POSITION I. That the Old Sabbath (as to the Day) was made Alterable and Changeable in the First Institu­on of it.

FOr the confirmation whereof we shall con­sider

• 1. The Time when it was Insti­tuted.
• 2. The Command by which it was Insti­tuted.
• 3. The Ground upon which it was Insti­tuted.

1. First, let us soberly examine the time when it was instituted; the obscurity whereof may easily be gathered from the variety of opinions and apprehensions about it. Some think the first foundation of it was laid upon mount Sinai, induced thereunto by those words of Ne­hemiah, Thou camest down upon the mount, Nehem 9.13, 14. and madest known to them thy holy Sabbath by the hand of Moses thy Servant. Others have travelled a little beyond the mount, and have found (as they suppose) the first footsteps of a Sab­bath [Page 2]in the wilderness of Sin, at the first falling of Man­na.T. T. p. 71. Mr. Tillam, with some others, is confident that it was instituted before the fall of man, and founded upon mount Paradise; not a little abusing that Scripture to prove it, Psal 87.1. Gods foundations are in the holy mountaint. Belike he would insinuate, with Tostatus and some other Popish Authors, that Paradise was some mountainous place (a fancy purposely devised by them to shelter E­noch from the floud:) But this is to build castles in the aire; such notions may pass for glorious truths among Vulgar heads, when judicious pens have branded them as Popish Legends. For the opinion it self, viz. That the Sabbath was first instituted in Paradise before the fall of man, we shall in due time discover the weakness of it, and give satisfying answers to all the seeming argu­ments brought to support it. But first I shall propose, and endeavour to prove a Counter position, namely, that it seems more consonant to Scripture, to affirm, that the Sabbath was instituted (though in the beginning) yet after the fall, in mans corrupt and vitiated estate. The probation whereof depends much (though not altogether) upon the decision of that often canvassed question, Whether our first Parents sinned the same day on which they were created? I shall not be so peremptory as to pass a damnatory sentence upon those that are for the negative; yet after some study and inquiry into Scriptures and Authors about it, I am inclined to undertake the affirmative, namely, That our first Parents were created and corrupted,Gen. 1. & 2 ch. compared with chap. 3.1. made and marrd, alive and dead in one and the same same day; which seems very probable by this, that as soon as Moses had spoken of their creati­on, without mention of any other thing considerable, he passes to their defection. This is no singular notion, but the generally received opinion of ancient and mo­dern times. [...] The Greek Churches and Fathers were so almost universally of this perswasion, that it is well known to have been their common sentence, speaking of [Page 3] Adam, The same day he was created he fell. Among the Latines Augustine and Bernard were also of the same mind;August. de ge­nes. ad lit. lib. 9. c. 4. Bern. l 4.8. and among our own writers, Reverend Mr. Cawdrey, and Mr. Palmer incline this way: Dr. Willet, Mr. G. Walker, Mr. H. Broughton have strenuously ar­gued it from Scripture. I shall but hint a few of the ma­ny Scripture-arguments, that have been and may be alledg­ed to this purpose.

1. From the testimony of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath told us expresly, that the Divel was a murtherer (or manslayer) from the beginning, a lyar and the fa­ther of lies; John 8.34. [...] not from the beginning of the worlds cre­ation, but of mans creation, which most properly and precisely implyes the sixth day, wherein the Serpent be­guiled our first Parents by lying, and murthered them. That word (from the beginning) is the same in the Sy­riack version which is used Gen. 1. and it usually refers to some date of time within the creation, as the lear­ned in that Language observe. This cannot be denyed, that when our Saviour affirms the Divel was a murthe­rer from the beginning, we must lay it as neer the beginning as we may, without crossing other texts of Scripture: now it crosses not a tittle of Scripture to state it on the sixth day; nay it consents with other Scriptures; for

2. The verity of Gods threatning seems to put it out of question that Adam sinned and was slain by the Ser­pent on the sixth day; for let the words be well weighed, In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely dye. Gen. 2.17. Die quo Deus condidit rede­mit & homi­nem, i. e. sexta feria. Bern. I demand whether this sentence were fully executed on the first Adam in the day that he sinned? or whether in his and our behalf it were not also verifyed on the second Adam in the day that he suffered? If the latter be granted (as it cannot well be denyed) then it will ra­tionally follow, that the second Adam suffering and dying on the sixth day of the week, the first Adam also sinned on the sixth day, in which he was crea­ted. [Page 4] John 29. v. 14, 15, 16. compared with Mat 27.46, 50. That Christ suffered the sixth day, needs no dispute.Rom. 5 14. That the Holy Ghost speaks so sparingly of the state of innocency, evidently shews that it lasted but a very little while. Mortons three-fold state, ep. to the Rea­der. In all reason (as another sayes) if Adam had stood long, his good deeds as well as his evil deeds had been committed to history, especially how he kept his first Sabbath; which had been an excellent pattern to posterity. But not a syllable of this in Scripture. Most probably therefore the first Adam, the figure of him that was to come (and that in re­spect of this point) sinned and fell on the sixth day; and so the Divine threatning was punctually fulfilled. The force of this argument cannot without shameful wrangling be eva­ded: For to say that this may as well state the fall on that day seven-night as on the first sixth day, is to say little to the purpose. For by the same rule you may as well car­ry it to that day three weeks, or that day moneth, yea that day twelve-moneth, and so in infinitum. I should rather think, that since by Christs sufferings it ap­pears that Adam sinned on a sixth day; and our Lord affirms that the Devil was a manslayer from the begin­ning; that therefore certainly our first Parents fell on the first sixth day. Some have not unfitly observed a remarkable conformity betwixt the sin and curse of A­dam, and the sufferings of Christ, in many concurrent circumstances. As our Saviours agony in the garden, answering to Adams sin in the garden; his bloody sweat, to the curse of eating bread in the sweat of our browes; his crown of thornes, to the curse of thornes; his suffe­ring upon a tree, to their sin in eating of the tree, &c. a fit subject for a devotional pen. But that which I insist upon as argumentative is only the day in which out Lord suffered and dyed, which in my judgment doth much help to determine the day in which Adam sinned.

3. The parley betwixt the woman and the serpent insi­nuates as much; for both the serpents demand and the womans reply speak plainly that as yet they had not tasted the sweets of Paradise:Gen. 3.1. Hath God said ye shall not eate of every tree of the Garden? The serpent had not [Page 5]been subtile to ask whether that might be done which had been done already; and the womans replying in the future tense, we may, or shall eate hereafter, makes it more probable that as yet they had not eaten. [...] And it is utterly improbable that they would have continued a whole day in the Garden, in the midst of all that deli­cious fruit, and not have tasted of some. Besides, the tree of life being sacramental (as Augustine sayes,Erat homini in lignis aliis ali­menium, in hoc verò Sacramen­tum, Aug. de Gen. ad lit. in other trees there was nourishment, in this a Sacrament) may it not well be thought that if Adam had stood the first Sabbath, he had tasted of the tree of life? Doubt­less he had observed all the ordinances of the day. But that he had not yet touched that tree, is evident from that speech of God, where he resolves upon his speedy banishment out of Paradise,Gen. 3.22. lest (sayes the Lord) he put forth his hand to the tree of life, and eate and live for ever; which had been spoken too late, if he had already done it.

4. The policy and activity of Satan in contriving of mischief may assure us that he was tampering with our first parents betimes, partly that he might take the ad­vantage to shake them before their habits of grace were setled and confirmed by exercise (as new-planted trees are more easily plucked up at first, then after they are more deeply radicated;) but principally, that by poy­soning the fountain of mankind before any streams issu­ed from it, he might the more easily and certainly cor­rupt the whole current of mans posterity. Such as have been taught by sad experience how crafty an adversa­ry that old serpent the Divel is, cannot but subscribe to the validity of this argument.

5. To all these I may adde the circumstance of time when these malefactors were brought to the bar, and arraigned for what they had done; viz. in the coole of the day, Hebr. in the wind of the day, Gen. 3.8. in the wind after midday, as Hierom renders it, or in the Even-tyde,Adversus hae­reses lib 5. cap. 15. ad fin. as Irenaeus. Now it is very observable (sayes a late Wor­thy) [Page 6]that this is the first evening mentioned after the creation of Adam, Mr. Roberts myster. & me­dulla. Bibl. p. 39. and the covenant made with him. A­dam was arraigned and sentenced towards the evening of the sixth day, therefore he sinned the same day.

As for that of the Psalmist, Adam being in honour loàged not a night, Psa. 49.12. but was like the beasts that perish (for so it is in the Hebrew word for word) although I will not restrain it to the first Adam, for (as learned Ainsworth observes) it may be meant both of the first man Adam, who continued not in his dignity,Annot. in locum and his posterity al­so; yet it doth most singularly point at him, and is most pregnantly applicable to him, as being in the greatest ho­nour that ever man was in upon earth, Lord of all the lower world, and father of all mankind.Exod. 23.8. Deut. 19.4. 2 Sam. 17. Psal. 30.5. And the word baal jalin does properly signifie to lodge or tarry for a night. What if it be in the future tense, as. T.T. sug­gests, yet asDr. Twiss great a Rabbin as himself has told us that it is nothing strange for the future tense (the structure of the words requiring it, [...] Assimulatus fuit. as here it does, the next word be­ing of the preter tense) to signifie the time past. Again, what if the context does not in every circumstance suit with Adam? Is it any unusual thing (especially in the book of Psalms) for one and the same sentence to point at several persons? How often are David and Christ both intended in the same place; yea, where every thing spoken of the one does not agree to the o­ther? The adversary might therefore have spared that passage, that this text cannot be applyed to Adam, be­cause tis said, v. 19. He shall go to the generation of his fathers, unless I could shew him what fathers Adam had to go to.p. 10. I will answer his Dilemma with another; when he himself sayes, that innocent Adam had all the Ten Commandments written in his heart, let him tell me, what father and mother had Adam to honour in a second. Table sense? But to let that pass, enough is said (if this text was silent) to make it more then probable, that the transgression of our first parents presently fol­lowed [Page 7]their creation, i.e. the same day. To be sure there is more evidence of truth in it then all his objecti­ons to the contrary are a ble to obscure. Indeed his con­fidence is great, but we shall now scan his evidence, and accordingly judg of his confidence.

He argues, ‘[That man,T.T. Obj. 1. yea and the Angels also stood in their integrity with the clo sure of the sixth day, for then all things were very good, Gen. 1.31. And no sooner did the sixth day end, and the seventh begin, but God rested, and sanctifyed his holy Sab­bath, and was refreshed, and exceeding well satisfyed with the goodness of his creatures, which must needs precede sin.’

This great argument has many little ones in the belly of it, and accordingly I shall return several answers to it.

Whereas he dictates, Answ. 1 That man had not sioned in the closure of the sixth day, for then all things were very good: I answer, the word then is an addition to the text; And therefore the whole weight of his argu­ment hanging upon this wooden pin of his own making, must needs fall to the ground. 'Tis a conclusion found­ed upon a fallacy, which the Logicians call a Fallacy of composition, when those things are jumbled together which ought to be taken asunder; for the detection whereof let it be considered, that in the text alledged, Gen. 1.31. there be two distinct clauses; first, Gods ap­probation of his works, He saw every thing that he made, and behold it was very good. Secondly, the conclusion of the day; and the evening and the morning were the sixth day. Now to take these two clauses conjunctly, which are related distinctly, and to argue (as this Author does) that man had not sinned on the sixth day, for then all was very good, is a meer sophisme, such as every pu­ny in Logick is able to resolve; for why might not Gods approbation be given forth in the morning or fore­noon of the sixth day, and time enough left before night [Page 8]for sin to creep into the world? To clear this, let it be noted,See Dr. Willets Hexapla in Exod. 31. That although God was pleased to parcel out his work into six distinct dayes, yet he measured not every dayes work by the hour-glass of time as we creatures do, but what he did on each day was done in an instant. He did but speak the word and it was done, he commanded and it was created. Psal. 33.9. Psa. 146.5.

This is evident from principles of reason as well as from the forementioned places of Scripture; for crea­tion is the production of something out of nothing, or that which is as much as nothing. Now betwixt the being of something and nothing there can be no inter­mediate state, and consequently no imaginable space of time, but an imperceptible moment: Hence that receiv­ed maxime, that Creation is in an instant. Now to accom­modate this to the work of the sixth day, consisting of man and beasts; certainly the forming of these creatures being momentaneous in the sense above mentioned, took up but little of the day. I can see no colour of rea­son to the contrary, but our first Parents might be cre­ated, and the whole creation compleated in the fore part of the sixth day. And doubtless, as soon as the creation was ended, the divine approbatiom was added; And God saw that it was good. For surely as soon as the creature was, the Creator saw what it was, and he saw it to be good, for he made it good. And although the conclusion of the day be presently added, yet 'tis without dispute, that many other things were transacted (though not expressed in the first Chapter) before the close of the sixth day: as the naming of the creatures, the joyning of our first parents together in marriage, and disposing of them in the garden, yea the giving of the Law, and in all likelyhood the breaking of it too. And so the first knot is untied.

Whereas he adds, Answer 2 That as soon as the sixth day end­ed, and the seventh began, God rested and sanctified the Sabbath; I answer, This Assertion is built upon a [Page 9]very uncertain, if not a false supposition, viz. That the order of the words and Chapters is exactly answerable to the order of the things done. Whereas in the judgment of the learned here is a manifest dislocation or mispla­cing of the sacred story, as to the order of things; for if we regard the exact order of things done, the second chapter of Genesis would begin at the fourth verse, as learned Junius affirms: And the second and third ver­ses would come in at the end of the third Chapter,Junij Praelect. in Gen. 2. and so the mention of the Sabbaths institution would follow the description of Adam's sin; as an acuteDe. Lightfoot's Harmony of the Old Testa. and he gives this solid reason why the words stand as they do, and why the mention of the Sabbath is set down before Adams fall, viz. because the Holy Ghost would dispatch the general histo­ry of the first seven daies together without the interposition of any particular story. Writer of our own hath observed. But because the adversary will say these are but humane fancies, let us see whether they have not sure footing in the Word it self. To this purpose let the Reader turn to Genes. 2. and view the texture and composure of the whole Chapter. In the three first verses you have an ac­count of God's finishing the heavens and the earth, as also his resting on the seventh day. From the third to the eighth verse you have the creation of Vegetables, herbs and plants, which was the work of the third day. From ver. 8. to ver. 15. you have the plant­ing of the garden, and adorning of it with trees and ri­vers; which (if it were a work of creation) was done be­fore the seventh day, though it be not mentioned till after it. Again, ver. 7. you have the forming of the man, and from ver. 18. to 22. the framing of the woman; as a also the creating of birds and beasts, and the naming of the creatures, which you see are all mentioned after the se­venth day, yet all, or most of them done on the sixth. So that should we strictly cleave to the let­ter,In Scriptura non est prius & posterius. The order of time is not alwaies kept in Scripture, but sometimes that is placed first which was done last, & contrà. and believe that all things were done in the same order as they are here set down, we must believe that herbs and plants, birds and beasts, man and [Page 10]woman were all created after the creation was ended, and God had rested the seventh day. Yea, if the literal and historical order of the words must be maintained, how will T.T. make good his Mount-paradise-notion? For according to the order of the words, Para­dise was not planted till after the Sabbath. How then could Adam keep his first Sabbath in Paradise? Viderit ipse. Hitherto therefore he must of necessity yield a transposition; that is, that although these things be mentioned after the seventh day, yet they were done be­fore it, [...], Haec est un [...] de regu­lis ad intelli­gendam Scrip­turam sanctam necessariis. Luth. loc. com. p. 75. and here set down by way of Postscript: Now let us see what may be said for that which follows, ver. 16.17. compared with the three last verses; you have the woman given in marriage to the man, and the Crea­tors Law touching the forbidden fruit given in charge to both; and that all this was done on the sixth day will be readily granted. Well then, Chap. 3. you have the sto­ry of the Serpents temptation, the transgression of our first parents, their conviction in the cool of the day, and lastly their expulsion out of Paradise; and the jun­cture of all this lying so close to the story of the sixth day, Chap. 2. that unless you purposely loosen the connexion, you may rationally look upon it as one and the same daies work. And verily methinks the Serpents first on-set sounds as if there were very little distance of time be­tween God's giving the Law, and Satan's tempting the woman to break it, Gen. 3.1. Yea, hath God said ye shall not eat of every tree in the garden? a very abrupt motion, if it had not been made immediately upon the giving of the Law. The words are (as one observes) a form of speech used by one who standing aloof, and over-hea­ring what was forbidden,Mr. Walker, Doctrine of the Sabbath. doth presently step in and ask if it were not so as he took it to be: and besides, the woman's answer (as was hinted before) being in the future tense, we may, or shall eat hereafter implies that they had scarce eaten as yet. So that all circumstances considered, it more then probable, that this third Chapter is nothing [Page 11]but an history of what was done on the sixth day. And so the mention of the Sabbath in the beginning of the second Chapter, may well enough (in order of things) take place at the end of the third, and then it will roundly follow, That the first sin went before the first Sabbath.

As to that which is further alledged, Exod. 31.17. Ans. 3 That on the seventh day God rested, and was refreshed. I an­swer, It is onely a Metaphorical expression; for we may not think that the everlasting God, the Lord, the Creator of the ends of the earth fainted, or was weary in the works of the Creation, or that he needed any rest or respiration. But when the Holy Ghost speaks to us men, he delights to speak after the manner of men, respecting more the weak­ness of our capacity, than the exactness and propriety of the Phrase. In a word, suppose God's resting and being refreshed on the seventh day intimate some delightful sa­tisfaction, like that which men take in things that refresh their souls, yet it follows not that this satisfaction was taken in the creatures, but rather in Christ, who had now undertaken God's satisfaction for man's transgression. And this indeed is a sweet refreshing (as to a guilty creature) so to an angry God: and in this sense the Scriptures do sweetly harmonize,Isai. 42.1. Mat. 3.17. Mat. 12.18. unanimously testifying that our bles­sed Redeemer is the person in whom the eternal God de­lighteth, in whom the Father is well-pleased. As for the other Scriptures which T.T. crouds in for company-sake in his Margin, as Job 38.7. Luke 2.13. the one speaking of the Angels song at the Creation of the earth, the other of their joyful Hymne at the birth of Christ, I wonder how they make for his purpose, to prove that man had not sin­ned before the Sabbath. But impertinent quotations are no rarities in his book; he would make a glorious shew of Scripture, to dazle the eies of the simple, when the Scri­ptures he cites are neither in sense nor sound applicable to his purpose; which if it be not packing sophistry, let the world judg. Well, his first tripartite argument is weigh­ed, and found to light. And hitherto (for ought appears [Page 12]to the contrary) the first Sabbath was not before sin.

I proceed to the second.

2.T.Ts. Argum. ‘[Some time (sayes he) must be allowed for the sin of Angels and after that for the parley with the woman; and it was no little space wherein Adam gave significant names to the creatures.]’

For the Angels sin, Ans. 1 to guesse precisely at the time of it, is neither easie nor necessary: And in disputes of this nature we must be wise to sobriety, not to curiosity;1 Tim. 3.6. pride was a principal ingredient in their sin, andJob 4.18. God charged them with folly for their pride; how much more folly shall sinful man be found guilty of, who in the pride of his foolish heart shall presume to be wise above that which is written?Some think that place, Luke 10.28. may refer to the first fall of the Angels, being mentioned as a check to the disciples, ready to be lifted up with pride at the success of their ministry. Ne factis mi­raculis superbirent discipuli, adduxit Domiuus exemplum Satanae, &c. Stella in loc. Howe­ver it is most consentaneous to Scripture, and Reason to conceive that the Angels (being spiritual substances) must in their actings, whether good or evil, be pro­portionable to their beings. And sin being a spiritual evil, how quick a pro­gresse it might make in such creatures, let any man judg who can but compare things spiritual with spiritual. To me it is no great difficulty to apprehend, that in a very few moments, by an aspiring thought, le­gions of Angels might become legions of Divels. Especi­ally being (for ought I know) linked together in a con­joyned apostasie.

For Adam's naming the creatures, this also might soon be dispatched, Answ. 2 considering that not every individual creature (as T.T. would have it) but onely the birds and beasts were made to pass before Adam; of which there are not many kinds,Primi parentes insignes Philo­sophi. Luther, in G [...]n. Cap. 1. and not many of a kind created at first. And doubtless it cost Adam no study to impose significant names upon them. He had natural Philosophy enough con­created with him to know the properties and qualities of the creaures;1 Kin. 4.33, 34 and he needed no dictionary to find out suita­ble names for them. If Solomon after the Fall were so well [Page 13]read in the book of the creatures, that he could write a complete Commentary upon it from the Cedar to the Hy­sop, what shall we think of Adam before the Fall? But to put all out of doubt,Dr. Twisse moral of the Sabbath, p. 51. that the naming of the Creatures took up no long time is evident; for they were all named before Eve was formed, Gen. 2.19, 20. So as all this might be done before noon, and time enough left before night for the acting of that fatal tragedy, the Fall of Man, as a judici­ous Writer concludes.

For the parley betwixt the Woman and the Serpent, Answ. 3 we have no reason to judge that long, when the Scripture cuts it so short. Questionless the Serpent was not onely a sub­tile but a nimble disputant; and it was his policy to be as quick as he could, that the woman might be conquered be­fore she had time to recollect her self. Besides, in the judg­ment of most Interpreters, she began to stagger and give ground at the first assault. So that all this Authors conje­ctures laid together are too weak to bear the weight of that confident conclusion, Nothing is more certain then that the Highest himself did both sanctifie and celebrate the first Sabbath, and that before sin. p. 11. I may well say, nothing is more uncertain. I have given some Scripture-arguments already to make it more then probable; I shall add more in the third branch, to make it little less then infallible, that man fell on the sixth day. For the present I shall one­ly cast in one Argument against the supposed institution of the Sabbath in Paradise,

If the Sabbath was instituted in Paradise, Argu. then Adam did observe, and was bound to observe the first Sabbath in Para­dise: But neither of these can be proved from Scripture: Therefore, &c.

1. That Adam did unquestionably observe the first Sab­bath in Paradise, cannot be demonstratively proved from Scripture. This is undeniable, that whenever, or where-ever he kept his first Sabbath, he did it in imitation of God's example: Now how could he rest a whole day by God's example, till God had fully completed the first seventh [Page 14]dayes rest for his example?Eph. 5.1. Imitation of God being a sub­sequent, not a concomitant act, a following of him as dear children, not a fellow-acting with him. I can therefore see no congruity in that passage of T.T. where he reasons thus against reason;p. 54. Certainly if Adam were a follower of God as a dear child, he must needs keep the Sabbath with his Father. With his Father! how then could he follow him? Certainly God went before, if Adam followed him as a dear child. I cannot conceive how he could possibly keep a Sab­bath that God himself had not first blessed and sanctified to that end. I may upon better grounds suppose (with a late renowned Champion in this controversie) that God alone kept the first Sabbath (as Christ alone the first Lord's day) that he might afford Adam an example,Mr. Cawdrey's Sab. rediv. p. 3. cap. 1. as of working six daies, by his being exercised six daies in the work of creation, so of resting the seventh in it's next weekly return, and so successively week after week. But it will be said, if Adam were bound to keep the first Sabbath, we are bound to believe he did keep it: Therefore a word or two of that.

