. Primrose saith that this latter is doubtful: and Mr. Ironside (not questioning the matter) fals off with another evasion, viz. That they acted herein not as Apostles, but as ordinary Pastours, and consequently as fallible men, Iron. Qu. 5. cap. 89. not only in commanding this Change of the Sab­ba [...]h, but in all other matters of Church government (among which he reckons this of the Sabbath to be one) which he thinks were im­posed according to their private wisdome as most fit for those times, but not by any Apostolicall Commission as concerning all times. But to imagine that matters of Church-government in the Apostles dayes wete coats for the Moon in respect of after­times, and that the form of it is mutable (as he would have it) I suppose will be digested by few honest and sober minds in these times, unlesse they be byassed for a season by politick ends, and therefore herein I will not now contend; one [...]y it may be considered whether any private spirit could abolish that Day, which from the beginning of the world God so highly honoured, and then honour and advance another Day above it, and sanctifie it too (as shall be proved) for reli­gious services. Could any do this justly but by immediate dispensation from the Lord Christ Jesus? and if the Apo­stles did thus receive it immediately from Christ, and so teach the observation of it, they could not then teach it as fallible men, and as private Pastors, as he would have [Page 16] it; a pernicious conceit, enough to undermine the faith of Gods elect in many matters more weighty then this of the Sabbath.

Thesis 29.

29 To know when and where the Lord Christ instructed his Desciples concerning this Change, is needlesse to en­quire. It is sufficient to beleeve this, that what the Primi­tive Churches exemplarily practised, that was taught them by the Apostles who planted them; and that whatsoever the Apostles preached, the Lord Christ commanded, as hath been shewen. Yet▪ if the Change of the Sabbath be a matter appertaining to the Kingdome of God, why should we doubt but that within the space of his forty dayes abode with them after his Resurrection, he then taught it them, for 'tis ex­pressely said that He then taught them such things, Acts 13.

Thesis 30.

30 When the Apostles came among the Jewes, they preached usually upon the Jewish Sabbaths, but this was not be­cause they did thinke or appoint it herein to be the Christian Sabbath, but that they might take the fittest opportunity and season of meeting with, and so of preaching the Gospel to the Jewes in those times. For, what power had they to call them together when they saw meet? or if they had, yet was it meet for them thus to do, before they were sufficiently instructed about Gods mind for setting apart some other time? and how could they be sufficiently and seasonably instructed herein without watching the advantage of those times which the Jewes yet thought were the only Sabbaths? The dayes of Pentecost, Passeover and houres of prayer in the Temple, are to be observed still as well as the Iewish Sabbath, if the Apostles preaching on their Sabbaths argues the continuance of them, as Mr. Brabourne argues, for we know that they preached al­so and went up purposely to Ierusalem at such times to preach among them as well as upon the Sabbath dayes: look there­fore as they laid hold upon the dayes of Pentecost and Passeover as the fittest seasons to preach to the Jewes, but not thinking that such Feasts should still be continued, so it is in their prea­ching upon the Jewish Sabbaths.

Thesis 31.

31 Nor did the Apostles sinfully Iudaize by preaching to the Iewes upon their Sabbaths (as Mr. Brabourne would inferre); supposing that their Sabbaths should not be still observed, they should then Iudaiz and after Ceremonies, saith he, and so build up those things which they laboured to destroy: For, suppose they did ob­serve [Page 17] such Dayes and Sabbaths as were Ceremonial for a time, yet it being done not in conscience of the Day, but in con­science of taking so fit a season to preach the Gospel in, it could not nor cannot be any sinful Iudaizing, especially while then, the Iews were not sufficiently instructed about the abolishing of those things. For Mr. Brabourne could not but know that all the Iewish Ceremonies being once the appoint­ment of God, were to have an honourable burial, and that therefore they might be lawfully observed for a time among the Iewes, untill they were more fully instructed about them; and hence Paul Circumcised Timothy because of the Iewes, Acts. 16.3. and did otherwise conforme to them, that so he might winne and gaine the more upon them: and if Paul ob­served purposely a Iewish Ceremony of Circumcision, which was not necessary, nay which was not lawfull to be observed among the Gentiles, Galat. 5.2. and yet he observed it to gaine the Iewes: why might not Paul much more preach the Gospel, which is in it selfe a necessary Duty, upon a Iewish Sabbath which fell out occasionally to him, and therefore might lawfully be observed for such an end among the Iewes, which among the Gentiles might be unlawful? Suppose there­fore that the Apostles might have taught the Iewes from house to house (as Mr. Brabourne argues against the necessity put upon the Apostles to preach upon the Iewish Sabbath) yet what Reason or Conscience was there to lose the opportunity of publike preaching for the more plentiful gathering in of soules, when many are met together, and which may lawfully be done, and be contented onely to seek their good in such private waies? and what although Paul did assemble the chiefe of the Iewes together at Rome when he was a prisoner, to acquant them with Civill matters about his imprisonment, Acts. 28.17. yet had he power to do thus in all places where he came? or was it meet for him so to do? Did not he sub­mit the appointment of a sacred Assembly to heare the word rather unto them, then assume it to himself, Acts 28 23. It is therefore false and unsound which Master Brabourne affirmes, viz. That Paul did preach on the Iewish Sabbath in conscience of the Day, not merely with respect of the opportunity he then tooke from their owne publike meetings then to preach to them; For (saith he) Paul had power to assemble them together upon other dayes: This, I say, is both false: for he that was so much spoken against among them, might not in all places be able to put forth such a power; as also 'tis unsound; for, suppose he had such a power, yet whether it was so mee [...] for him to pu [...]t [Page 18] forth in appointing other times, may be easily judged of by what hath been said.

Thesis 32.

32 Nor is there a foundation here laid of making all other actions of the Apostles unwarrantable or unimitable (as Mr. Brabourne saith) because we are not to imitate the Apostles herein in preaching upon the Iewish Sabbaths. For no actions either of Christ or the Apostles which were done meerly in respect of some speciall occasion, or speciall reason, are, eatenus, or in that respect binding to others: For, the example of Christ eating the Lords supper onely with men, not women, in an upper chamber, and towards the dark evening, doth not bind us to exclude women, or not to celebrate it in other places and times; because we know that these actions were meerly occasioned in respect of speciall reasons (as the eating of the Passeover with ones own family, Christs family not consisting of women) so it is here in respect of the Sabbath; The Apo­stles preaching upon the Iewish Sabbaths was meerely occa­sionall, by occasion of the publique meetings (their fittest time to doe good in) which were upon this and any other day.

Thesis 33.

Now although the Iewes observing this day, the Apostles observed it among the Iewes by preaching among them; yet we shall finde that among the Christian Gentile Chur­ches and believers (where no Iudaisme was to be so much as tolerated for a time) not any such day was thus observed, nay another day, the first day in the weeke is honoured and prefer­red by the Apostles above any other day in the weeke for reli­gious and Sabbath services. For, although Holy duties doe not argue alway a Holy day; yet when wee shall finde the Holy Ghost single out and nominate one particular day to be observed and honoured rather then any other day, and rather then the Iewish seventh day it selfe for Sabbath services and Holy duties: this undeniably proves that day to be the Chri­stian Sabbath: and this we shall make evident to be the first day of the weeke. Which one thing seriously minded (if proved) doth utterly subvert the whole frame and force of Master Brabournes shady Discourse for the observation of the Jewish Sabbath, and most effectually establisheth the Chri­stian Sabbath. Master Braburne therefore herein bestirs his wits, and tells us on the contrary that Paul preached not [Page 19] onely to the Iewes, but even unto the Gentiles upon this Iewish Sabbath rather then any other day; and for this end brings double proof [...]; one is Acts 13.42, 44. where the Gentiles are said to desire Paul to preach to them [...], i. e. the weeke betweene, or any Day betweene till the next Sabbath (as some translate it) or (if Master Brabourne will) the next Sabbath, or Iewish Sab­bath, when almost all the City came out to heare Paul, who were most of them Gentiles, not Iewes. Be it so, they were Gen­tiles indeed; but as yet no Church or Christian Church of Gentiles actually under Christs Government and Ordinan­ces, among whom (I say) the first day of the weeke was so much honoured above any other day for sacred Assem­blies. For, 'tis no wonder if the Apostles yield to their desires in preaching any time of the weeke, which they thought the best time, even upon the Iewish Sabbath; a­mong whom the Iewes being mingled, they might have the fitter opportunity to preach to them also, and so become all things to all men to gaine some. His second proofe is, Acts 16 12, 13. and here he tells us that Paul and Timothy preached not to the Iewes, but to the Gentiles, upon the Sabbath day. I confesse they are not called Iewes no more then 'tis said that they were Gentiles; but why might not Lydia and her company be Iewes or Iewish Proselytes, vvho vve know did observe the Iewish Sabbath strictly till they were better instructed, as they did all other Jewish ceremonies also? For Lydia is expressely said to be one who worshipped God befo [...]e Paul came. Master Brabourne tels us, they were no Iewish Proselytes, because they had no Iewish Synagogue, and therefore they were faine to goe out of the City into the Fields, beside a River, to pray. I confesse the Text saith that they went out to a River side where prayer was wont to be made; but that this was the open Fields, and that there was no Oratory, house, or place of shelter to meet and pray in, this is not in the Text, but its Master Brabournes com­ment and glosse on it. But suppose it was in the open Fields, and that they had no Synagogue: yet will it follow that these were not Iewes? might not the Iewes be in a Gentile City for a time without any Synagogue? especially if their number be but small, and this small number consist chiefly of women, as it seemes this did, whose hearts God touched, leaving their husbands to their owne waies? If they were not Iewes or rather Iewish Prosely [...]es, why did they choose the Sabbath day [Page 20] (which the Iewes so much set by) rather then any other, to pray and worship God together in? But verily such answers as these wherewith the poor man abounds in his Treatise, make me extreamly fear that he rather stretcht his Consci­ence, then was acted by a plaine deluded Conscience in this point of the Sabbath.

Thesis. 34.

34 It remains therefore to prove that the first Day of the week is the Christian Sabbath by Divine institution; and this may appeare from those three texts of Scripture ordinarily alledged for this end.

I. Acts 20.7. II. 1 Cor. 16.2. III. Revel. 1.10. Which being taken joyntly together, hold these three things:

• 1. That the first Day of the week was honoured above any other day for Sabbath services in the Primitive Churches practise, as is evident, Acts 20.7.
• 2. That the Apostles commanded the observation of this Day rather then any other for Sabbath-services, as is evi­dent, 1 Cor. 16.1, 2.
• 3. That this day is holy and sanctified to be holy to the Lord above any other day, and therefore it hath the Lords name upon it (an usual signe of things Holy to him) and therefore called the Lords Day, as is evident, Revel 1.10. but these things need more particular explication.

Thesis 35.

35 In the first of these places, Acts 10.7. these particulars are manifest.

1. That the Church of Troas (called Disciples) publikely and generally now met together, so that it was no private Church-meeting (as some say) but generall and open, accor­ding as those times would give leave.

2, That this meeting was upon the first day of the week, called [...]: which phrase although Go­marus, Primrose, Heylin, and many others go about to translate thus, viz. upon one of the dayes of the week. Yet this is sufficient to dash that Dream (besides what else might be said) viz That this phrase is expounded in other Scriptures to be the first day of the week, Luke 24, 1. Iohn 20, 1. but never to be found throughout all the Scriptures expounded of one day in the week. Gomarus indeed tels us of [...] Luke 5.17. & 8.22. & 20.1. which is translated quodam [Page 21] die, Gomar. In­vest. Sent. & orig. Sab. cap. 9. or a certain day; but this will not help him, for this is not [...] as 'tis in this place.

3. That the end of this meeting was Holy Duties, viz. to break bread, or to receive the Lords Supper, as the phrase is expounded, Acts 2.43. which was therefore accompanied with preaching the word and prayer, Holy preparation and serious meditation about those great mysteries. Nor can this breaking of Bread be interpreted of their Love-feasts or com­mon Suppers, as Gomarus suspects. For their Love-feasts and common Suppers were not of the whole Church together (as this was) but in several houses, as Mr. Cartwright proves from Acts 2.46. And although the Corinthians used their Love-Feasts in publike, yet they are sadly reproved for it by the Apostle, 1 Cor. 11.12. and therefore he would not allow it here.

4. 'Tis not said that Paul called them together, because he was to depart the next day, or that they purposely declined the Lords Supper till that day, because then Paul was to de­part (as Master Primrose urgeth) but the text speaks of it as of a time and Day usually observed of them before, and therefore it is said that when they came together to break bread;Primr. par. 3. cap. 5. and Paul therefore took his opportunity of preaching to them, and seemes to stay purposely, and wait seven dayes among them, that he might communicate with them, and preach unto them in this ordinary time of publike meeting, and therefore though he might privately instruct and preach to them the other seven dayes, yet his preaching now is mentioned in regard of some speciall solemnity of meeting on this Day.

5. The first Day was honoured above any other Day for these Holy Duties; or else why did they not meet upon the last Day of the week, the Iewish Sabbath for these ends? For if the Christian Churches were bound to observe the Iewish Sabbath, why did they not meet then and honour the seventh Day above the first day? considering that it was but the day before, and therefore might easily have done it, more fitly too, had that seventh day been the Christian Sabbath.

6. Why is the first Day of the week mentioned which is attributed onely in the New Testament to the Day of Christs resurrection, unlesse this day was then usually honoured and sanctified for Holy Duties called here breaking of bread by a Synecdoche of a part for the whole, and therefore compre­hends all other Sabbath Duties? For there is no more reason to exclude prayer, preaching, singing of Psalmes, &c. because these are not mentioned, then to exclude drinking of Wine in [Page 22] the Sacrament, (as the blinde Papists do) because this neither is here made mention of. Master Primrose indeed tels us that it may be, the first Day of the week is named in respect of the Miracle done in it upon Eu [...]ichus: But the Text it plaine, the time of the meeting is mentioned,Primr. par. [...] cap. 5. and the end of it to break Bread, and the Miracle is but brought in as a particularly event which happened on this day, which was set apart first for higher ends.

7. Nor is it said in the Text that the Church of Troas me [...] every day together to receive the Sacrament (as Master Pr [...]mrose suggests) and that therefore this action of breaking Bread was done without resp [...]ct to any particular or special Day, Ibid. it being performed every Day. For, I do not finde that the Primitive Church received the Lords Supper every day: for though it be said, Acts [...]. [...]2. That the Church continued in the Apostles Fel­lowship and breaking of Bread; yet it is not said that they broke Bread every day: they are indeed said to be daily in the Temple, verse 46. but not that they brake Bread every day in the Temple, or from house to house; or if they should, yet the b [...]eaking of Bread in this verse is meant of Common not Sacred Bread, as it is verse 42. where I think the Bread was no more Common, then their continuance in the Apostles Droctrine and Fellowship was Common; and therefore in this 46. verse, the phrase is altered, and the [...]. Original word properly signifies ordinary Bread for common nourishment, And yet suppose they did receive the Sacrament every day, yet here the breaking of Bread is made mention of as the opus diei, or the speciall businesse of the day; and the day is mentio­ned as the special time for such a purpose; and hence no other day (if they break Bread in it) is mentioned, and therefore its called in effect the day of meeting to break bread: Nor do I finde in all the Scripture a day distinctly mentioned for holy duties (as this first day of the week is) wherein a whole people or Church meet t [...]gether for such ends; but that day was Holy: the naming of the particular day for such ends, implies the Holinesse of it, and the time is purposely mentioned, that others in after times might purposely and specially observe that Day.

8, Nor is it said that the Disciples met together, the night after the first day; but its expressely said to be upon the first day of the week: and supp [...]se (as Mr. Brabourne saith) that their meeting was no [...] together in the morning, but onely in the evening time to celebrate the Lords Supper, a little before the shutting in of the day: yet its a sufficient ground for [Page 23] conscience to observe this day above any other for holy servi­ces, although every part of the day be not filled up with publike & Church duties; for suppose the Levites on the Jewish sabbath should do no holy publike duty on their own Sabbath untill the day was farre [...]pent; will Mr. Brabourne argue from thence, that the Jewish Sabbath was not wholly holy unto God? But againe, suppose the latter part of the day was spent in breaking of Bread, yet will it follow that no other part of the day was spent before, either in any private or publique holy duties? pos­sibly they might receive the Lords Supper in the evening of this Sabbath (for the time of this action is in the general indif­ferent) yet might they not spend the rest of the morning in publike Duties, as we know some do now in some Churches, who are said to meet together to break Bread the latter part of this day, and yet sanctifie the Sabbath the whole day before. Suppose it be not expressely said that they did shut up shop­windwes at Troas and forsake the Plough and the Wheele, and abstaine from all servile work; yet if he beleeves that no more was done this day but what is expressely set downe, Mr. Brabourne must needs see a pitiful face of Christ in the Lords Supper, and people comming [...]ushing upon it without any serious examination or preparation or singing of Psalms, be­cause no such Duties as these are mentioned to be upon this Day.

9. Lastly, Master Primrose like a staggering man knowes not what to fasten on in answer to this place, & therefore tels us that suppose it was a Sabbath, yet that it might be taken up from the Churches Liberty and Custome, rather then from any Divine institution: But besides that which hath been said to dasht his Dreame, Thes. 27. the falsenesse of this com­mon and bold assertion will appeare more fully in the expli­cation of the second text, 1 Cor. 16.1, 2. which now fol­lowes, wherein it will appeare to be an Apostolical (and therefore a Divine) Institution from Jesus Christ.

Thesis 36.

In the second of the places therefore alledged, 1 36 Cor. 16.1, 2. These things are considerable to prove the first day in the week to be the Christian Sabbath, and that not so much by the Churches practise, as by the Apostles precept; For,

1. Although it be true, that in some cases Collections may be made any day for the poore Saints; yet why doth the A­postle here limit them to this day for the performance of this Duty? they that translate [...] upon one day of the week, do miserably mistake the phrase, which in Scripture [Page 24] phrase onely signifies the first day of it, and beat their forheads against the maine Scope of the Apostle, viz. to fixe a certaine day for such a Duty as required such a certaine time: For, they might (by this translation) Collect their Benevolences one day in foure or ten yeers, for then it should be done one day in a week.

2: The Apostle doth not onely limit them to this time, but also all the Churches of Galatia, verse. 1. and consequent­ly all other Churches if that be true, 2 Cor. 8.13, 14. where­in the Apostle professeth he press [...]th not one Church, that he may ease another Church, but that there be an equality: and although I see no ground from this Text, that the main­tenance of the Ministry should be raised every Sabbath day (for Christ would not have them reckoned among the poore, being labourers worthy of their Hire) and although this Col­lection was for the poore Saints of other Churches, yet the proportion strongly holds, that if there be ordinary cause of such Collections in every particular Church, these Col­lections should be made the first day of the week, much more carefully and religiously for the poore of ones own Church; and that in all the Churches of Christ Jesus to the end of the world.

3. The Apostle doth not limit them thus with wishes and counsels onely to do it, if they thought most meet, but [...], verse 1. as I have ordained, or instituted; and therefore bindes their consciences to it; and if Paul ordained it, cer­tainly he had it from Christ Jesus who first commanded him so to appoint it; who professeth, that what he had received of the Lord, that onely he commanded unto them to do, 1. Cor. 11.23.