2. If he were bound, I demand, quo jure, by what Law? By the Law written in his heart? why then was he bound to keep a Sabbath before there was a Sabbath to keep? for the Law was graven in his heart on the sixth day, as a branch of thatEph. 4.24. Col. 3.10. divine image of God concreated with him, Whereas the Sabbath (to be sure) was not instituted till the seventh day, if then. Besides, the Law written in the table of Adam's heart was the same (in this Authors judg­ment) which was afterwards written in Tables of Stone, that is, the fourth Commandement: which (if we take his and Mr. Brabournes Comment upon it) prescribes six daies for labour before a seventh of rest. Now this order Adam could not possibly observe for the first week, being created but on the sixth day. He must therefore look out some o­ther Law, and where he will find it I cannot see, unless in Gen. 2.3. and he must be very sharp-sighted to find any thing there that looks like a Law binding our first Parents [Page 15]to observe the first Sabbath. For let the words be well pondered, And God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, Gen. 2.3. O­pened. becase in it he had rested from all his works which he had created and made. Whence we may clearly gather,'Tis not said because he should rest, but had rested. that God's resting on the seventh day was in order of time be­fore his blessing and sanctifying of the day: as those words ver. 2. On the seventh day God rested from all his works which he had made, See Mr. White of Dorchester Gen. 2. imply the making of the works before God's resting; so ver. 3. He blessed and sanctified the se­venth day, because in it he had rested, must needs intimate, that God's resting on the seventh day went before his san­ctifying of the day, or setting it apart for a Sabbath: Not long before I grant,As Chap. 1. where Moses re­lates God's six daies works as finished by him, then follow­eth the blessing upon them. So in the 2. Chap. he makes the blessing to follow upon Gods resting, as before upon his working. but evident­ly long enough to discharge our first parents by virtue of those words from any obligation to keep the first Sabbath. And whereas T.T. ar­gues, that the Sabbath was made for man, and if Adam were a man, the Sabbath was made for him; I grant the whole argument, onely with this distinction, That although it was made for man, yet it follows not that it was made for man as soon as man was made. Neither has he alledged any one text of Scrip­ture (Valeat quantum valere potest) of sufficient evidence to support his grand conclusion, That the seventh-day-Sab­bath was instituted and observed in pure Paradise. Which if itYet I grant it not. should be granted him, yet his feeble cause would receive no invincible strength by it. For although it would prove a Sabbath, and a weekly Sabbath, one day in seven to be moral and perpetual (which I deny not) (and herein I could joyn issue with the contrary-minded) yet what is this to the perpetuity and immutability of that old seventh day? since in the judgment of all Interpreters, both antient and modern (except Jews) onely one day in seven, or a seventh part of weekly time is here perpetually established, that old seventh day onely temporarily, and during the state [Page 16]of the old world. So Chrysostome; Here (saies he,) from the beginning God has intimated to us this doctrine, [...], Chrysost. Hom. 19. in Gen. 2. instructing us to set apart one day in the circle of every week for spiritual ex­ercises. Note by the way, he saies not it is ex­presly determined here, (that is, left for the fourth Commandement) but it is intimated and implied here. And the like saies Junius. But to draw to a conclusion; I suppose it is more then probably demonstrative (If I may so speak without a Soloecism) that the old Sab­bath was instituted (though in the beginning) yet after the Fall, in man's corrupt estate, when he had put off his publick capacity as the representative of mankind, and was looked upon as a single person, yea a sinful person, and one that stood in need of a Redeemer; and so the day must needs be alterable, as shall be shortly argued and evinced. How­ever, if we should suppose the date of the Sabbaths institu­tion to be utterly uncertain, as the institution of Sacrifices is, I see not but this may argue (as to the day) mutabili­ty stamped upon it. It is true, the solemne worship of God is unalterable, as long as there is a God to be wor­shipped; but the old way of worship by Sacrifices was mu­table from the very first original of it. Thus I grant the time of worship,Rom. 12.1. Chrys. in Hebr. Hom. 11. Basil. in Isai. c. 20. the Sabbath it self, being an inseparable adjunct of solemne worship, is perpetual; but the old day, the seventh from the Creation; was made mutable in the first institution of it. Indeed in some sense we have sacri­fices still, spiritual sacrifices; and we have a Sabbath still, yeaMat. 24.20. a literal Sabbath: But old Sabbaths and old Sacrifices being twins, (though both honorable, and serviceable in their generations) yet like Hippocrates twins they lived to­gether and died together, and let both together in God's name be buried in the grave of Christ, so as never to rise a­gain.2 Cor. 5.15, 17. But let our Gospel-worship and Gospel-Sabbath take life from our Saviour's Resurrection, which brought with it a new Creation, a new World, making all things new, as the Apostle speaks.

2. That the old seventh day was made alterable in the first institution, will further appear, if we consider the Law or command by which it was instituted; which is no where to be found but in Gen. 2.3. As for the Law written in A­dam's breast, it is too dark to ground an institution upon. We must have a Law written in God's book. And there is no other that I know of but Gen. 2.3. which if I grant the Adversary to be a command (for some do stiffly deny it) yet I must be bold to tell him, it is but a consequential command: For although it be said, God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it; yet it is not said, Let man sanctifie it. Here is included God's example, but no express com­mand. And if the New Testament do not afford us as much warrant for the Lord's day as this amounts to, I will yield the Cause. But of that hereafter. Let the Reader one­ly take notice (by the way) how mortally T. T. hath wounded his own cause,Pa. 36. by exclaiming so bitterly against Consequences. He calls it Philosophie, and the deceit of men to establish Ordinances by Consequences. Why let me ask him, Was the Patriarchal Sabbath for above two thou­sand years together an Ordinance of God? for my part I never doubted of it. But he can never make it good with­out a Consequence, he must make a new Bible first; for express command there is none, onely God's example, which without a precept is not alwayes binding. And so (to use his own words) the Lord hath disappointed the devi­ces of the crafty, and snared him in his own wisdom, he dig­ged a pit for the Lord's day, and his Saturdays Sabbath is fallen into it, help it out how he can. For his life he can find no more in Gen. 2. then an implicit command for that old seventh day. And now the next question will be, Whe­ther it be a temporary, or a perpetual precept? If perpetu­al, it must be moral. But that it cannot be by his own rule; for he has fairly granted, That a Moral Law is not meerly good because commanded, but therefore commanded be­cause it is good: understand it of a Moral natural Law. Now I beseech you, Sir, what natural goodness was there [Page 18]in the seventh day more then in the sixth or fifth? Is one day in it self any better then another as to God? And as to man, if any day had been naturally or morally good above the rest,Gen. 1.28. Psal. 8.56. in all reason it had been the sixth day, on which God made man, crowned him with his blessings, and gave him dominion over his creatures; or the first day, in which he made the heavens, the Angels, and the elements. Therefore his threefold mystery to the seventh-days mora­lity, is but a threefold miserable mistake, to make the best of it.

1. That it was written in innocent Adam's heart; for which he cites Rom. 2. where there is not a word of any such thing. [...]. 10.11.

2. That it was afterwards written in Tables of stone; for which he quotes Gal. 3.19. as little to his purpose as the other.

3. That it is also written in the fleshly tables of renewed hearts: which the experience of almost all renewed hearts in heaven and earth does contradict. For to speak in the language of Eliphas, Job 5.1. S. Paul Col. 2.16, 17. Call now if there be any that will an­swer thee; and to which of the Saints wilt thou turn? ei­ther Scripture-Saints,Cyprian cp. ad Fidum. 59. Chryso. Tom de Res. or Church Saints? Ask S. Paul, S. Cyprian, S. Chrysostom, S. Augustine, and they will tell you that your antiquated Sabbath was so far from being written in their hearts, that they have written against it with their pens.August. de lit. & Spir. c. 14. Turn over the works of the eminent Fa­thers, whose books neither you nor I are worthy to bear, and their writings are so voluminous that we are not able to bear them.Mr. Cawdrey. Mr. Palmer. Mr. Sheph. Mr. Byfield. Mr. White of Dorch. and the whole Assem­bly of Divines Confe. of faith. Chap. 21. Add to these, the most judicious, pious and zealous Ministers and Martyrs of Christ, who have lived and died within the compass of these sixteen hundred years; and most, if not all of them, will tell you, That they never owned your Saturday-Sabbath; they lived without it, dy­ed without it, and are (I doubt not) gone to their ever­lasting rest in heaven without it. Besides, how many faith­ful witnesses of late years has the Lord raised up to bear te­stimony against it? of whom I suppose the greatest part [Page 19]are yet alive, though some are fallen asleep. In a word,God has promi­sed to write his laws in the hearts of all his people. Jer. 31.33. Hebr. 8.10, Char. 16. But not one of ten thousand has the Saturday-Sabbath writ­ten in his heart; therefore it is now none of Gods laws. how many precious, gracious and pious Christians are yet upon earth, men and women redeemed from the earth, and cru­cified to the world (of whom the world is not worthy) who look upon your Sabbath as a cypher? can freely labour and travel upon it, buy and sell upon it, and that after ac­curate inquiries about it; and to this day their consciences never reproched them, their hearts never smote them for it? what will you say all these are Hypocrites, unrenewed, unsanctified ones? This were to condemn the generation of Gods Children, and Canonize your self, with your few misled associates, for the only Saints in Christendome; which I would hope you dare not do, though I know you dare as much as another.

Well, the adversary is brought to this Dilemma; Either God has no people in the world but such as are of his per­swasion, or his moral and immutable Laws are not writ­ten in their hearts, or the Saturday-Sabbath is none of those Lawes. The last is the likeliest in the judgment of any indifferent Reader; let his cause be tryed where he pleases, either at Natures tribunal, or the throne of Grace in the hearts of believers, and he will be cast at both. Na­ture is both blind and dumb in the business; and if he plead the law of Grace (which is rectifyed and refined na­ture) the whole Christian world will give in evidence against him. A Sabbath, a day of holy rest, indeed it will own, and one day of seven in proportion; but the particularity of the day, the seventh from the Creation, it utterly dis­claims. And where he will find advocates for it, but ei­ther among the unbelieving Jews, or a few misbelieving Christians Judaizing, I know not. Therefore surely it is no ingredient of Gods moral and immutable Lawes. The conclusion then is, that it was but a temporary precept by which it was established, which some call ceremonial, others had rather term it positive, but none perpetual, un­less such as are more apt to say anything then able to prove it when then have said it. We deny not the fourth [Page 20]Commandement to be a perpetual precept; but we are now speaking of Gen. 2. which at most is but a positive Law; and positive precepts are alterable at the law-givers plea­sure: yea, though they were given in Paradise, as the precept concerning the forbidden fruit, though it were gi­ven before the fall, and should undoubtedly have bound Adam and all his posterity if he had not fallen;Gen. 2.17. yet now it binds none, neither should it if the tree were known. So also that positive law of keeping and dressing the Garden,Mr. [...] Strange. which to Adam was a binding precept, yet now it is whol­ly abrogated in the letter of it, or else (as one sayes) we must all tag and rag turn gardeners. True, there was something moral, and of the law of na­ture in that precept,Yates Model of Divin. Haec lex na­turalis est conjunctam habens de­signationem diei ceremonialem, quia verò partim naturalis partimque (ut loquuntur Scholae) positiva est. Propterea discrimen oportet in eo or­dine adhiberi, quod enim naturale est, puta diem septimum quemque Deo sacrum esse illud permanet, quod po­sitivum, nempe illum diem qui septi­mus est creationis esse Diem Sabba­thi hoc mutatum est. Juni prae'ec. in Gen. 2. p. 27. man must alwayes be exercised and imployed, the earth (his store-house) must also be his work-house; Idleness and happiness could never consist together. But that his imployment must be limited to the culture of a Garden that was meerly po­sitive. The like may be said for the Law of the Sabbath (supposing not granting it had been given in paradise) that man should celebrate a Sabbath was moral and perpetual, but that it must be on the seventh day from the Creation, was meerly positive, tempo­rary, and alterable at the law-givers pleasure.

And this may serve as a proper Engine to undermine that grand argument founded on the institution of marriage. P. 155. The Sabbath is a precept (saith he) as ancient, as Ʋniversal as marriage, both were instituted in paradise for Adam and all his posterity.

Ans. We grant that the institution of marriage was made in pure paradise, which ever since has made it hono­rable amongst all men, Heb. 13.4. And thus far we also grant the first institution is a perpetual obligation, viz. That one man is bound to one woman; yet I hope no [Page 21]man is tyed by that first institution to make choice of this or that particular woman; but he is at liberty to marry whom he lists (provided it be in the Lord;) so also admit­ting the Sabbath to be instituted in paradise; yet I can see no reason why it should limit us to that particular day, but (that notwithstanding) we may observe any other day that shall appear to be of the Lords appointment, as the first day of the week infallibly is, and therefore it bears the Lords name, being styled the Lords Day by way of e­minency. Indeed now the day is fixed, and we cannot chuse another, nor change it to another,Psa 118.29. Rev. 1.10. for reasons here­after to be rendered. But enough is said to prove the com­mand (whatever it was, whereby the old Sabbath was instituted) to be but temporary, though it had been gi­ven in Innocency. A positive precept given in innocency might suffer much alteration by mans apostasie:Mr. Sheph. Thes. 17.19. For (to borrow the words of a reverend Author) the sin of man made the Lord repent that ever he had made man, and con­sequently that ever he made the world for man; which might be a sufficient ground of the Law-givers pleasure to alter and change the day stated upon the worlds Creation, to another day stated upon the worlds Redemption, of which the Lord will never repent. Now if a precept or institution given before the fall might be mutable at the Law givers pleasure, how much more this of the seventh day which was rather imposed since the fall, as the institu­tion of Sacrifices, the prohibition of blood, &c. Gen. 9.4.

3. That the old seventh day was made alterable in the first institution of the Sabbath, is most of all evident from the ground or occasion upon which it was instituted; and this is hinted unto us in those words, Gen. 2.2.See Ainsworth annot. in Gen. 2.2 On the seventh day God ended his works which he had made, and rested the seventh day, wherefore he blessed and sanctified it. Now it much concerns us to enquire in what sense the Lord is said to have ended his works on the seventh day? since we must not imagine with Hierome and Catharinus that God made any new creatures on the seventh day; for [Page 22]doubtless the creation was finished on the sixth day. How then it is said, on the seventh day God ended his works? Why, without resting and torturing the words, as some do, we may understand it in one or both of these two respects; either

• 1. In respect of Providence: or,
• 2. In respect of the Promise.

1. In respect of Providence; So judicious Mr. White in Gen. 2. and why may not this be the meaning of the holy Ghost, That on the seventh day God was pleased by a signal hand of Providence to perfect his works of Creations, either by establishing them to continue as they do this day, or at least by manifesting their accomplishment in his rest and cessation from Creating-work? Take the word (Ended) in this sense, and so it informs us, that the ground of Gods sanctifying the se­venth day, was not simply his rest upon that day but also the reason of that rest,Heb. 4. v. 3.4. namely the fi­nishing of his works, witnessed by his resting, as the Au­thor to the Hebrews plainly intimates. And not only that, but also the result and consequent of both, namely the dig­nifying and honouring of that day above all other dayes for the time being, by crowning it with the accomplish­ment of the greatest work then made, or manifested to be made perfect.Isa. 58.3. Hence the seventh day was styled, The Honorable of the Lord; not that in it self one day is more honorable and observable then another, but that which differences the one from the other, and dignifies one a­bove another, is Gods casting honour upon it by some me­morable work of Providence, either begun or finished upon that day. Upon which account most of the Jewes Festivals were instituted; as their Passeover in the 14th of Abib; Lev. 23.5. Esth. 9.21. the Feast of Purim on the 14th of Adar; like our Gunpowder-treason-day, on the 5. of November: because the noble acts of God have been done upon these dayes. And this was a main ground of their weekly Sab­bath upon the seventh day; being a day crowned with the greatest work then visible, a work manifested to be finish­ed [Page 23]on the seventh day, by Gods resting on that day. Yet this must be noted, that the finishing of Gods work did not make the day more honorable then others by any na­tural necessity, but only by positive right and equity. There was no necessary and natural cause why the seventh day, on which the work was declaratively ended, should be more honorable then the sixth day, on which it was really ended and finished, only it was Gods will and pleasure to have it so. Having premised this by the way; now let us see how the old Sabbath was founded upon the finishing of his works: As thus; That day which God hath ho­noured and crowned with the accomplishment of the grea­test work, must be the day of solemn worship or Sabbath-day: But the seventh day from the Creation was thus ho­noured and crowned in the Cradle or infancy of the world: Therefore that day must be the Sabbath day, viz. till a greater work take place. And then the argument will conclude as strongly for the change of the day, as ever it did for the choice of it.

For we shall argue thus; If the ground of stating the Sabbath on the seventh day were applicable to another day, then the Sabbath in the first ground-work of it was altera­ble to another day: But the ground of stating it upon that old seventh day was applicable to another day, therefore, &c.

The consequence is cleere as the Sun; for as it is with duties, so with dayes of worship; the grounds upon which they are setled being applicable to other times and places, the dayes and duties themselves have alwayes been movea­ble and circumstantially mutable also; as that duty of re­verencing of Gods Sanctuary (which is mated and coupled with keeping his Sabbaths) the ground of it being appli­cable to the Temple as well as the Tabernacle,Levit. 19.30. the duty it self was also moveable from the Tabernacle to the Temple, although the first were only in being when the precept was given. And the like must be said of the Sabbath: The consequence hath evidence enough in it self to every vulgar eye. If the foundation be moveable, so is the building. [Page 24]If the Assumption be questioned, viz. That the ground of fixing the Sabbath on the seventh day was moveable and applicable to another day, we shall thus confirm it; The ground of fixing the Sabbath on the old seventh day was Gods honouring and advancing that day above all other dayes (for the time being) by his most eminent work of Creation, manifested to be accomplished on that day; therefore when another day shall be crowned with the ac­complishment of a more eminent Creation, the same ground and reason which cast the Sabbath on the old day will una­voidably carry it to the new. Now the work of Redemp­tion is a new Creation, 2 Cor. 5.17. and it was long a­go prophesied, that as theHag. 2.9. glory of the second Temple should out shine that of the first, so the glory of this new Creation should excell that of the old, and comparatively eate out the memory of it.Isai. 65.17. Behold, I create new heavens and a new earth, sayes the Lord, and the old shall not be remembered nor come into mind. Not that the Lord would simply and absolutely have the memory of the Crea­tion to be lessened, but respectively and in comparison of Redemption,; it must not be obliterated, but only subor­dinated: retained and remembred it must be still, but as a lesser work then Redemption, and as a lesser good to us, as the Law is to the Gospel, or the Old Testament to the New. Redemption must be owned as the greater and better work, in as much as Spiritual things are better then Natural, and Gods last works are his best; the first being only preparative to the last, as Dr. Sibbs excel­lently observes.Mat. 16.26. Mark 8.36. And verily he that shall question whe­ther Redemption be a greater and better work then Creati­on, knows little what a Redeemer is, or what the ransome of an immortal soul is worth.See Mr. Phil. Goodw. Dies Dominic. rediv. pa. 11.12, 13. I should think, as mans gaining the world cannot recompense the loss of his soul, so Gods creating of the world doth not equalize Christs redeeming the soul. In creating the world indeed the Lord has done much for me; but in shedding his precious blood, in conquering sin and death, he hath done more then if he [Page 25]had created another world for me. Let the redeemed of the Lord say so; yea, the work is not only better to me, but greater in it self too. In creation there was but a words speaking, and the work was presently done;2 Cor. 5.21. Gal. 3.13. See more in Dr. Gouge Heb. 9. S. 63. but in Redemption there was doing and dying; God must come down from heaven, God must be made man, yea, God-man must be made sin and a curse for me. Here was a work ex­ceeding wonder. Besides, in the work of Creation there was nothing to with stand: But in the work of Redemption here was Justice against Mercy, wrath against pity. In a word, in the Creation God brought something out of nothing, but in re­demption he hath out of one contrary brought another, good out of evil, life out of death. Is not thy soul ravished, Christi­an, at these discoveries of wisdome, grace and power shining forth in thy souls Redemption? Canst thou see the like in the worlds Creation? Is there not more glory in one Christ then in many worlds? What a sapless, unsavory question therefore to a soul that knows any thing of Christ,Pa. 130. is that which T. T. propounds; Who told thee the work of Redempti­on was the greater work? A question more beseeming a Jew then a Christian. But the answer is ready at hand; He that hath told me the heavens are the works of hisPsalm 8.3. fingers, and Redemption the work of hisIsal. 52.9, 10. arm, his out­stretched, unbared arm, hath sufficiently taught me that Redemption is the greater work, a work of greater might, I am sure of greater mercy. And so for his next question, If it be the greater work, who told thee that it deserves the honour of the day? I answer, a wiser and better man then you or I, that man after Gods own heart, who was most likely to know the mind of the Lord, he has foretold it in that 118th Psalm, when by a prophetick spirit foreseeing the glory of the resurrection day as a day amongst the seven dayes, like the Sun amongst the seven planets, he accordingly salutes it with a magnificent Title, This is the day which the Lord hath made, yea magnified; for the word signifies not only to make, but to magnifie and advance above all others:1 Sam. 12.6. And such was the power of God in raising Christ, hat the Psalmist cryes our, it is mar­vellous in our sight. Acts 4.10.11. [...] est vel imus vel summus lapis. Arretius in 1 Pet. 2.7. Mat. 11.11. As by the same word the Lord is said to advance [Page 26] Moses and Aaron, [...] that is, to lift them up in dignity and preeminency above the rest of the people. Thus he fore­saw that the Lord would magnifie and exalt the resurrecti­on day; and why? Because on this day the most glorious work of redemption was to be accomplished, the stone which the builders resused being made the head of the corner, i. e. to perfect and complete the fabrick of the new Crea­tion. And thus is the resurrection-day prophetically crowned with honour above all other dayes, Old Sabbath and all: For the work crowns the day, and the greater the work the greater the day. And therefore although the last day of the week were the greatest in dignity during the supereminency of the old Creation, yet when a greater work was to be finished, the day on which it was to con­clude must without dispute be the greater day. As John Baptist being the last and greatest of the prophets, yet was lesse then the least in the Kingdome of heaven; so I may say of the Old Sabbath, the greatest day under the Old Testament, yet it must vail and stoop when the Sun of righte­ousness shines forth in a new day under the New Testament. Surely the second Creation must have a Sabbath of comme­moration as well as the first, or else God should magnifie his lesser work of Creation above his greater work of Re­demption. And thus I suppose I have made good my Po­sition both Logically and Theologically, that the old seventh day was alterable in its first institution, since the same ground of stating the Sabbath at first upon that day might be a sufficient ground of translating it to another day, as now it is; and that by Divine Authority, as shall be seen hereafter.

The adversary has no considerable weapons to oppose this truth withal, but what have been already beaten out of Mr. Brabourns hands, and are sufficiently blunted by o­thers; or if any new ones be added, we shall now try what mettal they are made of. Obj. 1 T.T. p. 7.

The seventh day (sayes he) was set apart in memorial of the most glorious work of Creation; the benefit whereof being extended to us, p. 69. engageth us to that day still. And [Page 27]again; The world being created not only for Israel but for all people, I appeal to all conscientious Christians, whether all mankind be not bound to that very day who enjoy the be­nefit of the Creation. (By the way let me tell him, when I read his insulting challenge, I expected Scripture-argu­ments, and not popular appeals.) But to let him swim in his own element, the sum of his appealing (for arguing I cannot call it) amounts but to this, that if the old seventh day were set apart in memory of the Creation, which every Christian (as a creature) is bound to commemorate, then the day is unchangeable, & perpetually to be observed.

But to this I answer; The consequence is sick and crasie, Answer. and therefore it can produce but a weak conclusion. For first, the Covenant of grace (I suppose) is as ancient as the old Sabbath, I am sure as eminent a mercy as the oc­casion of the Sabbath: And doubtless to every true-hearted Christian the memory of Gods Covenant is and ought to be as precious as the memory of the worlds Creation; yet I hope he will not say that circumcision and sacrifices, (the old memorials of the Covenant) are therefore still in force, or ought to be still in use among Christians who are interested in that Covenant. And the like may I say of the Saturday-Sabbath: Let none object the disparity be­tween the Old Sabbath and circumcision, for they are both clad in a livery of the same colour, in many things they do much resemble one another. WasGen. 17.11. circumcision a sign betwixt God and the seed of Abraham? so was theExod. 31.17. old Sabbath betwixt God and the house of Israel. WasGen. 17.7. cir­cumcision a perpetual Covenant with Abrahams seed in their generation? So also was theExod. 31.16. Sabbath to be kept as a perpetual Covenant throughout their generations.

In a word, wasGen. 17.14. circumcision so exacted, that whosoever was uncircumcised must be cut off from the house of Is­rael? why, so also was the oldExod. 31.14. Sabbath, whosoever doth a­ny work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among the people. Again, let none tax me with incongruity in comparing the old Sabbath and sacrifices together; for [Page 28]the Lord of the Sabbath himself hath taught me to lay them in an equal ballance, who when the Pharisees clamou­red his Disciples for Sabbath breaking, stops their mouths with thatHos. 6.6. Mat. 12.7. Pluris apud De um salus morta­lium quàms cri­fi. iapecudum. Muscul. in Loc. Scripture, The Lord will have merey and not socrifice: That is, the necessities of men relieved, rather then the supposed letter of the Law observed. In my poor judgment it is very considerable, that such a person, at such a time, should match the Sabbath day and sacrifices toge­ther; for it was not the Sabbath in general, but the Sab­bath day which was then under dispute. Surely there was some mystery in this Divinity of our Saviour. But this may suffice for a first answer; As the Covenant of grace is perpetually to be commemorated, but not by circumcision and sacrifices, the old memorials of it; so the work of crea­tion is continually to be had in remembrace, but not by the old Sabbaths celebration: For we say, as the new Covenant must have new signs, so the new creation a new Sabbath. And

2. A new day might keep alive the memory of the old Creation,Meditatio & celebratio ope­rum Dei non minus alio die quàm septimofi­cri potest. Ursin. although it be primarily intended as a me­morial of redemption. And this double honour is put up­on the Lords day, as the first day of the week, it comme­morates the worlds redemption, as the seventh day in weekly recourse it calls to mind the worlds Creation. For in labouring six dayes, and resting the seventh weekly, we recognize Gods working six dayes, and resting the seventh originally. And here I may as rationally as T.T. appeal to any ingenuous Christian, if the Old Sabbath served the Jews as a means to keep them mindful both of the worlds Creation, and their redemption from Egypt; why may not our Lords day Sabbath be the Christians memorandum, both of the worlds Creation,Deut. 5.15. and his Redemption from hell? Of the last most directly indeed, and that most deservedly, being the greatest work and the richest mercy; For although tis true, to have an earth to tread upon, an aire to breath in, light to look upon, creatures to live upon, are excellent mercies; yet to have an angry God reconciled, a sinful nature repaired, Death and Hell vanquished, Heaven and [Page 29]glory purchased and assured, is infinitely more blessed, more beneficial. To conclude; If I must consecrate a weekly Sabbath to the Lord, what day more proper, more suita­ble, more significant, then that which bears a lively inscri­ptior of the Lord my Redeemer, not without some comme­moration of God my Creator?

But the old seventh day may still he retained in memory of the Creation, and the Lords day be celebrated too in me­mory of Redemption (though not as a Sabbath;) both dayes may lovingly live together among Christians redeemed from the earth. Obj 2 T.T. p. 61, 62.

To this I may easily answer without any great study, Answ. that the constant celebration of two dayes in a week is more then the Law requires, or the Gospel allowes. More then the law requires; for that calls but for one day in seven; Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy, not Sabbath-dayes.Exod. 20 8. Again, six dayes shalt thou labour, not five dayes. Chrysostomes descant upon it is very pithy:Tom. 5. p. 5 23. ‘The week contains seven dayes (sayes he;) Now see how the Lord hath distributed these dayes; he hath not taken the grea­test part to himself, and left us the least, neither has he taken half, and left half, requiring three for himself, and leaving us but three; no, the Lord is more liberal, he hath given thee six, and taken but one for himself So he.’ And indeed the Law saith the same. I know it is disputed whether these words (six dayes thou shalt labour) be preceptive or permissive only: but to me it is past dispute that they carry a preceptive force; for the injunction of working six dayes is delivered in the same commanding terms, v. 9. with the inhibition of work on the seventh day, v. 10. T.Ts. gloss therefore falls to the ground,Exod., 20.9. [...] Exod. 10.10. [...] Six dayes shalt thou labour, that is, God gives thee leave (sayes he;) as if it were but a bare permission. Or, six dayes thou wilt labour; pointing out the creatures earthly inclination, as if there were a prediction in the words. But let me advise him in the fear of God to read over the Commande­ment once more, not as he would have it, but as it is in [Page 30]the Original (since he professes skill in the language of Canaan;) and then I shall ask him, whether those words verse 10. (On the seventh day thou shalt do no worke) be not imperative? If so, why not also these (Six dayes shalt thou labour) since the forme of speech is one and the same? It nothing helpes him, that the word is otherwise translated Exod. 31.15. six dayes may worke be done; for whate­ver the translation be, the tense is the same; and it may as well be rendred (shall) as (may.) And so learned Ains­worth reades it. And thus his Critical flourish proves but an empty flash. For my part I look upon these words (Six dayes shalt thou labour) as having the force and vertue of a precept and command in them; not directly injoyning us to labour upon any day (for that belongs rather to the 8th Commandment;) but injoyning us such a proportion of time,Eph. 4.28. Among the Jewes when holy dayes were so frequent, there was never any weekly holy day or­dained to go cheeke by jole with the Sabbath: But their holy dayes were either monethly or yearly. Mr. George Abbot. p 118. Periculum mortis tollit Sabba­thum, & necessitas non habet feri­as. (six dayes together) within the compass of which our labours must be confined. 'Tis as if the Lord had said, Thou shalt not ordinarily labour more nor less then six dayes together, nor rest more or less then one in seven ordinari­ly. That God was pleased to appoint the Jews a greater number of holy dayes, as Passeover, Pentecost, &c. and so a les­ser number of working-dayes, was only in extraordinary cases, as our fasting-dayes and thanksgi­ving-dayes are. The fourth Commandment was to be the standing rule only for ordinary time both of weekly work and weekly rest. And as those words (on the se­venth day thou shalt doe no work) hinder not but souldiers in time of war may fight a battel, and Citizens in case of fire breaking out may quench the flames upon the Sabbath day;It was never the Apostles meaning, nor in their power, when God by a perpetual Law had given us six dayes for labour, and destined a seventh for rest, to turn it into five dayes labour, and two dayes rest. Idem ibid. the precept interdicting only the servile works of our ordinary callings: In like manner these words (six [Page 31]dayes shalt thou labour) hinder not but in case of extraor­dinary judgements, or unusual mercies, we may set apart dayes of prayer and of praise: but ordinarily and week­ly to keep two dayes of rest, and leave but five dayes for labour, is utterly inconsistent with the fourth Command­ment. And here a word with our new Sabbath-keepers at Colchester; you are erroneously taught to think you are bound in conscience to rest from labour two dayes eve­ry week, else you are woful earth-wormes, miserable worldlings dunghill drudges, and what not? Now I beseech you bring conscience to the rule; hath not God said, six dayes shalt thou labour? and will you listen to man contra­dicting God, and telling you, nay, thou shalt labour but five dayes only? What Antichristian usurpation and Tyran­nical imposing upon mens consciences is this, to tell them in Print, (as T.T. does) It is not one day in seven will serve your turn when the books shall be opened? Why,p 3. Why, what are those books? Shall not the book of the law be one of them? And what is written there? How readest thou? Is it not plain, six dayes shalt thou labour, and do all thy work? Blot this clause out of Gods book,Deut. 12.32. or alter the figure, and write five instead of six. And be sure God will blot out thy name out of the book of life. Consider this, you that suffer your consciences to be mancipated and en­slaved to the dictates of Man. Either you must make the week longer by a day, or confess, in limiting conscience to five dayes only for labour, you break the Law under a pretence of keeping it; yea, you totally make void the Commandment of the living God, in subverting the equity of it; this is one thing The letter of the Law will bear but one day in seven for holy rest; yea, the li­berty of the Gospel will allow no more ordinarily.Rom. 3.21. For do we by faith make void the law? God forbid. Nay, rather we establish the law: Yet if we allow but five dayes in the week for labour, we must unavoidably make void the law in this particular. And besides, the observation of dayes, legal dayes, is disputed against by the great Apostle, [Page 23]as contrary to Christian liberty. It is but a poor evasion to say,Col. 2.16. Gal. 4. [...]0. com­pared with Gal. 5.1. The Apostle speaks only of festival dayes, Passeover, Pentecost, and the like; for if these were inconsistent with Gospel-liberty (as the adversary grants) how much more two dayes every week? which amount to more at the years end then all those Jewish festivals twice told.The Church in the Apostles time had no other holy day besides the Lords day. And the fourth Com­mandment enjoyns the labour of six dayes. Mr. Perkins in Galat. Let him therefore sadly consider the dangerous consequences of his errour, forcing him at once both to break the bonds of Christian unity, and the bounds of Christian liberty; yea, to render the golden yoke of Christs Gospel heavier then the Iron yoke of Moses Law. But his wretched design is visible, in pressing two dayes in a week he would sup­presse one. The old seventh day must be kept as a Sabbath, the Lords day only as a Church holy-day, or State holy-day rather, for he calls it mans Sabbath. But I beseech you, what has man to do to appoint a weekly holy-day, contrary to Gods expresse command of six dayes for labour? If the Lords day be of mans making, you sin in keeping of it.Psalm 118.24. But if it be a day of Gods making (as the Scripture sayes) then you sin in keeping any other weekly day besides it. And to close all, let me adde this which will not easily be answer­ed; To keep the old seventh day as a Sabbath in memory of the Creation, and the Lords day only as a lesser holy-day in memory of Redemption, is to place the greater honour upon the lesser work, and to professe that we are lesse ingaged to Christ for shedding his blood to redeem the world, then to God the Father for speaking the word to create the world; which how it can stand with that Gos­pel-precept of honouring the Son as we honour the Father,John 5.23. let any sober Christian judg. Thus we have considered the ground of the Sabbaths institution in the first sense, as Gods ending his work may be understood in respect of Providence. But

2. Secondly and chiefly, God may be said to have ended his work on the seventh day, in respect of the promise then [Page 33]manifested to have been given by Christs actual undertak­ing the work of his Mediatorship, and the Fathers rest or complacency in that blessed undertaking of the Son. And here I doubt not but we shall make it appear by the light of Gods candle shining in the Scriptures, that the first institution of the seventh day was founded not so much upon the memory of the Creation, as upon the first publication of Christ in the promise; and then it will un­deniably follow, that the day was made mutable in the first foundation of it. For a day fixed upon the making of a promise must needs be changed upon the making good of that promise. To make way for the framing of my argument, I shall premise these seven considerati­ons:

1. That man sinned and fell the same day on which he was created, as has been already argued, and shall be fur­ther proved in the close of this position: neither should it seem improbable or incredible to any, that so goodly a building should be raised and ruinated both in one day; considering the foundation of it stood upon the tottering Sands of free-will, not the impregnable rock of free-grace and Christs righteousness.

2. As man fell suddenly, so Christ was promised seaso­nably and early. The merciful Lord would not let the Sun go down upon his wrath; but in the cool of the day, while the wound of mans fall was yet fresh and bleeding, he gave him that soveraign plaster in the promise,Gen. 3.15. The seed of the woman shall bruise the Serpents head.

3. That the fall of man brought corruption and confu­sion upon the whole Creation,Gen. 3.17, 18. Rom. 8.21, 22. subjecting it to the curse of God, the consequences whereof are misery and vani­ty.

4. That therefore when it is said, Gen. 2.2. On the se­venth day God ended or perfected his work (for so the word may be rendered, and so it is, Ezek. 16.14.) it may well bear this construction, that upon the seventh day, [...] by the actual undertaking of Christ (newly promised to bring [Page 34]about mans redemption,So 2 Chron. 4 12. and the worlds restauration, the creatures were brought into a better state then they were in before,See more of this in that learned Trea­tise of Mr. G Walker, intitu­led the Do­ctrine of the Sabbath. as corrupted and defaced by the sin of man. This is certain, that upon the sixth day the creation was dispatch­ed and fully perfected, as to natural perfection. Therefore when it is said, on the seventh day God perfected his works, it may well be understood of a further and higher degree of perfection, even that which was supernatural, shewing a higher and more excellent end of all things created then that which at first they were created unto. At least it im­plyes such a perfection as consisted in the creatures restaura­tion by the mediation of Christ, which made way for the setting of all to rights again. A most blessed and seaso­nable transaction for a sin-shattered world, which had cer­tainly been demolished and laine buried in its own ruines, had not the blessed Son of God put to his gracious helping­hand. These are no humane fancies, forColos. 1.17. Heb. 1.3. Psal. 75.3. the Scriptures do abundantly testifie that the Lord Christ is the great sup­porter and repairer of the Creation; without whom we have reason to think that the Sun would not shine one day, nor the world stand one moment. Hence

5. It followes that God rested on the seventh day: That is, not only ceased from his work, but found rest in his Son; he rested and was refreshed, Exod. 31.17 that is, with a rest full of sweetness and delight, such as he finds only in Christ in whom his soul delighteth, Isai. 42.2. And hence again it is said,

6. That God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it; how did he blesse it, but by ordaining it as a day of Grace and spiritual blessings to the souls of his people during the Old Testament? Now this kind of blessing was utterly inconsistent with that covenant of works made with Adam in the state of innocency; there was no Grace, no Christ in that Covenant: But all spiritual blessings flow from Christ that fountain of the Gardens.Eph. 1.3. [...]. Therefore blessed be God sayes that blessed Apostle) who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly things in Christ Jesns. Did [Page 35]the Lord then ordain the seventh day to be a day of spiri­tual blessings to the souls of his people? Why still this strongly argues that Christ in the promise lay at the bottom of that day in the first designation of it; for he was that blessed seed in whom it was all along promised that the nations and families of the earth should be blessed. I would ask T.T. and his followers whether the blessings which they expect by vertue of the old Sabbaths Institution be new Covenant-blessings? If so, then they cannot deny but the day thus blessed was bottomed upon Christ, The foundation of the new Covenant.Isai. 42.6. I say upon Christ in the promise, that renowned promise of blessed memory, the seed of the woman shall bruise the Serpents head; which promise was first made to Adam the father of men, Gen. 3.15 and afterwards renewed toGen. 12.3. & c. 18.22. & c. 28.4. Abraham the father of the faithful; then to David and others in after-ages, till at last it was fully accomplished by the most glorious resurrection of Christ from the dead, whereby he trode on the Serpents head, and all to-bruised it. This consideration will out deep in the adversaries cause: and to set the better edge upon it, let it be further considered.

7. And lastly, the Holy Ghost has fully assured us, that Christ in the promise was of the same antiquity with the confessed ground of the seventh dayes Sabbath.Heb. 3.3, 4. The Apostle confesses that one ground or occasion of singling out that precise seventh day was Gods ending his work, evidenced by his entring upon his rest. And when this was done, the same Apostle in the same place informs us, the works (sayes he) were finished from the foundation of the world. Now hear another Apostle (guided by the same Spirit) speaking of Christ in the same terms, not dif­fering in a tittle,Revel. 13.8. [...]. Ob­serve the diffe­rence between [...] and [...], the one signifies from, the other before, Joh. 17.24. Eph. 1.4. Thus he styles him the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world: he does not say the Lomb slain before the foundation of the world, as if it intended Christ in the eternal purpose of God; but from the foundation of the world, which clearly speaks Christ in the promise of Godfrom the beginning.

Now by the foot-steps of these two Texts compared, how visibly may we trace the Antiquity of Christ in the promise, and find a Saviour promised before a Sabbath instituted? The seventh day-Sabbath was instituted upon Gods finishing of his works; now as the works were finished from the foundation of the world, so Christ was slain from the foundation of the world; slain, I say, in respect of his Fathers promise, and his own personal beginning to undertake that work which he was to perform in a way of suffering and dying; so that when the Father ended his work of Creation, the Son entred upon his work of redemption, and thereby added a further perfection to the first work, Whereupon God rested the seventh day and blessed it: That is, appointed it for a day of spiritual blessings, upon the account of Christ the promised and blessed seed. All which particulars premised, it will be a truth of unque­stionable evidence, that the institution of the old seventh day, was founded and bottomed upon Christ in the promise. And now a dim eye may easily discern mutability lying at the very foundation of the day; and thus it may be demon­strated: A day founded upon Christ in the promise must necessarily be changed when the promise shall be fully ac­complished: Argum. But the old seventh day was founded upon Christ in the promise, as appears by the premises: Therefore, &c.

The proposition needs no confirmation; or if it does, take it thus: If the greatest duty founded upon Christ in the promise was to vary and change with the promise, how much more the day? For instance, the great duty of believing in the Lord Jesus; It cannot be denyed but one and the same Christ was the object of saving faith in all ages, before the law, under the law, and under the Go­spel.Heb. 13.8. Rev. 1.8. Christ Jesus the same yesterday, to day and for ever; being he which was, and which is, and which is to come. And so the faith of Gods elect which was, and is, and is to come, looks to the same object. But yet according to the different state of the object, the eye of faith has had a [Page 37]different and various aspect. Old Testament-believers who went before looked to him that should come after; we that come after in the New Testament, look to him that is gone before. As long as Christ was in the promise they be­lieved in the Messiah to come; now the promise is fulfilled, we believe and know that the Son of God is come. And though still we look for his second coming to judge the world,1 Joh. 5.20. yet his first coming to save the world by his bles­sed Incarnation, his bitter Passion, and glorious resurre­ction, we no longer expect as to come, but look upon as already come and gone. Well then, you see how this great duty of believing circumstantially varies and changes with the promise; and why? because it was founded upon Christ in the promise. And verily, if the old Sabbath had the same foundation (as we have proved) then it must admit of the same variation. As long as Christ con­tinued in the promise, the seventh day from the Creation was the Sabbath day; but now the promise is accomplished theNote that well. day must be altered; for the first foundation upon which it stood is removed. And as we cannot now call that true faith which looks upon the Messiah as yet to come, in the sense above mentioned; so neither can we count that the true Sabbath which leans upon the promise of a Messiah to come. Look to it, if you keep the old seventh day you must keep Christ still in the old promise, and to­gether with the Jews Sabbath profess the Jews faith, the twelfth Article of whose cursed Creed is this; I believe with perfect faith that the Messiah is yet to come. Buxtorf. Sy­nag. c. 1. p. 4. And thus deluded creatures may see what they have gotten by siding with forlorn infidels against the principles and pra­ctises of the Christian world. But I must here resolve a scruple or two, and then I shall put a period to this first part.

You will say, if the old seventh day were founded upon Christ in the promise,Scrup. 1. then it must have been changed as soon as Christ was manifested in the flesh.

It followes not,Resol. 1. for the promise was not fully accom­plished when Christ was manifested in the flesh, but when he was justified in the spirit by his resurrection from the dead, then indeed it was completely fulfilled, as Paul and Barnabas do plainly testifie to the Jews at Antioch, Act. 13.32, 33. Acts 13. The promise which was made unto our fathers, God hath ful­filled the same unto us their Children, [...] adimpleoit. A­rius Mont. in that he hath raised up Jesus again. So that the day of Christs resurrection was infallibly the day of the old Sabbaths expiration; for then the promise upon which it was founded was fully ac­complished; of which more hereafter.

But will not this argument overthrow the duty as well as the day the Sabbath it self as the old seventh day?Scrup. 2

Not in the least;Resol. for a Sabbath or day of rest in general is moral-natural, and so perpetual; but the fixing of it on that precise seventh day was meerly positive, if not ce­remonial: Therefore the particular day may be and is cashiered, and yet the duty (Sabbath or holy rest) still retained; as the duty of solemn fasting is still in force, although the particular day in which the Jewes were ap­pointed to fast is abolished, viz. Levit. 16.29. & ch. 23.27, 29. See Dr Dow­nam Christian Sanc. p. 8, 9. the tenth day of the se­venth moneth. And why may not the duty of solemn resting, as well as the duty of fasting, stand in the fall of the day? That which was circumstantial and shadowy is done away, but that which was substantial and moral still remaineth. And thus we have by Scripture-light found the old Sabbath (as to the day) alterable and changeable in the first institution of it; and have added something by way of overplus, for the actual change of the day: I shall now conclude this first position with the accommo­dation of an Historical passage recorded by Ammianus Marcellinus concerning Julian the Apostate;Ammian. Mar­ [...]l Hist. lib. 23. it is to this purpose: That he (the said Julian) out of enmity to the Christians, projected the rearing up of the Jewish cere­monies, that he might supplant the new religion by the old; and to that intent he encouraged them to rebuild their Temple at Jerusalem, and sent one Alypius into those [Page 39]parts, furnished with treasure to forward the work;Hocque modo e­lemento desti­natius repellen­te cessavit in­ceptum. but no sooner had the work-men attempted to lay the foun­dation, then certain balls of fire bursting out from beneath dissolved their work, and made them desist from their en­terprise. I shall personate none in the application of this, only this I shall say in general, that as the Jews Temple was destroyed on theirDion fol. 748. Sabbath day; so their Sab­bath, yea, their whole Civil and Church-State was dissol­ved together with their Temple. And this grounded con­fidence I have, that whoever shall reare up that antiqua­ted, seventh day, with a design to supplant the new Sabbath by the old, he shall meet with such Sanctuary-fire, such Scripture-light and evidence breaking out from under the foundation of the old day, as shall either burn his fingers, or (which is all the hurt I wish him) enlighten his con­science, that he shall see his error, and confesse (as [...]. Chrys. quod Christus fit De­us. he said of the Temple) that no power or policy of man is a­ble to raise what Christ hath razed.

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

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

• 1. First, Because it was never propounded as the sub­stance of any moral Law.
• 2. Secondly, It seems to be pointed at as a sign under the ceremonial Law.

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

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

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

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

• 1.
  Exod. 20.8.
  The preceptive part; Remember the Sabbath, or day of rest, to keep it holy.
• 2.
  V. 9.10.
  The directive part, Six dayes shalt thou labour, but a seventh is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God, &c.
• 3.
  V. 11.
  The argumentative part, For in six dayes the Lord made heaven and earth, and rested the seventh.
• 4. The benedictive part, or the conclusion, Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and sanctified it.

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

1. We shall examine the Preceptive part, Remember the Sabbath day, or day of rest, to keep it holy. This I hope is not be restrained to the old seventh day: Sabbath and seventh day cannot be terms convertible here, for then there were a tautology in the Commandment, as Mr. Caw­drey observes. It were as if God should say, Remember the seventh day Sabbath, the seventh day is the Sabbath; which is such a flat tautology, as the God of Wisdome will never own in so short a summe of words; No, its [Page 45]evident that hitherto the precept is comprehensive and large, not limitted to one day more then another; for Sabbath day (if you will hear the Hebrew word speak English) is no more but a day of rest, and that is any day set apart for solemn worship by divine authority. It is ap­plicable to the first day of the week as much as ever it was to the last. A judicious Author does piously and pithily illustrate it by that second table precept, Honour the King; Mr. Bernard late of Bat­comb. 1 Pet. 2.17. If Saul be King, honour him, if he be dead or displaced, and David be King, then honour King David. To neither of them directly, but successively, and conse­quentially it might be accommodated to both. So, remem­ber the day of rest to sanctifie it, while the old seventh day was the day of rest, the Jews were bound to sanctifie that; If that be changed, and the first day of the week be chosen in its room, we are as much bound to sanctifie that, and this by the same law; for as the change of the person took not a­way the precept of honouring the King,Hac enim ratione nos quoque proe­ceptum hoc servamus, dum sancti­ficamus diem dominicum, quia hic quietis nobis est dies sicut Judaels fu­it septimus. Zanch. in praec. Col. 2. Syg. so the change of the day made not void the command of sanctifying the Sabbath. And thus, as learned Zanchy tells us; We Christians keep the Sabbath as much as ever the Jewes did in keeping holy the Lords day, which is a day of holy rest as well as their was. For if it be a day of holy rejoycing, it must needs be a day of holy rest, since it is both improper and impossible to keep a set or solemn day as a day of holy rejoycing in Christ, and at the same time to follow our worldly imployments; worldly labour, and the sweat of the brow has too much of the curse in it, to consist with a day of thanksgiving or holy rejoycing in the Lord.The Scripture frequently calls festival dayes Sabbaths; and if Sabbath be a sit name for other dayes of the same nature, Why not for this? And therefore I cannot but wonder that T.T. who grants the Lords day to be a day of rejoycing, according to that of the Psalmist, Let us rejoyce [Page 46]and be glad therein, should deny it to be a Sabbath or a day of holy rest, as he wickedly and profanely doth, calling a mans Sabbath; discovering his enmity against the thing by carping at the name, yea condemning of it; why has he the face to call the Jewish festivals, Sabbaths, or dayes of rest, as being either fasting dayes, or feasting dayes, and yet deny the Lords day this titular honour?Inenaem. Phil. p. 74. Is it a day of less account then the Passeover day, Pentecost day, Expiation day, and other Ceremonial dayes which the Scripture terms Sabbaths?How suitable is a name of rest to a day of rest as the Lords day is? Nay, I have already proved, that it is greater then these, yea greater then the old Sabbath it self; therefore sure its a day of rest, as shall be farther proved in the close of this Treatise. And if this be a day of holy rest, it is as much intended in these words, Remem­ber the Sabbath day to sanctifie it, as ever the Jewes Sabbath was.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What then? Answ. Does it therefore unavoidably follow, that we must observe the same day? the same singular se­venth day we cannot observe, for that is past and gone, therefore it must be such a seventh day, in likeness and cor­respondency to that, and why not such a seventh in num­ber, or one in seven, as well as such as seventh for order, [Page 53]or the last of seven? If you say, the last of seven is in­tended in the argument of Gods example; I answer, every circumstance in an argument is not argumentative; and although that day be intimated in the example, yet it is not so much argumentatively as historically propounded? An example is not to be necessarily imitated in every circum­stance of it. I will make it plain by a parallel and perti­nent instance; I hope you will grant, that we are as much bound to imitate the example of Christ in the celebration of the supper, as the example of God the Father in the observation of the Sabbath; we have a plain command for it, Do this in remembrance of me. What then? does it therefore follow that we are tyed to the same night in which Christ was betrayed? For this is mentioned in the words of institution, and that expresly;1 Cor. 11.23. I have received of the Lord that which I also delivered unto you? that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed tock bread, &c. Mark it, here is Christs institution and exam­ple recommended to us as a rule to guide our practise; and in the proposal of his example, not only the season (in the night) but also the punctual circumstance of it (the same night in which he was betrayed) is set down; what followes from hence? Is this a good argument for Easter-Communions,Haec verba historic am tantummodò relationem, nequaquam verò deter­minatum de tempore mandatum con­tinent Gerar. de S.C Loo. Com. p. 536. ot after sup­per-Sacraments? No such matter, for these circumstances are but historically in timated, not argumentatively propound­ed; yet this I must needs say, we may as well argue for sacrament-celebration the same night in which Christ was betrayed and no other, as for Sabbath-observation the same day, in which God rested and no other. However,If any one ask why we continue the name of the Lords supper, and not the time? we answer. 1. Be­cause we keep it as the Lords sup­per, not our own supper. It re­tains the name from the first ad­ministration. 2. Because we cele­brate it in the evening, though not of the day. this is argumentum ad hominem For T.T. is a great stickler for night-ce­lebration of the supper, and frequently tells us in his book, That Antic hrist changed the Lords supper-time, as well as the Lords Sabbath-time: And I think as much the one as the other. But by the way let me tell him that in argu­ing [Page 54]for the night from Christs example,See Mr. Phil, Goodwin E­vening Com­municant ad fi­nem. he runs himself upon an inevitable necessity of concluding for the same night, in which Christ was betrayed, or else his argument runs a ground, and concludes just nothing; for the same night as well as the night is put into the words of instituti­on: Although I judg that neither the one nor the other is obligatory, because both were occasional. Christ insti­tuted the supper in the evening indeed because it was im­mediately to succeed the Passeover, which was an evening ordinance, and the same evening or night in which he was betrayed, because the next day he was to suffer. Both these were occasional, and therefore neither of them per­petual; and besides, we may well conceive that our Lord did this in the evening, and after the Passeover, to signi­fie the abolishing both of the passeover and the evening; and to leave the time free to his Church ever after, as a late Writer has judiciously observed. Let not the Reader call this a digression,Non est ociosum quia non infru­ctuosum loqua citas nulla in ae­dificatione tur­pis, Tertull. de patientia. for there is properly no digression in that which may conduce to edification; neither is it impertinent as long as it is not unprofitable. But to return to our ar­gument, suppose the old seventh day were indirectly and circumstantially commended to the Jews by Gods example, yet it followes not that the same day is still in force to us, because circumstantials in a moral law (as we said before) are changeable without any change in the substance of the law: I do not say they are abrogable as ceremonies, but alterable as circumstances; they may be changed for better things, and not a tittle of the law annulled, but rather ful­filled by it; according to that of our Saviour, till heaven and earth pass one jot, Mat. 5.18. or one tittle shall not pass from the law till all be fulfilled. I say, the law is not destroyed, but ra­ther fulfilled by the varying of some circumstances, as by changing their typical deliverance from Egypt, into our spiritual deliverance from sin; and the land of Canaan meant in the fifth Commandment into England where we dwell. And because the fourth Commandment and the fifth are neer neighbours, methinks the one may fairly ex­pound [Page 55]the other. It cannot be denyed,Ephes. 6.3. The Apostle in repeat­ing that promise leaves out the words (which the Lord thy God giveth thee) because they were more appropriate to the Jews, and to us the argument is entire with­out them, See Weems. Chris, Syn. that the promised land intended occasi­onally in the fifth Commandment was the land of Canaan; neither do I deny, that the day on which God is said to rest in the fourth Commandment was the se­venth day from Creation; yet all will grant that the argument or inducement of the fifth Commandment is not to be restrained to that land only, for then it were no argument at all to us. Now I would ask any rational man, why the argument of this fourth Commandment should be limited to that particular day from Creation, more then the argument of the fifth Commandment to that particular land of Canaan; since both the one and the other are but occasionally insinuated? And to limit the inducement of a moral law to an occasio­nal circumstance, is the ready way to evacuate and make void the whole law. But we shall put it out of all doubt, that Gods example here propounded is only for one day in seven directly, substantially and properly; for the old se­venth only consequentially, indirectly or occasionally; and that by a double consideration.