4. If this day had not been more holy and more fit for this work of Love then any other day, he durst not have limited them to this Day, nor durst he have honoured this Day above any other in the weeke, yea above the Iewish seventh Day. For we see the very Apostle tender alway of Christian Liber­ty, and not to binde were the Lord leaves his people free: for thus doing he should rather make snares then Lawes for Churches, 1 Cor. 7.27.35. and go expressely against his own Doctrine, Galat. 5.1. who bids them stand fast in their Liberty, and that in this very point of the observation of dayes, Galat. 4.10. But what fitnesse was there on this Day for such a service? Consider therefore.

5. That the Apostle doth not in this place immediatly ap­point and institute the Sabbath, but supposeth it to be so al­ready [Page 25] (as Mr. Primrose is forced to acknowledge) and we know Duties of Mercy and Charity,Primr. par. 3. c. 6. as well as of necessity and piety, are Sabbath Duties; for which end this Day (which Beza finds in an ancient Manuscript to be called the Lords Day) was more fit for those Collections then any other day; partly because they usually met together publikely on this day, and so their Collections might be in greater readinesse against Pauls coming: partly also that they might give more liberally, at least freely, it being supposed that upon this Day, mens hearts are more weaned from the world, and are warmed by the word and other Ordinances, with more lively faith and hope of better things to come, and therefore having received spirituall things from the Lord more plentifully on this Day, every man will be more free to impart of his temporal good things therein for refreshing of the poore Saints, and the very bowels of Christ Iesus. And what other reason can be given of Limiting this Collection to this Day? I confesse I cannot honestly (though I could wickedly) imagine. And certainly if this was the end, and withall the Iewish Day was the Chris­tian Sabbath, the Apostle would never have thus limited them to this Day, nor honoured and exalted this first D [...]y be­fore that Iewish seventh; which if it had been the Christian Sabbath, had been more fit for such a work as this, then the first Day (if a working day) could be.

6. Suppose therefore that this Apostolical and Divine In­stitution is to give their Collections, but not to institute the Day (as Master Primrose pleads) suppose also that they were not every Lords Day or first Day, but sometime upon the first day: Suppose also that they were extraordinary, and for the poor of other Churches, and to continue for that time onely of their need: Suppose also that no man is injoyned to bring into the publike Treasury of the Church, but ( [...]) privately to lay it by on this Day by himselfe (as Mr. Brabourne urgeth against this Text) yet still the question re­maines unanswered, viz. Why should the Apostle limit them to this Day, either for extraordinary or private Collections, and such special acts of Mercy, unlesse the Lord had honoured this day for acts of mercy (and much more of Piety) above any o­ther ordinary and common day? What then could this Day be but the Christian Sabbath imposed by the Apostles; and magnified and honoured by all the Churches in those dayes? I know there are some other Replies made to this Scripture by Master Brabourne ▪ but they are wind-egges (as Plutarch calls That Philosophers notions) and have but little in them, and [Page 26] therefore I passe them by as I do many other things in that book as not worth the time to name them.

7. This Lastly I adde, this first Day was thus honoured ei­ther by Divine or Humane Institution: If by Divine, we have what we plead for; If by Humane custome and tradition, then the Apostle assuredly would never have commended the ob­servation of this Day, who elsewhere condemnes the observa­tion of dayes, though the dayes were formerly by Divine In­stitution. Ye observe (saith he) Dayes and Times: and would he then have commended the observation of these dayes above any other which are onely by humane, but never by Divine Institution? Its, strange that the Churches of Galatia are for­bidden the observation of dayes, Galat. 4.10. and yet com­manded, 1 Cor. 16.1.2. a more sacred and solemne observa­tion of the first Daye of the week rather then any other! Sur­ly this could not be, unlesse we conclude a Divine Institution hereof. For we know how Zealous the holy Apostle is every where to strike at Humane customes, and therefore could not lay a stumbling block (to occasion the grievous fall of Churches) to allow and command them to observe a Humane Tradition, and to honour this above the seventh Day for such holy services ar are here made mention of. But whether this Day was solemnely sanctified as the Sabbath of the Lord our God, we come now to inquire.

37 Thesis 37.

In the third Text, Revel. 1.10. Mention is made of the Lords Day, which was ever accounted the first day of the week: It seems therefore to be the Lords Day, and consequently the Sabbath of the Lord our God. Two things are needfull here to be considered and cleared.

• 1. That this Day being called the Lords Day, it is there­fore set apart and sanctified by the Lord Christ as holy.
• 2. That this Day thus sanctified is the first day of the week, and therefore that first Day is our Holy or Sab­bath Day.

38 Thesis 38.

The first Difficulty here to prove and cleare up, is, that, This Day which is here called the Lords Day, is a day institu­ted and sanctified for the Lords honour and service above any other Day. For, as the Sacrament of Bread and Wine is called the Lords Supper, and the Lords Table, for no other reason but because they were instituted by Christ, and sanctified for him and his honour; so what other reason can be given by any Scripture-light why this is called the Lords Day, but because [Page 27] [...]t was in the like manner instituted and sanctified as they were? Master Brabourne here shifts away from the light of this Text, by affirming that it might be called the Lords Day in re­spect of God the Creator, not Christ the Redeemer, and therefore may be meant of the Iewish Sabbath which is called the Lords holy Day, Isaiah 58 3. But why might he not as well say that its called the Lords Supper & Table in respect of God the Creator, consider­ing that in the New Testament since Christ is actually exalt­ed to be Lord of all, this phrase is onely applyed to the Lord Christ as Redeemer? Look therefore as the Jewish Sabbath being called the Lords Sabbath, or the Sabbath of Iehovah, is by that title and note certainly known to be a Day sanctifi­ed by Iehovah, as Creator; so this Day being called the Lords Day, is by this note as certainly known to be a Day sanctified by our Lord Jesus as Redeemer. Nor do I finde any one distinct thing in all the Scripture which hath the Lords superscription or name upon it (as the Lords Temple, the Lords Offerings, the Lords people, the Lords Priests &c.) but it is sanctified of God and holy to him: why is not this Day then Holy to the Lord, if it equally bears the Lords name? Ma­ster Primrose indeed puts us off with another shift,Primr. par. 3. cap. 7. viz. That this Day being called so by the Churches customs; John therefore calls it so in respest of that custome which the church then used, with­out Divine institution. But why may he not as well say that he calls it the Lords Table in respect of the Churches Custome also? the Designation of a Day, and of the first time in the Day for Holy publike services is indeed in the power of each particular Church (Suppose it be a Lecture, and the houres of Sabbath-meetings) but the Sanctification of a Day, if it be Di­vine worship, to observe it if God command and appoint it; then surely it is wil-worship for any Humane Custome to in­stitute it. Now, the Lords name being stamped upon this Day and so set apart for the honour of Christ, it cannot be that so it should be called in respect of the Churches customes; for surely then they should have been condemned for wil-wor­ship by some of the Apostles; and therefore it is in respect of the Lords institution hereof.

Thesis 39.

The second Difficulty now lies in clearing up this particu­lar,39 viz. That this Day thus sanctified was the first Day of the week, which is therefore the Holy Day of the Lord our God, and consequent­ly, the Christian Sabbath: for this purpose let these ensuing particulars be laid together.

1. That this Day of which Iohn speaks, is a known Day, [Page 28] and was generally known in those dayes by this glorious name of the Lords Day, and therefore the Apostle gives no other title to it but the Lords Day, as a known day in those times; for the Scope of Iohn in this Vision is as in all other Propheti­cal Visions when they set down the day and time of it, to gain the more credit to the certain [...]y of it, when every one sees the truth circumstantiated, and they heare of the particular time; and it may seem most absurd to set down the day and time for such an end, and yet the day is not particularly known.

2. If it was a known Day, what Day can it be either by e­vidence of Scripture or any Antiquity but the first Day of the week? For,

These considerations do utterly subvert Mr. Brabournes dis­course to prove the Jewish Sabbath to be the Lords Day, which we are still to observe, and may be sufficient to answer the scruples of modest and humble minds; for if we aske the Time of it? It is on the first Day of the week. Would we know whether this time was spent in holy Duties and Sabbath ser­vices? this also hath been proved. Would we know whether it was sanctified for that end? Yes verily, because its called the Lords Day, and consequently all servile work was and is to be laid aside in it. Would we know whether 'tis the Chris­tian Sabbath Day? Verily if it be the Day of the Lord our God (the Lords Day) why is it not the Sabbath of the Lord our God? If it be exalted and honoured by the Apostles of Christ above the Jewish Sabbath for Sabbath duties, why should we not beleeve but that it was our Sabbath Day? And although the word Sabbath Day, or seventh day be not ex­pressely mentioned, yet if they be for substance in this Day, and by just consequence deduced from Scripture, it is all one as if the Lord had expressely called them so.

Thesis 40.

Hence therefore it followes, that although this particular 40 seventh day, which is the first of seven, be not particularly made mention of in the fourth Commandment; yet the last [Page 30] of seven being abrogated, and this being instituted in its roome, it is therefore to be perpetuated and observed in its roome. For though it be true (as Mr. Brabourne urgeth) That New Institutions cannot be founded, no not by Analogy of propor­tion, meerly upon Old Institutions; as because children were Circum­cised, it will not follow that they are therefore to be baptized: and so because the Iewes kept that seventh day, that we may therefore keep the first day. Yet this is certaine, that when New things are instituted not by humane Analogy, but by Divine appoint­ment, the Application of these may stand by vertue of old pre­cepts and general Rules, from whence the Application even of old Institutions formerly arose. For we know that the Cul­tus institutu [...] in the New Testament in Ministry and Sacra­ments, stands at this day by vertue of the second Command­ment, as well as the instituted worship under the Old. And though Baptisme stands not by vertue of the institution of Circumcision, yet it being De novo instituted by Christ as the Seale of Initiation into Christs mystical Body, 1 Cor. 12.12. it now stands by vertue of that general Rule by which Cir­cumcision it selfe was administred, viz That the Seale of ini­tiation into Christs Body be applyed to all the visible mem­bers of that Body: and hence children are to be now Baptized, as once they were Circumcised, being members of Christs Body. So the first day of the week being instituted to be the Lords Day or Lords Sabbath, hence it followes that if the first seventh which is now abrogated, was once observed, be­cause it was the Lords Sabbath or the Sabbath Day which God appointed; by the very same Rule, and on the very same ground we also are bound to keep this first day being also the Sabbath of the Lord our God, which he hath now appointed anew under the New Testament.

Thesis 41.

40 It is true, that some of the Primitive Churches in the Eastern parts, did for some hundred of yeers observe both Sab­baths, both Iewish and Christian. But they did this without warrant from God (who allowes but one Sabbath in a week) and also against the Rule of the apostles; for I think that Paul foreseeing this observation of dayes and Iewish Sabbaths to be stirring and ready to creep into the Church, that he did therefore condemne the same in his Epistles to the Galatians and Colosians; and that therefore Christian Emperours and Councels in after-times did well and wisely both to condemn the observations of the one and withal honour the other.

Thesis 42.

Although the work of redemption be applyed unto few in 42 respect of the special benefits of it; yet Christ by his death is made Heire and Lord of all things, bring now set down at the right hand of God, and there is some benefit which befalls al the world by Christs Redemption; and the Government of all things is not now in the hand of God as Creator, but in the hand of a Mediator, Heb. 1.1, 2. Heb. 2.8.9. Iohn. 5.22. Colos. 1.16.17. 1 Tim. 4.10. Iohn. 3.35. and hence it is no wonder if all men as well as a few elected, selected and called, be commanded to sanctifie the Lords Day, as once they were the Jewish seventh day; the work of Christ being in some re­spect of as great extent through all the worke of Creation as the work of the Father. And therefore it is a great feeblenesse in Master Brabourne to go about to vilifie the worke of Re­demption, and extoll that of Creation above it; and that therefore the Sabbath ought still to be kept in reference to the work of Creation which concernes all men, rather then in re­spect of Redemption, which he imagines concerneth onely some few.

Thesis 43.

The Lord Christ rested from the work of redemption by price, upon the day of his Resurrection; but he is not yet at rest from the work of Redemption by power, untill the day of our Resurrection and Glory be perfected. But it doth not hence fellow (as Master Primrose imagines) that there is no Lords day Instituted in respect of Christs Resurrection because he hath not, nor did not then [...]est from Redemption by power; for look as the Father having rested from the works of Creati­on might therefore appoint a Day of Rest, al [...]hough he did not, nor doth not yet rest from Providence, John 5.17. So the Lord Christ having finished the great worke of Redemption, he might justly appoint a day of Rest, although his redeeming workly by power was yet behind.

Thesis 44.

The heavie and visible judgements of God revealed from heaven against prophaners of this our Lords day Sabbath will one day be a convincing Argument of the Holinesse of this Day, when the Lord himselfe shall have the immediate handling and pressing of it. Mean while I confesse my weak­nesse to convince an adversary by it; nor will I contend with any other Arguments from Antiquity for the observation of this Day; but these may suffice, which are alledged from the Holy Word.

THESIS 1.

ITS a holy labour (saith one) to enquire 1 after the Beginning of holy Rest. The Sabbath cannot be so sweetly san­ctified unlesse we know the time when to begin and end it the different ap­prehensions of such as have inquired af­ter the Truth in this particular, have mad way for the more clear and distinct knowledge of it; it being the priviledge of truth to be more purified and shine the brighter by passing thorough the heats and fires of mens con­tentions and disputations.

Thesis 2.

There being therefore Five severall opinions concerning this 2 particular, it may not be unusefull to bring them all to the Ba­lance and Touchstone, that so by snuffing the Candle, and re­jecting that which is false, the light of truth may shine the brighter at last.

Thesis 3.

Some there be who make the Time mutable and various; 3 affirming,Opin. 1. that God hath not fixed any set time, or that he stands upon, or would have his people troubled with such Niceties; so long as the day be observed (say they) it is no matter when it be begun: nor do they make this variation to be according to that which God allows (suppose from Sun to [Page 36] Sun, sooner or later as the time of the yeere is) but according to the civill customs of severall Nations, as they variously be­gin or end their daies among whom they live; as suppose they live among Romans, (they think) they may begin it at mid­night; if with Babylonians, at Sun-rising; if among Grecians, at Sun-set; if among Umbrians and Arabians, at mid-day.

Thesis 4.

4 If the Scripture had left us such a liberty as this, viz to measure the beginning of the day according to humane cu­stome; a scrupulous conscience (I think) might have a most and ready quieting answer here: but it will be found too true, that though Civill and common Time may admit of such va­riations as may best suit with their manner and occasions, yet sacred and holy time is not dependent upon humane customs, but upon divine institutions: for which purpose God hath made the lights of Heaven to be for seasons, Gen. 1.14. to be guides and helps to begin and end the seasons and daies which he shall appoint.

Thesis 5.

5 Tis true, that it suits not with Gods wisdome to determine all particular circumstances of things (which are almost in­numerable and infinite) by the expresse letter of the Scripture; and therefore he hath left us a few generall Rules to direct us therein; yet for the Lord to leave the determination of some circumstances to humane liberty, would be very perilous. The Temple was but a circumstance of place, and King Vzziah in in offering Incense, varied onely in a circumstance of person, yet we know that the ten Tribes were carried away captive for not sacrificing at the Temple, and Vzziah smitten with Le­prosie till his death: so the Lord having determined the Se­venth day to be his, what now should hinder but that he should determine the Beginning also thereof?

Thesis 6.

6 If God hath been accurately carefull to fix the beginning of other Feasts and Holy daies, far inferior unto this, as appeareth Levit. 23.23. Exod. 12.6. why should we think that the Lord is lesse carefull about the beginning of his Sabbath?

Thesis 7.

7 If the Lord hath not left it to humane wisdome to set down the bounds, and limits of holy places (as appears in the Temple, Tabernacle, and all their appurtenances) why should we think that he hath left it to mans wisdome to limit and de­termine holy Time?

Thesis 8.

8 If the Lord will have a speciall Time of worship once [Page 37] within the circle of Seven daies, and not appoint the Time for the beginning and end of it, might he not lose much of the beauty of the holinesse of the day, every thing being beautifull in its season? may not man begin the day at such a season as may not be beautifull?

Thesis 9.

The Deputation of Time for holy uses upon occasion is al­lowed 9 to man; yet sanctification of Time, and to set the bounds and limits of it, is left to no man: Sanctification not only positive, but relative (as here in the Sabbath) being as proper to the Holy Ghost, as Creation to the Father, and Re­demption to the Son.

Thesis 10.

Application of holy Time to the performance of holy duties 10 on the Sabbath, (as to fix what houres to meet in upon that day) is left to humane prudence from generall rules of Conve­niency, Order, Comelinesse: but Consecration of constant and fixed Time is the Lords propriety, not onely of the middle, but of the beginning and end thereof.

Thesis 11.

The Scriptures have left the determination of the Begin­ning 11 of the Sabbath no more to civill Nations and their cu­stoms, then to particular Churches, and each particular person; for they may all equally plead against the the Lord [...] strictnesse to any exact begining of time▪ but if such a loose liberty were granted, a world of confusion, scandall, and division would soon appeare; for some persons might then begin it at mid­night, some at mid-day; some might m [...]asure the beginning of the Sabbath according to their sleeping sooner or latter on the Sabbath day morning; some might be Plowing or dancing and drinking, when others are praying and hearing of the word; and who could restraine them herein? for they might plead the Sabbath is not yet begun to them.

Thesis 12.

If therefore God hath sanctified a set Time, he hath set and 12 sanctified the bounds and limits of that Time: and to begin the time when we lift, it may sometime arise from weaknesse, but usually tis a fruit of loosnesse of heart, which secretly loves to live as it lists, which would not conform to Gods rule, and therefore will crook and bend the rule to its humour; which will not come up to Gods time, and therefore make God to come downe to theirs.

Thesis 13.

O here there be who give god the honour of determining 13 [Page 38] 13 the beginning and end of the day, but they cut him short of one halfe of it, in that they make the Artificiall day, or the Day-Light,Opin. 2. T. Bra­bourne. I.N. from Sun-rising to Sun-setting, to be the day of his Sabbath. Thus some affirm downright. Others more modestly say, h [...]t mans conscience ought not to be scrupulous nor trouble it selfe, if conscienciously give God the honour of the Sabbath day-light, having some generall preparations for it the night before, and good affections the night after.

Thesis 14.

14 But if the Day-light be the measure of the Sabbath, those that live in some pa [...]ts of the Russia and East-land must have once a yeere a very long Sabbath: for there are some times of the yee [...]e wherein they have day-light a moneth together.

Thesis 15.

15 If God give us six naturall daies to labour in, is it not fit that the seventh day should beare an equall proportion with every working day? and therefore it is not an Artificiall, but a Naturall day, consisting of twenty four houres, which we must in conscience allow unto God to be the Sabbath day.

Thesis 16.

16 It is true that the night is given to man to rest in, it being most fit for that end; but it is not necessary that all the week [...]ly nights be spent in sleep, for we then do labour, and Gods providence puts men generally upon it to labour in their cal­lings earely and la [...]e those nights, and the Lord allows it; nay it would be sin and idlenesse in many not to doe it; besides, that sleep and rest which is to be taken in the night, it is in or­dine ▪ or in re [...]erence to Day-labour, and is as a whet thereunto and in this respect the whole weekly night as well as the day is for labour; as the sleep we take on Sabbath night is in ordine, or with respect to spirituall rest, and so that whole naturall day is a day of spirituall rest. It is therefore a vain thing for any to make the nights of the six working daies to be no part of the six working daies, because (they say) they are given to man to rest and sleep in; for upon the same ground they may make the Artificiall daies no daies of labour neither, because there must be ordinarily some time taken out of them to eat, drink, and refresh our weak bodies in.