• 1. Because it is here urged as a reason of what went before.
• 2. Because the reason of this reason is chiefly for one day in seven.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But we answer, Answ. this pretended absurdity is a meer ca­lumny; we are not so destitute of reason as to render Gods reason in such a mishapen form; we only argue thus, that we must sanctifie one day in seven, because God did so. As for the particular day whether first or last of se­ven, we ground it not directly either upon the precept or example of God; but we say it is instituted elsewhere. And when we have found the institution or designation of the Lords day somewhere else (as shortly we shall) we only go to the Commandment as a rule for the observation of it, and accordingly we urge conscience with Gods ex­ample, not as directly pointing out the day (for so it was never intended) but as perswading us to such a proportion (one day in seven) of his own appointment. And there­fore we reject all his lame consequences, That unless we will cast this absurdity upon God, we must cast off the fourth Commandment, at least the reason of it must be rejected, &c. These are his own coined suppositions, our conclusions are nothing akin to these wild inferences, as any man may see that has but half an eye in this controversie. As for those popular passages up and down his book, That if the day be changed more then a tittle of the Law is abrogated; I look upon them as words' of course (which in a Contro­versie weigh no more then a feather) yea, as beggerly fal­lacies, for they all along begge the question, taking that for granted, which hath been soundly whipt with a denyal by sundry learned pens, viz. that the seventh day from [Page 70]the Creation was ever an express tittle of the Command­ment; a seventh day in a week indeed is more then a tittle of the Law, and this number is still continued in the obser­vation of the Lords day all the Christian world over: And I doubt not but it shall continue to the end of the world, although the old day be changed; as in the celebration of the Passeover the precise order of time was sometimes al­tered; for whereas the fourteenth day of the first moneth was the time appointed at first,Exod. 12.18. yet Hezekiahs great passeover was kept on the fourteenth day of the second moneth.2 Chron. 30.5. Where you see the precise individual day altered upon occasion; yet the number (the fourteenth day) still observed.See this illu­stration further cleared by Mr. G. Abbot. p. 37. and Mr. Wal­ker. p. 49. So upon a greater and better occasion the Sabbath is altered (as to the day) yet the seventh day in number still kept intire in this, as the fourteenth in the other. And so the Sabbath now as well as the Passeover then, for substance preserved; notwithstanding the circumstantial and occasional change of the day. And thus through the conduct of my graci­ous Guide leading me by Scripture light, and the foot-steps of my dear companions in the cause of Christ, I have safe­ly passed the pikes of opposition, and vindicated this royal law from the false glosses and erroneous discants of the adversary, carrying this conclusion all along before me as a truth triumphing over all contradiction, That the old seventh day was never propounded as the substance or special subject of any moral law. I shall but touch upon the se­cond.

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

1. From the end of it. Verily my Sabbath ye shall keep for it a sign between me and you, V. 13. throughout your generations to know that I am Jehovah that sanctifieth you, [...] for so the words run in the Hebrew. And this is farther explicated. v. V. 14. 14. ye shall keep the Sabbath therefore, for it is holy, or [Page 71]holiness to you; thereby expounding what was meant by his sanctifying of them in the verse before: [...] As if the Lord had said, the keeping of my Sabbaths shall be a di­stinctive badge and cognisance of your Covenant-holi­ness,Sabbathum est signum quod Deus Israclem sanctificat, ut Sabbathum san­ctifionvit, scil. segregando eosex Gentibns profa­nls in peculia­rem sibi popn­lum. Lavat in Exek. Hom. 26. a sign that I do sanctifie you and separate you to my self above all the people of the earth, for an holy and pe­culiar people: for as the Lord is said to sanctifie the Sab­bath, so also to sanctifie Israel; that is, by separating it from all other dayes, and them from all other nations to be holiness to himfelf. And this is the first special reason why they should keep the Sabbath throughout their gene­rations, as a sign or mark of distinction to difference them from the rest of the profane world.

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

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

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

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

2. [...] 1 Joh. 2.3. 1 Joh. 3.18. There are indicating or evidencing signes; such are the Characters of saving grace. But neither can this be [Page 73]the sense of the word sign in this place. It is a sign that I the Lord do sanctifie you: What savingly? why then all were Israel that were of Israel, for the Sabbath was gi­ven to all; neither was it so much their keeping the Sab­bath as Gods giving them a Sabbath to keep which is here made a sign: Witness Ezekiel, Moses his interpretor. I have given them my Sabbath for a sign, Ezek. 20.13. to know that I the Lord do sanctifie them. Therefore

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

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

• 1. The moral duty; holy rest, or
• 2. The penal rigour of that rest, or
• 3. The precise day of rest, Now

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

POSITION III. That the Old Sabbath was yet further evidenced to be alterable and changeable in the after Ob­servation of it.

FOr proof whereof, I shall only cite the practise of our blessed Saviour, in which the Adversary glories most, as if it made only for him. Tis his ground argument for the perpetuity of the old seventh day, that Christ did most of his cures and famous miracles on that day. Now learn­ed Chemnitius takes the same argument, and turns the edge of it against him thus:De abrogatione Sabbathi Mosai­ci & dictis do­cuit Christus & libertatem fa­ctis sapiuo testa­tam fecit cum Sabbathis sana­ret, &c. Chemn. Examen. Concil. Trident. cap. de Festis ubiplura. The Lord Jesus both by word and deed hath taught us, that the Mosaical Sabbath was to be abrogated, not only in that he proclaimed himself Lord of the Sabbath, but in that he often witnessed his li­berty, and power over it by sundry of his cures performed on that day. Some instance in the cure of the man born blind, John 9.6, 7, 14. Others in the miraculous cure of that cripple or impotent man, John 5 whereas Dr. Lightfoot learnedly observes, there was the most apparent sign to­wards the shaking, and alteration of the Sabbath (as to the day) that we meet withall in the New Testament till the alteration it self came. To this purpose let the con­text be duly considered, and we shall find two things obser­vable in it.

1. What our Saviour did on the Sabbath day, he healed a long languishing malady, a disease of 38. years stand­ing.

2, What he sayed upon this occasion: and that

1. To the man his patient.

2. To the Jewes his persecutors, who call him in questi­on about it. To the man he said, Take up thy bed and walk. Now the question is, why our Lord should enjoyn this man to carry his bed on the Sabbath day, the expresse letter of the law prohibiting the bearing of any burthens on that day? T. T. Supposes that it was either for the confirma­tion of the miracle to shew the perfectness of the cure,Jerem. 17.21. p. 21. or for the publication of Gods glory; but it is answerd, that both these might have been done as well by his walking up­on his feet and leaping, as in the like case wee read else­where; or at least by bearing his bed the next day.Act. 3.8. so ch. 14, 10. There was therefore certainly more in this Command then what did barely refer, either to the confirmation of the miracle or the publication of Gods glory, in that sense supposed; and what it was the above mentioned Author does thus re­solve us, namely that it was.See Dr. Lightf. Harm. of the 4 Evang. p. 3. in John 5.

Partly in respect of the man.

Partly in respect of the day.

In respect of the man, it was to trye his faith and obe­dience, whether upon the bare word of Christ he would venture upon so hazardous an action.

In respect of the day, it was to shew Christs power and authority over the old Sabbath, that as elsewhere in re­storing the man sick of the Palsy, he not onely shewed his power over the disease in healing it, but also over sin in forgiving it. So it pleased him here at one and the same time to shew his Divine power over the distemper in cur­ing it, and his soveraignty over the Sabbath in dispensing with it and disposing of it as he thought good. 'Tis ob­jected against this by T. T. (whose usuall trick it is to clamour where he cannot answer) That in argueing thus we joyn with the blasphemous Pharisees in charging our Sa­viour as a Sabbath-breakere. Obj

But we easily cleare opur blessed Saviour, and quit our selves of this false and injurious charge, affirming, That our Lord could be no more taxed for Sabbath breaking in requiring this man to beare his bed on the Sabbath-day, then God himself in Commanding Joshuah to march a­bout Jericho seven times on the same day. He did not hereby transgress the Law, but shewed his soveraignty over the day; which will the better appeare if we consi­der.

What he sayes to the Jewes in answer to their cavils a­bout it.

In the sequel of the Chapter; where all along we may observe, how he justifies his act by asserting his power; He tels tehm verse 17 that he had the same authority o­ver the Sabbath that the father had, The Father worketh hitherto and I work. This answer refers cheifly to that part of the objection which lay against his healing on the Sabbath day: and it is continued to verse 20. Then he answers more directly to that other part of their accusa­tion, his supposed violation of the Sabbath, in giving the man a dispensation to carry his bed, verse 20 The fa­ther loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doth; yea he will shew him greater things then these that ye may mervel. Greater workes then these; why, (as the forementioned Authour speakes) they were great things that our Saviour had now done, in curing a despe­rate disease and dispensing with the Sabbath, but he must do yet greater Workes then these,v. 16. namely raise the dead, and change the Sabbath, that Jewish Spirits might mervel. The Jewes persecuted him because he had done these things on the Sabbath day, that is, healed the man, and commanded him to carry his bed.So the word judgment is u­sed Psalm 9.11. Psalm 94.15. Isai 28.6. Jerem. 33.15. John 8.16. Now in answer to these two particulars, he tels them, that the Father would shew him greater workes then these, for verse 21. As the Fa­ther raiseth the dead, so the Son; And verse 22. The father judgeth no man, but hath committed all Judgment to the Son that is government, or Legislative power about the affaires [Page 81]of men, and in particular about the disposall of the Sab­bath, which was now under dispute. They carped and cavill'd at his present carriage towards the Sabbath; He tels them, that he had authority to do what he did, yea and more then that came to, for all judgement was com­mitted into his hands, to do some greater things then barely to dispense with the Sabbath, and something at which the Jewes should marvell; and for which all should honour the Son as they honour the Father; Verse 23 That as the Father was honoured in giving the Law, so should the Son be honoured in giving the Gospel; and as the Father was honoured in appointing the old Sabbath, so should the Son in ordaining a new Sabbath, not in confirming the old (as T. T. would have it;) for so the Son is not honoured even as the Father was honoured.pa. 145. For the Father was ho­noured as the institutor of a Sabbath, therefore so, [...], even so must the Son be honoured. The argument is ve­ry ponderous, if we consider the scope of our Saviours oration, which was to justifie what he had done on the Sabbath-day. To this purpose he pleades his designment to do greater things then these, and some greater thing in reference to command and disposall over the Sabbath; which was the thing in question. And this plea he proves by his power to raise the dead, and to dispose of all things in a way of judicature or government under the new Testament, as the Father had done under the Old; and to this intent, that all men should honour the Son as they honour the Father; which being spoken with reference to the Sabbath, and to his present dispensing with it, doth plainly speake his intention to alter and change it.

Again, here is one thing more observable, namely, that Christs power to raise the dead, and his power to dispose of the Sabbath, are carryed along both together in this discourse. And the one is made an argument of the o­ther; plainly intimating the change of the day upon the resurrection, upon his own resurrection in the first place, which is hinted at (verse 26.) and others with him­self [Page 82]at his resurrection; according to that ancient prophe­cy, Thy dead men shall live, Isai. 26.19. Mat. 27.52, 53. together with my dead body shall they arise; which was fulfilled when our Saviour rose from the dead.

So that all things considered, here is a most pregnant Scripture to prove that it was our Redeemers purpose to alter the Sabbath: And therefore (as in Preface to such a thing) he both gives the man a commission to carry his bed on that day, and pleads for what he had done by his divine authority, as beginning to shake the day, which within two years after was to be unhinged and actually changed for another; at least it speaks his power to alter it. And he that shall dare deny this, must make Christ Jesus the Lord inferiour to David the servant; for even David had power to alter a circumstance in the Law of Moses; 1 Chron. 23.24, 25, 26. ordaining that the Levites should officiate at twenty years old,Numb. 4.3. Numb. 8.24. when as Moses had appointed that they should not officiate till 25. or 30. yet when the reason of the Mosai­cal ordinance ceased, and the Ark had rest, you see David changes that order. And if David, who was but a meer man (though a King and a Prophet) might alter a cir­cumstance about the Priesthood;Isai. 9.6. Revel. 15.3. Mat. 28.18. how much more might the Lord Jesus, (who is the mighty God, King of Saints, and King of Nations, having all power in heaven and earth put into his hands) alter a circumstance concerning the Sabbath, by translating it from the last to the first day of the week?

Well, if he had power to alter it, then it was alterable; which was the thing to be proved. If it be said, the que­stion is not, what the Lord could do, but what he did; whether he did indeed alter the Sabbath as to the day: I answer, we shall put this question out of question in the next Position.

POSITION IV. That the Old Sabbath was actually altered and changed from the last to the first day of the week, by the authority of our Lord and Sa­viour Jesus Christ; and that upon the noble ac­count of our Redemption, manifestly accom­plished by his most glorious resurrection from the dead on that day.

FOR the Confirmation whereof, I shall, First, propound some Scripture-Arguments; Secondly, Produce some Authentick Records of antiquity: both which we shall find harmoniously concurring in all the three branches of this Position.

First, That the day is certainly changed.

Secondly, That this change was occasioned by our Savi­ours most glorious Resurrection.

Thirdly, That this was done by the Soveraign authority of Christ himself, either immediately in his own person, or mediately by the prescript and practise of his inspired Apostles; either or which will be sufficient.

We shall begin with Scripture-proof and argument; in way of Preface whereunto let it be premised, that this truth is not Syllabically, and totidem verbis, in so many words at length set down in Scripture; neither needs it, considering, the question in not about the change of the septenary number (one day in seven) but the order only (the last for the first of seven:) and besides, it is not the Lords method and manner of speaking in many other New Testament-cases (as Church-Government, Family-wor­ship, and sundry others) which were plain enough in the Old Testament) to express himself in full sentences, but very briefly, in short hints and touches, here a little, and there a little, to exercise the ingenuity of believers, not to fatisfie the curiosity of Cavillers. The Scriptures were no more designed to answer all the cavilling questions of wanton wits, then the Sun was made for them to see that shut their eyes: yet I deny not the sufficiency of Scri­pture-light to make us wise unto salvation; only we must not presume to give laws to Heaven, and teach the Lord how to speak: ButHebr. 12.25. see that ye refuse not him that speaketh from heaven; that speaketh, I say, not only by express word, but by hisV. 24. blood, or death, and so also by hisJoh. 2.19, 21. Rom. 1.3, 4. resur­rection from the dead, by theJohn 15.26. mission of his Spirit, by the unction and inspiration of his Apostles, whose writings are his words, their counsels his commands, their pattern and practise his1 Cor. 14.37. precept;Luke 10.16. for he that heareth them heareth him; therefore let him that hath an ear hear the voice of Christ, yea, though he open his mouth in a parable to carnal reason,Psalm 78.1. Mat. 13.9, 35. as it seems he does even in some of his Gospel-law: yea, let us hear Christ speaking by his Spirit (I mean the spirit of Prophecy breathing in the Old Testament) forRev. 19.10. the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of Prophecy; nay, let us learn to spell his word out of his works, for hisJohn 5 36. ch. 10. 25. works do testifie of him. In a word, consi­der it isLuke 11.49. Wisdome it self that uttereth her voice in the writ­ten word; and she useth to speak [ [...]] much in a little; yea, to speak byMat. 22.32. Acts 14.47. arguments couched [Page 85]in Scripture, as well as express affirmations; and what those Scripture-arguments are which speak the change of the Sabbath (as here stated) we come now to shew.

The first may be taken from the new Creation, Arg. 1 or repa­ration of the world by Christ: as thus,Incongruum e­rat veteris Cre­ationis Sabba­thum novae Cre­atimi. Ligh [...]f. Horae Hebr. p. 321. ubi plura. The new Creati­on must have a new Sabbath, or set-day of Commemoration: now this new Creation came in by Christs resurrection: Therefore a new Sabbath. The form of this argument, I grant is not found in Scripture, but the force of it is; as shall be seen in the proof of each proposition.

1. That the new Creation must have a Sabbath of Com­memoration. This may not only be gathered from parity of reason, but plain Scripture prophecy: I might recite that forementioned famous Text in Isai. ch. 65. 17. Behold I create new heavens and a new earth, and the former shall no more be remembred, i. e. in respect of solemnity (for o­therwise remember the work of Creation we do and must) but not as the greater work; for look as the JewsIsai. 43.18, 19. Jer. 16.15, 16. & ch. 23. 7, 8. deli­verance out of Egypt was subordinated by their after-de­liverance out of Babylon, so is the work of Creation by that of Redemption, whereby the world (at least the Church) was put into a new frame and form;Anno Mundi changed for Anno Domini. upon the account whereof as the year of the world was worthily changed for the year of our Lord, so was the old Sabbath for the Lords day. But that which I would further argue from Isai. 65. is this: The old Sabbath cannot stand with the new Creation, therefore it must have a new, or none:This was touched before Posit. 1. that there should be none at all, none but old Anabaptists, Familists and Atheists will affirm. And that the old can­not stand is evident, because the foundation on which it stood (the memory and celebrity of the worlds Creation) is swallowed up by the glory of a greater work;Sicuti Sol exo­riens stellis eri­pit suum fulgo­rem. Calv. in Loc. and we cannot possibly retain that old seventh day, but we must memorize our Creation above our Redemption, our being above our well-being; which were expresly to contradict this ancient promise and Prophecy.

If it be objected, that this Scripture is not yet fulfilled, because the Apostle sayes,2 Pet. 3.12. we look for new heavens and a new earth, viz. at the end of the world:

I answer; Although it shall then receive a further accom­plishment in the latter, yet inchoatively and sufficiently (as to the thing in question) it was fulfilled long ago, even before the name [Jew] was laid aside, and the name [Christian] take up;Isai. 65.15. So ch. 62. 2. for let the context be minded, vers. 15. the Prophet foretels the rejection of the Jews, and the change of their name for the Christian name; Ye shall leave your name for a curse to my people, Ac si Dominus diceret, non amplius nomen Judaerum celebrabitur, amit­tetis regnum & Sacrdotium, & ce­lebrabitur nomen Christianorum. Luther. for the Lord God will slay thee, and call his servants by another name; and then v. 17. he intimates the com­ing in of this new name as a consequent of the new Creation; For behold I make new heavens, &c. So that these new heavens must be created before the Disciples were called Christians, Acts 11.26. and so far accomplished then as to out-shine the first Creation, the supereminency whereof was the foundation on which theold seventh day stood, I may therefore safely conclude, The old Sabbath cannot possibly stand with the new Creation, unless some new device can be found out to make an old house stand without a foundation.

But yet further; that the work of the new Creation must necessarily draw after it a new Sabbath, will more e­vidently appear if we look to the next Chapter,Isai. 66. opened where this Evangelical prophet seems rather to write an history then a prophecy of the new world under the Messiah; de­scribing it

1. By its new inhabitants, or Church-members, namely theVerse 12.18, 19, 20. Gentiles.

2. By its new Church-officers, under those old titles ofV. 21. Priests and Levites; I will also take of them (meaning the converted Gentiles) for Priests and for Levites, saith the Lord.

3. By its new seasons of solemn worship, under those old terms of new Moons and Sabbaths; Vers. 23 It shall come to pass that from one new Moon to another, New Moons and Sabbaths by a figurative kind of phrase (two words used to express one and the same thing) are here put for the ordinary stated seasons of solemn worship in general. [...]. 2 Kings 4.23. Ezek. 46.1. or from moneth to moneth (as in the Hebrew) and from Sabbath to Sabbath, all flesh shall come and worship before me, saith the Lord; that is, all sorts of men, without exception, exemption or exclu­sion of any. Now let us see what may be argued from this Scripture: that the Prophet here points at Gospel-times is plain enough, yea, the whole succession of Gospel-times: for the things here prophesied of are such as run parallel with the Church state of the Gentiles, and the constituting of a publick Ministry chosen from among them. Again, that new things are here in­tended by these old names, is without dispute; a Gospel-ministry by Priests and Levites, (distinct from the Levitical priesthood) and why not by Sabbaths and new Moons, select seasons of worship under the Gospel, distinct from those under the Law? For that it cannot be meant of the old Sabbath, and Old Testament-times of worship, may be thus demonstrated: That interpretation which would render the Prophet Isaiah a false Prophet cannot be true; But to interpret this prophecy (from moneth to moneth, and from Sabbath to Sabbath all flesh shall come and worship before the Lord) of the Jews Saturday-Sabbath, would render the Prophet Isaiah a false Prophet, since the experi­ence of these sixteen hundred years can testifie, that no flesh at all, (or none to speak of) have owned that day as a day of solemn worship, but expound it of the Christian Sabbath, and so it holds true to a tittle; for the first day of the week has been owned and observed by all Churches, in all ages, ever since the Sun of righteousness arose on that day: and thus what the Lord foretold by his Prophet he has fulfilled by his Providence, and this spirit of Pro­phecy proves the testimony of Jesus. And so (I suppose) we have found even Old Testament-proof of a New Testa­ment-Sabbath; [Page 88]or (which comes all to one) the ordinary stated season of solemn worship under the Gospel di­stinct from that under the Law; and all this in close con­nexion with the new Creation: for verse 22. it is said, As the new heavens and new earth which I will make shall re­main before me, so shall your name and your seed remain; and then presently it followes, from moneth to moneth, and Sabbath to Sabbath, all flesh shall come and worship before me, saith the Lord. Thus the Major or first Proposition is made good, that the new Creation must have a new Sabbath.