Thesis 17.

17 If Nehemiah shut the gates of the City when it began to be dark least that night time should be prophaned by bearing bur­dens in it,Nehem, 13.19. then certainly the time of night was sanctified of God as well as the day; to say that this act was but a just pre­paration for the Sabbath, is said without proofe: for, if God [Page 39] allows men six daies and nights to labour in, what equity can there be in forbidding all servile worke a whole night together which God hath allowed man for labour? and although we ought to make preparation for the Sabbath, yet the time and measure of it is left to each mans Christian liberty; but for a civill Magistrate to impose twelve houres preparation for the Sabbath, is surely both against Christian liberty, and Gods allowance also: Again, Nehemiah did this, lest the men of Tyre should occasion the Jews to break the Sabbath day by bringing in wares upon that night; so as if that night therefore had not been part of the Sabbath, they could not ther [...]y provoke the Jews to prophane the Sabbath day, by which Nehemiah tels them they had provoked the wrath of God.

Thesis 18.

A whole naturall day is called a day though it take in the 18 night also, because the day-light is the chiefest and best part of the day, and we know that the denomination of things is usu­ally according to the better part; but for Mr. Brabourne to af­firm, that the word Day, in Scripture, is never taken but for the Artificiall day or time of Light, is utterly [...]alse, as might appeare from sundry instances; it may suffice to [...]ee a cluster of of seven daies which comprehended their nights also, Exod. 12.15, 18, 19.41, 42.

Thesis 19.

To affirme that the Sabbath day onely comprehends the 19 Day-light, because the fi [...]st Day in Gen. 1 began with morn­ing light: is not only a bad consequence (supposing the ground of it to be true) but the ground and foundation of it is as cer­tainly false, as to say that Darknesse is Light; for its evident that the first day in Genesis began with that darknesse which God calls Night, Psal. 4.5. and to affirme that the first Day in Genesis 1. begins with morning Light, is as grossely false, as it is apparently true that within six Daies the Lord made Heaven and Earth, Ex. 20 11. for before the creating of that Light which God calls Day, the Heavens and with them the Angels, and the Earth or fi [...]st matter called the Deepe, which was overspread with Darknesse, were created: either therefore the Lord did not create the World in six Dayes, or tis untrue that the first day in Genesis began with morning Light: and I wonder upon what grounds this notion should enter into any mans head: for though God calls the light Day and the darke­nesse Night, (as we shall doe when speake of the artificiall Day) yet withall he called the Evening of the morning the first day; and what was this Evening and Morning? Surely its all that space of time wherein the Lord did his first dayes [Page 40] work; now its evident that part of the first Daies work was before God created the light: and what though evening be oftentimes taken for the latter part of the Daylight? yet its too well known to those who have waded the deepe in this controversy, that it is oftentimes taken not only for the bound between light and Darkenesse, 1. e. the end of light and begin­ning of darknesse, Ios. 10.26, 27. Psal. 104.23. but also for the whole time of darknesse, as tis here in this first of Genesis, ‘and as we shall prove in due place; and therefore to affirm that the Hebrew word used by Moses for evening, not to be naturally applyable to the Night, because it signifies a mix­ture of light and darknesse in the Notion of it, is a grosse mistake;’ for the Hebrew word Gnereb, doth not signifie a mixture of light and darknesse, but onely a mixture, because it is the beginning of darkenesse wherein all things seeme to be mixed and compounded together, and cannot be clearly and distinctly discerned in their kinds and colours, if Buxtor­fius may be believed; as is also evident, Is. 29.15. and to affirm that the Day is before the Night; even in this first of Genesis, because Mose [...] sometimes sets the Day before the Night; it may seeme [...] an Argument as to say that the Evening is before the Morning, because Moses here sets the Evening before the Morning; but this will not seeme rationall to them who make the Evening to comprehend the latter part of the Day-light, ‘and the Morning the first part of it: Lastly, to make the Light to begin the day, because the time of light is a cer­taine principle of compu [...]ation (the space of darknesse before that light was created being unknown) is all one,’ as if one should affirme that the time of Day-light was not the begin­ning of the Day, because the space of that is also as much un­known. For if we know that darknes was before light, though we may not know how long it continued, yet we do know certainly that the first Day began with darknesse, and that this darknesse and light made up the space of 24 houres, or of a naturall day (as in al other daies works of creation) and which is sufficient to break down this principle, viz. that the first Day in Genesis began with Morning Light.

Thesis 20.

20 Some say the Sabbath is significative of Heaven, and there­fore it onely comprehends the day light which is fit to signifie the lightsome Day of Heaven, which darknesse is not: but why may not Night-time signifie Heaven as well as Day-time? for Heaven is a place of rest, and the night is the fittest time for rest, after our weary labours in the day. Who teacheth [Page] men thus to allegorize? how easily a thing is it thus to abuse all the Scripture? and yet suppose it should signifie Heaven, yet why may not the Sabbath continue the space of a naturall as well as of an artificiall Day, considering that the naturall Day of the World or of both Hemispheres consists onely of light, which these men say is significative of Heaven?

Thesis 21.

We may and do sanctifie time by sleeping on the Sabbath 21 night, as well as by shewing workes of mercy, and doing workes of necessity upon the Sabbath Day, or as we may do by eating and drinking; for to take moderate sleepe is a worke not only of necessity but also of mercy to our selves; and there­fore to abolish the Sabbath Night from being any part of the Sabbath, because we cannot (as some think) sanctifie time by sleeping no more then by working, is very unsound.

Thesis 22.

Moses indeed tells the people, Ex. 16.23. that to morrow 22 is the Lords Sabbath, but he doth not say that the day time onely was the only time of the Sabbath, or that the Day light begins and ends the Sabbath; but he mentions that time, be­cause on that Daylight of the seventh Day they were apt and inclined to go out (as in other daies,) to gather manna, and so to breake the Sabbath; and it is as if we should say to one who was ready to ride out on the Sabbath morning about wordly occasions, Do not stir out, for to morrow is the Sabbath; that so we may hereby prevent the breach of the Sabbath in that thing, especially at that time wherein one is most inclined so to do.

Thesis 23.

To imagine that the Sabbath must be contained within 23 the bounds of Daylight, because Christ Iesus arose at breake of day, Mat. 28.1. is of no more force then as if one should con­clude the containment of it within the bounds of some dark­nesse, and twylight; for its evident that he arose about that time.

Thesis, 24.

There is no more necessity of sanctifying a day and a halfe 24 by beginning the day at Evening, then by beginning it at Morning light (for thus some argue) for what is said of the Evening of both Hemisphers, that the second Evening would begin 12 houres after the first, if the Sabbath was sanctified to begin at the Evening of both Hemispheres, and so there would be a day and halfe sanctified; the like (I say) may be averred of the morning, supposing that both Hemispheres [Page] should begin their Sabbath at the Morning of both Hemi­spheres; but we know, that the Sabbath Day is sanctified to begin and end according to the setting and rising Sun in each Hemisphere and Longitude of places respectively.

Thesis 25.

25 If Evening, Morning, light and night, made up every day the Creation, why shall we think but that the Sabbath day also consisted of the same parts? and if the whole world was made in six Daies, and these Daies be only such as consist of Day-light, when then was the third Heaven and Chaos made which did exist before light? those Fathers and Schoolemen who set such narrow bounds to the Day, had need consider of it, least their answer be like his who hearing a simple Preacher desiring the continuance of the life of the King so long as Sun and Moone endured? and being askt, if that should be so when should his son raigne? he replyed, it may be the Preacher thought that he might rule by Candle-light.

Thesis 26.

26 Suppose therefore that there was no publick worship in the Temple (as one objecteth) among the Iewes in the Night-time, yet it will not follow from hence that the Sabbath was to con­tinue no longer then Day-light; for the Sabbath might be sanctified privately in the Night, as well as more publickly in the Day; and thus the Iewes were wont to sanctifie their Sabbaths. and so should we, Is. 30.29. Psal. 63.7. Psal. 92.2.3.

Thesis 27.

Tis true that its very good to prepare for, and end the Sab­bath 27 with holy affections; yet if a seventh part of weekly time be due to God, as six parts of it are due to us, thorow the goodnesse of God; then let God be glorified as God, and the whole day allowed him as his Day; let Caesar have his due, and God his.

Thesis 28.

28: Others allow the Lord his whole time, but they thinke that he hath fixed the beginning of it at the gates of midnight,Opin. 3. ‘which Midnight they call morning or Morning Midnight, or midnight Morning, and therefore they imagine out of Gen. 1. that the Morning was halfe Night wherein time began, and halfe, Day; six houres Night from midnight to six, and six houres day from six to midday: and by the same proportion, the Evening to begin at midday, and so to continue six houres Day from 12 to six, and six houres Night from six to midnight, and therefore they say that God is said to stretch [Page 43] the North uppon the empty, Iob. 26.7. because first begin­ning of the notion of time began from the North point, when darknesse was first upon the face of the deepe, and from this North point in the Revolution of the Heavens we do account it midnight, as being opposite to the South which in the course of the Sun is at midday: and therefore also (they say) that Evening is never taken in all the Scripture for the whole Night: but as Evening begins at Midday so Morning begins at Midnight.’

Thesis 29.

But if the first day and consequently the Sabbath day should 29 begin at midnight, it were meet to give a demonstration that this first darknesse should continue just six houres, or halfe the time of such a night when the Sun is in the AEquinoctiall; but although it be certaine that the first time began in darknesse, yet its wholly uncertaine whether this darknesse continued but six houres. Zanchius and many others have very good cards to shew that this first darknesse continued a compleat night of 12 houres; others on the other hand make it far lesse; certaine it is, it continued some considerable space of time, in that it hath the name of Night put upon it; but that it should be just six houres, neither can mans reason demonstrate it, nor hath God in any Scripture revealed it, but it is a meere uncertainty, and therefore an ill foundation for setling the be­ginnning of the Sabbath upon.

Thesis 30.

Some would prove the Sabbath to begin at Midnight be­cause 30 Christ arose at Midnight, and he arose at Midnight be­cause Sampson a Type of Christ carried away the gates of Gaza at midnight, Iudg. 16, 3. but such allegoricall reasonings were fit tooles for blind Monkes in former times to delude the simple people with; I suppose men are wiser now then to be fed with wind and chaffe, and to build their faith upon co­zening allegories of humane wit, by which as the blind Monkes of old did feede the people, so the Familists now de­ceive the world: both which are the fruits of Gods heavy curse upon their hearts, who because they did not love the truth to seed upon it, are therefore fed with vanity of mind.

Thesis 31.

Tis true Paul Preached till midnight, Acts 20.7. but doth 31 it hence follow that the Sabbath was to end at midnight? no verily, for the beginning and end of the Sabbath is not mea­sured by mans Preaching a longer or a shorter time; Paul might have continued Preaching longer then the Sabbath or mid­night, [Page 44] the case being extraordinary in respect of his departure the next day never to see their faces more. And he might have continued a shorter time then the Sabbath continued, as our Saviour himselfe did before Sun-set, Mark 1.22.32. for the bounds of of continuance of the Sabbath are not set according to the beginning and end of any mans Preaching, which is so exceeding uncertaine: Pauls long Sermon was not continued and ended at Midnight purposely, and because so long the Sab­bath continued; but occasionally, in regard of his finall de­parture from them the next day; and hence in respect of this extraordinary cause he continued so long at it, which in ordi­nary course had bin very unseasonable.

Thesis 32.

32 It is not said in the first of Genesis that the Morning and the Evening were the first day, as if the day should begin at Morning Midnight: but the Evening and the Morning were the first Day; and therefore its strange that any should derive the beginning of the Sabbath from Morning Midnight out of this Text: The Graecians because they begin the day at the Evening of Sunset. did therefore orderly call their naturall day 2 Cor. 11.25. [...] and is it probable that Moses would speake disorderly, & ordine retrogrado here? and not rather according to the interpretation of Daniel, who calls 2300 daies by name of Ghne [...]eb Boker, which signifies Evenings Mornings, because the Evening, not the morning, much lesse Midnight-Morning is to begin the day, Dan. 14.26.

Thesis 33.

33 It is true that sometimes those things which are first in or­der of t [...]me, are spoken of last in order of story; and therefore its no solid Argument to prove that the Evening is before the Morning, meerly because the Evening is set downe first before the Morning, unlesse it can be proved that the story sets down such things (and so this in particular) orderly; which I sup­p [...]se is evident. 1 Because the first darknesse is called Night, and also comprehends the whole Time of night, as light com­hends the whole Time of the Day, Gen. 1.4, 5. Now I doe not find in all the Scripture, nor is any man I thinkable to shew that the whole Night is taken for the Morning, and therefore the first darknesse could not possibly begin at the Morning or Midnight Morning, 2. Because the Scope of Moses in this Chapter is to set down not onely the work of Creation, but the exact order of it, and consequently of the order of Time, which was consecrated with the World; first the beginning of it, then the succession and vicissitude of it, first [Page 45] in the dark night, then in the light day, and (which is all one) first in the Evening, then in the Morning, 3. Because the Evening may be the end of the Artificiall day; but I know no proofe from any instance in Scripture to make it the end of the Naturall day, of which Moses here speakes; and therefore as Evening cannot end the day, so Midnight Morning cannot be­ [...]in it.

Thesis 34.

To affirme that the Evening is never taken in Scripture for 34 the whole Night, and that therefore by the Evening we are to understand six houres Day, and six houres Night, as the con­sequence is most weake, so the assertion is most false, as may appear to any who seriously ponders these and such like Scrip­tures, Hab. 1.8. Ps. 92.2. Iob. 7.4. Deut. 28.66, 67. Zach 14.7. Isa. 21.12.

Thesis 35.

Nor can it be proved that the Evening begins at mid-day,35 which is their principall Argument to prove that the Mor­ning begins at midnight.

Thesis 36.

For though it be said, Ex. 29.38, 39. Ex. 12.6. That the 36 Lambe was to be slaine betweene the two Evenings (as tis in the Hebrew) yet neither these, or any such Scriptures are able to prove that one of those Evenings must necessarily begin at mid-day; but onely this that some part of the after­noone when the Sun was in his declining, was one of these Evenings; and some of the Iewish Rabbins, begin it at noone, yet it is without warrant from Scripture, and they are over­whelmed with crosse Testimonies from most of their fel­lowes, who begin it some about one, some about two of the Clock in the afternoone, and Iosephus (who knew best his Countreymens manners) and who is one of most credit in his writings, tells us that they began their first Evening about three of the Clock in the afternoone.

Thesis 37.

We read indeed of the shadowes of the Evening, Ier. 6.4.37 but it doth not hence follow that the Evening begins at mid-day, but rather some time after it, the shadowes of the Even­ing being the shadowes of the day declining, which therefore grow long; but mid-day is no time of declining shadowes.

Thesis 38.

Although the Evening may be called by humane custome all 39 that part of the day wherein we wish men good. Even from noone till Sun-set, yet its then called the Evening in respect [Page 46] of the Artificiall not Naturall day, of which Moses speakes when he divides the day into Morning and Evening, part of which afternoone is also called Evening by the Holy Ghost in Scripture; because it is either approaching or hastning to­ward the Evening of the naturall day, or contiguous to it: even as part of the dark Night is sometime called Morning, because it is either contiguous or not far from the Morning light, and men are then usually up, and preparing for it.

Thesis 39.

39 And as no Text can be produced to prove that the Evening begins at mid-day; so neither can any be alledged to prove the Morning to begin at mid-night. The Scripture (speaking properly) putting an expresse difference betweene Mid-night, Coc [...]-crowing, and Morning, Marke 13.35.

Thesis 40.

40 ‘And therefore to Translate the words in Gen. 1: so was the Evening, so was the Morning the first day; and then and this glosse and interpretation, viz. That out of the pre­misses of Night and Day, so was the Evening mixed of them both; so was the morning also compounded of both, to wit of Night and Light: this I say is but words; here is no proofe for such an interpretation. Iunius Translation is best and most cleare, and rationall, viz. So was the Even­ing and the Morning of the first day: for as hath bin said the whole time of Night is never called by the name of Morning;’ let any man shew the leaft Tittle in any Scripture it, and I will yeeld to them in this cause.

Thesis 41.

41 To affirme that the division of the naturall day, Gen. 1. in­to Day and Night, was for civill use, and into Evening and Morning for Religious use, in respect of the Evening and Morning s [...]crifice along time after, is just such a device as his who would needs thinke that the first day of the we [...]ke was called [...], because God foresaw and ordained the change of the Sabbath unto that first Day; for we know, God speak [...]s of t [...]hings as they were then in their nature when they did first exist, before Sacrifices were thought of; Adam called the names of things according to their natures and special use, and is it credible that before his fall where there was no use of Sacrifices, that he should know of Morning and Evening Sacrifi [...]es in which respect it was called Evening morning; and yet suppose it was in respect of Religious use that these names are given to each day, yet why must not the Evening begin the day rather then the Morning? it being as hath bin proved, fi [...]st in being as it is fi [...]st in naming.

Thesis 42.

'Tis true, the time before day, Marke 1.35. is called early 42 Morning, and we read of the Morning watch before day light, Ex. 14.24, yet these places no way prove that which they are produced for, viz. That Morning begins at midnight: that Christ went to prayer at midnight, because he went to it in the early Morning, or that the Morning watch began at mid­night; for we know it was some time after it; these places in­deed shew thus much, That sometime before Day-light is sometime called Morning, which is readily acknowledged in the respects forementioned.

Thesis 43.

The Angels indeed were created together with the third 43 Heaven, Gen. 1.1. in the beginning of Time; for being incor­ruptible (as the third Heaven is) they could not be afterward created out of the first matter, as all this visible and corrupti­ble World was; therefore the Earth is said to be dark and void (i. e. of all Inhabitants and beautiful forms) in oppositi­on to the third Heaven which was made with it, which was lightsome and full of Inhabitants, viz. the Angels; and if it was a Kingdom prepared from the foundation of the World, surely this Kingdom had a King then, and this King had his subjects; who could they then be but Angels? but to infer from hence that this Time of darknesse wherein the Angels were created, should be morning, and that therefore they are called by Iob the Morning stars, Iob. 38.6, 7. as some imagine, will follow no more then as if one should affirm that the King of Babel (called Lucifer) was certainly born in the Mor­ning, because he also is called a Morning star, Isa. 14 13. for who sees not but that the speech is metaphoricall in both? glorious excellency above others being bestowed on them, as speciall brightnesse and lustre is given to the Morning star.

Thesis 44.

Belshazar is said to be slain in the night, Dan. 5.30. which 44 the Prophet Isaiah has foretold should be in the Morning, Isa. 47.11. but will it follow hence that this Morning is the time of midnight? might it not be after midnight as well? for the Text is silent; and yet I do not think that the word Mor­ning in Isay is meant of midnight nor any part of any night, but by a metaphor the apparent time of the beginning of his misery (the light of the Morning manifesting all things appa­rently) the Lord also alluding to the manner of humane Judi­catures; who were wont to passe the sentence and inflict it in the Morning as the Scripture frequently holds forth.

Thesis 45.

45 Though also it be true that the Lord smote the Egyptians at midnight, and that the Israelites were prohibited from stirring out of doors till Morning, Exod. 12.22, 29, 30. and yet that they did stir up one another to depart before morning-light; yet it will not hence follow (as some would infer) that midnight was the beginning of their Morning: for then, 1. They might have risen at midnight just then when God was destroying the Egyptians first born, for that was part of the Morning by this account. 2. They are prohibited from stirring out of doors till Morning as of themselves: yet if God and Pharoah and Moses will force them out, there is no rule broken by stir­ring out in such a case before day light morning. 3, 'Tis more then probable that there was some good space after midnight before they stird out, which is said to be in the Morning watch; for the Deaths stroak was at midnight after which Pharoah and his councel must fit and consult, and conclude what to do, and send for Moses; after which there must be some time for Moses to acquaint the Israelites to make them fit and ready to depart their departure; therefore in the Morning was not at midnight which began this Morning, 4. Pharoah sends for Moses after midnight, yet this Time is called Night Psal. 30.31. and not Morning; and indeed properly it was not so, onely called so by an improper speech.

Thesis 46.

46 When Iob saith that God stretcht out the North upon the empty, Iob 26.7. [...]tis not spoken of the empty Chaos, for Iob hath no occasion to speak thereof, nor is it his scope; but of the places near the North Pole which are void and empty of In­habitants, none being able now to dwell in that frigid Zone.

Thesis 47.

47 If God hath set any time to begin the Sabbath, surely 'tis such a time as may be ordinarily and readily known, that so here (as well as in all other Ordinances) the Sabbath may be begun with prayer, and ended with praise: but if it should be­gin at midnight, what man of a thousand can readily tell the certain time when it begins, that so they may in a holy man­ner begin the Sabbath with God? all men have not the mid­night Clocks and Bells to awaken them, nor can the crowing of Cocks herein give a certain sound; a poor Christian man had need be a good and watchful Mathematician that holds this opinion, or else I see not how he will know when mid­night is come; and if he cannot, then its very considerable and to me unquestionable, that that cannot be the beginning of [Page 49] holy Time which cannot be begun in a holy manner: there was never any Ordinance of God but it was so ordered as that it might ordinarily be begun and ended with God; which makes me question that the beginning of it at Morning mid­night cannot be of God.

Thesis 48.

Others there be who do not begin the Sabbath at Morning 48 midnight,Opin. 4. but begin and end it at Morning light, at the rising of the Sun and the light of it: who indeed are assisted with better proofs and stronger arguments then any of the rest, and therefore need tryall, and we have need to know what weight they are of. As also to be accurately wary least the rule of love be broken towards such gracious and learned servants of God [...] considering how much they have to say in this point, in which case, much love, respect and indulgence hath been ever ac­counted necessary by men of moderate and sober minds.

Thesis 49.

The six working dayes being considered absolutely in them­selves,49 in this respect it is no matter whether they begin at E­ving or Morning, or Midnight, or Mid-day, nor is it in this respect a sin to begin and end the dayes according to the cu­stome of the civil Nation where we live; but because these dayes are to be considered relatively in respect of the seventh Day, hence the week dayes are so to be begun, as that their re­lation to the seventh be not disturbed, so as that the bounds and limits of the Sabbath be not impared or transgressed: for there is no religious necessity to begin and end civill time with sacred: nor is it so uncomely as it may seem at first blush to give God and Caesar their due: civil accompts to the one, and sacred to the other; for when the Iews were subdued by the Romans, they might and did begin their reckonings of ci­vill Time as the Romans did, and yet reserve the bounds of sacred Time wholly unto God. They did the like in England many years since, saith Mr. Fox, and that their civil dayes be­gan in the Morning, and Religious dayes in the Evening; And when they did thus variously begin their days, there was no such undecent disproportion of Times as Reverend Mr. Cleaver imagines, in the like case, if holy Time should not begin with Morning which he pleads for.

Thesis 50.

The principall foundation of this Opinion, are the words 50 of the four Evangelists, Mat. 28.1. Mark 1 [...].1, 2. Luke 24.1. Iohn 20.1. Among all which that of Mat. 18.1. hath most weight, wherein 'tis said, In the end of the Sabbath as it began to [Page 50] dawn toward the first day of the week, &c. from whence it seems to follow that if the Sabbath Day did end at the dawning of the first day of the week, that then the dawning of the day­light of the first day, must be the beginning of the Sabbath Day, or of the Christian Sabbath.

Thesis 51.

51 The consideration of this Scripture hath caused some, very judicious, (viz. Beza, Iunius and others) who conceive the Sab­bath to begin at even, to affirm upon very probable grounds, that there was among the Iews, at this time under their Ro­man bondage a double account, and reckoning of the dayes of the week. 1. Civill. 2. Sacred account. According to sacred account (they say) the Church of God began their Sabbath at Evening, not Morning, which they demonstrate from sundry pregnant Texts in the old and new Testament; but accord­ing to the civill account of the Romans who gave the prece­dency to the Morning before the Evening, they begun it there­fore in the Morning, and according to this latter account they suppose the Evangelists to speak.

Thesis 52.

52 But if the severall Texts be duly examined, rightly compa­red and sincerely interpreted, there will not appear a necessity of such an account from this place, but rather that these Texts which are ordinarily produced to evince the beginning of the Sabbath at Morning, will bring in strong evidence to demon­strate its beginning rather on the Evening before.

Thesis 53.

53 For this dawning toward the first day of the week is meant of the Artificiall Day, or the Light of the first Day of the week, as the word dawning implies, and the evidence of their fact in comming to the Sepulcher demonstrates as much; for it is not the scope of the Evangelist to set down when the first day of the week began, but at what time of the first day of the week such and such actions [...]ell out: any thing done in any Time of the day, whether at six, or nine, or two of the Clock may be said to be done that day; but it will not follow that they are therefore done in the beginning of that Day: I meete with two Exceptions here.

1. Some say that it might be meant of the Artificiall day if the words had run thus, viz. at the Dawning of the day; or the first Day of the week about the dawning of the day; but the dawning toward the first day, This phrase (they say) seems to describe beginning of such a day a [...] stands in Relation to the whole week, and all the other dayes of the week, which are to [Page 51] be taken for naturall dayes: But, 1. There is I hope a first Artificiall day of the week as well as a Naturall. 2. This Artificiall day doth not in this account exclude the Night before as part of this first Day, and conse­quently the Naturall Day consisting of Night and light; therefore it may well stand in relation to the other dayes of the Week which were naturall; for although the Evan­gelist sets down particularly when these things about the Resurrection of Christ happened to be, viz. at the dawn­ing towards the first day of the Week, yet we that be­gin the Sabbath at Evening may and do use the same phrase, and yet so speake of the Artificial day upon which some event begins, as not to exclude the Night before upon which the Naturall Day begins. 3. Com­pare the Evangelists; and the dawning in Matthew to­wards the first day, will be found to be all one with this phrase, viz. The first day about or at the dawning of it: for that which Matthew calls dawning to the first day, Marke calls early in the Morning, the first day of the Weeke at the rising of the Sunne; and Luke calls up­on the first day of the Week very early in the Morning: whence it is evident that Matthews drawning to the first day is all one with about the rising of the Sun upon the first day: so that this difference between dawning toward the first day, and dawning upon the first day seemes to be an English Ca­balisme, and a meere curiosity exhaled and extracted out of the words, rather then any solid Truth which the Text holds forth or the Spirit of God aimed at.

2. A second exception is; that though the word Day in Scripture be taken for the Artificiall day, yet never when the word first, second, or third Day, &c. are joyned together; and they point us to the first of Genesis, where when the first or second day is mentioned, its constantly meant of a Natu­rall and not an Artificiall Day. But 1. This is a great mis­take; for the Day for the Levites Travell (which was not in the Night but upon the Artificiall day) is called the fourth Day, Iudg. 19.5. And the 5th day, verse 8. 2. This Artifici­all day may be called the first day as that it may involve the Night before, (where we make the Sabbath to begin) as well as the Night after, on which they make the Sabbath to end; and thus the Naturall day may be here comprehended also (which they plead for) the same day which Artificially begins at day-light, may naturally begin the night before.

Thesis 54.

54 If we should suppose that this Day is meant of the Artifici­all Day, yet there is a harder knot to be unloosed in the words of Matthew, who affirms that this Day-light or Day-dawn was the End of the Sabbath. Whereby it seems that the Sabbath began at the dawning of the day before, and therefore it ends at the dawning of the first day following: and hence they infer that the day-light of this first day cannot belong to the night of the Jewish Sabbath, which immediately went be­fore. And I confesse the argument is strong and undeniable, as the words lie under the glosse. We must therefore enquire more narrowly into the true translation of the words, and their meaning.

Thesis 55.

55 That therefore which we translate the end of the Sabbath, is in the Original [...]. Which words are variously translated; we shall onely observe that the Gr. word [...] hath a double signification, in frequent use among Greek writers.

1. S [...]mewhile it signifies Late Time, or the extream and last time of the continuance of any thing: as, [...], i. e. the late time, or latter time of the Day.

2. Sometime it signifies a long Time after: as, [...], i. a long time after the Trojan war: Now in this place it is to be translated and in this latter sence, thus, A long time, or a good while after the Sabbath was ended, as it began to dawn to [...]h [...] first day of the week, &c. which interpretation if it be made good will clear up this difficulty, viz. that the Jewish Sabbath did not end at the dawning of the First day of the week, but long before: nor indeed durst I incline to this in­terpretation, if I did not see the Evangelists (the best inter­preters one of another) making the same to my hand.

Thesis 56.

56 For first, Mark, who writ after Matthew, and is best able to interpret his words, expresly saith, that the Sabbath was past when the women came to the Sepulchre; his words are [...]. The Sabbath being past, Mar. 16. 1. Hence therefore, if Matthews words should be translated, Late on the Sabbath, or towards the end of the Sabbath, then the Sabbath was not already past (as Mark affirms) but drawing toward an end. Mark therefore telling us, that the Sabbath was ended, and yet not telling us when it ended, why should we not Harmonize the Evangelists by Mathews words, which tels us that it was long before? 2. The time of the coming of some of the women to the Sepulchre, as it [Page 53] was upon the first day of the week, so it was some time with­in the night: and hence Mark tels us it was very early, Mark 16.2. which cannot be at the rising of the Sun onely when tis said also that they came to the Sepulchre; for that is not [...], valde mane, or very early. Again, Luke tels us that it was [...], very early or in the depth of the night; for so the word [...] frequently signifies the time of the night when Cocks crow. I forbear to instance in Greek Writers, be­cause the Evangelist Iohn clears up this most fully, who expresly saith, that it was [...], it being yet dark: and though it be said Mark 16.2. that the women came to the Sepulchre about rising of the Sun; yet Piscator and others interpret that of their last actuall coming to it; their preparation for it be­ing very early, while it was yet dark night; and it seems there was two comings by several of them to the Sepulchre: for its evident that Mary (who had most affection) came to the Sepulchre while it was yet dark, the rest of them possibly pre­paring thereunto. However the Evangelists be reconciled, this is evident, that the first stirring of the women about that work from which they abstained upon the Sabbath day, was very early in the depth of the morning Darknesse, before the Day-light, when some would begin the Christian Sabbath: and from hence it follows, 1. That if the Sabbath was not past even before this dark time of the night began, but rather ended when the first day of the week began to dawn: then it will follow, that these holy women did not rest the Sabbath according to the Commandment; for we see they are this night busie about those things which they did forbear to do because of the Sabbath, Luke 23.52. 2. Hence it will also fol­low, that if the Sabbath was not ended before this dark time of the night, but onely at the dawning of the Day-light, then our Saviour could not arise from the dead the First day of the week, but within the dark night of the Jewish Sabbath: for Mary came when it was dark, and the Lord Christ was risen before she came, and how long before no man can tell; but its evident that Christ arose the first day of the week, Mark 16.9. and therefore the Sabbath was ended long before. 3. If therefore the Sabbath was past at the dark time of the night, how then can the Sabbath begin at morning Light; and if it was past when it was thus dark, when then could the Sab­bath end, but when this night did first begin? and if this was so, it was then truly [...], a good while after the Sabbath was ended when this dawning toward the first day began, according to the interpretation given.

Thesis 57.

57 It is true indeed that this time of darknesse is called morn­ing; and hence some would infer that the Sabbath begins in the morning: but suppose it be so called, yet it is not called morning Light, at which time they plead the Sabbath should begin; and it is improperly called Morning, because (as hath been formerly shewn) it is preparatively so, men usually preparing them for the work of the Day-light following. Morning is also frequently taken in Scripture for any early time, Eph. 3.5. and so this night of the first day of the week, wherein the women arose to their work, was an early time, and therefore called morning. Again, suppose a double mor­ning be acknowledged (as there was a double evening) yet it will not follow that this morning belongs onely to the day following, for it may belong to the night before; for as where there are two evenings spoken of, the former belongs to the day, the latter to the night: so if we grant two mor­nings, the latter morning may belong to the day ensuing, and the former to the Night preceding; if therefore any plead for the beginning of the Sabbath at the morning light, these places of the Evangelist will not bear them out in it, it being dark morning when Christ arose; if they say it begins in the dark morning, then let them set exactly the time of that dark morning wherein Christ arose, and when they would begin it; but no wit of man I feare is able to demonstrate this.

Thesis 58.

58 And surely its of deepe consideration to all those who would have the beginning of the Sabbath to be just at the time of the Resurrection of Christ, on the morning, That not any one of the Evangelists do set forth, or ayme to set forth the exact time of Christs Resurrection: they tell us indeed the exact time of the womens preparation, and comming to the Sepulchre, and of the Earthquake and feare of the Souldiers, and that these things were done in the morning; but none of them points out the time of Christs rising; nor is it their scope to shew exactly when he rose, but only to shew that he was risen and that he appeared to many being risen, who came to seek for him. Now assuredly, if it had been the mind of God that his people should begin the Sabbath when Christ began his resurrection, he would have pointed out the exact time when he did arise, that so they might exactly begin the Sabbath; but none of the Evangelists point out the time, nor is it their scope exactly so to doe; nay, they do exactly point out when other matters hapned about the womens comming to the Sepulchre, [Page 55] but this is not made mention of; onely we may gather by laying many things together about what time it should be, & therefore I marvell at them who would prove the beginning of the Sabbath at the time of Christs Resurrection from the four Evangelists speaking exactly to the time of the womens rising in the morning to visit Christs Sepulchre, but not a word of the main thing this drives at, which is the exact time of Christs rising.

Thesis 59.

Those that would have the Sabbath begin at morning, al­ledge 59 Iohn. 20.19. where tis said, That the same day at even, which was the First day of the weeke, Iesus came among his Disci­ples, when the doors were shut, which (say they) was within night; and therefore the night following belongs to the day before, which was the Christian Sabbath: which place compared with Luke 24.33. does further cleare up (as they say) this truth; for the two Disciples who went to Emaus and met Christ, are said to return to the Disciples when they are thus met together; which even­ing cannot (say they) be possibly meant of the First evening before Sun-light was set, because the day being far spent, ver. 29. and they constrained him to abide with them (which argues that it was late) and the distance of Emaus from Ierusalem being sixty furlongs, or eight miles excepting a half; so that it was impossible for them to travell so long a journey in so short a time, within the compasse of the first Evening; Hence therefore its meant of the second evening, which was within night, which yet we see belongs to the day before. But there are many things considerable to evacuate the strength of these reasonings.

Thesis 60.

For first, this invitation our Saviour had to stay by the two 60 Disciples, was probably to some repast, some time after high noon; possibly to a late Dinner rather then a late Supper to­ward the latter evening; and if so, then the Disciples might easily come from Emaus to Ierusalem before Sun-set within the former evening; for the word toward evening, [...] may be as well understood of the first evening toward two or three of the clock, as of the second; and if it be objected, that before the first evening the day could not be said to be Far spent; yet if the words be well observed, no such translation can be forced from them, for the words are [...]. i. the day hath declined; which is truely said of any time after high-noon, and therefore might be a fit season to presse our Saviour to eat; as may appeare by comparing this with a pa­rallel Scripture. Iudges 19.8, 9. which is almost word for word [Page 56] with this place of Luke: for the Levites father invites him to eat something after his early rising, vers. 8. which was too soon for supper, and therefore seems to be rather to a Dinner which they tarried for untill after high-noon, or as 'tis in the Originall, [...] i. untill the day declined, (just as it is here in Luke;) and then when dinner was ended he perswades him to stay still, because the day was weake, and (as we translate it) toward evening; (as here the Disciples tell our Saviour) and yet after these perswasions to tarry, as late as it was he departed and came to Ierusalem before night, and from thence to Gibeah (without any Miracle too) before Sun was set, or the latter evening; and verily if we may give credit to Topographers, Gibeah was almost as far from Bethlem (from whence the Levite came) as Ierusalem was from Emaus: and therefore if the Levite came with his cumber and concubine so many miles before the second evening, notwithstanding all the Arguments used from the day declining, and that it was toward evening; why may we not imagine the like of these Disciples at Emaus much more? who had no cumber, and whose joy could not but adde wings to a very swift returne to the eleven before the second Evening, notwithstanding the like arguments here used in Luke, 24.29. And yet secondly suppose that they invited our Saviour to Supper, yet the former Evening beginning about two or three of the Clock in the af­ter noon, our Saviour might stay some time to eat with them, and yet they be timely enough at Ierusalem before the second Evening: for suppose our Saviour stayd an houre with them or more, after two or three of the Clock, yet if a strong man may walke ordinarily three mile an houre, why might not the tydings of this joyfull news make them double their pace, whether on foot or horseback, no mention is made of either, and so be there within an houre and half or thereabout before the second Evening could come?

Thesis 61.

61 And although our Saviour appeared to them when the dores were shut, yet it is not said that the dores were shut because it was Night, but for feare of the Iewes and their Pursevants; that they might not rush in suddenly upon them, which they might doe in the Day as well as in the Night: and though this was a poore safeguard from their enemies yet it was some, and the best which they had, or at least could thinke of at such a time; and if our Saviour came to them when they were at Supper, Mark. 16.14. and if the ordinary time of the Iewes supper was a little after or about Sunset (as might be demon­strated) [Page 57] then the second Evening was not as yet begun, no not when Christ came, much lesse before the other two came, who were there from Emaus before.

Thesis 62.62

It is said by some that if it was not very late, then the Arguments of the Disciples to perswade Christ to stay were weake; but it seemes (say they) they were strong because its said they constrained him] but we know that much affection will some time urge a weake argument very far, for stay of some speciall friend; and when arguments will not prevaile, it will hold them and constraine them by force; and thus it seemes the Disciples dealt with our Saviour; their constraining him was not so much by force of Argument as violence and force of love, for so the words in the Originall ( [...]) properly signifies: and hence it seemes that there was day enough above head to travaile farther in; otherwise what need such violent perswasions to stay with them? and for any to say, that the Paralell of the Levites Fathers perswasions to stay, upon weake grounds, is not the same with this, because his Arguments might sure well not to begin a long jour­ney when it was past noone, which was the case there; but its a reason of no force to perswade to go farther when a man is in a journey al­ready: which is the case here, I say this answer is against the Practise of love in common experience; men weary in their journey may stand in more need of perswasions to stay then they that have not begun to travaile at all, nor was the Levites journey long from Bethlem to Gibeah.