2. Now for the second, That Christ by his resurrecti­on brought in the new Creation, we may appeal to that of the Apostle, Hebr. 9.26. where our Saviours death and suffering is stated upon the end of the world; and if the old world ended with his death, the new must needs come in with his resurrection from the dead, whereby he brought in a new generation, (the out-casts of the Gen­tiles) and so a new creation of the same kind mentioned inIsal. 41.19, 20 Ephes. 2.10, 11 Isaiah; That the in-come of the Gentiles was to take its rise from our Lords resurrection, is not obscurely sig­nified by himselfe, in thatMat. 12.39.40 sign which he gave the Jewes, the sign of the Prophet Jonas (who was the Prophet of the Gentiles;Fatentur ipsi Judaei regnum Messiae inchoan­dum à resurre­ctionemortuorum & renovatione mundi. Lightf. Hor. Hebr.) hereby he did not only point at his own resurrection (as one observes) but also secretly gall the Jewes with an intimation of the calling of the Gentiles, (upon his resurrection) as the Ninivites were called upon Jonahs resurrection from the grave of the Whalesbelly. And thus some expound that place, Thy Isal. 26.19. dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise, as re­serring not only to the corporal resurrection ofMat. 27.53. those that came out of their graves at Christs resurrection, but also to the calling and quickning of the poor dead Gentiles, who are said to beEphes. 2.5, 6. quickened together with Christ, and raised up together with him. Again, that the new creati­on (both as to persons and things) followes upon Christs resurrection, may be gathered from that2 Cor. 5.17. [...] known Text of Scripture; If any man be in Christ, he is a new Creation [Page 89](as in the Greek) old things are passed away, behold all things are become new; The Apostle seemes to argue from things to persons;A new name. Acts 11 26. A new Jerusalem Rev. 3.12.2 new song, Isal. 42.10 a new Testa­ment, Heb. 8.13 all things new, Rev. 21.5 See Dr. Gouge Pro­gress of provi­dence p. 9. All things in Christ are become new, a new Jerusalem, (a new Church) a new Covenant, new Ordinances, new Heavens and a new earth; therefore all his followers must be new creatures; and this he infers from verse 15 inasmuch as Christ dyed for us and rose again: and we may place the accent upon his rising again, as in another case the Apostle does,Rom. 8.34. It is Christ that dyed, yea rather that is risen again. There is a [rather] put upon the resurrection of Christ, in comparison of his death and passion, so there, in point of justification; and so it may be here in respect of this new creation. As to persons it is plain, for how is any man a new creature but by being in Christ? And how are we in Christ but byGal. 2.20. faith? And what is the object of this faith? Let the same Apostle re­solve us;Rom. 10.9. ch. 4 24. See DeTwiss p. 97. S. 5. If thou confess with thy mouth the Lord Josus, and shalt believe in thy heart that God raised him from the dead. And so the Argument will hold good back again from persons to things, still the resurrection of Christ carries the maine stroke in the work of the new creation, which inevitably antiquates the old, and introduces a new Sabbath.

Against this tis faintly objected,T. T. Obj. p. 134. True, all old sins are passed away, and all old Ordinances, curses and Covenants; but the old Sabbath still remains.

He has fairely granted what he would have denyed, Answ. and wounded his cause in seeking to heal it: For, if all old or­dinances be done away (as he yeelds from 2 Cor. 5.17.) let him shew where the old Sabbath is exempted, that be­ing also an old ordinance by his own confession.

For a conclusion of this argument, I shall refer the learn­ed Reader to that little (but pithy) Tractate of Athana­sius, concerning the Sabbath and circumcision; where he may find the same thing argued in the same form as here; for alledging the Scriptures speaking of a double world, or a twofold Creation, the first ending at our Saviours passion [Page 90](when the Sun without any eclipse went out of it self,) the second beginning with his resurrection, he reasons thus about it; As the old Sabbath was appointed to be kept in memory of the first Creation, [...] so do we celebrate the Lords day as a monument of the se­cond reparation; [...] concerning which Paul speaks, If any man be in Christ he is a new Creation; indeed cas long as the first Creation was in force (sayes he) the Sabbath was observed, [...] but a new generation succeeding (according to that of the psalmist, this shall be written for the generation to come) it was now no longer necessary that this new peo­ple should observe the end of the first Creation, but rather the beginning of the second, he means the Lords day: and what opinion he had of the Divine Au­thority of this day, appears by that which followes; [...] For this cause Christ having repaired the Creation made in six dayes, instituted or set apart that day to this reparation (that is, to the memory and solemnity of it) concerning which the Holy-Ghost forespake in the Psalm, This is the day which the Lord hath made. Thus good old Athanasius; whose word (I suppose) will be of some weight with such as have but read his Creed.

And thus the first Argument concludes, having both the seal of Scripture-Authority, and the stamp of venera­ble antiquity upon it, to warrant it for sound and good. We proceed now to a second:

From the new Covenant it may be formed thus; Argum 2 The old Covenant in the special (at least) in all the symbolical and shadowy branches of it, was changed by Christ when the new Covenant was fully exhibited: But the old Sabbath (in respect of the day) was a special, yea a symbolical and [Page 91]shadowy branch of the old Covenant: Therefore it was un­questionably altered and changed by Christ, when the new Covenant was fully exhibited, viz. at his resurrection from the dead.

This Argument (how new soever it may seem at first) upon trial will be found true (I doubt not) in every material term and tittle of it; for that our blessed Lord Jesus has changed the old Covenant (I mean the Covenant of grace, as to theRom. 7.6. [...] Cor. 3.6. oldness of the letter and manner of dispensing it) and that by erecting and exhibiting a new and a better Covenant, is plainly avouched in the New Testament,Hebr. 8.13. in that he saith a new Covenant, he hath antiquated, or made the first old, &c. And that the old Sabbath was a special branch, or ordinance appertaining to that antiquated Covenant, may be clearly gathered from the old Testament, not only as it grew at first out of the root of that old promise, Gen. 3.15. but in that afterwards it sym­bolized with that old Covenant by the accession of aDeut. 5.15. type, and so visibly participated of the nature of it, that it had the veryExod. 31.16. name [Covenant] imparted to it, and that in aGen. 17.13. [...] So in both pla­ces. like notion with circumcision; For thus sayes the Lord, the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath for a perpetual Covenant throughout their generations; perpetual as cir­cumcision was; throughout their generations, only in re­spect of the particular sign and season, throughout all ge­nerations, in respect of the general substance and thing, to wit, Sabbath and Sacrament: for so still we have the Sacrament of circumcision in Baptisme, and the Sabbath of the old seventh day in the Lords day. But that which I chiefly take hold of in Exod. 31. the term [Covenant;] here the old Sabbath is called by the name of the old Co­venant, therefore sure it was neer akin to it, a special branch, yea, a shadowy branch of it, as we shall shortly see; and being so, how naturally will it follow, that the Covenant being changed in respect of the form, there must also of necessity be a change of the Sabbath in re­spect of the time or day, and that by the same Authori­ty? [Page 92]that as the old Covenant had the old seventh day and old Sacrament-seals annexed to it,See Widley's Treatise of the Sabb. p. 34. so the new Covenant might have new seals and a new day; even as in contracts and Covenants renewed betwixt man and man, 'tis required, that as they be new drawn, so also new dated, and new sealed.

To prevent mistakes (by the way) let this be hinted, that I do not here intend any change of the Covenant in respect of the essence and substance of it; for I grant that when the Holy-Ghost speaks of the new Covenant as di­stinct from the old, it is not to be understood in respect of the matter and substance, but circumstance, and manner of expressure; as the same Commandment is said to be both1 John 2.7, 8. old and new, and the same way to heaven bothHebr. 10.20. new andHebr. 13.8. Rev. 13.8. old; or as the same moon for substance is said to be new or old in respect of accidental changes: only this must be added, that the new Covenant2 Cor. 3.10. excels and out-shines the old in glory, as far as the Sun at midday out-shines the moon at midnight; and consequently it darkens all the ordinances of the old Covenant, yea necessitates a change in them correspondent to the change of the Co­venant it self; and accordingly such a change of the Sab­bath I do here assert, not in respect of the substance or du­ty [holy rest] but the circumstance of time, the day up­on which that duty was formerly fixed and stated. And that such a change of the Covenant there is, and such a change of the Sabbath by one and the same Christ,Hebr. 12.24. me­diator of the Covenant, andMark 2.28. Lord of the Sabbath, and both these occasioned by the exhibition of a new and a bet­ter Covenant upon his glorious resurrection from the dead, we come now to demonstrate. To this purpose we shall re­flect upon the old Covenant in a threefold Covenant-ex­pressue of it, and shew what a visible change Christ has made in it, and how inseparably the change of the Sabbath is interwoven with it.

1. In the mandatory part of it, I mean the Decalogue, or law of the ten Commandments; that this was aJep. 31.31.32 Deut. 5.2. ch 29.1. 1 Kings 8, 9.21 2 Chron. 6.11. Psalm 105.11 [Page 93]piece of the old Covenant promulgated upon Mount Sinai I suppose none will question: And that even this has under­gone not only mitigation, but some kind of mutation, by our glorious Gospel-law-giver none need to question; only we must state it warily and soberly, not affirming with the blundring Antinomians hand over head, that the law of Moses is out-lawed and abrogated without any distinction. This were to coyn a lye to confirm the truth of God; for it is certain that those livelyActs 7.38. OraclesEx. 20.1. propounded by God himself upon Mount Sinai, and afterwards expoun­ded by Moses and the Prophets in the Old Testament, byMat. 5.21. to the end. Christ and hisRom. 7.12, 14 ch. 13.8, 9, 10. Ephes. 6.1, 2, 3. James 2.8, 9, 10 12. 1 John 2.9, 10 Apostles in the New, are still in force un­der the Gospel, not onely as declarative of the law of nature, but as positively preceptive also in the matter and substance of them, yea as perpetually directive as a rule of life and obedience, both in respect of duties to be performed, and sins to be avoided. As to have the only true God and no other to be our God; to worship this only true God with his own prescribed worship and no other; to use his ho­ly name most reverently and religiously; to sanctifie his holy Sabbath; to honour Father and Mother; to avoid Idolatry, Blasphemy, Murder, Adultery, Theft, &c. These are as much duties and sins under the Gospel as e­ver they were under the Law; and in this sense the Moral law isRom. 3.31. 1 Cor. 9.21. established by Christ, andMat 5.17, 18. Christus finisest legis Rom. 10.4. sed finis per­siciens, non in­tersiciens. Au­gust in John tract. 55. Tom. 9. ratified even to a tittle. You will ask me then wherein les the change? I answer, not in the substance, but in some circumstantials peculiar to those times, and appropriate to that people (the Church of the Jewes) (for as I hinted before, almost all Scripture had some circumstantial peculiarity and propri­ety to those times and that people to whom it was imme­diately given, and so had the Decalogue.) 'Tis true, in the substance and morality of it it was equally calculated both for Jewes and Christians, yet some particulars in it, in re­gard of circumstance either direct or indirect, were pro­per to the Jewes onely; as the preface to the first Com­mandment (I am the Lord which brought thee out of the [Page 94]land of Egypt) which in the letter of it concerns not us; for literally and properly we were never in Egypt, not in bondage there: so also the promise annexed to the fifth commandment, which in the particularity of it belonged to the Jewes only, pointing at the land of Canaan. The like may be said for the positive part of the second Com­mandment touching Gods worship (as then) by ceremoni­al observances; as also the positive part of the fourth Commandment, which occasionally and indirectly pre­scribed the celebration of the Jews seventh day, and that with this additional circumstance (within thy gates;) all these were adjuncts of the old Covenant, and appro­priate to the Jews. Now the new Covenant taking inIsai. 2.3. See Mr. Roberts on the Cove­nant; and Mr. Abbot against Broad. Gentiles as well as Jewes, must necessarily vary these cir­cumstantials in the moral law, by construing them in a new Covenant-sense, to accommodate it to these new confede­rates, as thus; by changing their temporal deliverance from Egypts thraldom, into out spiritual deliverance from the thraldom of sin and Satan; the land of Canaan, into any other part of the earth where the heirs of the promise shall dwell; their legal worship, into our Gospel-worship; their gates, into our jurisdictions; in a word, their seventh day into our seventh day, which (analogically at least) is as much intended by [seventh day] in the fourth Com­mandment, as England by Canaan in the fifth Command­ment.

If it be demanded, when, and by whom this change was introduced? I answer, by the blessed Mediator of the new Covenant, and that immediately upon his resurrection from the dead; for then he was given both for aIsal. 42.6. light and a Covenant to the Gentiles; [...]. Mas. 28, 19, 20. Mark 16.15. Luke 24.47. John 20.23. then was the Churches Charter (formerly confined among the Jews) graci­ously extended to the Gentiles; then it was that our Lord was pleased to issue forth that high commission (as one calls it) for the discipling of all the Gentiles by Baptisme, and so bringing them into Covenant; requiring his Apo­stles to tender the whole Covenant to them both, in the [Page 95]promises and the precepts of it: and the fore as the Prophet Jonah shortly after his resurrection went to Nineveh, so Jesus Christ after his, to Galilee; where (according to fore-appointment) he gave his disciples a solemn meeting, and laid a solemn charge upon them, to teach the Gentiles to observe whatsoever he had commanded them. Now if the precept of the Sabbath were included among the rest of those commands (as 'tis like it was) it must be in such a sense as would comport with their new Covenant-state; which must needs exclude the old seventh day, since that was a branch of the old Covenant peculiar to the Jews, and urged upon them by such a reason or inforcement as in the letter of it concerned not the Gentiles at all, viz. their deliverance out of Egypt, Deut. 5.15. Mystically indeed it concerned us as well as them (as implying out Redemption by Christ) but in that sense it quite carries away the Sabbath from their old seventh day, in as much as the accomplishment of our Redemption fell upon the first day of the week, viz. by the glorious resurrection of our Saviour; but for which, we had remained still in the Egypt of our1 Cor. 15.17 sins, as the Apostle witnesseth. And here I cannot but note, how emphatically the truth answers the type;Deut. 5.15. c. 6.21. & 9.26. Exod. 24.8. ch. 15.1, 21. for look as Israel was redeemed from Egypt with a mighty hand, not as captives, but as conquerours, with the ruine and spoll of their enemies; so were the elect redeem­ed by Christ, not barely in a way of ransome by the price of his blood, but in a way of rescue and conquest by the hand of his power; as in the day of his triumphant re­surrection, concerning which the Prophet seems to speak,Isai. 53.13. I will divide him a portion with the great, and he shall di­vide the spoile with the strong, because he hath poured out his soul unto death. Thus in substance there is an admira­ble similitude betwixt the type and the Antitype: yea, the very circumstance of time is considerable; for upon search into Scripture I believe it will be found, that their de­liverance out of Egypt was on the first day of the week, in memorial whereof they kept the feast of unleavened [Page 96]breadExod. 15.3, 4 5. with because they came forth with theirExod. 12.6. unleaven­ed lumps, being thrust out in hast; that it was upon the first day of the week appears from the twelfth chap. where the Passeover is fixed upon theExod. 12.6. fourteenth day of the moneth, then it was first instituted and celebrated: now the four­teenth day of the moneth must needs be the second Sabbath of the moneth, even of the moneth Abib, answering to our March, which was here made the beginning of moneths, or the first moneth in the year: From the Creation of the world till now they began their year with the moneth Tisri or September;See Dr. Light­foots gleanings on Exod. p. 20. but here, upon a work greater in fi­gure (as representing our Redemption by Christ about the same time of the year) the beginning of their year is changed to Abib, and the Passeover being killed the fourteenth day at even, the midnight following the first born of Egypt were slain. But yet still Israel is in Egypt, only their longs girt,V. 11. and shoones on their feet ready to de­part; and see how it followes: The Egyptians being dreadfully alarum'd by the death of the first-born, resolve to be troubled no longer with such fatal Guests, and there­fore in a great hurry they pack them away, intreat and im­portune them to be gone; Pharaoh did not more force them to stay before, then now to depart. But Israel must not go empty-handed, they must be well paid for their hard service; some time must be spent in borrowing the Egyptians Jewels: by that time they were furnished for their journey, we may suppose it was well towards the morning, and now all the Armies of the Lord march out of Egypt in theLevit. 26.4, 5. sight of all the Egyptians; this was on theNumb. 33.3. fifteenth day of the first moneth, the morrow after the Passeover; and the fourteenth dcay being the Sabbath, this must needs be the first day of the week, which was after­wards kept as a solemn Festival, and called theLevit. 23.6, 7. Numb. 28.17. Deut. 16.3. feast of un­leavened bread, in which they were to have a holy convo­cation, and to do no work. To this the Apostle plainly al­ludes,1 Cor. 5.7, 8. Christ our Passeover was sacrificed for us, where­fore let us keep the feast: he points at the feast of unlea­vened [Page 97]bread: Paul was an excellent Critick, he under­stood these sacred mysteries, he knew Christs Passion and humiliation was our Passeover, which lasted as long as he lay in the grave, being under the painsActs 2.24. or sorrowes of death, and the day of his resurrection answering to the first day of unleavened bread (which originally was on the first day of the week;) here upon he concludes, let us keep the feast; I will not say here is a precept for the Christian Sabbath, but drawing aside the veile from Moses face, this I may safely say, here is a proof of it, and a plain ar­gument for it; for Israels Redemption from Egypt, and our Redemption from death and hell, being both on the first day of the week completed; and the former of these (in the type) being alledged as the reason of the fourth Com­mandment, with a total omission of the Argument drawn from the creation, Deut. 5.15 and that in the repetition or second promulgation of the Law, seems to speak plain­ly what I alledg it for, that the accomplishment of that type states the Sabbath on the day of Christs resurrection, which all the four Evangelists tell us as the first day of the week. But

2. Let us passe on to the promissory part of the Cove­nant, and see if some change be not made there also, and whether the change of the Sabbath be not necessitated by it. I shall only instancei n that fundamental and complex­ive promise of Christ, who was indeed the sum and sub­stance of all the rest, for 2 Cor. 1.20. in him they are all; Yea, and in him, Amen. And therefore we must withBphes. 2.12. Una fuit pro­missio, sed saepi­us sancita Beza. in Loc. promise in the singular number, when mention is made of Covenants in the plural; to intimate, that all the periods and promises of the old Covenant did concenter and meet together in that grand promise of the Messiah. He was both theGen. 3.15. seed of the Woman, theGen. 22.18. seed of Abraham, the seedPsalm 122.10, 11, 12. of David, the seed of Mary, or son of theIsai. 7.14. Virgin; and to say the truth, all these after-promises were but as so many Com­mentaries upon that first promise, The seed of the woman shall bruise the Serpents head. Now as long as Christ was [Page 98]tendred in that old promise, the old Covenant was still in force,The old Cove­nant was a Co­venant of pro­mise, the new Covenant is Covenant performance. and together with it the old Sabbath in ue. But the promise being once performed, Christ fully exhibited, and a new Covenant established, the old (as to the ex­pressure of it) was instantly changed, Hebr. 8.13. and together with it the old Sabbath, which had neither birth before, nor being after it (unless for a season, in conde­scention to the infirmity of the Jewes, whose weak eyes could not indure the bright Sun shine of the Gospel all at once:) Now if it be demanded when and where we shall state the accomplishment of that old Covenant, and the establishment of the new: I answer, both upon te resurrection of Jesus Christ, the first day of the week. For,

First, Then and thereby was the grand Covenant-pro­mise performed: As the Apostle assures us in that fore­mentioned Text;Act. 13.32, 33 We declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made to our fathers, God hath fulfilled the same to us their children, in that he hath rais­ed up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second Psalmm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. Christ in his resurrection was as it were begottenRev. 1.5. from the dead, and brought forth of the womb of the earth. And here the very particular day of his resurrection is specified, as the day on which the promise was eminently fulfilled; what promise? Why, the term is comprehensive, and so in­cludes (at least) that originall promise of Christs bruil­ing the Serpents head; which being an act of his Kingly Office, not of his Priesthood, was most formally execu­ted in his Resurrection; whereby he triumphed in his own person over sin, death and the Divel, upon the account whereof the Apostle cries1 Cor. 15.54, 55. Rom. 8.34, 37. Victory. Some indeed to at­tribute Christs victory and conquest to his death upon the Crosse, because 'tis said, Colos. 2.15. Having spoiled prin­cipalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, trium­phing ever them in it. Which [it] say they, refers to the Crosse, verse 14. but the Text seemes to be mistranslated: [Page 99]For according to theNot [...]. In semer­tpso, so the Si­ryack, so Yertul. de Trin. Origen ep. ad Rom. co. 5. August. ep 59. Hier. in Co. Theodor. ibid Promeruit in cruce, sed postca peregit. Zanch. in loc. Greek it should rather be rendred He spoiled Principalities and powers, and made a shew of them, openly triumphing over them in himself. So the Ancients universally read it; and so our worthy translators in the Margin; referring it to Christ himself not to the Crosse; for although he merited his victory by his passion on the Crosse, yet he did not execute it till his resurrection from the dead, when God brought him forth from the prison of the grave, andActs 10.39, 40. shewed him openly, though not to all: he died a sufferer, but rose a conqueror, not only clothed with honour and immortality, but ar­med withMar. 28.18. Philip. 2.9. power and principality, he was2 Cor. 13.4. crucified through weakness, but he liveth by the power of God; Having the keyes of death and hell resigned up to him as trophies of his Triumphant resurrection: so himself speaks,Rev. 1.13. I am he that liveth and was dead, and am alive forever­more, and have the keyes of death and hell: And again,Ephes. 4.8, 9. When he ascended up on high, be led captivity captive. Note that; he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? Christ then did not so much lead captivity captive when he descended into the lower parts of the earth, as when he ascended thence, when he divided the spoile with the mighty, as the Prophet; or when he spoiled principalities and powers, as the Apostle speaks; at what time he was proclaimedRom. 14 9. Lord of quick and dead; Namely at his resurrection from the dead. I write not this to derogate in the least from the meritori­ous death of our deare Redeemer: I can through the grace of God read infinite w love, andJohn 3.15. eternal life in his death but the hope and assurance of both is built upon his resur­rection: and therefore when the Apostle would set the door of1 Pet. 1.3, 4. hope wide open to us, he shewes us an empty sepul­chre, and tells us with the Angel, he is 1 Cor. 15.17, 18, 19. risen; otherwise our faith and hope were vain. The promise is the ground and anchr-hold of our hope, and that as performed by our Lords resurrection, whereby he bruised the Serpents head, i.e. brake his power.Acts 26.6, 7, 8, 9. Now I say that promise [Page 100] Gen. 3.15. was the ground of flating the Sabbath upon the old seventh day, God blessed the day for Christs sake; and (I doubt not) this was the use which old Testament-believers ever made of that old Sabbath, to look to Christ in it, and seek communion with God through Christ, and expect the Spiritual blessings lodged in the institution by Christ the promised and blessed seed. And as long as Christ was onely promised, the Sabbath ran along with him in the promise upon that day for many ages; but now the promise being performed,See Mr. G. Walkerp. 35, 36 and Christ exhibited a perfect and compleat Redeemer, and that upon the day of his resurrection (which was the greatest day of his appear­ing in the nature of man upon earth) how can it other­wise be but the Sabbath should also advance forward to­gether with the Lord of the Sabbath,See also more of this Posit. 1. Branch 3. from the last to the first day of the week? Especially considering that,

Secondly, Then also the new Covenant was erected and established, even the Covenant pointed at by the Prophet, I will make an everlasting Covenant with you, Isal. 55 3. I will give you the sure mercies of David; which the Apostle applyes expros­ly to Christsresurrection, and bottoms in there. As concerning that he raised him from the dead, Acts 13.34. now no more to return to corruption, he said on this wife, I will give you the sure mer­cies of David, which if we take in the verse before, nomina­ting the very day, Thou art my Son this day have I begot­ten thee, will amount to this argument; That the new Co­venant, in the last and best exhibition of it, was ultimately established by Christs resurrection on the first day of the week: whence the inference is easie, That therefore then and thereby the old Covenant, in the promissory part of it, was altered and changed (Christ freely promised into Christ fully manifested,) and if so, who shall rob us of this con­clusion. That the Sabbath was actually changed from the last to the first day of the week, upon the account of our blessed Lords resurrection? Mistake me not, the Argu­ment concludes not the dissolution, but the translation of the Sabbath from one day to another; translated from the [Page 101]last day of the week it must needs be, because the promise which setled it at first upon that day is performed; and stated upon the first day of the week it is, because the per­formance of the promise fell upon that day, not by chance, but by special Providence, to fulfil that prophecy.Psalm 118.24 This is the day which the Lord hath made.