Thesis 63.63

Nor is it an Argument of any weight from Iohn 39.1. be­cause the two Disciples are said to abide with Christ that Day, that therefore the night following did belong to that day (they staying as it is supposed all night) and consequently that the Day begins in the Morning; for these Disciples comming to Christ at the tenth houre or foure of the Clock in the afternoone, there were then two houres remaining untill Night (the Iewes artificiall Day continuing from six to six) within which time our Saviour (who can do much worke in a small time) might sufficiently instruct them (for that time) within the space of two houres; and why might they not depart before the night came, and so stay with him onely so short a time? And yet if they did stay that Night, they might notwithstanding be said to stay that artificiall day onely, with­out reference to any Night before or after, or to any part of the Morning following that Night, when 'tis probable they departed if they did stay with him all that Night.

Thesis 64.

64 Those who think that Paul would never have Preached till midnight Acts 20.7. if that night had not been part of the Sabbath which began the Morning before, much lesse would he after this long Sermon have communicated with them in the Sacrament, ver. 11. unlesse it had been the Sabbath Day, may do well to consider these things. 1. That the cause of ta­king in so much of the Night following for Preaching till midnight was extraordinary, viz. Pauls early departure never to see their faces more; and to say that if this Night was no part of the Sabbath, it was then unreasonable to hold them so long at it, is an assertion which wants reason, if we do but consider the shortnesse of his time, the largenesse of Pauls heart, speaking now for his last, and the sweetnesse of their affections as might easily enable them to continue till mid­night and upward, with cheerfulnesse, and without thinking the duty tedious, and unreasonable long. Paul therefore might begin his Sermon some part of the Day-light, which was part of the Sabbath Day, and continue it till midnight following, and yet this night be no part of the Christian Sabbath, be­cause it was an extraordinary cause which prest him hereunto. 2. That there is nothing in the Words which will evince the Sabbath to continue so long as Pauls Sermon did; for suppose those who begin the Sabbath at Evening, that it should be said of such, that being met together the first day of the Week to break Bread, their Teacher being to depart on the morrow, Preached▪ unto them and continued his speech till midnight, will this argue a continuance of the same day? No verily, and the like reason is here. 3. That the Lords Supper might be and was administred before Pauls Sermon; for there is a dou­ble breaking of bread in the Text: the one is of common bread, Verse 11. after Paul had Preached; the other is of holy bread in the Eucharist, verse 7. for the Syriak calls Tha [...] break­ing of the bread which is mentioned verse 7. the Eucharist or Lords Supper; but that which is mentioned, verse 11. Com­mon bread; and the Greek word [...], implies as much, and hence also its spoken of one man principally, viz. That when he had broken bread and eaten, and talked a long time till breake of the day, he then departed, it being some ordi­nary repast for Paul after his long Preaching and before his long journey, and is not therefore any Sacramentall eat [...]ng; the manner of which is wont to be exprest in other words then as they are here set down; if therefore Pauls eating verse ▪ 11. was common Bread, it cannot be then affirmed that the Eu­charist [Page 59] was then administred after Sermon at midnight, and yet they pertaking of the Sacrament this day, verse 7. it seems therefore that it was administred some time before this extra­ordinary course of Preaching began.

Thesis 65.

Nor will it follow that the Sabbath begins in the Morning,65 because the Morning is set before the Night in the Psalm for the Sabbath, Psal. 92.1, 2. for 1. The scope of the Psalmist is not to set forth when the Sabbath begins: but how it is to be sanctified, and that is, not onely by shewing forth the loving kindnesse of God every Morning or day time (for that perhaps, many will readily do) but also in the Night, when men may think it too unseasonable or too late: and therefore in a ho­ly gradation from the lesse to the greater, he first makes men­tion of the Morning. 2. The Hebrew word for every Night, is, in the Nights; and therefore (suppose that this Psalm is specially applyable to the Sabbath, which we know some que­stion) yet this place will as soon evince the Sabbath to begin in the Night before the Morning, and to be continued in sweet affections the night after, as that it should begin in the Morning and be continued the night after; so that this place will not clear this cause, nor is there any weight in such kind of reasoning [...].

Thesis 66.

Nor will it follow from Levit. 7.15. with 22.29, 30. and 66 Ex. 12▪10. that because the [...]esh of the peace Offrings was to be eaten the same day, and nothing to be left untill the Mor­ning (something like this being spoken also of the Passeover) that the day therefore begun in the Morning: for in Leviticus there is a double Commandment, 1. To eat the flesh of their peace offerings the same day; but yet because when they have eaten, some bones and o [...]fals might remain, hence, 2. They are commanded to leave nothing till the Morning, which doth not argue that they had liberty to eat it as long as they might keep it, but that as they had liberty no longer then the same day to eat it, so nor liberty any longer then the next Morning so much as to keep any of the relicks of it: And as for the Passeover (a place much urged by some) they were to kill it on the fourteenth day, Exod. 12.6. which they might eat the night following, verse 8. yet so as to leave nothing of it till the Morning, verse 10. This night following i [...] not there­fore any part of the fourteenth, but of the 15th. day: for at midnight there was a cry verse 30, 31. and this night they went from [...] to Succoth, verse 37. with 46. and this time is expresly called the morrow after the Passeover, Numb. 33.3. [Page 60] nor is there any inconvenience or rule broken to kill the Passe­over upon one day and continue eating of it some part of an­other, the Passeover being a Feast of more dayes then one.

Thesis 67.

67 Nor doth it follow that because our Saviour tells Peter, Mark 14.30. Luke 22.34. that this Day, even this Night (viz. of the Passeover) he should deny him, that this Night there­fore was any part of the precedent day; for it may be as fairly interpreted to belong to the day following that Night. Nor is it necessary to determine this word Day always to a determi­nate time of 24 houres, of which the Night was a part, but onely of a speciall season of time: for so tis frequently figu­ratively taken without any respect to a day of 24 or 12 hours, viz, for a speciall season of Time wherein some speciall provi­dence of God doth appeare and is put into execution, as Isay 29.18. and 25.9. and 27▪ 1. Exod. 14.13. 1 Sam. 4.7, 8. 2 Sam. 4.5, 7, 8.

Thesis 68.

68 It answers many objections produced against the beginning of the day in the Evening, for the Morning, to consider, that the word Day is frequently taken in Scripture for an artifici­all day, and that the word Morrow frequently signifies a new artificiall Day, which in respect of, and reference unto, the artificiall day going before or following after, is no part there­of; but as the Proverbe is, to morrow is a new day: and thus tis taken, Iohn 12.12. Iohn 6.22. Act. 21.7, 8. 1 Sam. 14.24. Acts 23.31.32. 2 Sam. 11.12, 13. Exod. 10.4.13. Deut. 21.22, 23. Iosh. 8.29. and 10.26. Exod. 7.4.11, 12, 17. with 8 6. to 13. Exod. 14, ult. with 34.2, 4, 28. Deut. 9.9.11. Whence onely let this be noted that to argue from hence, that to morrow Mor­ning or to morrow day light is the beginning of the naturall day, because its called a new or another Day, is not solid: nor also that although the Night following the artificiall day, be not so frequently called to morrow, yet sometime it is so called, 1 Sam. 30.17. where the evening of their morrow stopt David, i. that night.

Thesis 69.

69 There are some who confesse that the Jewish Sabbath be­gan at the evening ever since the Creation unto the time of Christs resurrection▪ but now they tell us that it begins in the morning, because of Christs Resurrection (the cause of it) which began then; so that as this makes the change of the day, so it makes a change of the beginning of the day from evening till morning when the Resurrection of Christ began: but the feeblenesse of this opinion will appear from these en­suing considerations.

Thesis 70.

1. Consid. That the foundation of this opinion is exceed­ing 70 rotten, viz. That the day must not begin, untill that work which occasions the change doth actually exist. But we know that the Passeover began before the work which did occasion it, did actually exist, viz. the Angels passing over the Israel­ites at midnight, Exod. 12.29. with 12, 13, 14. and 6.8. indeed the Christian Sabbath day is not before the day of Christ Re­surrection; yet the beginning of this day may be before the beginning of the Resurrection, as it was in the Passeover.

2. Consid. That if any of the Evangelists had intended a new beginning of the Sabbath at morning, that they would then have set down the exact time of the Lords Resurrection; but none of them do this; they set down the time of other things to prove that Christ was risen, but not the exact time of the Resurrection, for its wholly uncertain; certain it is, that it was before Day-light began; for Mary came and found him risen while it was yet dark, Iohn 20.1. and how long he was risen before, who can determine?

3. Consid. That if Christs Resurrection began the Sabbath, so that in that moment and point of time wherein Christ arose the Christian Sabbath began, then Christ could not lie three dayes in the grave; for either he lay three dayes according to the Jewish account, beginning the day at evening; and then the third day on which Christ arose (which also was the first day) must begin at evening as we plead for; or else he must lie three days according to the new account, which begins the third day in the morning, leaving out the night before as not appertain­ing to any part of the week before or after; but according to this reckoning its impossible that Christ should lie three days in the grave, he may be then indeed said to arise the third day, but not to lie any part of the third day, because lying in the grave implies some time of continuance therein upon the third day; but how could this be, when they say that the moment of Christs Resurrection began the day of our Christian Sabbath?

4. Consi. If the Jewish Sabbath was the last day of the week, and began and ended at evening, then the Christian Sabbath must either begin at evening when the Jewish Sabbath ended, or the first day of the week cannot be the Christian Sabbath, but onely a part of the first day, and part of the second day; for the night which goes before the Christian Sabbath, either 1. they must make it to belong to the Jewish Sabbath, and then that Sabbath must be sanctified 36. hours, and so it must be more then a day which is sanctified, which is absurd; [Page 62] or 2. they must make it belong to the Christian Sabbath, and then they cannot make it begin in the morning; or [...]. they must leave it out from all weekly account, and so take in the night following (which is part of the second day) as part of the Sabbath.

5. Consid. That the seventh part of time cannot be orderly given to God, but it must be either the first or last seventh (as hath been shewn) and the morality of the fourth command­ment cannot be observed without giving to God either of these; if therefore the Jewish Sabbath ended at Even, the Christian Sabbath must immediately succeed it, and begin it then, or else a morall rule is broken.

6. If the Jewish Sabbath began and ended at Even, and the Christian Sabbath bega [...] at morning, what must become of that night which is between them both, and to what day of the week must it belong? If any say, that tis no matter whe­ther it belong to any or no, so long as time runs on; this answer will not suffice; for though time runs on, yet what orderly time is there here which is running on? Time consists of yeers, and yeers of moneths, and moneths of weeks, and weeks of dayes; to what day or what week then must this night belong? they that maintain this opinion do roundly affirm, that its no ab­surdity to leave that one Night out from weekly, nor as per­taining to any week before or after, but say it was lost: alas poor forlorn Night that art thus strangely forsaken; what a strange kind of night is this which belongs to no day? what a mishapen lump of time art thou, and yet how canst thou be part of time, that art part of no day, but onely (as they say) of Time flowing and running on, without head or foot, week or day?

Thesis 71.

71 They tell us, That in Joshua's time, when the Sunne stood still, and in Hezekiah's time, when the Sunne went back, that there was as great a perverting of the order of Time as this comes to; and that there is as good reason to alter the time upon such a special and won­derfull occasion as Christs Resurrection, as there was to disorder the course of time then: but the weaknesse of this answer may ap­pear from these things.

1. That in the dayes of Ioshuah and Hezekiah, there was no such monstrous mishapen piece of time cut out, as here is ima­gined; for though the Sunne stood still, suppose about twelve hours in Ioshuas time, and so made a day of 36 hours; ye [...] these twelve hours were part of that day, and of that which or­dinarily makes the day, viz. the motion of the Sun aboue the [Page 63] Earth, which is ordinarily once in 24 houres, onely the Lord stopt it a while, and so made it a longer day, and yet measured by the ordinary measure of a day, viz. the Sunne compassing the earth; which this night is not.

2. Though some part of the weekly time was changed in some respect; yet no part of sacred and Sabbath time was per­verted by either the Sunnes standing still, or its going back, be­cause though these things were longer then ordinary, yet they were but ordinary daies in this sence, viz. because there was no more to either day then that which ordinarily makes a day, to wit, that space of time wherein the Sun circularly compasseth the whole earth. For though a seventh part of time be morally due to God, man having six daies for himselfe; yet this is to be understood, as each day is measured by, and made up of the whole compleat motion of the Sunne circling the earth; now though these daies were longer then usuall in those famous times, yet they were onely such daies as were made by this motion; and hence there was no change or perverting of the time of the Sabbath, but God hath his due then orderly. But here we must make a new and strange beginning of time, by leaving out a whole night, and denying God a seventh day according to ordinary account and reckoning, and must fall to a disorderly beginning, upon pretence of a more then ordina­ry occasion; which yet we see was not so in those extraordi­nary times of Hezekiah and Iosuah.

3. In the daies of Iosuah and Hezekiah there was some ne­cessity of prolonging those daies and that in a course of provi­dence, supposing that God would worke wonders by his provi­dence; but what necessity is there to begin the day when Christ did first arise? for this action falling out upon the first day, might sanctifie the whole day which in ordinary course should have begun at Evening: we see the whole fifth of No­vember is sanctified, upon an occasion, which hapned about nine or ten of the Clock: and the Evening of the Passeover was sanctified before the Angel passed over the Israelites at midnight, which was the occasion of the sanctification of that day: what need or necessity was there to leave a whol night out of weekly account, and lose such a part of precious Treasure?

4. It was for the manifestation of the marvellous glory of God in the eyes of all the World, good and bad; to make that violation (as it were) of the course of Time in [...] of Iosuah and Hezekiah; but what glory doth Christ ga [...] in the eyes of others, by making the Day to begin at the Time of his Resurrection by the losse of the whole Evening before, [Page 64] out of the account of weekely Time? or what glory doth Christ loose if he should begin the day at Evening when the Iewish Sabbath ended, when as the whole day thu [...] i [...] celebra­ted and sanctified for his glory in respect of his Resurrection upon this Day? and therefore 'tis a great mistake, to imagine as much reason for the violation of the course of Time in re­spect of Christ Resurrection) which makes so little for the glory of Christ) as there was for the variation of Time in the daies of Iosuah and Hezekiah, which made so apparently and evidently and exceedingly for the glory of God and the ho­nour of those who were Types of Christ?

Thesis 72.

72 To say that there is a necessity of beginning the Christian Sabbath, when Christ first entered into his Rest (the first mo­ment of his Resurrection) because the Father began the Jewish Sabbath the first moment of his Rest after his six daies Labour, is not solid nor sound: For there was a necessity for God the Father to begin his Rest at the end of his work [...]: otherwise a morall rule had not bin observed, viz. That a seventh p [...]t of Time be sanctified; for six dayes being finished in creating the World, there was now a necessity of sanctif [...]ing the seventh Day wherein his rest began, least a morall rule should be exemplarily broken; but there was no such necessity here; for the whole Evening of the first day may be sanctified upon occasion of Christs Rest on some part of that day, and no morall rule broken hereby: nay there had bin a morall rule broken if the Christian Sabbath had not begun upon this Eve­ning; because hereby God should have lost a Sabbath Day within the compasse of seven dayes as they are measured by the Sun; and this is directly crosse to the morality of the fourth command; for if a whole night be lost (as these men reckon) only Time flowes on (they say) then it must be full seven daies and a halfe before God have a Sabbath to begin: and this absurdity in the course of Time, I believe will not be found, in Iosuahs time nor in altering the beginning of the yeere in Moses time Exod. 12. for [...]o morall rule was [...] upon by these and such like alterations.

Thesis 73.

73 It is an ungrounded assertion to say that the Reasons of the change of the Day are the same for the change of the beginning of the Day ▪ [...]. There was a Type affixed (as hath bin shewen) to that It [...] Sabbath▪ but I never yet heard of any Type in respect of the beginning of the Sabbath. 2. Divine will and [...] on changed [...] viz. [Page 65] That God hath one day in seven given him: but God could not begin the Sabbath with excluding the Evening before Christ arose without breach of this Rule, as hath bin shewen [...] the day might be kept and changed without breach of that rule, but the beginning could not be changed but there would necessarily follow some breach thereof.

Thesis 74.

To thinke that the Sabbath must needs begin in the Morning, be­cause 74 we read not expressely after Christs Resurrection, that the Night should belong to the day following, nor is there any instance thereof as in the Old Testament and before Christs Resurrection it may be (they confesse) undeniably so found] I say, to thinke the Sabbath must begin in the Morning upon this ground, is somewhat like to his conceit who finding in the Old Testa­ment that the seventh day is to be sanctified; but not finding this expression, after Christs Resurrection, hence he thought there was now no seventh Day to be sanctified. Those who can answer this Objection, may know how to answer thereby their own argument for the beginning of it at Morning, which is just like unto it: if indeed there were cleare Scrip­tures for the beginning of it at Morning in the new Testa­ment, and none to shew the beginning of it at Evening, the Argument had much weight; but this hath not yet appeared: old Testament evidences are not Apocrypha proofes in mo­rall matters, in these mens consciences, who thus argue for the Morning.

Thesis 75.

To argue the beginning of the Sabbath at Morning, from 75 the congruity and fitnesse of the season for holy Time rather then Evening, is no way faire nor rationall: for 1. There may be as much said (perhaps more) for the fitnesse and con­gruity of the Evening, if this arguing were evicting; but we know the ground of all superstition hath bin humane wis­dome, which puts out the Eagles eyes when it goes about to mend them; and when it would better Gods worship by [...]oodly seeming [...] and trapings, it then destroyes it, at least corrupts it; this only may be said that just as we lie downe with our hearts over night, so we finde them commonly in the Morning; the beginning of the Sabbath at Evening will force us in conscience [...]o lie down over nigh with Sabbath hearts, which marvellously prepares for the receiving of Sab­bath blessing [...] the day ensuing.

Thesis 76.76

If therefore the Sabbath doth not begin, neither according [Page 66] to the custome of civill nations, nor at midnight, nor Mor­ning, what Time then must it begin at (from any colour of Scripture,) but onely in the Evening? at Evening therefore after the setting of the Light of the body of the Sun, wherein darknesse begins to be predominant over the Light the Sab­bath begins now, as the Iewish Sabbath began in former Times, and here let me say that old Testament proofes may be in this as in many other things, New Testament rules.

Thesis 77.

77 If the Jewish Sabbath did begin and end at Evening, which was the last day of the Weeke, then the Christian Sabbath the First day of the weeke which immediately succeeds the last, is to begin at Evening also; [...]f the Sabbath in the fi [...]st Institu­tion began at Evening, why should not the Christian Sabbath be conformed as neere as may be to the first institution? but we see out of Gen. 1. That as all other daies began at the Evening or darke night, so it was not orderly or possible ac­cording to the morall rule God acted by, that the Sabbath should begin upon any other Time then the Evening, nor is it improbable but that Ezekiel fortells this that in the Christian Church, as the Gate for the Sabbath should not be shut untill the Evening, Ezek. 46.1, 2. so by just proportion the time for opening of it, was the Evening before, when the Sabbath be­gan.

Thesis 78.

78 Now although some deny the beginning of the Sabbath in Gen. 1. to be in the Evening (deceiving themselves and their readers with the ambiguity and various acceptation of the words Evening and Morning) yet this is most evident, That the First day began with Night or darkenesse which is called Night, Gen. 1.4, 5. and consequently ended with day-light; let Evening and Morning therefore be taken how they will, yet its sufficient to prove that which we aime at, viz. that as the first day began with Night, and ended at the end of Day light, so by just consequence every other day did, even the Sabbath it selfe, which still begins the beginning of Night, which is all that which we meane by Evening, when we say that it begins then; which also the holy Ghost calls darkenesse, which darkenesse, Gen. 1.2. he calls Night, vers. 5. and which Night is all one with Evening.

Thesis 79.

79 And if the Naturall (which some call civill, others the compound) day began first in the Evening, then surely it con­tinued so; or if not, then this disorderly practise should have [Page 67] bin regulated againe, according to the first patterne, as the abuses crept into the Lords Supper were by Paul. 1 Cor. 11.23. and as errors about Marriage wereby our Saviour, telling them that a [...] initio non suit sic.

Thesis 80.

Nor should it be a wonder why the wise Creator should be­gin 80 Time with darkenesse, or the lesse noble part of the Day, no more then why the Lord should begin the World with a rude and confused Chaos before a glorious World; the pro­gresse of his wisdome in making the whole World being for the most part from more imperfect things to perfect, from the Chaos to beauty; from the servants, and furniture, to man the Lord and Master of this great house; and so here, from dark­nesse to light; the Sabbath also being a day of Rest, was it not most proper to begin it then when man begins his rest which is the Night? when also God began Rest from his work in the first Creation.

Thesis 81.

Some convinced by the evidence of the Text, that darke­nesse 81 was before light,Weemes on the fourth Command. yet wrastle with their wits to make it neither part of the night nor part of time, but only punctum temporis, and by this shift would make the first day to begin in the morning-light,

Thesis 82.

But was ever any punctum temporis (which is thought to be 82 no part of time) called by the name of Night as this darke­nesse is? Gen. 1.4, 5. with 2. Was the World made in six dayes and is there a Heaven and Earth made within the time of this darkenesse, and yet this time of darkenesse to be no part of time, but onely a Mathematicall point, but no reall part of succeeding Time? Zanchy long since hath largely con­futed and crusht this Egge-shell, where the Reader may looke; there was not indeed any Celestiall motion of the Heavens to measure this Time by, (for Master Weemes objects tempus est mensura motus) but by this Argument there was no Time till the fourth day, when the Sun and Starrs were created, nor is Time properly mensura mo [...]us, but as Eternity is the indetermi­nate duration of a thing together, so Time is the determinate duration of things by succession: which was evidently since Time began on the first moment of creation.

Thesis 83.

Others who acknowledge this first darkenesse to be part of 83 Time, yet will not have it to be part of the Night-time; be­cause light (the habit) they say must go before Darkenesse (the [Page 68] privation) because also this first darkenesse is not so called Night, but the separated darkenesse, Gen. 1.3. when God se­parated the light into one Hemisphere, and darknesse into another.

Thesis 84.

84 But this arguing is almost against the expresse Letter of the Text, Gen. 1. wherein it is most evident that light was created, after darknesse had bin some time upon the face of the deepe; which darknesse cannot be part of the Day-light, no more then blindnesse is a part of sight and therefore is a part of the Night, before this conceived separated darkenesse could exist. Beside the separation of darknesse from light doth not make any new darkenesse which is a new denominated darkenesse, but is the same darkenesse which was at first, onely the sepa­ration is a new placeing of it, but it gives no new being to it.

Thesis 85.

85 Suppose also that light and darknesse are contraria privantia, yet 'tis not true either in Philosophy or Divinity, that the habit must alway actually goe before the privation in the same subject; for the privation may be first if it be in subjecto capaci; i. e. In a subject capable of the habit; for silence may be before speech in a man, and blindnesse and deafenesse in a man who never saw nor heard a word, because man is a subject capable of both, and so here darknesse might be before light, because this subject of the first matter was capable of both.

Thesis 86.

86 Nor is it true in Divinity that the darkenesse and light were at first separated into two Hemispheres; or if they were, yet what orthodox Writer affirmes that the supposed separated darkenesse onely is called Night?

Thesis 87.

87 For looke as the darkenesse did overspread the whole Chaos ▪ and all the dimensions of it at the same time; why might not the light the habit be extended as far as was the privation be­fore, and that at the same time? there being no globe or dense body of earth and waters (existing as now they doe) at that time created, and consequently no opake and solid body to di­vide betweene light and darkenesse and so to seprate them in­to two Hemispheres, as by this meanes it is at this day, un­lesse we imagine miracles without necessity; and that God then miraculously did it when there was no necessity of it. For the Element of fire being figuratively called light, it being (as Iunius shewes) proprietas essentialls ignis; being also created in [Page 69] the superiour part of the vast Chaos; might therefore be cast downe by a mighty hand of God (there being no ordinary meanes of Sun or Stars yet created to do it) into all the infe­riour Chaos, and so make day. And the ascending of this light upwards againe might make it to be Night: and therefore although God separated between light and darkenesse, yet this separation se [...]mes to be rather in respect of time, then in re­spect of place, or two Hemispheres: for the light when it was east downe, separated and scattered the darkenesse, and so ex­cluded it, so that when there was light, there was no dark­nesse; when darkenesse, there was no light; and thus they succeeding and excluding one another, the Lord is said to separate them one from another, but not into two imagined Hemispheres, by which imagination of two Hemispheres it will be also very difficult to set downe when it was day and when it was night, at this time of the Creation; because in respect of one part of the Chaos it might be called day, in res­pect of the other Hemisphere of the Chaos it might be called night: and therefore it seems more suitable to the truth, that the descending of the Light, made day thorowout the whole Chaos remaining, and the ascending of it to its proper place successively made night; which as it answers many curious questions about the nature and motion of this light, so it yeelde a more then probable argument, that if the day-light continued twelve houres (which none question) why should not each night continue as long, and therefore that the first darknesse did continue such a time before the creation of the Light?

Thesis 88.

But suppose this locall separation into two Hemispheres was 88 granted, yet it will not follow from hence that this separated darknesse onely is called night, and that the darkenesse before was no part of it: for if the day and night began at the ima­gined division of light and darknesse, then (this division be­ing in an instant of time) neither could the day be before the night, nor the night before the day, but both exist and begin together; and then it will follow that the beginning of the first day was neither in the morning nor evening, in darknesse nor light, in night nor day; but that it began in the morning and evening, day-light and dark night, together; which is too grosse for any wise man to affirm, nor would the God of Order do it. Againe, if the first darkenesse which was pr [...]eexistent to this Hemisphericall light and darknesse was no part of the night, then much lesse was [Page 70] it any part of the first day-light; and so no part of the naturall day; which if any should affirm, they must deny the creation of the world in six dayes; for its evident that the Heavens and Earth were made in the time of the first darknesse.

Thesis 89.

89 To say that this first darknesse was part of the morning, and did belong to the morning-light, as now some time of dark­nesse in the the morning is called morning, and therefore is called the womb of the morning, Psal. 110.2. is a meer shift to prove the beginning of time to be in the morning, and an evasion from the evidence of truth. For 1. This first darknesse must either be the whole night, consisting as the light did of about twelve houres; and then it cannot possibly be called morning or belong thereunto; or it must be part of the night, and that which came after the light another part of it, and then we may see a monstrous day which hath part of its night before it, and part after it; beside its contrary to the Text, which makes the whole morning together, and the whole e­vening together, the whole day-light together, and so the whole night together. 2. That darknesse which by an im­proper speech we make to belong to the morning, in our or­dinary account, is the latter part of the night or of the dark­nesse; but we read not in all the Scripture, nor is it suitable to any solid reason, to make the first beginning of Night or darknesse as part of the morning: Now this first darknesse (which is the beginning of darknesse) is called night, at least is the beginning of night; and therefore cannot be called morning, but evening rather, as we usually call the first begin­ning of darknesse after day light.

Thesis 90.

90 That expresse Commandment Lev. 23 32. to celebrate the Ceremoniall Sabbath from Even to Even doth strongly prove the beginning of the morall Sabbath at the same time; for why else is it called a Sabbath of rest, but because it is to be spent in duties of humiliation, as the other Sabbath in duties suita­ble to the nature of it? and hence the Lords care is greatly ex­act herein, 1. That no servile work be done, because it is a Sab­bath. verse 31, 32. 2. That it be spent and sanctified from E­ven to Even, (meaning) like as you do your weekly Sabbaths. And hence the Lord saith not, You shall celebrate your day of Atonement from even to even, but (the Lord usually wrap­ping up arguments in his words) Your Sabbath: as if he should say, You would account it a prophane thing not to celebrate your ordinary weekly Sabbath from even to even, or to do any [Page 71] servile work on that day: this day is a Sabbath, and therefore you must sanctifie it from even to even, and therefore do no servile work herein.

Thesis 91.

To imagine (as some do) That the ordinary Sabbath began at 91 another time, because here God makes a new command, that it be from even to even, in opposition to the other Sabbaths beginning; and that otherwise it had been enough to say, You shall celebrate this day as a Sabbath: one may from the same ground imagine, that in other Sabbaths they might do any servile work, because here also [...] are forbidden it; for it may be as well said, that o­ther [...] had been enough to say, You shall sanctifie this day as you do other Sabbaths: here therefore is no new institution of time from the beginning of the Sabbath, but of a new Or­dinance, together with the application of time according to common and ordinary account: and the Lord expresseth from even to even (which makes up a naturall day) left mans heart (which is soon weary of duties of Humiliation) should inter­pret it of an artificiall day; to prevent which mistake the Lord had good reason to set the distinct bounds of it from even to even.

Thesis 92.

Nor can this Evening, be fairly interpreted of the former 92 even before Sun set, as taking in that also; for this evening is to begin at the evening of the ninth day, verse 32. which even­ing of the ninth day is not the evening of that day about two or three of the clock, (for the tenth day onely is called the day of Atonement, verse 27. and therefore part of the ninth day is no part of the Atonement day) but as Iunius well expounds it, at the evening of the ninth day,Vid. Iun. in loc. puta qua nonus dies definit, at that nick of time, which is the communis terminus of the end of the ninth day and beginning of the tenth, you shall then cele­brate your Sabbath: which curious exactnesse of the Lord, is partly to expresse his zeal for the full and plenary observation of the day, that he may not lose a moments time of honour, as also to shew what care they should have of holding out from the first point to the last period of that Sabbath.

Thesis 93.

And therefore it is a groundlesse deduction from the Text,93 to make this day to be of extraordinary length, and so an un­fit measure for our ordinary Sabbath. And to say that there was a ceremony in beginning this day at even, is but gratis di­ctum, and can never be made good, unlesse it be by such fet­ches of wit which can mould the plainest History into the Image of a goodly Allegory,August. ep. 48. a most impudent course of argu­ing in Austins judgement, and in his time.

Thesis 94.

94 If the Sabbath do not begin at evening, why did Nehemiah (an exemplary Magistrate) command the Gates to be shut, when the Gates of Ierusalem began to be dark before the Sab­bath? Nehem. 13.19. was it not left the Sabbath should be pro­phaned that night, by bringing in of wares and burdens tho­row the Gates, as well as in the ensuing day? is it not ex­presly said, that he set his servants at these Gates that there might be no burden brought in upon the Sabbath day? is it not expresly said that he set the Levites to keep the Gates to sanctifie the Sabbath day? verse 19, 22. Now if this [...] was no part of the Sabbath, how could they then be said to sanctifie the Sabbath thereby?

Thesis 95.

95 To imagine that Nehemiah did this to prevent the propha­ning of the Sabbath day after, is as if a man should shut his doors at noon against such Thieves as he knows will not come to hurt him untill mid-night be past. It would be weaknesse in a Magistrate to take away any considerable part of the week which God allows for labour to prevent that evil on the Sabbath which he knows he is sufficiently able to pre­vent at the approach of the day it self: for Nehemiah might easily have shut the Gates in the morning, if the Sabbath had not begun before; and might have better done it, then to cut so large a Thong out of the week time to prevent such defile­ment of the Sabbath day.

Thesis 96.

96 When therefore the Gates of Ierusalem began to be dark, or as Iunius renders the words, quum abumbrarentur portae, i. when they were shaddowed by the descent of the Sun behind the mountains which compassed Ierusalem, and so did cast a sha­dow of darknesse upon the Gates of the City, somewhat soo­ner then in other places lesse mountainous; this shadow, be­ing no part of the dark night, is truly said to be before, or (as the Hebrew is) before the face or looking out of the Sabbath; for although the Sabbath be said to begin at Sun-set, yet tis to be understood not of the setting of the body of the Sun visi­bly, but of the light of the Sun when darknesse begins to be predominant over the light, and men are forced to forsake their work; now just before this Nehemiah shut the gates, at the common term and end of the six daies labour, and the Se­venth dayes rest; and therefore tis a weak objection which some make, to say that this evening was not part of the Sab­bath, because the Gates are said to be shut before the Sabbath.

Thesis 97.

Its said the women who prepared spices for our Savio [...] body, that they rested the Sabbath, which is evident to be in the evening; and this they did not superstitiously (as some say) but according to the Commandment, Luk. 23.53, 54, 55, 56. if therefore these women began to rest according to the com­mandment of God upon the evening, then the evening by the same Commandment is the beginning of the holy Rest of the Sabbath. It is not onely the commandment of God, that one day in Seven be sanctified, but also that it be sanctified from even to even.

Thesis 98.

Now that they began to rest in the evening is evident from 98 these considerations:

1. That our saviour dyed the Ninth hour. Luke 23.44, 46. which was about three of the clock in the afternoon. A little after, this Ioseph begs his body and takes it down because it was [...] or preparation for the Sabbath Mark 15.42. in which preparation its said that the Sabbath did [...], draw on, shine forth Luke 23.54. now this shining or breaking forth of the Sabbath cannot be meant of the day light mor­ning shining forth; for its a meare dream to think, that Ioseph should be so long a time in doing so little work, from Satur­day in the afternoon untill the next morning light, onely in taking of Christ from the Crosse, wrapping him in Linnen, and laying him in his own Sepulchre, which was not far off, but neer at hand also. Iohn 19.42. The shining forth of the Sabbath also stop [...] the women from proceeding to annoint Christs Body, after they had brought their Spices; and there­fore if the shining forth of the Sabbath had been the morning after, they might certainly have had sufficient time to do that work in; the shining forth therefore of this Sabbath was in the latter evening in which the Sabbath began; and its said to shine forth by a metaphor, because it did then first appear, or draw on; or, as Piscator and sundry others think, because about that time the stars in Heaven, and the Lamps and Candles in houses began to shine forth; which is just then when darknesse is predominant, which is the beginning of the Sabbath at e­vening time.

2. If that evening had not begun the Sabbath, why did not the women (who wanted neither conscience nor affection, nor opportunity) annoint his body that evening, but defer it untill the night after? what could stop them herein, but onely the conscience of the Commandment, which began the Sabbath that evening?

[Page 74]3. Either the Sabbath must begin this evening, or they did not rest the Sabbath according to the Commandment; for if they began to keep the Sabbath at morning light, then if they rested according to the Commandement, they must keepe it untill the next morning light after; but its manifest that they were stirring, and in preparing their Oyntments long before that, even in the dark night before the light did appeare, as hath been formerly shewn.

Thesis 99.

99 Why the women did not goe about to embalme Christs bo­dy the beginning of the dark evening after the Sabbath was past, but staid so long a time after till the dark morning, can­not be certainly determined; perhaps they thought it not sui­table to a rule of God and prudence, to take some rest and sleep first, before they went about that sad work; and might think [...]he morning more fit for it then the dark evening be­fore, when their sorrowfull hearts and spent spirits might need mercy to be shewn them, by taking their rest awhile first. They might also possibly think it offensive to others presently to run to the embalming of the dead, as soon as ever the Sab­bath was ended, and therefore stayed till the dark morning, when usually every one was preparing and stirring toward their weekly work.

Thesis 100.

100 The Lord Christ could not lie three daies in the grave, if the Sabbath did not begin at evening; and for any to affirm, that the dark morning wherein he arose was part of this first day and did belong thereunto, is not onely to overthrow their own principles, who begin the Sabbath at the beginning of day light morning, but they also make the beginning of the Sabbath to be wholly uncertain; for who can tell at what time of this dark morning our Saviour arose?

Thesis 101.

101 Tis true, there are some parts of the habitable world, in Russia, and those Northern Countries, wherein for about a moneths time the Sun is never out of sight; now although they have no dark evening at this time, yet doubtlesse they know how to measure their naturall daies by the motion of the Sun; if therefore they observe that time which is equiva­lent to our dark evenings, and sanctifie to God the space of a day, as tis measured by the circling Sun round about them, they may then be said to sanctifie the Sabbath from even to even, if they do that which is equivalent thereunto; they that know the East, West, South, North points, do certainly know [Page 75] when that which is equivalent to evening begins, which if they could not do, yet doubtlesse God would accept their will for the deed in such a case.

Thesis 102.

If therefore the Sabbath began at evening from Adams time 102 in innocency till Nehemiahs time, and from Nehemiahs time till Christs time, why should any think but that where the Jewish Sabbath the last day of the week doth end, there the Christian Sabbath the first day of the week begins? unlesse any can ima­gine some Type in the beginning of the Sabbath at evening; which must change the begining of the day, as the Type affixed did change the day: or can give demonstrative reasons that the time of Christs Resurrection must of necessity begin the Chri­stian Sabbath, which for ought I see cannot be done. And ther­fore it is a groundlesse assertion, that the reasons of the change of the day are the same for the change of the beginning of it; and that the chiefe of the reasons for the evening, may be as well applyed against the change of the day it selfe, as of the time of it: But sufficient hath been said of this. I shall onely adde this, that there is no truth of Christs, but upon narrow search into it, hath some secret knots and difficulties, and so hath this about the begin­ning of the Sabbath; tis therefore humility and self-deniall to follow our clearest light in the simplicity of our hearts, and to wait upon the Throne of grace with many tears for more cleare discoveries untill all knots be unloosed.

Thesis 1.

THe word Sabbath properly signifies, not common,1 but sacred or holy Rest. The Lord therefore en­joyns this Rest from labour upon this day, not so much for the Rest sake, but because it is a Medium or means of that holinesse which the Lord requires upon this day; otherwise the Sab­bath is a day of idlenesse, not of holinesse; our cattell can rest but a common rest from labour as well as we; and therefore its mans sin and shame, if he improve the day no better then the beasts that perish.

Thesis 2.

And as the rest of the Day is for the holinesse of it, so is all 2 the labour of the Week for this holy rest; that as the end of all the labour of our lives is for our rest with Christ in Heaven, so also of the six daies of every weeke for the holy Rest of the Sabbath, the twilight and dawning of Heaven. For the eighth Commandement which would not have us steale, commands us therefore to labour for our Families and comforts in all the seasons of labour. This fourth command therefore which not onely permits but commands us to labour six daies, must have another respect in commanding us to labour, and a higher end, which cannot be any thing else but with respect to the Sab­bath; that as we are to watch unto prayer, so we are to worke unto the Sabbath, or so worke all the Weeke day that we may meet with God, and sanctifie the Sabbath day.

Thesis 3.

As therefore the holinesse of the Sabbath is morall, because 3 it is the end of the day; so is the Rest of the Sabbath (the im­mediate means to that end) morall also. Looke therefore what ever holy duties the Lord required of the Iewes, which were not ceremoniall, the same duties he requires of us upon this day; so what every Rest he required of them for this end, he exacts of all Christians also.

Thesis 4.

Those that make the Sabbath ceremoniall, imagine a 4 stricter Rest imposed upon the Iewes then Christians are [Page 80] now bound unto; because they place the ceremonialnesse of the Sabbath in the strict Rest of it; but we are bound to the same Rest for substance of it; and the ground for a stricter rest then we are bound unto, will be found too light if well pondered.