3. And chiefly, this truth will be yet more obvious to every eye that shall view the change of the Covenant in the shadowy part of it,Heb. 8.5. ch. 10.1. I mean those ordinances and institutions appertaining to the old Covenant, which were shadowes of things to come; that these are antiquated and extinguished by Christ, and that upon the account of a new Covenant established, is unquestionably clear from that forecited Scripture, Heb. 8.13. [...] James 4.14. In that he saith a new Covenant, he hath made the first old: Now that which decayeth and waxeth old, is ready to vanish away: Where among other things the Holy-Ghost seems to imsinuate the shadowy nature of the old Covenant, setting forth the deficiency of it by a metaphoricall expression of vanishing, or disappearing, viz. as the shadow disappears when the substance or body comes in place; so that if the old Sabbath were of a shadowy uature, 'tis clearly gone. But here lies the knot of the question, which (yet) in the judgment of the most and best interpreters is dexte­rously decided in that vulgar Text, Coloss. 2.16. Let no man therefore judg you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or new Moon, or Sabbath dayes, which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ. In the exposition of which Scripture I conceive there have been two great extremes; for some in opposing Judaism from hence, have opened a gap to Libertinism, by condem­ning all difference of dayes under the Gospel: others in going about to stop that gap have made a Bridge to bring in Judaism again. I shall equally shun both extremes, hoping to find truth in the middle: And therefore,

First, I shall premise this as a sure foundation, That the Sabbath indefinitely considered, as abstracted from the [Page 102]precise seventh day,Isai. 56.6, 7, 8. Is a plain pro­phecy of a Sabbath under the Gospel. So is Mat. 14.20. See both open­ed and vindica­ted by Mr. By field, p. 220, &c. was never a shadowy ceremony, but was and is a moral and perpetual duty incumbent upon all the people of God to the end of the world; for not only Scripture, but even Nature it self teacheth us that as there is a supreme God, so this God must be worshipped with solemn worship, and that therefore there must be some so­lemn time set apart for his worship, and this time not less then a whole day together, yea a day of frequent re­turn, and this day a day of rest from worldly labour; (for worshipping-time and working time are utterly inconsi­stent.) All this may be fairly deduced from the dictates of Nature: Indeed as to the punctual proportion of time, whe­ther it should be one day of six, or one of seven, Nature (which doth not so well discern of numbers) cannot so positively determine: and therefore in this case where the instinct of nature fails us,Praxis san [...]lo­rum interpres praeceptorum, had wont to passe for a principle and maxime in Di­vinity. the instruction of Discipline (as one calls it) relieves us. By which I understand both the prescript of Gods law, and the practise of his Church (especially Apostolical practise) which is the best and clearest commentary upon the Divine precept: Now both these determine the proportion of one day in seven for the ordinary season of solemn worship; and the last li­mits it to the first of seven, as shall be seen hereafter. That the law of God, even the fourth Commandment (which was the tenth part of Jehovahs will published at Mount Sinai) is directly for one day of seven, not the last of seven, or the seventh from Creation, I have proved before; and that in this point it is moral and perpetual (although not moral-natural) may be briefly hinted here. I shall offer but one Argument for it,Rom. 7.12. Mo­rale est manda­tum quatenus praecipit ut è septem diebus unum consecremus cultui divino; & proinde quatenustale mandatum est nunquam fuit abrogatum, nec abrogari patest. Z [...]ch. in praecept. 4. p. 595. Ut aelique dies in septimana fit deo dedicata, praetum est stabile & aeternum. Jac. de Valen. adv. Judaeos. q. 2. Nobis cum veteri populo quoad hanc partem communis est necessius Cal [...]. in praec. 4. Item Luther. Quoad observationem unius dieiiu singulis hebdomadis, Sab­batum nonest legis Ceremonialis, sed moralis, qua immota ao perpetua est. Ravanel. Bibl. grounded upon that Scri­pture-aphorism, That Commandments is holy, just and [Page 103]good; these are the uudeniable Characters of a moral and immutable law. Now if the proportion of one day in se­ven for holy rest be holy, just, and good, it must needs be moral and perpetual, and so must the precept it self that prescribes it. But this proportion is holy, just, and good. Grant it to be just, and you cannot deny it to be holy; grant it good, and you cannot deny it to be just. Now let me reason the case with any religious soul, yea, with any ra­tional man; Is it not a point of moral equity to pay tribute out of all our times to the Lord of time, who holds our souls in life, and in whose hands both our times and our breath are? do we owe him a piece of every day, and shall we grudg him a day of every week? when he has gi­ven us six, can we in equity deny him one? Not that I take upon me to demonstrate the equity of this number by the light of Nature, or to the light of Nature; for as I said before, Nature is blind in these things; but I presup­pose Nature and Reason informed by divine discovery, and acquainted with the written word. Surely such as have read and pondered Gods liberal grant of six dayes to man, can­not but yield his demand to be very reasonable, requiring but one in seven for himself. Thus in respect of God. Again, in respect of Man; Is it not just and meet, that since Mans life upon earth is a pilgrimage, and he has no abiding City here, but looks for one above, therefore he should not spend all his time, and thoughts and studies about the tri­fles of the world, but (as some time every day) so also some one day every week, retire from the world, and draw neer to God, to seek communion with him, with whom he looks to live for ever? Again, in respect of servants and cattel; is there not grand equity and reason that one day in a week they should injoy some relaxation from their painsul servitude and bondage? that thy poor drudging servant especially (who bears God image as well as thy self) should have a breathing-time, a day of weekly rest for his wearied body, and one holy day in a week for his pre­tious soul? Can we in equity afford them less? when [Page 104]we have had six dayes service from them, can we find in our wretched hearts to grudge the Lord one? True, you will say there is much equity in this, that some time in general should be set apart for holy rest; but what necessity of such an exact proportion? why one day of seven more then one of ten, or two of seven? I answer as before; A natural ne­cessity we do not pretend; but a Scriptural necessity there is why we should be tyed to this proportion, and not to any other: and herein lies the moral and religious equity of it, as thus; The written word informs me that there are but four main divisions of time, and these of Gods own making, viz. dayes, weeks, moneths, years, and I am convinced that Man cannot make perfecter distributi­ons of time then God himself hath made: since therefore there must be a time or season of solemn worship, it must of necessity be taken out of one of these; it must be either a day out of a week, or a day or week out of a moneth, or a moneth out of a year; less then a day out of a week I cannot yield, since I cannot so much as pretend that lest is sufficient for God and my soul, when more may conve­niently be had. Again, a week out of a moneth, or a moneth out of a year, I cannot subscribe unto as either convenient or equal,See Iren. philal. u [...] plur. since experience tells me that the ne­cessities both of civil and soul-affaires require a mutual in­terchange of speedier dispatches, and quicker returns: therefore I must conclude, Gods proportion is most just and equal when all is done, viz. one day of seven, and but one of seven ordinarily; two dayes in a week, or out day in two weeks, I find no rule for in the written word. Gods first division of time was into dayes, and his first multiplication of dayes into weeks; and ever since his se­lect portion has been one day in the circle of every week. This was the constant tribute paid him under the Old Te­stament on the last day, and under the New Testament on the first day of the week: this therefore is moral and per­petual, being of Gods own assignation, of the Churches constant observation, and in it self the most exact propor­tion; [Page 105]consequently the Commandment in this respect must needs be moral: the rather, because in all this there can beno ceremony; the number of seven is generally taken for a number of perfection, but who ere fancied it to be of a ceremonlous signification? What type or ceremony can there be imagined in seven more then in six? to make types of meer figures is such a kind of Cabalism, as I sup­pose never came into any sober mind. But here I must re­solve a scruple or two:

The Jews seventh day was ceremonious, Scrup. 1. See Dr. Willes on Exod. [...]o & Dr. Twiss. p. 74. as the learned ge­nerally assert; and if so, why not one day in seven also? If the particular day were shadowy, why not the proportion also?

It followes not at all, unless you will say,Resol. that those particular Sacraments under the law [Circumcision and the Passeover] being ceremonial; make the like number of Sacraments under the Gospel, viz. [Baptism and the Lords Supper] ceremonial too; the reason is alike in both, for the Ceremony stood not in the proportion or number, but in the particularity, or nature of that day and those duties.

But you have formerly granted, Scrup. 2. that the fourth Command­ment did point at that particular seventh day under the term [seventh day] therefore the fourth Commandment was in that respect ceremonial.

I have indeed granted,Res. that the Commandment did in­directly and occasionally point at that precise seventh day, but not particularly, only within the general scope of it, or as a general rule equally communicable to that day (as being elswhere appointed of God) while it stood; and to our day now it is substituted in the room of that by the same Divine appointment. And if this were heedfully ob­served, the scruple were soon answered. But here lies the mistake, men would fain scrue in the seventh day from that presixed period of creation into the heart of the Commandment, and make that seventh day and a seventh day of equal dimensions, which can never be, unless they [Page 106]will render the Commandment ceremonial; whereas to affirm, as I do, that the Commandment indirectly pointed at that day (as being then under Divine Sanction) does no more place a ceremony in the fourth Commandment, then it does in the fifth, to say, that by Father and Mother were meant not only natural, but civil and Ecclesiastical parents, and occasionally such as were Typical; as not on­ly the Priests and Levites, but Moses and Aaron also who were to be honoured by vertue of the fifth Commandment and that as Fathers in a figutative sense: From which in­stance thus much is manifest, that a moral precept may occasionally point at something ceremonial and yet retaine its own morality. So that neither a Sabbath, nor a weekly Sabbath were ever shadowes of things to come. But

Secondly, That Sabbath and particu­lar seventh day which the Jewes observ­ed was certainly of a shadowy nature,Dr. Tailour observes in his Christ revealed p. 4. 1. That as the body is the cause of the shadow, so was Christ of the ce­remonies.2. As the shadow represents the shape, motions and actions of the body, so did the legall shadows re­semble Christ in his actions and passions, and I add, why may not both these be affirmed of the old Sabbath. For 1. It was occasioned at first by Christ, as the shadow is by the bo­dy. B. Christ I say in the promise.2. It shadowed out something of Christ and the ancients generally understood it as a shadow of his rest that day in the grave. being instituted at first with reference to Christ, as all other shadowes were, and having an accessory type afterwards af­fixed to it: And of this we may safely expound that forementioned Text, Colos. 2.16. Let no man judge you in meat or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or now moon, or Sabbaths, which were shadown of things to come but the body is of Christ. The only question is, whether their week­ly Sabbath were here intended? Some are jealous lest in pressing it so farr, it should prove prejudicial to our week­ly Christian Sabbath; but this is meet causless jealously. For let us but pon­der the scope of the place, and it will appear, that the Apostles design is not to level Christian dayes and duties, but such as the Jewes observed, and would have intruded together with circumcision and other legal rites into the Church of Christ. This is evident, [for he writes both [Page 107]against distinctions of meats and dayes:] Now under that clause of [meats and drink] shall we say he condemns all distinctions of meats and drinks in matters of religion? What of bread and Wine in the Lords Supper too? or in dis­puting against the Jewes Sacraments, especially circum­cumcision, does Paul strike at all Sacraments, what bap­tism and all? no, 'tis aparent that in all those three Texts usually alledged Rom. 10.5, 6 Gal. 4.10. Colos. 2.16. He cryes down the Ordinances of the Law, or old Testament not the institutions of the Gospel. Look what the Jewish fals-teachers cryed up, St. Paul cryes down i. e. their Sabbaths and their Sacraments. 'Tis not likely that they ever pleaded for the Christian Sabbath, (the first day of the week) and therefore tis most improbable that the A­postle in opposing them should implead that. In a word,Dies Domini­cus non est um­brae rerum futu­rarum sed rei praeterita, viz. gloriosae Christi resurrectionis grata Recorda­tio. Brochmand. Syst. Theol. the Sabbaths here specified were a shadow of things to come, whereas the Lords day (as one well observes) is only a memorial of something past, to wit, the glorious resurrection of Jesus Christ. So that to argue from hence against all difference of dayes under the Gospel (as the old Anabaptists and Familists do) is evidently to stretch the Text beyond the stapse; But to urge it against all the Jewes Holy-dayes, (their weekly Sabbath and all) is not at all to force it. For

First, The Apostle seemes to speak distinctly, and distri­butively, enumerating the several sorts of dayes in observa­tion among the Jewes, Holy-day, New moons, Sabbaths, and the gradation from yeerly holy-dayes, to monthly new Moons, and from them to weekly Sabbaths is visible enough to such as are not blinded with prejudice. See Mr. Shepheard, Thes. 20. part 2.

Secondly, The plural term [Sabbaths] is usually put for the singular, the Sabbath or seventh day now under di­spute. Yea I cannot find any one Text in all the new Testa­ment, where it is applied in the same number to any other day or Sabbath, but the old seventh-day-Sabbath.Math. 12.1.5.10.12. Mark 1.21. ch. 2 24. ch. 3. v. 2. Lu. 4.31. ch. 13 v. 10. Acts 13, 14. in all these Texts tis [...] or [...]. Seven or eight times the same word (as it is here set down in the [Page 108]plural number) is used for that old weekly Sabbath; and not so much as once for any yearly Sabbath, therefore in­all reason that precise weekly Sabbath must be here (I will­not say in cluded only) but principally intended.

Thirdly,2 Kin. 4.23. even in the old Testament, where ever New Moons and Sabbaths go coupled together (unless the phrase be figurative,1 Chro. 23.31. 2 Cron. 1.4. ch. 8.13. & ch. 31 v. 3. Nehem. 10.33. Ezek. 45.17. Hos. 2.11. Amos 8.5. [...]. as in Isai. 66.23.) the Jews weekly Sabbath is denoted by it, as appears by those several Scriptures cited in the margin, in most of which their annu­al Sabbaths are excepted, and distinguished by another name scil. [Feasts,] to which answers the words holy-day in this place, Colos. 2.16. For indeed the word in the origi­nal fignifies a feast, or festival day. Thus let Scripture ex­pound Scripture, and truth will be truth, in spight of er­rour: take the whole sentence together, holy-day, new Moon, Sabhaths, and (if it be an Old Testament-phrase) it alwayes implies the old seventh day-Sabbath; or take the words [Sabbaths] singly by it self, and (if it be a New Testament-term) as 'tis like it is) it ever (I think I may truely say ever) signifies the same seventh day, un­less when it is put for the week, which here it cannot be. The conclusion then is undeniable, that the Jews seventh day Sabbath was a shadowy Sabbath, and therefore it cannot be our Christian Sabbath, for what have we to do with shadowes under the Sun-shine of the Gospel? un­der the clear and bright discoveries of Christ,2 Cor. 3.18. when we may with open face, as in a glass, behold the glory of the Lord. Oh, that the spirit of truth would take away that vail that lies upon the hearts of men, that vail of errour and dark­ness which keeps out the light of this truth; for a truth it is, a plain truth, as plain as Scripture can make it, that the Sabbaths here mentioned were a shadow of things to come; and I have made it evident, that the old Sabbath (as to the day) is here chiefly intended: it is not necessary that I should trouble the Reader to tell him my judgment what kind of shadow it was, or what was shadowed by it in particular, whether Christs rest that day full and whole [Page 109]in the grave, or his rest the next day from the grave, or a believers rest in Christ a compleat Saviour: But this is certain, a shadow it was, of which something in Christ was the body; and the body being come the shadow must be gone. And so I might proceed to another argument, but I must first remove some objections wherewith the Ad­versary has indeavoured to block up our way, But all in vain:

First he tells us,T.T. Obj. 1. p. 23.24, 25. 'tis evident at first sight, that only such Sabbaths are ceased as were shadows of good things to come; but the seventh day was never such a Sabbath: A sign in­deed of good things past and present it was, but never term­ed a shadow of things to come.

This proceeds upon his accustomed fallacy, Answ. (petitio principij) a begging of the thing in question; for he would make us believe, that the old seventh day was none of the Sabbaths here intended, which if we deny (as we do) then he has lost his conclusion, for in this very Text it is termed a shadow of things to come; what if we grant it a sign of something past? so were the annual Sabbaths (as he calls them) Passeover, Pentecost, &c. the one of their preservation in Egypt, the other of the giving of Gods law; yet both shadowes of things to come, or else the Apostle was much mistaken.

The blessed Spirit by two other terms declares clearly what Sabbaths are ceased: Ob. 2 1. Such as were against us. 2. Contrary to us; and such were those annual Sabbaths, requiring great labour and travel, in coming three times a year from all parts to Jerusalem; the seventh day-Sabbath was never in the least against us, nor contrary to us, unless so far as we are against God, and contrary to him, as 'tis else­where added.

'Tis very questionable, Answ. 1 whether these three annual Fe­stivals, Passeover, Pentecost, and the feast of Tabernacles be ever termed Sabbaths in Scripture; indeed the Sabba­tical years (as every seventh year, and every fiftieth year) ae five or six times termedLevit. 25.8. &c. 26.34, 35, 43. Sabbaths; 2 Chron. 36.21. but the [Page 110]Jews themselves could never say these were against them or contrary tot hem, the one being a year of rest to their lands, the other a year of release to their servants.

The weekly Sabbath or seventh day directly intended in the fourth Commandment (I grant) is nto againt us, Answ. 2 neither are we against it, we own it, we observe it, and shall do (I trust) till we enjoy our everlasting Sabbath in Heaven. But

The seventh-day-Sabbath imposed upon the Jews (or rather the hand-writing of Ordinances (not Gods hand­writing but Moses hand writing) was in some sense against us Gentiles, and contrary to us) as it was a piece of that old partition-wall which separated the Jewes from the Gen­tiles, and occasioned [...] Compare Col. 2.14. with Ephes. 2.14, 15, 16. See the Dutch Annot. enmity between them; that such a division or partition-wall there was we read in Ephes. 2. whereby the Jews and Gentiles were parted, and shut up as it were one from another, that there was no correspon­dency between them; and the symboll of this separation was the old Sabbath, whereby the Jewish Nation was di­stinguished from all other people in the world, as we shewed before out of Exod. 31. Now the Lord Jesus came to take down this separation wall, and to make up a Union be­twixt Jew and Gentile; and this he did, partly by his death, (blotting out the hand writing of Ordinances, or law of Commandments contained in Ordinances) and partly by hisActs 4.11. Ephes. 2.20. resurrection, where he was made the corner-stone of his Fathers house, to unite both parts of he building to­gether, that all might beGal. 3.28. one in Christ Jesus: This I take to be the sense of the place.

But the Prelates have perverted the Text, Obj. 3 T. T. for unto the Greek [...] (which only signifies Sabbaths) they have deceitfully added dayes, as though there were no Sabbathe but Sabbath: dayes; they have destroyed the Apostles scope by their addition of dayes.

The pious and judicious Translatours have rightly ren­dered it [Sabbath-dayes] for so the word is used in all those other texts above mentioned,p. 136. Answ. yea, when there is no [Page 111] [...] joyned with it; and the like I have observed inDialogue with Trypho. Justine Martyr, Hom. de se­mente. Athanasius and other expert Grecians, who do generally dispute against the Jews weekly Sabbath un­der the term which is here used; therefore this Author does most unworthily and wrongfully charge those worthy instruments (who made the Scriputres speak true English) with fraud and deceit; God will one day require an ac­count of these hard speeches, yea, scoffs and impious slan­ders. But he has not done yet.

Whereas by this bold and absurd addition some would cast off the seventh day as Ceremonial, Obj. 4 who yet plead strongly for the morality of the Sabbath; it is very considerable, that this Text toucheth not the day at al, but the duty, that is, the Sabbath; for the Apostle mentions not the day or time as a shadow, but [Sabbaths.]

None but a bold and absurd Anabaptist would call this an absurd addition, Answ. 1 for it is the usual and proper Translati­on of the word elsewhere; and if he should read it thus; let no man judg you in meat or drink, or in respect of a festi­val day, or a new Moon, or the Sabbath day; it were no wrong to the Text, for so we read the same word, Mat. 12.1. Understanding it of the old Sabbath day. Answ. 2

The duty of holy rest in general is not here intended at all; for that is usually intimated in a word of the singular number, and stands firm in the fourth Commandment, as also [...]. Mat. 24.20. 'Tis only the particular day!, or the respective limitation of the duty to that day that is here reckoned among the shadows of things to come: look how their festival dayes are called shadowes, so is their Sabbath; not the moral duties required on those dayes (as solemn2 Chron. 30, 21, 22. Neh. 8.6. worship, praise, and thanksgiving) for then it were a sin to keep a day of thanksgiving) but the set dayes, together with the ceremonial duties which they were accustomed to, a re here discharged, and the like I may say of their weekly Sabbath. And therefore his con­clusion will not hold, That we may as warrantably reject the moral law, upon that expression of the law being changed, [Page 112]as the seventh day upon this word of Sabbaths being a shadow: The distinction of moral and ceremonial may as well be applied to Sabbaths, as lawes; and till he can prove that the old seventh day is excepted from these shadowy Sab­baths, as we can prove the moral law to be from that which was mutable, he must confess it was but a shadow, and so either abrogated or altered, or both; as the ceremonialH. br. 7.12. law and the priest-hoods were; and if so, let him judg whether the Apostles rule ought not to be regarded, Let no man judg you in respect of shadowy Sabbaths; and let T. T. timely bethink himself how he will answer the breach of this rule at the Barre of Christ, when his own book shall (without repentance) be brought in as a bill of indictment against him, for judging, censuring, condemning, not on­ly faithful Ministers and Christian-people, but Magistrates, Princes, Parliaments, (charging them with little less then the sin against the Holy-Ghost) because forsooth they disown the brat of his brain,p. 50. and reject the Saturday-Sabbath: let this unjust judg take heed he be not judged with a witness: I shall ere long read him a sharp sen­tence out of Justin Martyr. But first I shall endeavour to convince him by two or three Arguments more, That the Sabbath is certainly changed from the last to the first of the week, and that by Divine Authority.

Christ ending his work, Arg. 3 ad hominem. and entring into his rest, layes the foundation of a new Sabbath, upon the day of his rest; But he ended his work and entred into his rest upon the first day of the week (by his resurrection from the dead) There­fore then, and thereby he laid the foundation of a new Sabbath upon that day of his rest.

Both feet of this argument stand upon Scriputre-ground, or the grant of the adversary, as shall appear in the pro­secution of it.

First, That our blessed Redeemers ending his work and entring into his rest laid the foundation of a new Sabbath seemes to be the Apostles conclusion, Hebr. 4.9.10. There remaineth therefore the keeping of a Sabbath (as the Tran­lators [Page 113]render it in the Margin) to the people of God, [...], for he that hath entred into his rest, (that is Christ) hath ceafed from his workes, as God did from his own workes. That it is spoken of Christ, T. T. plainly grants,p. 141. yea peremp­torily determines in these words, It is Christ only whose intrance into rest is here intended, and therefore there remaineth the keeping of the Sabbath to the people of God: A Sabbath I should rather say. I may lawfully proceed upon his own grant, and so wound him with his own weapon. For however he wrests this Scripture, and uses it as a sheild to defend his, Saturday-Sabbath, I believe upon trial it will be found a sword to destroy it. Which will the better appear, if we look into the contents of the third and fourth Chapters and withall have an eye to the scope of the whole Epistle, which will be an excellent key to unlock this intricate Text. Breifly to touch upon the general scope; it is very probable that these Christian Hebrews were about casting off the Ordinances and worship of the New Testa­ment, and revolting from Christ to Moses; for the pre­vention and cure of which Apostacy, St.For if the cloth may be known by the l [...]st (as M. Ward was wont to say) the Epistle is most likely to be his, the phrase and style being very a­greeable to his other Epistles. Paul is inspired by the Holy Ghost to write this Epistle, wherein his main design is to disswade them from this sin, as appeares by se­veral passages sparsed here and there; as ch. 4.14. Where he exhorts them to hold fast their profession and observe it well, ch. 7, 8, 9. When he had argued, that upon the com­ing of Christ there was to be change of the Priesthood and Law of old-Testament, worship-hereupon he concludes, ch. 10. Let us hold fast the professio of our faith without wa­vering; and verse 38. If any man draw back my soul shall have no pleasure in him; That is, if any man draw back from Gospel-ordinances, to abrogated Legal rites: therfore again ch. 12. v. 25. 26, 27. See that ye refuse not him that speaketh, whose voice shakes not only earth but Heaven also: Which shaking signifies the removing of things that are made (that is, Old-Testament-Ordinances, such as were alterable) that the things which cannot be shaken may remain, that is, Gospel-institutions. Having [Page 114]found out his main mark which he aimes at (namely to disswade them from Apostatizing to legal worship, and perswade them to persevere in Gospel-worship) let us consider in the next place,See Mr. Carter on Heb. 6. what arguments he uses to pre­vaile with them herein.

First, Inasmuch as the Ordinances of the Old Testa­ment were given by Angels, and by the hand of Moses, a Typical Mediator; therefore in the two first ch. he sets forth the excellency and dignity of Christ above Angels, proving him to be the very Son of God; and then ch. 3. he prefers him before Moses; inasmuch as Moses was but a Servant in Gods house, but Christ a Son, yea, the ownet and builder of the house; and such a builder as made not only the little house) the Church,) but the great house (the world) also, ch. 3. v. 4. therefore they had little rea­son to return from Christ to Moses.

Secondly, Having thusprepared them, he fals upon his intended subject viz. A serious disswasive from Apostacy: And because they were about to cast off the Solemn wor­ship of the new Testament (for tis expresly said ch. 10. v. 25. That the manner of some was to forsake the assembling of themselves together) (which assemblies in the Churches of Christ were alwayes upon the first day of the week;) therefore to Preach down this sin, among others, the A­postle takes a Text out of Psalm 95. and spends the best part of two chapters in the opening and applying of it. The words you have at large, ch. 3. v. 7, 8, 9. Wherefore as the Holy Ghost saith, to day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts, &c. His voice, that is, the voice of Christ our great Prophet spoken of before; and that upon his own day, his day of grace in generall, and his day of Solemn wor­ship in particular; for so it followes in that Psalm, Let us how down and worship before him. And let it be noted, the words cited out of the Psalm are not so much Davids ex­hortation to the people of his time, as a prophetical predi­ction of Gospel-times;Plalm 95. 6, 7. Isaiah 2.3. wherein he brings in the people of God (as also the Prophet Isaiah does) mutually invi­ing [Page 115]and calling upon one another to hear the voice of Christ, yea to come and worship before him; else how could the Apostle apply it to these Christians? Further, oh. 3. v. 12. he advises them to take heed of an evil heart of unbe­lief in departing from the living God, i. e. by forsaking his Ordinances and worship, and in particular his day of solemn worship, of which David here seemes to spea; lest they should provoke God by their Apostacy, as Israel did by their infidelity; till he sware against them in his wrath that they should not enter into his rest; whose sin and punishment is further exemplified to the end of that chap­ter.