Thesis 5.

5 For though it be sayd that the Iewes might not bake, nor seeth meat upon this day, Exod. 16.23. no nor make a fire up­on it, Ex. 35.3. no nor gather sticks upon it without Death. Numb. 6.15.30. (all which things Christians now, may law­fully do) yet none of these places will evince that for which they are alledged.

Thesis 6.

For first it is not said, Exod. 16.23. bake and seeth that to day which may serve you next day: but, that which remains 6(viz. which is not sod nor baked) lay it up untill the Mor­ning, and consequently for the morrow of the next day, which being thus laid up, I doe not finde that they are forbid­den to bake, or seeth that which remaines upon the next day; but rather if they must use it the next day, they might then bake it or seeth it that day also, as they did that of the sixt day, and without which they could not have the comfortable use of it upon the Sabbath day: indeed it was as unlawfull to grind and beate the Manna in Mills and Morters, mentioned Numb. 11:8. upon this day, as now to thrash and grind Corne this day; the meale therefore which did remaine, is not for­bidden to be baked or sod upon this day; nor would Gods speciall and miraculous providence appeare in preserving it from wormes and stinking, if there had been any b [...]king of it the day before, and not rather upon the Sabbath Day.

Thesis 7.

7 Although also they were forbidden to kindle fire upon this lay, Exod. 35.3. in respect of some use, yet they are not forbid­den so to do in respect of any use whatsoever. For there was fire kindled for the Sabbath sacrifices, and it would have bin a breach of the rule of mercy, not to kindle a fire for the sick and weake in the wildernesse. Nehemiah also a man most strict and zealous for the Sabbath, yet had such provision made every day as could not be drest nor eaten without some fire upon the Sabbath day, Neh. 5.18. and the Sabbath not being a fast but a feast in those times as well as those, hence its not unsutable to the time to have comfortable provisions made ready, provided that the dressing of mea [...] be not an or­dinary hindrance to publike or private duties of holinesse up­on [Page 81] this day, Exod. 12.16. this kindling of the fire here for­bidden must therefore be understood in respect of the scope of the place, viz. not to kindle a fire for any servile work, no not in respect of this particular use of it, viz. to further the buil­ding of the Sanctuary and Tabernacle, made mention of in this Chapter: for its said whosoever shall do any worke therein, (1. any servile worke which is more proper for the weeke time) shall be put to death, verse 2. there is therefore either no dependance of these words in the third verse with those in the second, or else we must understand it of kindling fires restrictively, for any servile worke which is there forbid­den not only the Iewes but us Christians also:

Thesis 8.

The man that gathered sticks on the Sabbath, Numb. 15.30.8 was put to death; what for gathering of sticks onely? why then did not the just God put them to death who were the first offenders (and therefore most fit to be made examples) who went out to gather Manna upon this day? Exod. 1 [...]. This gathering of sticks therefore, though little in it selfe, yet seemes to be aggravated by presumption; and that the man did presumptuously breake the Sabbath, and therefore its ge­nerally observed that this very example followes the Law of punishing a presumptuous transgressor with death in this ve­ry Chapter: and though it be said that they found a man ga­thering sticks, as if it were done secretly, and not presumptu­ously, yet we know that presumptuous sins may be committed secretly as well as openly, though they are not in so high a de­gree presumptuous as when they are done more openly: the feare of the Law against Sabbath breakers, might restrain the man from doing that openly, which before God was done proudly, and presumptuously; and though Moses doubted what to do with the man, who had that capitall Law given him before against Sabbath breakers, yet they might be igno­rant for a time of the full and true meaning of it, which the Lord here seemes to expound, viz. that a Sabbath breaker sin­ning presumptuously is to be put to death: and although it be doubted whether such a Law is not too rigorous in these Times, yet we do see that where the Magistrate neglects to restraine from this sinne, the Lord takes the Magistrates work into his own hand, and many times cuts them off suddenly who prophane his Sabbath presumptuously: and tis worth enquiring into whether presumptuous Sabbath breakers are not still to be put to Death: which I doubt not but that the Lord will either one day cleare up, or else discover some specialty [Page 82] in the application of this judiciall Law to that Polity of the Iewes, as most fit for them, and not so universally fit for all others in Christian Common-vvealths: but this latter I yet see no proofe for: nor doe I expect the clearing up of the other while the temper of the Times is loose and luke­warme.

Thesis 9.

9 Considering therefore that some vvorke may be done upon the Sabbath, and some not, and that mans heart is apt to run to extreames, either to grosse prophanesse or Pharisaicall strictnesse; vve are therefore to enquire, what workes we must rest from, and what not from, upon the Sabbath Day.

Thesis 10.

10 If the Scriptures may be judge herein, we shall finde that vvhen they forbid all manner of worke, they interpret this of Servile Worke. The vvorke forbidden in the annuall Sabbaths, (vvhich did but shaddow out the rest on this Sabbath) it is servile vvorke, Levit. 23.7, 8. and hence the rest on the Sabbath (in this fourth command) is opposed to the labour on the weeke daies vvhich is properly servile, lawfull to be done then, but unlawfull upon the Sabbath Day.

Thesis 11.

11 The Schoolmen, and some of their late Idolizers (like the Pharises of old) over blind in interpreting the spiritualnesse of the Law of God, describe a servile worke in that manner, so as that the grinding of water-mills and wind-mills, as also the counsells of Lawyers to their Clients, the Herring Trade of Fishermen, are with them no servile works on this day; and indeed they scarce make any worke servile, but what is slavish and externall bondage and burden.

Thesis 12.

12 But if we consult with Scriptures and the very words of this fourth Commandement, we shall finde two things con­curring to make up a servile worke. 1. If any worke be done for any worldly gaine profit, or livelyhood to acquire and pur­chase the things of this life by; (which is the principall end of weeke day labour, Eph. 4.28. 1 Thes. 4.12.) this is a servile worke, all one with what the Commandement calls Thy work: Hence buying, selling, sowing, reaping, which are done for worldly gaine, are unlawfull on this day, being therefore ser­vile works: hence also worldly sports and pastimes (which are ordained of God to whet on worldly labour, not necessary every day but onely at some seasons) are therefore most proper appurtenances unto daies of labour, and are therefore unlawfull [Page 83] upon this day: holy Times are no more to be sported on, then holy places; hence also on the other side, to rub the eares of Corne, to dresse meat for comfortable nourishment of man, because they respect not worldly gaine, are no ser­vile workes nor yet unlawfull, but may be more lawfully done for the comfort of man then to lead his horse to the water this day, Luke 6.2. & 13.15 & 14.5. hence also such works as are done onely for the preservation of the Creatures, as to pull a sheepe out of a ditch, to quench fire in a Towne, to save Corne and Hay from the sudden inundation of Wa­ter, to keepe Fire in the Iron mills, to sit at sterne and guide the ship, and a thousand such like actions (being not done properly for worldly gaine) are not unlawfull; God himselfe not ceasing from workes of preservation, when he did from those of creation: hence also such works as are not works of immediate worship, but onely required necessarily thereto, as killing the Sacrifices in the Temple, travelling a Sabbath daies journey to the publique assemblies, being no servile workes for outward gaine, are not unlawfull upon this day.

2. Such worldly works, which though they be not done for worldly gaine or profit, yet if by a provident care and foresight they might be done as well the weeke before, or may as well be done a week after the Sabbath, these also are servile works: for thus the Commandment expresseth it, Six daies thou mayst doe all thy work, (meaning which can be done as well the week before) and if all cannot be done, it may therefore be as well done the week after. Hence the building of the Tabernacle (which was not so much for mans profit as Gods honour) be­cause it might be done upon the six daies seasonably enough▪ hence it is prohibited upon the Sabbath day, Exod. 31. If a man hath Corn in the field, though he may pretend that the weather is uncertain, and it is ready to be brought into the Barn, yet he is not to fetch it in upon the Sabbath day, be­cause there is no eminent danger of spoyle the Munday after, and then he may fetch it in as well as upon that day: the like may be said concerning Sea mens setting sayle upon the Sab­bath day, though they be uncertaine of a faire gale upon the day after. Yet we must trust Gods providence, who almost in all such matters keeps us at uncertainties: hence also the sweeping of the house ought not to be done now, if it may as well be done the day before: so also to buy any things at shops, or to wash clothes; if they may be done the week before or af­ter, they must not be done upon this day: hence on the other [Page 84] side works of necessity, which cannot be so conveniently don [...] the day before or after, are not unlawfull upon this day, as to flie in persecution, to watch the City, to fight with the Ene­my, Math. 24.24. 2 Kings 1.2. Hence also works of necessity, not onely for preservation of life, but also for comfort and comelinesse of life, are not unlawfull: for tis a grosse mistake to thinke that works onely of absolute necessity are allowed onely upon this day: for to lead an Ox to water, which in the strictest times was not disallowed of, is not of absolute ne­cessity; for it may live more then a day without it; onely its necessary for the comfort of the life of the beast: how much more is allowed to the comfort of the life of man? the Dis­ciples possibly might have lived longer then the Sabbath with­out rubbing Corn eares, and men may live on Sabbath daies generally without warm meat, yea [...]hey may fast perhaps all that day; yet it is not unlawfull to eate such meat, because its necessary for the comfort of life. Hence also to put on comely garments, to wash hands and face, and many such things as are necessary for the comelinesse as well as the comfort of life, are not unlawfull now: there is sometime an inevitable ne­cessity by Gods providence, and sometime a contracted ne­cessity through want of care and foresight; in this case the work may sometime be done, provided that our neglect beforehand be repented of: in a word, he that shall conscien­tiously endeavour that no more work be done on the Sabbath then what must be done for the ends mentioned, that so he may have nothing else to doe but to be with God that day, shall have much peace to his own conscience herein, against Satans clamours: hence lastly, not onely outward servile work, but servile thoughts, affections, and cares, are to be cast off this day from the sight of God, as others are from the eyes of men; servile thoughts and affections being as much against the fourth Commandement as unchaste and filthy thoughts against the seventh.

Thesis 13.

13 That we are to abstaine from all servile work, not so much in regard of the bare abstinence from work, but that having no work of our own to mind or do, we might be wholly ta­ken up with Gods worke, being wholly taken off from our own, that he may speak with us, and reveale himselfe more fully and familiarly to us (as friends do when they get alone) having called and carried us out of the noyse and crowd of all worldly occasions and things.

Thesis 14.14

Holy rest therefore being for holy work, it may not be a­misse to enquire what this work is, and wherein it consists: for which end I shall not instance in any the particular severall duties in publique and private, of holinesse and mercy, be­cause this is to be found in all who write upon this subject: I shall onely speake of that kind of holinesse which the Lord requires in all publique and private duties, and is to run tho­row them, and as it were animate them; and in truth to finde out this, and observe this, is one of the greatest difficulties (but yet the greatest excellency) of a Christian life. It consists therefore in these five things,

Thesis 15.

The first; The Holinesse upon this day ought to be imme­diate:15 I doe not meane, without the use of publique or pri­vate means, but in respect of worldly things: for we are com­manded to be holy in all manner of conversation all the week in our worldly affaires, 1 Pet. 1.17. Holinesse is to be writ upon our cups and pots, and hors-bridles, and ploughs, and sickles, Zach. 14.20.21. but this holinesse is more immediate; we enjoy God by and in the creature, and in our weekly occasions and providences: but do we think that there is no more ho­linesse required upon the Sabbath? verily every day then should be our Christian Sabbath, which is most false; and therefore some more immediate holinesse is required now on this day which is not then, nor required of us every week day; and what can this be but drawing neer to God this day more immediately, and as neer as mortall man can do, and casting aside the world and getting out of it, and so to be neere God in Prayer, in hearing the Word, in Meditation, &c? Psal. 95.5.6. if it were possible to be with and enjoy Christ in Heaven where there are no meanes we should this day long for it, and prize it; but because this cannot yet be, and that the Lord comes down from Heaven to us in his ordinances, and there­by makes himselfe as neer to us as he can in this fraile life; hence we are not onely to draw neer to Ordinances, but to God and Christ in them, upon this day, and so be as neere them with greatest immediatenesse that we can, Psalm. 42.1, 2. Psalm. 63.1, 2, 3. Adam did enjoy God in his calling the week day, but this was not so immediate as he was to have upon the Sabbath day.

Thesis 16.16

The second is this holinesse ought not only to be imme­diate, but also speciall, and in our endeavours after the highest [Page 86] degree, and with the greatest intention of holinesse: for we are bound every day to be holy in more immediate and neere approaches to God some time or other of the day; but now we are called to be more specially holy, because both the day and our selves are now set apart for it in a more speciall man­ner: we are to love, feare, delight in God, and pray to him, and muse on him every day, but now in a more speciall man­ner all these are to be done; the Sabbath is not onely called holy, but holinesse to the Lord, Exod. 31.15. which shewes that the day is exceeding holy, and suitably our affections and hearts ought therefore so to be: the Sacrifice on this day was to be doubled, Numb. 28.9. the Lord would have double ho­nour from us this day: that as in the weeke time we are sin­fully drowned in the cares of this world and affections there­to: so upon every Sabbath we should be in a holy manner drowned in the cares and thoughts and affections of the things of God; and hence we are commanded to call the Sabbath our delight, and not to think our own thoughts, or doe our own workes this day, Esay 58.13. David said Psalm 43.4. that he would goe to the Altar of God (the place of publique wor­ship) to God his joy, yea his exceeding joy: so are we not onely to draw neere to Altar, Word, Sacraments, Prayer, but to God in them; nay to God in them as our exceeding joy, our exceeding love, our exceeding feare, &c. especially upon this day; there is scarse any week but we contract soyle from our worldly occasions, and by touching worldly things; and we suffer many decayes and lose much ground by temptations herein; now the Lord pitying us, and giving us a Sabbath of Recovery, what should we doe now but return, recover, and renew our strength, and like the Eagle cast our bils, and stand before our God and King this day of State and Royall Ma­jesty, when all his Saints compass [...] his Throne and presence, with our most beautifull Garments, mourning, especially that we fall so farre short of Sabbath acts and services? we should not content our selves with working-day holinesse, joyes, 17 feares, hopes, prayers, praises: but Sabbath joyes, feares, praises, must be now our ornaments, and all within us must be raised up to a higher straine: that as God gives us this day, speciall grace, means of grace, seasons of grace, speciall occa­sions of grace, by reviewing all our experiences the week past, so there is good reason that the Lord should be honoured with speciall holinesse this day.

Thesis 17.

The third is; This holinesse ought to be not onely im­mediate [Page 87] and speciall, but constant and continued, the whole day together. For upon every day of the week we are to take some time for converse with God; but our worldly occasion soon call us off, and that lawfully; but Sabbath holinesse must be constant and continued all the day; if the Lord was so strict that he would not lose a moments honour in a cere­moniall day of rest, Levtt. 23.3 [...]. what shall we thinke the Lord expects upon this day which is morall? the Lord would not be honoured this day onely by fits and flashes, and sudden pangs, which passe away as the early dew; but as tis in the Psalme for the Sabbath, Its good to sing of his loving kindnesse in the morning, and of his faithfulnesse every night, Psal. 92.1, 2. and though this be a wearisome thing to the flesh to be so long pent in, and although we cannot perfectly doe it, yet its a most sweet and glorious work in it selfe, to think that the infinite glorious God should call a poor sinfull creature to be with him and attend upon him all the day long; to be ever with the Lord is best of all, but next to that to be with him a whole day together: they that see how fit they are to be for ever ba­nisht from the presence of the most High, and how exceeding unworthy to come into it, cannot but infinitely and exces­sively prize that love of Jesus Christ, this day to come and en­ter into his rest, and lie in his very bosome, all the day long, and as a most loving friend loth to part with them, till needs must, and that the day is done.

Thesis 18.

The fourth is, This holinesse ought not onely to be imme­diate,18 speciall and constant, but all these holy duties are thus to be performed of us as that hereby we may enter into Rest; so as that our soules may finde and feele the sweet of the true Rest of the Sabbath; and therefore it must be a sweete and quieting holinesse also: for the Sabbath is not only called a Sabbath of Rest in respect of our exemption from bodily la­bour, but because it is so to be sanctified as that on this day we enter into Rest, or such a fruition of God as gives rest to our soules; otherwise we never sanctifie a Sabbath aright, be­cause we then fall short of this which is the maine end there­of, untill we come so to seeke God as that we finde him, and so finde him as that we feele Rest in him, in drawing neare to him and standing before him: that as God after his six daies labour did Rest and was refreshed in the fruition of himselfe, so should we after our six daies labour also, be refreshed in the presence of the Lord; That in case we want meanes upon the Sabbath, yet he may be in lieu of them unto us; and in case [Page 88] we have them and finde but little by them conveyed to us, yet that by that little we may be carried on the wings of faith be­yond all meanes unto that Rest which upon this day we may find in his bosome: that as Christ after his labours entred in­to his Rest, Heb 4. so we ought to labour after the same Sabba­tisme begun here on earth, but perfected in Heaven; that af­ter all the weary steps we tread, and sinnes and sorrowes we finde all the weeke, yet when the Sabbath comes we may say returne unto thy Rest oh my soule. The end of all labour is rest; so the end of all our bodily and spirituall labour, whe­ther on the weeke-daies of Sabbath day, it should be this Rest: and we should never think that we have reached the end of the day untill we Taste the Rest of the Day: nor is this Rest a Meteor in the Ayre and a thing onely to be wisht for, but can never be found; but assuredly those who are wearied with their sinnes in the weeke and wants on the Sabbath, and feele a neede of rest and refreshing, shall certainly have the blessing, viz. the Rest of these seasons of refreshing and rest, and the comforts of the Holy Ghost filling their hearts this day. Isa. 10.2, 3, 4. Isa. 56.5, 6, 7, 8. Isa. 58.13, 14. Psal. 36.7, 8. Not because of our holinesse which is spotted at the best, but be­cause of our great high Priests holinesse, who hath it written upon his forehead to take away the iniquity of all our holy Offerings: Ex. 28.36.38. and who hath garments of grace, and bloud to cover us and to present us spotlesse, before the face of that God whom we seeke and serve with much weake­nesse, and whom at last we shall finde, when our short daies worke here is done, and our long looked for Sabbath of glory shall begin to dawn.

Thesis 19.

19 Now when the Lord hath inclined us thus to Rest and san­ctifie his Sabbath, what should the last act of our holinesse be bvt diffusive and communicative, viz. in doing our utmost that others under us or that have relation to us, that they san­ctifie the Sabbath also, according to the Lords expresse parti­cular charg in the Commandement; Thou, thy Sonne, thy Daugh­ter, thy Servants, the Stranger within thy Gates; the excellency of Christs holinesse consists in making us like himsele in ho­linesse; the excellency and glory of a Christians holinesse is to endeavour to be like to the Lord Christ therein: our Children, Servants Strangers who are within our Gates, are apt to prophane the Sabbath; we are therefore to improve our power over them for God, in restraining them from sinne, and in constraining them (as farre as we can) to the holy ob­servance [Page 89] of the Rest of the Sabbath; least God impute their sinnes to us who had power (as Eli in the like case) to restrain them and did not; and so our Families and Consciences be stained with their guilt and bloud.

Thesis 20.

And if superiours in Families are to see their Gates preser­ved 20 unspotted from such provoking evils, can any thinke but that the same bond lies upon Superiours in Common Wealths, who are the Fathers of those great Families, whose subjects also are within their Gates and the power of their Jurisdicti­ons? the Civill Magistrate though he hath no power to im­pose new Lawes upon the Consciences of his subjects, yet he is bound to see that the Lawes of God be kept by all his Sub­jects; provided alwaies that herein he walke according to the Law and Rule of God, viz. that. 1. Ignorant Consciences in cleare and momentous matters be first instructed. 2. Doub­ting Consciences have sufficient means of being resolved. 3. Bold and audacious Consciences be first forewarned: hence it is that though he hath no power to make Holy daies and to impose the observation of them upon the Consciences of his subjects, (because these are his own Lawes) yet he may and should see that the Sabbath Day (the Lords holy Day) that this he observed, because he doth but see to the execution of Gods Commandement herein. By what Rule did Nehemiah not onely forbid the breach of the Sabbath, but did also threaten bodily punishment upon the men of Tyre? (although they were Heathens, yet were they at this time within the Gates and compasse of his Jurisdiction: Nehem. 13.21.) cer­tainly he thought himselfe bound in conscience to see that the Sabbath should not be prophaned by any that were within his Gates, according to this fourth Commandement. If Kings and Princes and civill Magistrates have nothing to do in mat­ters of the first Table (and consequently must give any man liberty to Prophane the Sabbath that pretends Conscience,) why then doth Ieremy call upon Princes to see that it be not prophaned, with promise of having their Crownes and King­domes preserved from wrath if thus they do, and with threat­ning the burning up and consuming of City and Kingdome if this they do not Ieremy? 17.19.25.27. If civill Magistrates have nothing to do herein, they then have nothing to do to preserve their Crownes, Kingdomes, Sceptets, Subjects from fire and Bloud and utter ruine: Nehemiah was no Type of Christ, nor were the Kings of Israel bound to see the Sabbath kept as Types of Christ, but as nursing Fathers of the Com­mon-Wealth, [Page 90] and because their own subjects were within their Gates and under their power; and therefore according to this morall Rule of the Commandement, they were bound not onely to keepe it themselves, but to see that all others did so also. 'Tis true, civill Magistrates may abuse their power, judge, amisse, and thinke that to be the command of God, which is not; but we must not therefore take away their power from them, because they may pervert it and abuse it; we must not deny that power they have for God, because they may pervert it and turne the edge of it against God: for if upon this ground the Magistrate hath no power over his Sub­jects in matters of the first Table, he may have also all his fea­thers pul'd from him, and all his power taken from him in matters of the second Table; for we know that he may work strange changes there and perve [...]t Justice, and Judgement ex­ceedingly: we must not deny their power because they may turne it awry and hurt Gods Church and people by it, but (as the Apostle exhorts, 1 Tim [...].1.2.) to pray for them the more, that under them we may live a peaceable life in all Godlinesse and Honesty: its a thousand times better to suffer persecution for Righteousnesse sake and for a good Conscience, then to desire and plead for toleration of all Consciences, that so (by this cowardly device and lukewarme principle) our owne may be untoucht: it was never heard of untill now of late that any of Gods Prophets, Apostles, Martyrs, faithfull Witnesses, &c. that they ever pleaded for liberty in errour, but onely for the Truth, which they preacht and prayd for, and suffered for unto the death; and their sufferings for the truth with Zeale, Patience, Faith, Constancy, have done more good, then the way of universall toleration is like to doe, which is purposely invented to avoyd trouble. Truth hath ever spread by oppo­sition and persecution; but errour being a Child of Satan hath fled▪ by a zealous resisting of it.

Sick and weake men are to be tender'd much, but Lunatick and Phranti [...] men are in best case when they are well fette­red and bound: a weake Conscience is to be tendered, an humble Conscience tolerated; errours of weaknesse not wick­ednesse are with all gentlenesse to be handled; the liberty given in the raign of Episcopacy for Sports and Pastimes, and May­games upon the Lords Day, was once loathsome to all honest minds; bat now to allow a greater Liberty, to Buy, Sell, Plow, Cart, Thrash, Sport, upon the Sabbath day, to all those who pretend Conscience, or rather, that they have no Con­science of one day more then another, is to build up Iericho, [Page 91] and Babel againe, and to lay foundations of wrath to the Land, for God will certainly revenge the pollutions of his Sabbaths: if God be troubled in his Rest, no wonder if he disturbes our peace: some of the Ancients thinke that the Lord brought the flood of Waters upon the Sabbath day as they gather from Gen. 7.10. because they were growne to be great prophane [...]s of the Sabbath; and we know that Prague was taken upon this day. The day of their sinne, began all their sorrowes which are continued to this day to the amazement of the World: when the time comes that the Lords precious Sabbaths are the dayes of Gods Churches Rest, then shall come in the Churches peace, Psal. 102.13.14. The free grace of Christ must first begin herein with us, that we may finde at last that Rest which this evill World is not yet like to see, unlesse it speedily love his Law more, and his Sabbaths better.

I could therefore desire to conclude this doctrine of the Sab­bath with teares, and I wish it might be matter of bitter la­mentation to the mourners in Sion, everywhere to behold the universall prophanation of these precious times and seasons of refreshing, toward which, through the abounding of iniquity, the love of many who once seemed zealous for them, is now grown cold: the Lord might have suffered poore, worthlesse, sorrowfull man to have worne and wasted out all his daies in this life in wearinesse, griefe, and labour, and to have filled his daies with nothing else but work, and minding of his own things, and bearing his own necessary cumbers and burdens here, and never have allowed him a day of rest untill he came up to heaven at the end of his life; and thus to have done would have been infinite mercy and love, though he had made him grind the Mill only of his own occasions, & feele the whip and the lash onely of his daily griefs and labours, untill dark night came; but such is the overflowing and abundant love of a blessed God, that it cannot containe it selfe (as it were) so long a time from speciall fellowship with his people here in a strange land, and in an evill world, and therefore will have some speciall times of speciall fellowship and sweetest mutuall embracings; and this time must not be a moment, an houre. a little, and then away againe; but a whole day, that there may be time enough to have their fill of love in each others bosome before they part; this day must not be meerly occ [...] ­sionall at humane liberty and now and then, least it be too seldome, and so strangenesse grow between them; but the Lord (who exceeds and excels poor man in love) therefore [Page 92] to make all sure he sets and flxeth the day, and appoints the time, and how to meet, meerly out of love, that weary man may enjoy his rest, his God, his love, his Heaven, as much and as often as may be here, in this life, untill he come up to glory, to rest with God; and that because man cannot here enjoy his daies of glory, he might therefore foretaste them in daies of grace; and is this the requitall, and all the thanks he hath for his heart-breaking love? to turne back sweet presence and fellowship, and love of God in them, to dispute away these daies with scorne and contempt, to smoke them away with Prophannesse, and madde mirth, to Dreame them away with Vanity, to Drinke, to Sweare, to Ryot, to Whore, to Sport, to Play, to Card, to Dice, to put on their best Appar­rell that they may dishonour God with greater pompe and bravery, to talke of the World, to be later up that d [...]y then any other day of the Weeke, when their own Irons are in the fire, and yet to sleepe Sermon, or scorne the Ministery, if it comes home to their Consciences; to tell Tales, and breake Jests at home, or (at best) to talke of Forraigne or Domesticall newes onely to passe away the time, rather then to see God in his Workes and warme their hearts thereby: to thinke God hath good measure given him, if they attend on him in the Foore­ [...]oone, although the After-noone be given to the Devill, or sleepe, or vanity, or foolish pastimes; to draw neere to God in their bodies, when their Thoughts, and Hearts and Affe­ctions are gone a Hunting or Ravening after the World the Lord knowes where, but farre enough off from him: do you thus requite the Lord for this great love, oh foolish people and unwise? do you thus make the daies of your rest and joy, the daies of the Lords sorrow and trouble? do you thus weary the Lord when he gives rest unto you? was there ever such mercy shewen, or can there be any greater love upon Earth, then for the Lord to call to a wicked sinfull Creature, which deserves to be banisht for ever out of his Presence, to come unto him, enter into his Rest, take his fill of love, and re­fresh it selfe in his Bosome in a speciall manner all this day? And therefore can there be a greater sinne above ground com­mitted out of Hell then thus to sinne against this love? I do not thinke that the single breach of the Sabbath (as to sport or feast inordinately) is as great a sinne as to murther a man (which some have cast out to the reproach of some zealous for the observation of the Sabbath day, truly the Lord knows) for I believe their milk sod over, if thus they said; but I speak of the Sabbath under this notion and respect, and as herein [Page 93] Gods great love appeares to weary, sinfull, restlesse man, as a day wherein all the treasures of his most rich and precious Love are set open; and in this respect let any man tell me what greater sinne he can imagine, then sinnes against the greatest Love? The same sinnes which are committed upon other daies in the Weeke are then provoking sinnes; but to commit these sinnes upon the Sabbath Day, is to double the evill of them: Drinking and Swearing, and Rioting, and vaine Talking, &c. are sinnes on the weeke-day, but they are now but single sinnes; but these are such like sinnes on the Sabbath Day are double sinnes, because they are now not on­ly sinnes against Gods command, but also against Gods Sab­baths too, which much aggravates them; and yet men mourn not for these sinnes; had the Lord never made knowne his Sabbaths to his Churches and People in these daies, they might then have had some excuse for their sinne; but now to prophane them since God hath made them knowne to us; especially the English Nation and People to do it, upon whom the Lord hath shined out of Heaven with greater light and glory in this point of the Sabbath, above any other places and Churches in the World, what will they have to say for themselves, with what Fig-leaves will they hide this naked­nesse before the Tribunal of God?

The Lord might have hid his Sabbaths from us and gone to another People, that would have beene more thankfull for them, and glad of them then we have beene; and yet he hath beene loth to leave us; and doe we thus require the Lord? surely he hath no need of the best of us, or of our attendance upon him upon these daies; its onely his pitty, which seeing us wearied with sorrowes and wearying our selves in our sinnes, makes him call us back to a Weekly rest in his Bosome, who might have let us alone and tyred out our hearts in our own folly and madnesse all our daies; and do we thus requite the Lord? Certainly the time will come wherein we shall thinke (as once Ierusalem did in the daies of her affliction) of all our pleasant things we once had in the daies of our prospe­rity; [...]ertainly men shall one day mourne for the losse of all their precious time, who mispend it now, and (above al times) for the losse of their precious pleasant Sabbath seasons of refreshing, which once they had given them to finde rest and peace in; when [...]he smoke of their tormenting everlasting burning shall ascend for ever and ever, wherein they shall have no rest day nor night; you shall remember and thinke then with teares trickling down your dry che [...]ks, of the Sabbaths▪ [Page 94] the pleasant Sabbaths that once you had, and shall never see one of those daies of the Sonne of man more: you shall mourne then to see Abrahams bosome a farre off, and thousand thousands at rest in it, where you also might have bin as well as they if you had not despised the rest of God here in the bo­some of his Sabbaths.

You shall then mourne and wring your hands, and teare your haire, and stampe and grow mad, and yet weepe to think that if you had had a heart to have spent that very time of the Sabbath in seeking God, in drawing neare to God, in resting in God, which you dispend in idle Talke, and Idlenesse, in Rioting and Wantonnesse, in Sports and Foolishnesse upon this day, you had then been in Gods Eternall Rest in Heaven, and for ever blessed in God. Its said Ierusalem remembred in the day of her affliction all her pleasant things, when the Ene­my did mock at her Sabbaths; and so will you remember with sad hearts the loose of all your pretious seasons of grace, espe­cially then, when the Devills and Heathens and damned Out [...]asts, who never had the mercy to enjoy them, shall mo [...]k at thee for the losse of thy Sabbaths. Verily I cannot thinke that any men that ever tasted any sweetnesse in Christ or his Sabbath, and felt the unknown refreshings of this sweet Rest, but that they will mourne for their cold affections to them and unfruitfull spending of them before they die; otherwise ne­ver goe about to bleare mens eyes with Discourses and In­vectives and Disputes against them, or with carnall Excuses for your licentious spending of them; for doubtlesse you taste not, and therefore know not what they are; and you will one day be found to be such as speake evill of the things you know not. Heare ye despisers and wonder, and perish; is the infinite Majesty and glory of God so vile in your eyes that you do not thinke him worthy of speciall attendance one day in a Weeke? doth he call you now to Rest in his Bosome, and will you now kick his Bowels, despise this Love, and spit in his Face? doth he call upon you to spend this day in holinesse, and will you spend it in Mirth, and Sports and Pastimes and in all manner of licentiousnesse? Hast thou wearied God with thine iniquities, and thy selfe in thine iniquities all the weeke long (for which God might justly cut thee off from seeing any more Sabbath) and doth the Lord Jesus (instead of recom­pencing thee thus) call you back againe to your resting place? and will you now weary the Lord againe, that he cannot have rest or quiet for you one day in a Weeke? Oh that we could mourne for these things: And yet walke abroad the face of [Page 61] the whole earth at this day, and then say where shall you finde almost Gods Sabbaths exactly kept? viz. with meet preparation for them, delight in them, with wonderment and thankfulnesse to God after the enjoyment of them? all the world knowes to whom the barbarous Turks do de­dicate their Frydayes, the Jewes also how they sanctifie their saturdayes, to the Lord Iehovah indeed, but not un­to the Lord their God. What account the Papists put up­on the Sabbath's not only their writings (which level it with all other Holy-dayes) but also their loose practice in sports and revellings upon this day beare sufficient wit­nesse: and oh that we had no cause to wash off this spot with our teares from the beautifull and pleasant face of the glorious grace and peace, which once shined in the German Churches, by whose Graves we may stand weep­ing and say, this is your misery for this your provoking sin: Scotland knows best her own integrity, whose lights have been burning and shining long in their clearnesse in this particular. But England hath had the name, and worn this Garland of glory, wherewith the Lord hath crowned it above all other Churches. But how hath that little flock of slaughter, which hath wept for it, and preacht, and printed, and done and suffered for it, beene hated and persecuted? who have been the scorne and shame, and reproach of men, but a company of poor weak­lings, for going out a few miles to hear a faithful, painful Preacher, from those idle Shepheards, who either could not feed them with knowledge and understanding at home or else would not do it through grosse prophanesse, or ex­tream idlenesse? And now, since God hath broken the yoke of their oppressors, and set his people at liberty to re­turne to Sion and her solemne assemblies as in dayes of old, and hath given to them the desires of their hearts, that they may now be as holy on the Sabbath as they will, with­out any to reproach them, at least to countenance such reproaches of them: now I say when one would think the precious Sabbaths (which so many of Gods servants in former time have brought down to this generation, swiming in their teares and prayers, and which many in these dayes have so much looked and longed for) that eve­ry eye should be looking up to Heaven with thankfulnes for these, and that every heart should embrace Gods Sab­baths with teares of joyfulnesse, and bid this dear and pre­cious [Page 62] friend welcome, and lie and rest in their bosome; and so I doubt not but that England hath yet may a corner ful of such precious Jewels, to whom Gods Sabbath [...] are yet most precious and glorious, and who cannot easily for­get such blessed seasons and meanes in them, whereby (if ever the Lord did good unto them) they have been so oft refreshed, and wherein they have so oft seen God, where­in they have so oft met with him, and he with them; but whose heart will it not make to relent and sigh, to hear of late a company (not of ignorant debosht persons, malig­nants, prelatical, and corrupt and carnal men) but of such who have many of them in former times given great hopes of some feare of God, and much love to Gods Ordinan­ces and Sabbaths; and now (what hurt the Sabbaths Or­dinances of the Lord Jesus therein have done them, I know not, but) it would break ones heart to see what little care there is to sanctifie the Sabbath, even by them who think in their judgments that the day is of God. What poore preparation for it, either in themselves or families! what little care to profit by it, or to instruct and catehize their families, and to bring them also it love with it! what, secret wearinesse and dead-heartednesse (almost wholly unlamented) remains upon them! what earthly thoughts, what liberty in speech about any worldly matter, present­ly after the most warning Sermon is done! that the Lord Jesus hath scarce good carcasses and outsides brought him which cannot but threaten more crows to pick them unlesse they repent: and yet this is not so sad as to see the loose­nesse of mens judgments in this point of the Sabbath, whereby some think a Sabbath lawful, but not necessary (in respect of any command of God;) nay some think it superstition to observe a weekly Sabbath, which should be every day (as they imagine,) they have allegorized Gods Sabbaths, and almost all Gods Ordinances out of the world, and cast such pretended Antichristian filth and pollution upon them, that spiritual men must not now meddle with them; nay verily, all duties of the moral Law, and fruitful obedience and holy walking, and san­ctification, graces, and humiliation, and such like, are the secret contempt of many, and the base drudgery for a [...]ll-horse and legal Christian, rather then for one that is of an Evangelical frame; and herein Satan now appears with the ball at his foot, and seems to threaten in time to [Page 63] carry all before him, and to kick and carry Gods precious Sabbaths out of the world with him, and then farewel dear Lord Jesus with all thy sweet love and life, if Sabbaths be once taken from us by the blind and bold disputings of wretched men; authority as yet upholds them (which is no small mercy) and the savour of Christs sweetnesse in them, and the external brightnesse of the beauty of them, do still remaine on many with that strength and glory, that it is not good policy for the prince of darknesse now to imploy all his forces against the gates of the Sabbath: but the time hastens wherein the assault will be great and fierce, and I much fear that for the secret contempt of these things, the Lord in dreadful justice will strengthen delu­sions about this day to break forth and prosper; and then pray you poor Saints of God and hidden ones, that your flight may not be in the Winter, nor on the Sabbath day: but woe then to them that give su [...]k, woe then to the high Ministry that should have kept these gates, woe then to that loose and wanton generation rising up, who think such outward formes and observation of dayes to be too course and too low and mean a work for their enobled spi­rits which are now raised higher and neerer God then to look much after Sabbaths or Ordinances, graces or du­ties, or any such outward forms; for I doubt not but if af­ter all the light and glory shining in England concerning Gods Sabbaths, if yet they are not thereby become preci­ous, but that the Lord will make them so by his plagues, if this sin once get head, God will burne up the whole world, and make himself-dreadful to all flesh, untill he hath made unto himself a holy people, and a humble peo­ple, that shall love the dust, and take pleasure in the very stones of his house, and love the place where his Honour dwels, and long for the time wherein his presence and blessing shall appear and be poured out upon the Sabbath day. It's matter of the greatest mourning, that they above all other should trouble Gods rest, wherein perhaps their souls have found so much rest, or might have done; that in these times, wherein the Lord Jesus was coming out to give unto his house his Ordinances, and unto his people his Sabbaths and dayes of rest every way, that now they above all others should offer to pull them out of his hand, tread them under foot, and hereby teach all the prophane rout in the world to do the like with a quiet conscience, and [Page 64] without any check by their reasonings; that now when God is wasting the Land, and burning down its glory, for the sins against his Sabbaths, that just at this time, more then ever, they should rise up to polute and prophane this day. The Lord grant his poor people to see cause at last to mourn for this sin, that the rest of the Sabbath may be rest to their souls, especially in this weary hour of Tem­ptation, which is shaking all things, and threatens yet greater troubles unto all flesh. The Lord Jesus certainly hath great blessings in his hand to poure out upon his people in giving them better dayes, and brighter and more beautiful Sabbaths, and glorious appearances; but I fear, and therefore I desire that this unwise and unthankful generation may not stand in their own way, lest the Lord make quick work, and give those things to a remnant to enjoy, which others had no hearts to prize.