Now because it might be thought that Gods oath did only concern the Israelites exclusion out of Canaan, the Holy Ghost informs us, that there was a Prophecy in that History, and a promise in that Threatning. Therefore we are admonished, ch. 4.1. To fear lest a promise being left us of entring into rest any of us should seem to come short of it. But how does the Apostle ground his admonition? What need Christians fear? Yes good reason, for v. 2. To us was the Gospel preached as well as unto them. Therefore having the like priviledges we may expect the like punishment, if we pervert those priviledges, or Apostatize from them through unbelief; for that was Israels undoing, the word Preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it, v. 2. hence they fell short of Gods rest in Canaan, which was a type of our eternal rest in Heaven, into which none but believers do enter, v. 3. For unbelievers are out off by Gods oath; as it fol­lowes, I have sworn in my wrath [...] Nota jurantis. 1 Sam. 14.45. Psalm 89.35. Jer. 38.16. if they shall enter; that is, they shall not enter; the sense must be supplied thus, if ere they come there, let me not be reputed a God of truth.

Thus far we have traced the Apostles argument, and found it mainly tending to this, to caution these Hebrews against Apostacy, and against infidelity as the root of that Apostacy; against Apostacy I say, not from Moses [Page 116](fot they wereActs. 21.20. They were all zealous of the law. tenacious enough that way) but from Christ and his institutions, and probably from the Christian Sabbath, which some conceive to be the day pointed at by David.

But because they were apt to think that the day, and the rest of which David spake, was the old seventh day, and the rest of Canaan, (which they were but too much de­voted to;) to root out this conceit, in the following verses the Apostle removes these two supposed rests, and plainly shews that neither the one nor the other could be intended either by David or himself.

First, It could not beExod. 35 2. meant of the old seventh day (which is sometimes styled a Sabbath of rest;) For al­though the works were finished from the foundation of the world, and God did rest the seventh day from all his works; yet in this place again he saith, if they shall enter into my rest, v. 4, 5. His argument stands thus; David expresly mentions a day and a rest to some (so much the word shall implies) [if they shall enter] but the rest of the old seventh day was already entred into, three thousand years before Davids time, even from the foundation of the world;See dr. Gouge Comment. on the Hebr. Therefore that could not be this. The force of the argument lies in this; that things spoken of different times, whereof the one is of time past, the other of time to come, cannot be the same: for instance, thatEzek. 34.24. & ch. 37.25. David who dyed many hundred years before Christ cannot be the same David who is promised to be a Prince amongst Christians. So here, the day, or rest of which David speaks being to come, and not then entred into, could not be the rest of the old seventh day, since that was entred into long before, even from the foundation of the world. This is the true and genuine sense of those words [although] and [again.]

Although is a discretive term, [...], or a note of distinction, importing thus much; that albeit there is mention made of a day of rest in the beginning of the world, yet it is as another distinct day and rest that is here intended. So [Page 117]also this Adverb [again] is to be taken of another rest­day then that which is mentioned in the former verse; for although the old seveuth day were spoken of by Moses as the first and most famons rest in the beginning, yet now [again] so many thousand years after that Da­vid speaks of another rest, if not another rest-day; and if any Sabbath or day of rest be here intended either by David or Paul, it will certainly prove fatal to the old Sabbath: for I would humbly propose this quere to the consideration of the learned, Whether the Psalmists inti­mation that there should be a day of solemn worship un­der the Gospel; and the Apostles assumption, that it could not be meant of the old seventh day, will not amount to this conclusion, that the old seventh-day-Sabbath is to be no day of rest or solemn worship under the Gospel. If T.T. quarrel at this conclusion, let him thank himself for the premises (one of them at least;) for he grants a mo­ral rest or Sabbath to be here meant) and I will thank the Holy-Ghost and S. Paul for the other, for they have as­sured me that the seventh day from the Creation could not be meant by David; no nor

Secondly, The rest of Canaan neither in the sense above mentioned: for although that be sometimes termed theDeut. 12.9. Josh. 1.15. rest which God gave Israel under the conduct of Jesus or Joshua; yet sayes the Apostle, v. 8. If Jesus had given them rest, (that is, if he had given them the rest of which David here speaks,) then would he not afterward have spoken of a­nother day: where note by the way, tis a day of rest which the Psalmist seems to scope at, else why should the Apostle thus interweave the one with the other, If Joshuah or Jesus had given them rest then would he not afterwards have spoken of another day?

Note again, the same Argument is here used against the supposed place of rest that was urged before against their conceived time of rest (the old seventh day;) [Page 118]both these were entred into long before Davids time, whereas he spake by the spirit of prophecy concerning things to come a long time after: and hereupon the Apo­stle concludes, There remaineth therefore a rest, or the keeping of a Sabbath to the people of God, distinct and different from the old Sabbath, yet not much unlike it in respect of the ground of it; for he that hath entred into his rest hath ceased from his works, as God did from his own works. And this is spoken only of Christ, sayes T.T. Be it so, then I hope our proposition will not offend him, that when our blessed Lord Jesus ended his work, and en­tred into his rest, he laid the foundation of a new Sabbath on that day of his rest: only tis like this word [new Sab­bath] will stick in his stomach; yet it needs not, for we cannot put (the old Sabbath) into the Apostles conclu­sion, because he himself puts it out of the premises. But we shall not wrangle about words; by new Sabbath I mean only a new Sabbath-day; and for peace-sake I am content the proposition should pass in these terms; The day on which Christ ended his works, and entred into his rest, must be our Christian Sabbath day. The assumption followes:

Secondly, That Christ ended his work, and entred into his rest, by his resurrection from the dead on the first day of the week: for proof whereof we may proceed upon a­nother of the Adversaries Principles; for thus he argue; Christs entring into his rest on the seventh day:T.T. p. 144, 145. Our dear Redeemers soul was no sooner separated from his body, but his better part immediately entred into glory, and soon after his blessed body was laid to rest in the grave. Where al­though I cannot but mind him of his gross mistake about the cricumstance of time (for tis evident that as our bles­sed Redeemers soul entred into Paradise on the sixth day, (the same day that he dyed) witness his words to the dy­ing theef; this day thou shalt be with me in Paradise;) so also his sacred body was interr'd the same day, even^a the day before the Sabbath, not on the seventh day, as this [Page 119]sophister would make silly people believ: e) yet I shall take him at his word in the main of his argument, namely, that when our Saviour entred into his glory, he entred into his rest: But I assume, By his resurrection from the dead on the first day of the week our Lord entred into his glory; and for this I have his own word more then once or twice; in the 24 of Luke he overtakes the two Disciples going to Emmaus, and as they were talking together with sad hearts about the sufferings and the death of Christ, and also relating what they had heard (but could hardly believe) concerning his resurrection, he takes them up with a sharp rebuke,Luke 24.25, 26. O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the Prophets have spoken: Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? to enter into his glory, you will say, that is to be understood of his as­cention into Heaven; nay, verily he spake it of his resur­rection from the dead, where their chief doubt lay; and so himself expounds it, for the same day at night he ap­pears to the rest of his Disciples, and these among them, preaching the same Doctrine, and saying,V. 46. Thus it is writ­ten, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day; this was that he had so often incul­cated before his death,Math. 16.21. ch. 17. 23. Mark. 9.31. ch. 10. 34. Luke 9.22. ch. 18. 31, 32, 33. That he must go up to Jerusalem, and suffer and die; that all things which were written in the prophets concerning him should be accomplished, that he should be delivered up to the gentiles, that they should crucifie and kill him, and that the third day he should rise again according to the Scriptures: so that what one Text speaks of his suffering and entring into glory, others in­terpret of his dying and rising again the third day; and that Christ by his resurrection entred into his glory, cannot with any colour of reason be denyed: surely when he en­tred into his Kingdome he entred into his glory; but by his resurrection from the dead he entred into his King­dome, being solemnly invested with Kingly power and soveraignty,Math. 28.18. Having all power in Heaven and earth put into his hands, andRev. 3.7. the keys of David, the Government [Page 120]of the Kingdom laid upon his shoulders, to dispense lawes, pronounce pardons, pass sentence of life and death,John 20.23. to bind and loose at his princely pleasure. In a word, it was by his glorious resurrection from the dead, that God^h set him as King upon his holy hill of Sion, saying, thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee. Christs resurrection-day was in a special manner his Coronation-day; and as earth­ly Princes are wont on their Coronation-dayes to shew themselves to their subjects in all their royalty, casting a­bout their silver and gold; so the Lord Jesus delights on this day to manifest himself to the souls of his people, scat­tering his precious gifts and graces in the assemblies of his Saints: for as this is the day which the Lord hath made, so tis the day in which he himself was madeⁱ Lord of the living and the dead;^k Lord and Christ Prince of life, King of Heaven and earth; a King indeed he was in the^l cradle, a King on thech. 27. 37. Cross; but never so much or so manifestly a King upon earth, as when he conquered that King of ter­rours, and carried away1 Tim. 6.16. that incomparable Title, the blessed and only potentate, the King eternal and immortal,Rom. 6.9. who dyeth no more, death hath no more dominion over him. He that shall deny Christs entring into glory by his resurrection, will rob him of much of his glory; tis true, he entred not into the place of glory (in his whole person) till his ascention; but into the state of glory he entred by his resurrection: if the bodies of the Saints shall be raised in1 Cor. 15.43. glory, how much more was the blessed body of Jesus Christ? If the glory of the stars be such, what is the glory of the rising Sun? But I must not expatiate here, a word more and I have done; He that hath entred into his rest hath ceased from his works, as God did from his; whence I gather, that it is not only Christs rest, but the reason of that rest (the consummation of the work of redemption) which occasions our Sabbath; as Gods finishing the work of Creation did the old Sabbath, Hebr. 4.3 4. And this the word Rest implies, being a demonstrative proof of the accomplishment of the work; for even a wise man, if [Page 121]he undertake a work, will not rest till it be finished; or if he do, he isLuke 14.29.30. laugh'd at for his lost labour: and therefore much more when the all-wise God is said to rest, may we conclude, his work is perfected. To speak properly (if rest imply only a cessation from work) we cannot say that God rested from his work of Creation on the seventh day more then he has done ever since, or Christ from his work of redemption: therefore we must take in the consumma­tion of each work, as the ground of each rest; otherwise all the time after should be of equal account with the last day in respect of Creation, and with the first day in respect of Redemption: Now the question will be, when the work of Redemption was consummate and complete? Doubtless, not till the top-stone was laid, till Christ was made the head of the corner; which theAct. 4.10, 11. Apostle as­sures us was by his resurrection from the dead; for if this had not been done, the work had been all to do again: If Christ had suffered, dyed, and been swallowed up of death and corruption in the grave, and never risen again, then had we remained still in our sins, and all our preaching of Christ, and faith in Christ had been vain, 1 Cor. 15.17. It was by our Saviours joyful resurrection, therefore that the work of our Redemption was manifestly accomplished, and hereupon Christ rested from his work, as God did from his: and as when God rested from the work of Creation, he appointed a Sabbath, although he did not rest from works of Providence; in like manner Christ hath appoint­ted a Sabbath upon his resting from the work of Redempti­on by price, although he doth not rest from the work of Re­demption by power, till all his enemies by vanquished, and all his elect saved, as aDr. Cheynels Treatise of the blessed Trinity. pag. 403. learned Author speaks. And so much for this Argument on Hebr. 4. only some objections Treatise of the must be removed; for T.T. takes this Text of Scripture and wofully wrests it to his own and others misguidance, in countenance of the Saturday-Sabbath; I shall briefly answer his several Arguments, as objections against what has been spoken.

‘The polluting of Gods seventh-day-Sabbath was wo­fully Israels sin, Obj. 1 T.T. p. 141. for which the Lord destroyed them in the wilderness, as 'tis plain, Ezek. 20.13. And this being compared with the Apostles admonition to these Chri­stians, plainly points out the Sabbath which remains to the people of God: he sets forth Israels sin and sorrow on this wise; although God finished his work from the foundation of the world, and thereupon speaks, Gen. 2. Yet neither the glory of his wonderful Creation, or au­thority of his institution could engage them to follow his Example; but so highly did they provoke him, espe­cially in polluting his Sabbaths,’ that he sware in is wrath they should not enter into his rest, &c. ‘Wherefore the Apostle concludes in applying all to believers, exhort­ing them (in the use of that means which Israel neglected) to enter into the eternal rest, lest any should fall after the example of Israels unbelief (or disobedience, as the Greek signifies:) and then he concludes Magisterially, Christians believe it, this is the summe of the Apostles admonition.’ But I must tell him, they had need of a very strong faith that can believe such incongruous stuffe as this is. For,

Although it be granted that Sabbath-breaking were one of I sraels sins in the wilderness, Answ. 1 yet it will not follow that this sin is here intimated by the Apostle as the cause of their ruine, but rather the sin of unbelief. For so 'tis expresly affirmed, ch. 3. v. 18.19. To whom sware he that they should not enter, into his rest, but to them that believed not? So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief. So ch. 4. v. 2. v. 6. v. 11. And whereas T.T. tells his Reader, that the word signifies disobedience; I must tell him, it is his mistake to render it so in this place; for it agrees not with the scope of the context, which is to disswade them from unbelief as the root of Apostasie, ch. 3. 12. Take heed Brethren of an evil heart of unbelief in depart­ing from the living God: where the [...]. v. 18.19. word doth properly and without all question signifie unbelief. And the A­postles [Page 123]rendring of the word ( [...]) which signifies ei­ther unbeliefe or disobedience, by another word ( [...]) which signifies unbelief only, v. 18.19. does evidently speak his meaning, namely, that we should take heed of falling by Israels example of unbelief, which is the mother of allJohn 16.8, 9 vice, as faith is the mother of grace: And therefore ch. 4. v. 1. he cautions us to fear lest a promise being left, any of us should seem to come short. Now the promise is the ground of Faith, as the precept is of obedience. I con­clude therefore, it is not so much Israels disobedience as Israels unbelief upon which the stress of the argument is laid.

To take the Apostles admonition as a caution against the neglect of the old Sabbath, is utterly to mistake his main mark and scope: For his grand design is to prevent their Apostasie from Christ and his Gospel, not from Moses and his law: And I am perswaded, if any Sabbath-breaking be here intended, it is to deterre them from the breach of the Christian Sabbath.

To understand this Scripture (there remaineth the keep­ing of a Sabbath to the people of God) of the old seventh-day-Sabbath, Answ. 3 is utterly to invalidate the Apostles argu­ment; because it confounds that distinction of rests on which he grounds his argument. For 'tis evident,See Mr. White of Dutch. in this Tex. p. 230 the A­postle speaks of several and distinct rests, and insists most strongly upon the opposition between Moses words, Gen. 2. and the words of David, Psalm 95. (not Psalm 45. as T.T. misquotes it) and makes it most manifest that David could not mean the rest of the Sabbath, of which Moses speakes, Gen. 2. for Hebr. 4.3. thus he reasons: David speaks of a rest to come, but Moses speakes of a rest past, therefore David cannot mean the rest of the old Sabbath, of which Moses speaks, which was entred into so long before. And verse 5. he takes up the same opposition a­gain, [and in this place (i. e. of David) again if they shall enter] who sees not a manifest opposition betwixt these two [have entred] and [shall enter?] That word [although v. [Page 124]3.] relates not to the sin of Israel, but the saying of Da­vid. And thus this Authors first fancy is battered: There remaineth therefore the keeping of a Sabbath to the people of God; but no: the old Sabbath.

Tis set down in the Margin of our Bibles [the keeping of a Sabbath] whence they would evade the seventh-day Sab­bath, Obj. 2 T.T. although the Dictionaries and Lexicons render ib plain­ly the keeping of the Sabbath.

The Greek word is [...], Answ. without an Article, and therefore this is a meer causless cavil: and as for Lexi­cons that render the Greek into Latin, I suppose be will find neither a nor the in any of them; for these are English particles: and as for Latin Dictionaries, he may look long enough before he will find the word in any of them, for tis a pure Grecism. And thus I think he has shewed his Scholarship with a witness: No wonder such an accurate Critick casts odium upon the Translatours; tis much he does not give us a Bible of his own making.

The Scripture gives full evidence, Obj. 3 p. 144. that Christ entred into his rest the true seventh day (he means the old seventh day) when he had finished his great work of Redemption: and for this he cites Acts 2.26. where tis said, his flesh did rest in hope.

The* word signifies only thus much, Answ. [...] his flesh did remain in hope, and it may be as well rendred, remain, as rest. It implyes no such thing as Sabbatical rest.He cites Job 17.3. for Job 3.17 an argument he is not infallable. As for Job 3.17. which he misquotes again, it makes nothing for his purpose: All that it speaks, is this, There the wicked cease from troubling, and there the weary are at rest. Teach­ing us, that the grave is a place of rest from external im­pressions of violence and cruelty, as also from trouble, la­bour and sorrow to the people of God. They shall rest in their beds, sayes the Prophet: Yet I hope he will grant the grave is a softer bed to Saints then it was to our Saviour; for as he took away the sting of death by dying and rising a­gain, so also the horror of the grave by being buried. Certain it is, that Christs burial was a part of his humilia­tion, [Page 125]and while he lay in the grave he lay under the sor­rowes, paines or chains of death, as the Holy Ghost wit­nesseth.Acts 2.24. And who ever doubted but our Saviours durance in the Sepulchre was penal,Even the Lutherans (who attri­bute more then is meet to the buri­all of Christ, as they do to his body) do confess that it was a part of his humiliation, and that hereby he underwent that penalty, Gen. 3.19. vide Gerh. Supplem. ad Chem. Harm. p. 230. as well as his death upon the Crosse? How then did he rest from the work of Redemption, as long as he lay under the arrest of death in the prison of the grave? Certainly all his humi­liation work was Redemption-work from his Birth to his burial: and (setting aside his Cru­cifixion) we have reason to think our Redeemer was not so much humbled all the three and thirty years of his life, as the three dayes and three nights after his death, while he lodged in the heart of the earth: Before he was but as the Sun in a cloud, but now as the Sun under a total E­clipse, as to the view of the world. And doubtless for the blessed Son of God, and Lord of Glory, to lie down in thePsalm 22.15. Ephes. 4 9. dust of death, and suffer himself to be trampled under the feet of that Tyrant, was no small degree of abase­ment. But to be sure, whatever our blessed Redeemers rest were before his Resurrection, either that of his Soul in glory, or the other of his body in the grave, it could make nothing for the Saturday-Sabbath; for neither of these rests were entred into on the seventh day, but both on the sixth day. TheJohn 19. v. 14 31.42. day before the Sabbath he was crucified, and the same day he was buried; otherwise how is it said, That he rose again the third day ^c according to the Scriptures? Methinks this should make the Objector blush to look back upon his anti-scriptural conclusion, That Christ entred into his rest on the true seventh-day-Sab­bath; expounding it of his rest in the grave. But a word with you Sir; did the Lord Jesus indeed enter into that rest of the grave the seventh day of the week? why then it seems he rose again from the dead the second day, and rested but two dayes and two nights in the grave; and had he not need be greater then an Angel that shall take upon [Page 126]him to coine such new Creeds, and preach such new Go­spels, for sear of the Apostles^d Anathema? To salve this he tells us p. 145. that our Saviours body was laid to rest in the Sepulchre in the close of the sixth day. Very good! Why then does he say in the next page, that he entred in­to this rest on the seventh day? Thus at once he contra­dicts both himself and the Scriptures. But to conclude; this author has little reason to vaunt and glory (as he does) in this new invention: For, to make Christs rest in the grave a ground of the weekly Sabbath, is neither proper in respect of the thing, nor proportionable in respect of the time. For the thing it self, how altogether improper and incongruous is it, to keep a weekly festival in memory of our Saviours Funeral? to make that day a day of re­joycing which was rather a day of mourning? For so the Ancients held it, and therefore kept it as a Fast, ergo not as a Sabbath; for the Sabbath was ever reckoned a­mong the solemn^c Feasts of the Lord; which one conside­ration is sufficient to shew the judgment of antiquity in this controversie. For they kept the^* Lords day as a day of spiritual joy and gladness, and spent the whole Saturday (the time of Christs lying in the grave) in Fasting and mourning; alledging, for their practise that speech of our Saviour, When the Bride-groom is taken from them then shall they fast, Luke 5.35. Again, it holds no proportion in respect of the time, for our Saviour lay three dayes and three nights in the grave; therefore this can be no pattern for a weekly Sabbath. I doubt the best of our new Sabbath-keepers would be weary of resting so long at a time. But the stress of T.Ts. Argument is laid upon Christs entring into rest, therefore there remaineth the keeping of a Sabbath to the people of God; and here I shall lay the stress of my answer, having manifestly proved that Christs entrance in­to rest was not on the seventh day, no not in this authors [Page 127]own new notion of rest. And whereas he addes, that the taking down of our Saviours body from the Cross, and laying it in the sepulchre in the close of the sixth day, was providentially ordered: I answer, true, providentially indeed; for hereby the Holy Ghost has admirably provi­ded against this future error of raising the old seventh-day-Sabbath from the dead, and building it up anew upon the grave of Christ, where it rather lies buried never to rise again. For if the blessed body of Christ were laid in the grave on the sixth day, then he entred not into that rest, (nor indeed any rest at all) on the seventh day. But on the first day of the week he entred into his true rest, and ceased from his work of Redemption, as God the Father did the seventh day from his work of Creation; therefore there remaineth the keeping of a Sabbath to the people of God upon the day of Christs resting from his work, the day of his rising from the dead. And we have grand rea­son to think that Christ had a significant meaning in pro­longing his Resurrection to the third day, which was the first of the week; as the Father had in lengthening out the Creation to the seventh day, which was the last of the week. For as the Father could have created the world in a moment, so could the Son have quickned and raised himself from the grave assoon as he was in it, either the same day, or the seventh, if he had pleased: But he purposely and pro­videntially passed over that day, and crowned the first of the week with the glory of his resurrection; which plainly speakes it his will and pleasure to make that day the day of our weekly rest, in which our Lord himself rested from his greatest work.

Oh! But Christ rested not on the day of his Resurrection, Obj. 4 T. T. p. 120. for he journeyed fifteen miles that very day, which was no fair president for celebrating a Sabbath. And again, he travelled fifteen miles upon this supposed new Sabbath; and this not to any Church-meeting, but from Jerusalem (where most of his disciples were) purposely joyning with the two disciples that were journeying on foot seven miles and a half [Page 128]into the Countrey. He means the disciples going to Em­maus, Luke 24.13, 14. This is his last refuge, and 'tis a very sorry one. For

First, This travel was without labour; and if he had journeyed that day from earth to Heaven, and back again from Heaven to earth, it had been no impeachment to his holy rest, any more then the motion of an Angel sent up­on Gods errand would be a profanation of his Sabbath: certainly the body of Christ at his resurrection was a glo­rious body, and able to move from earth to Heaven, as some think, in a moment. And whether he did not locally (though not so solemnly as afterwards) ascend into Hea­ven, and descend again, the very day of his resurrection, is disputed by some. I shall not positively assert it, but mo­destly propound it to further inquiry, whether those words,John 20.17. Touch me not, for I am not yet ascended to my Father; but go and tell my brethren I ascend; do not seem to imply that even now in the morning of the resurrection-day he was about to ascend; and whether the same day at night returning again, and bidding them touch orLuke 24.39 handle him do not argue that now he had ascended? Again, whether those words,Eph. 4.8, 11. When he ascended up on high, he gave gifts unto men, some Apostles, some Prophets, &c. must be necessarily limited to his last ascention; or whether they may not be construed of some former ascention? Since it seems those gifts were given upon the very day of his re­surrection; for then (John 20. towards the evening or end of that day) the Gospel-Ministry was constituted; then the A­postles received their mission and commission,v. 19. As my Father hath sent me even so send I you: v. 21. whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted, and whose soever sins ye retain they are retained. Yea, then they received thev. 22. Holy Ghost, For he breathed on them, and saith unto them, receive ye the Holy Ghost. I shall not determine where our Saviour had his usual residence during those 40. dayes betwixt his resurrection and last ascention, whether in Heauen or on earth; curiosity I abhorre in the mysteries of Christ; and [Page 129]what I have here offered is in humility, and sobriety of spirit, with submission to better and riper judgments. Let not this digression be counted a transgression; or if it be, pardon it. To return to my answer, this is most certain, that although the body of Christ after his resurrection re­mained a real and true body, yet it was aLuke 24.37. spiritual, a splen­did and glorious body, free from that corpulency, that lumpishness, that subjection to weariness and other infir­mities that these vile bodies of ours are clogged and incum­bred withall; this is manifest by his marvellous apparitions upon earth, and his gloriousActs 1.9, 10. 1 Pet. 3.22. assention into Heaven; when he mounted himself in the Chariot of that cloud, in which he rode in Triumph into glory; now motion is no hindrance to the rest of a glorified body, such as Christs was when he arose from the dead; therefore although he were in action and motion on the resurrection day, yet he did not labour.

His joyning with those two Disciples travelling to Em­maus, was a work of Charity and Piety. Ans. 2, For their hearts were sad and ready to sink under their own fears:Luke 24.17. And this blessed Physitian came to comfort them, and confirm them in the belief and assurance of his resurrection: They were his poor distracted, dejected, timerous disciples, and whom should he visit but such? Say they were going from Jerusalem (that bloody City) suppose they were stray­ing like sheep without a Shepherd, yet the Lord Jesus that great Shepherd of the sheep being now brought a­gain from the dead,Hebr. 13.20. would not leave them wandering in a wilderness, but fetch them home to their fold again: And it was no secular imployment, but a Sabbath dayes work, for he spent the time in opening Scripture, preaching and proving his resurrection, till their cold and dead hearts were so quickned and warmed, that they did even burn within them; in a word, it was a Sabbath dayes journey. But leaving the Adversary to solace himself with these sapless notions, and trifling objections; we proceed to a fourth Argument.

From the designation of a new day upon the discharge of the old; Arg. 4 we shall couple both together, and cast it in­to this form. The old seventh day Sabbath is discharged from obligation or observation under the new Testament, and a new day of the same number (the first of the week) design­ed, deputed, and determined for the Christians weekly day of Solemn worship under the Gospel, and that by the Lord of the Sabbath; Therefore the Sabbath is altered and changed from the last to the first of the week, by no less then Divine authority. The consequent cannot be denyed, if the An­tecedent be granted; and granted it must be when proved by Scripture, as it shall be in each particular (I hope) to full satisfaction.

1. That the old seventh day is discharged, disanulled, and abolished for ever being a Sabbath more to the people of God in Gospel-times; this we have proved in part al­ready from Colos. 2.16 to which may be added, Gal. 4.10, 11.See the new Annotations on this place. Ye observe dayes, and moneths, and times, and yees, I am afraid of you, &c. See how zealously this great Apostle and Doctor about dayes, decries all legal distinctions of dayes? by four distinct phrases he enumerates all the solemn Festivals in use among the Jewes, and opposeth the obser­vation of them all in Christian Churches. Read the words either backwards or forwards; the first clause (Ye observe dayes) must in all reason referr to their observation of the Jewes weekly Sabbath day. For if by years we are to un­derstand either their Sabbaticall years, or rather their yearly Sabbath, called the day of atonement; and by times or seasons their annual Feasts of Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles; and by Moneths, their monethly Feasts called New-moons; what can be meant by dayes in this retro­grade order but their weekly seventh day? What dayes were in request among the Jewes of quicker return then their monethly dayes, besides their weekly Sabbath day? That which perswades me that the Apostle does here un­questionably intend the old seventh-day is:

1. The Correspondency of this Text with that Kalendar [Page 131]or Chapter of dayes Levit. 23. where Moses sets down all their solemn Feasts or holy-dayes, eight in number; reckon­ing the weekly Sabbath among the rest of those Ceremonial Festivals, and putting that first as the Apostle does here, then proceeding to speak of the rest, much after the same order here observed. This Text comprehends all the dayes and times mentioned in that catalogue.

2. The plain parallel betwixt this place and Colos. 2. which may may be seen in the scope of both Epistles com­pared together. These two Churches it seems were sick of one and the same disease, as appears by the same Symptomes in both, the disease was Judaism, wherewith they were dan­gerously infected by the breath of false teachers crept in a­mong them, who beguiled them withColos. 2.4. enticing words, and sought toGal. 1.5. pervert the Gospel; namely by perswading them to mingle Law and Gospel together, by retaining the cu­stomes of Moses together with the commands of Christ;Colos. 2.12.16 Gal. 4.10. ch. 5. 2, 3, 6, 12, 13. and that especially in two points, viz. Circumcision, and Observation of legal dayes, and among other dayes the old seventh-day, which (together with circumcision) was cryed up among the Colossians, as was shewed above, and therefore by good consequence among the Galatians also, since they were men of the same gang that had bin tamper­ing here as well as there; I mean Jewish false teachers, the Doctors of circumcision; and their Doctrin was alike; yea the dayes for which they contended were alike both here and there, dayes, or Sabbaths sorted out by themselves,The old se­venth day is here meant, though it be not mentioned ex­presly. and distinguished from new moons and other Festivals; therefore undoubtedly the old seventh-day was the maine. This together with circumcision were those legal and mosaical customes which the Jewish Zealots laboured tooth and nayl to propagate in all the primitive Churches, e­specially where there were any convert Jewes. But S^t. Paul like a resolute champion of Christs cause opposes him­self against these growing errours wherever he came, inso­much that he began to be voyc'd and cryed up, or rather cryed down as the great stickler against Moses; Therefore [Page 132]when he came to Jerusalem St. James tells him, that the Judaizing weak brethren wereActs 21.21. informed of him, how that he taught the Jewes who were among the Gentiles (that is the Christian Churches) to forsake Moses, and not to walk after the customes; and by and by when (to stay the Mouths of these weak Christians) he goes into the Temple to purifie himself, the Jewes which were of Asia make a loud out cry against him, V. 28 saying, Men of Israel, help: this is the man that teacheth all men every where against the people, and the law, and this place. By which Testimonies tis evident, that St. Paul was a rigid Non-conformist, and that he did mightily cry down the customes of Moses in all Christian Churches. If you ask me, what customes? I answer they are not particularly mentioned; onely these two Epistles do witness that he had decryed circumcision, the old Sabbath, and other dayes and rites of legal wor­ship, therefore in all likelyhood these were some of those condemned customes. And hereupon it seems the old Ebi­onites rejected Pauls writings, rating him as anApostatam legis eum dicen­tes. Iren. lib. 1. ch. 26. Apostate because he wrote against the customes of Moses, chiefly circumcision and the old Sabbath, both which the Ebio­nites eagerly contended for; and therefore they were brand­ed for Hereticks to all succeeding generations, and well they deserved it. But it may be demanded, by what warrant did St. Paul cry down these Mosaical customes, and upon what ground? I answer, his warrant wasGal. 1.1. he that raised Christ from the dead gave him his com­mission. signed in Hea­ven, and his ground was good; For the Lord Jesus him­self was designed to change these customes; so much St. Steven does upon the matter affirm, for he was accused for saying, That Acts 6.14. Jesus of Nazareth should change the customes which Moses had delivered. Mark the expression, the very word [change] is brought in as an Article against this blessed Martyr. The only crime they had to lay to his charge was this, that he should say Jesus of Nazareth should change the customes which Moses had desivered. 'Tis true, they accused him for speaking blasphemy against Moses law (and therefore they are calledV. 13. false witnesses, [Page 133]or false accusers) but like enough that which they called blasphemy St. Steven had spoken; very like in his dispute with theV. 9, 10. Libertines, Cyrenians, and Alexandrians he might speak something to this effect; that Christ should destroy the Temple, and change the law and ordinances which Moses had given them. Whether he did affirm it or no, the thing it self is a certain truth; the Lord Jesus has changed the Traditions of Moses; he has changed theHeb. 7.12. law, and the Priesthood, the Covenant, and the Seales of the Covenant; circumcision for Baptism, the Passeover for the Lords Supper; the typicalMal. 1.11. John. 4.21. place and times of wor­ship; all things lyable to change he has certainly changed, and among the rest the old Sabbath, which was mutable from the beginning, as we have shewed elsewhere. But I conceive St. Steven had indeed asserted this truth; for be­ing charged with it, does he deny it? No, he rather stands to maintain and justifie it ch. 7.V. 47. and accordingly God justifies him, by making his face to shine before the Coun­cil like the face of anch. 6. 15. Angel; for indeed it was the Do­ctrine of anDan 9.26.27 Angel which he had delivered: and, to come to some issue, that which I would further observe is this; St. Paul (although at that time neither Saint nor Paul) was present at the Martyrdom, if not the tryall of Steven and didActs 22.20. ch. 26. 10. consent to his death, and doubtless he could not but know the cause for which he suffered; which was part­ly this,Reader, note this as a convincing argument, that a Sabbath or day joy­ned with other Jewish holy-dayes, yet distinguished from them, can be no other then their seventh day Sab­bath and this is often condemned never commanded, in all the new Testament, therefore thou must make a new Gospel if thou wilt maintain that old Sabbath. for saying that Jesus of Naza­reth should change the customes which Moses had delivered; a truth sealed with the blood of this Protomartyr. Now I would offer it to further consideration, whether this might not be one ground of this great Apostles after zeal against the Ordinances, Rites, and Customes which Moses had delivered, and in par­ticular circumcision and the old Sabbath But I shall not go by guesse and conjectural probability. Thus much I infer from the premises, as matter of certain­ty, [Page 134]The customes which Paul taught people to cast off were the customes delivered by Moses, Acts 21.21. which were destinated to be changed by Christ Acts 6.14. But Paul taught people to cast off circumcision and the old Sabbath Colos. 2.12.16. Gal. 4.10. ch. 5. 2. Therefore these were the customes delivered by Moses and destinated to change by Christ. That circumcision was, none Questi­on; but the scruple is about the Sabbath; for it may be ob­jected, the Sabbath was long before Moses time, as old as Adam, Apostate Adam at least; I answer, so also circumcision was long before Moses time, being given at first toGen. 17.9, 10 Acts 7.8. Abraham; yet circumcision is said to be given byJohn 7.22. Moses, because he was the first that wrote of it; and the like may be said for the old Sabbath, which was one of those customes delivered or made known by the hand of Moses, Neh. 9.14. and ranked with the rest of those ceremonial festivals Levit. 23. But to be sure, whatever St. Steven in his dispute with the Libertines and Cyreni­ans asserted; St. Paul in his Epistles to the Colossians and Galatians hasevidently concluded the discharge of the old seventhday.

T. T. has little to say to Gal. 4. only this;p. 23. That Paul does not here condemn the observation of all dayes &c. onely beggarly seasons and elements.

Neither do we say, that all dayes are here condemned or disallowed. The Lords day (the first day of the week) we are sure is not, for this was established by this very Apostle in these very Churches of1 Cor. 16.1, 2. Galatia; and to condemn this had been to crosse his own Ordinance. But we say, all Judaicall dayes (for dayes, months, years do all referr to that specialty, Jewish solemnities) are here discharged and condemned, and among the rest the old seventh day. And as for the objectors Minatory charge, If any man be so bold to call this a beggarly element, at his peril be it. Let the Holy Apostle answer it: He had best tell St. Paul, at your peril be it Paul, if you dare call the old Sabbath a shadow of things to come, or a [...]. poore Rudiment (for so [Page 135]he may qualifie the termes if he please) but where lies the peril? Why not the old Sabbath a poore rudiment? he hints this as his reason, (Because God instituted and observ­ed it) Observed it! how did God observe it? Take heed of unbeseeming termes. When we speak of the glorious God, we had need speak as the Oracles of God: Obser­vation does imply obligation. And how can this stand with the soveraignty of God? But I suppose his meaning is, that God rested the seventh day; what then? Therefore it was no rudiment, had nothing Typical, or ceremonial in it. It followes not.Psam 132.8. 2 Chron. 6 41. How often is God said to rest in Types of Christ? is not the Tabernacle stiled, Gods rest? And the Temple, and the Temple Worship? are notGen. 8.21. Exod. 29.18. Numb. 15.3. Sa­crifices and oblations called a Savour of rest unto God? not that Gods soul rested in any of these rests (properly) nor the people of God neither: But he rested in Christ, and so did they; in these things only as Types or prefigu­rations of Christ to come. And thus he is said to rest on the seventh day: We have proved before that man sinned and fell the sixth day, and that Christ was promised, and actually invested in the office of Mediatorship before the Sabbath was instituted: And hereupon God rested the seventh day, not only from the work of Creation, but from the weight and burthen of Adams sin. For God complains of sin as a heavyIsai 1.14. Amos 5.2.13. burthen, and as the sins of the old world are said toGen. 6.6. grieve him at his heart, so no doubt did the sin of Adam. But Christ interposing to make reconcilati­on, God rested the seventh day and was refreshed. Exod. 31.17. That the old Sabbath was instituted after the fall, (besides what has bin formerly alledged) appears plainly from that of our Saviour.Mark 2.28. The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath: For man; that is for man in misery, (not man in innocency) for the context speaks of necessitous indigent man; man subject to hunger, and thirst, and want. Tis spoken upon the occasion of the hungry disciples plucking the ears of Corn, and eating out of pure necessity on the Sabbath day. The Pharisees pre­sently [Page 136]censure them as Sabbath breakers,Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath day having power to dispose of it at his pleasure. but sayes the Lord of the Sabbath, you quarrel without cause, For the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath; That is, the Sabbath was made for the good and benefit of man in misery; Principally for the good of his sick and sinfull soul, but partly for the support of his weak and frail body also, that it might rest and be refreshed with convenient food, Physick and the like; which clearly argues, that the Sabbath was made, ordained, and instituted after man was in necessity and misery, namely after Adams fall; and therefore tis said, That God blessed the seventh day and san­ctified it. Gen. 2.3. Blessed it, how, not with natural blessings, that the Sun should shine brighter, or the wea­ther be fairer that day then another; No, the blessings of the Sabbath were of another nature spiritual blessings; such as were suitable to the state of fain man; such as God has pronounced Fallen man blessed withall, other­wise the institution had never concerned any one man since the fall. How could it, if the blessings contained in it had bin nothing but Paradise blessings? But we shall not inculcate former arguments; only add one consideration more to make it further manifest, that Gods rest on the seventh day was partly (if not chiefly) in relation to Christ the pro­mised Messiah. Tis a saying of the Hebrew Doctors, and it agrees well with theHeb. 2.10. Rev. 5.11, 12, 13. Scriptures, that the world it self had not bin made but for the Messiah; For all things were made by him and for him: and he is theHeb. 1.2. heir of all things and that as Mediatour; and we have reason to think, that Gods heart were more set upon Christ when he set up this visible frame of Heaven and earth, then upon all the world besides. How unlikely therefore is it that the glori­ous Creator should set apart a day of rest, till the grand design upon which his thoughts had run from all eternity, and which was chiefly in his eye when he made the world, (the glorifying of himself in his Son, by investing him with the government of the world, and putting him as heir of all things into actuall possession of his hereditary [Page 137]Dominions) had some actual inchoate existence? 'Tis cleare, that God did not rest from his other works of Creation till he had made man; because till then he had not attained his subordinate end of making the rest of his creatures: and tis credible, that he would not rest, after he had made man, till he had made Christ Mediatour, and put the government of all upon his shoulders; because till then he had not attained his ultimate end, for which he made man and all the rest of the world besides. Certain it is, that the Creation was made but mutably perfect at first and therefore it cannot be conceived how God could keep a setled rest the seventh day, till he had setled and e­stablished the Creation on Christ the rock,Deut. 32.4. whose work is perfect: And this I conceive to be the true and undoubt­ed sense of that saying, Gen. 22. On the seventh day God ended, Finished, or perfected, his work; namely, by e­stablishing it upon Christ that sure foundation;1 Peter 4.18. hence he is styled a faithfull Creator, in that he did not leave his work of Creation in a mutable estate (as Masons and Car­penters when they have built their houses leave them without any further care what becomes of them) but as a faithful CreatorGod was not the author or approver of mans falbut on­ly the orderer and over ruler of it to bring good out of e­vill. he over ruled the Fall of Adam for a greater good, namely for the establishment of his mutable work, by bringing in Christ the right heir, setting him asPs. 8.6. He. 2.8. 1 Cor. 15.24 Lord over all the works of his hands, puting all things under his feet, making himJosh. 3.11. Neb. 9.6. Dan. 10.14, 15. Acts 10.36. Lord of the whole world and of all things therein, to whom doth appertain the Domi­nion of the Heavens and the Heaven of Heavens, the earth and all that is therein. Thus on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made, or perfected his work which he had made: That which he had made perfect at first with mutable perfection, he now perfected again by a further degree of supperadded perfection; namely by the promise of Christ and his personall undertaking as Me­diatour, by whom all thingsCol. 1.16. consist: And accordingly God rested the seventh day, (not in the changeable Crea­ture) but in Christ the rock, and so the Sabbath was sta­ted [Page 138]on the seventh day upon the account of Christ in the promise, upon the performance of which promise the se­venth day ceases to be any longer a day of rest. But e­nough is said to shew the discharge of the old seventh day from obligation under the new Testament. We shall only remove some of the Adversaries chief objections, and then lay down our grounds for the Christian Sabbath.

He objects, Obj. 1 The Fathers institution of the seventh day, which makes it as perpetual as the Ordinance of marriage. But

This is fully answered in the first Position; Answ. where we have proved, that the Fathers institution of the old seventh day was upon such grounds as exposed it to alteration. Thi­ther I referr the Reader, and shall follow the objector to his next Argument.

From the Sons confirmation of the seventh day. Obj. 2 Christ has confirmed it (sayes he) 1.T. T. p. 72. to p. 79. By his words. 2. By his works. By his words more generally, among the rest of his royal Lawes which he hath ratified even to a point or Tittle, Math. 5.18. Teaching his Apostles to do the like, Rom, 3. James 2.10. More particularly, by proclaiming himself Lord of the Sabbath day Mark 2.28. As if he had said, the Sabbath is mine, I am Lord of it, I made it for Man, and having given him a precept and pattern to sanctifie it, I shall not make my self a president to profane it: Now that which Christ layes claim to as Lord, must needs be confessed his: There­fore do we celebrate the holy Supper because tis the Lords Supper. Again, Math. 24.20. He instructs his disciples to pray that their flight might not be on the Sabbath day, namely forty years after his death, at what time all Cere­monies were abolished by Apostolical proclamation. And as thus he has owned the seventh day Sabbath by his words, so he has also crowned it by his workt &c.] This is the main strength and force of his Argument; But alas! it is to feeble to fetch life into a dead Sabbath that has lain sixteen hundred years in the grave; we shall discuss every particular in it, and return several answers to it.

We grant indeed that the Lord our Lawgiver has rati­fied his royal Moral Law even to a point or a tittle, Answ. 1 inasmuch as he came to fulfil the Law, not to dissolve and destroy it. But how is every tittle to be taken? Not strictly and gra­phically for every vowel, point and prick of a letter in the Law; but for the substance and least matter of it, the least Commandment in it; so our Saviour expounds himself, Matth. 5.19. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least Commandments and teach men so, shall be least in the Kingdome of God; teaching us, that by [jot or tittle of the Law verse 18.] he meant the least Commandment of the Moral Law v. 19. Thus also St. James ch. 2.10. He that shall offend in one point is guilty of all. By one point he means any one precept or Commandment in the Deca­logue. He explains himself by the reason rendred verse 11. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill: As if he had said, the same God that gave one Com­mandment gave all, therefore when any one point or pre­cept is violated, the contempt reflects upon the whole Law, the least sin being an affront to Gods soveraignty. So then the sense of both places is the same; the least point or precept of the Moral Law is in force under the Gospel; and if the least, much more the fourth Commandment, which indeed is none of the least. But what of all this? The fourth Commandment is established by Christ, therefore the seventh day in weekly succession from the Creation; the Consequence is infirm. For that day was never directly stated in the Commandment; the fourth Commmandement sayes not, Thou shalt keep holy the last day of the week, and not the first, but a seventh day Sab­bath, or one in seven: the old seventh day may be and is repealed; and yet the Commandement ratyfied to a tittle in the matter; yea in the very letter of it evangelically con­sidered; to wit, as it is explained by Christ according to the will of God, though not the carnal reasonings of men. But of this formerly.

That Text Mark 2.28. rightly interpreted makes no­thing for the old Sabbath, but much against it. For these words [The Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath day] do speak Christs power to alter and change it, not his purpose to establish & confirm it under the Gospel, 'tis a title much like that Math. 21. where he stiles himself Lord of the vineyard; as having power to let and lease it out to other Husbandmen, Mark 12.9.Dominus rectè dicitur alicujus rei, qui in illam jua & potestatem habet extollendi & immutandi Aretius in Luc. 6. Christ was Lord of the Sabbath, that is had power to change the day: Engl. Annot. in Mar. 2. Luke 20.15.16. And thus he was Lord of the Sabbath, having authority to alter and adjourn it to another day: the Sabbath was the vineyards Land-mark, or the Chur­ches distinctive limit, & he that had power to transplant the vineyard, had no less power to transpose the Sabbath. He was Lord of the vineyard and Lord of the Sabbath in a like notion. Suppose it spake, as the objector speaks, [I am Lord of the Sabbath, the Sabbath is mine] yet still the same sense re­curres, is it not lawful for me to do what I will with my own? As our Lord speaks in another case Math. 20.15. The Temple was his as well as the Sabbath, Mal. 3.1. and styled hisPs. 132.14. rest forever, and hisIsai 56.7. house of prayer for all people (more then I remember, was ever said of the se­venth day Sabbath) yet the Temple is destroyed: and as Christ never meant to tye up his Gospel worshippers to that typical place of worship, so neither to that typical time of worship. He was Lord of both while they lasted, that he might dissolve both when their season was expired, that he might legally and ex officio give his people a discharge from both. As for the Authors crafty collation of these two expressions [Lord of the Sabbath day] and [Lords Supper] whereby he would insinuate the equall authority and per­petuity of that Legal Sabbath with this Evangelical Sacra­ment, it savours of more sophistry then solidity of Argu­mentation: let the unlearned know, that as the terms are dif­ferent in the Greek, so the phrase in our English Dialect imports different things; 'tis one thing to call Christ Lord of this or that, another thing to say tis the Lords; to say he was Lord of the Sabbath, and that before his death, is nothing [Page 141]so much as to to say, this is the Lords Supper, and that after his resurrection; The former imports the office or authority of Christ, the latter implyes his Ordinance: And let the ob­jector know, that this Epithet [ [...]] is never used but twice in the new Testament; namely for the Lords Supper & the Lords day Rev. 1.10. The Holy Ghost never vouchsafed to honour the Saturday Sabbath with this Evangelical title. But of that in convenient time and place, we are now discus­sing Mark 2. where Christ (while the old seventh day was in force) professes himself Lord of it; which plainly intimated his Lordship, Dominion and soveraignty over it, that he had authority to displace it, and dispose of it, as himself thought good; the Coherence carries it clearly this way. The disciples through the Pharisaical carping and misprision of their ad­versaries, were condemned for Sabbath-breaking, because they had pluck'd a few eares of corne and dressed them for their dinner on the Sabbath day, which was a work of mer­cy and pure necessity (hunger and emptiness constrain­ing them to it) and so no breach of the Sabbath.Hospin. de orig. Fest. cap. de Sab. But the malicious Pharisees (whose traditions had taught them, that to crop an herb, to pill an onyon, to rost an apple, to kill a flea,Metens vel tan­tillum reus est, & vellere spicas est species Mes­sionis. Maim. Ichabb. vide Lightf. Horae Hebraic. in Math. 12. much more to pluck ears of corn and rub them in their hand (which they look'd upon as a kind of reaping & threshing) were unlawfull and sinful actions on the Sabbath day) pre­sently take occasion to condemn the disciples for Sabbath-vi­olation: Well; our Saviour justifies his disciples and wipes off the charge of their accusers by this argument ver. 27. The Sabbath was made for man (that is miserable fallen man) not man for the Sabbath. Therefore the Son of man (the Messiah) is also Lord of the Sabbath day; as if he had said,Cùm post lapsum institutum fuit Sabbaturn lege & conditione quae Christum jam promissum hominis (que) lapsum respexerit; non potuit Sabbatum non sub potestate & domini; filii homi­nis, id est, seminis promiss [...] subjici, ab co ordinandum & disponendum prout ip si visum ac provisum fuerit. Idm. Ibid. 'tis your error to think that all workes of mercy and ne­cessity are unlawfull on the Sabbath day, for the Sabbath was made and institu­ted at first for man, subject to necessity and misery, namely by such a law as related to the fall of man and the pro­mise [Page 142]of the Messiah; therefore the Son of man is also Lord of the Sabbath day; That is, it falls under my do­minion and disposal as the Son of man: The phrase is ob­servable, he sayes not The Son of David, but, The Son of man; the Mediator pointed out in the promise made to Adam the first man; even he is Lord of the Sabbath day, or has dominion over it, being at first the foundation of it. This is the most probable interpretation, if we take the Son of man here for Christ. But very many Learned Writers take it for man or mankind in general, as it is sometimes used,Filliue hominis i.e. homo. Zanch in praec. 4. Psal. 8.5. Isai. 65.2. And then the meaning may be this, that in case of urgent and pungent necessity, (as extreme hunger, perill of life, health or the like) every, or any son of man is Lord of the Sabbath day, having liberty to dress or prepare food, to take physick, to re­fresh and repaire nature;Filliue hominis tam de Christo quàm de quovis Christiuno ho­mine intelligi potest. Gualter. in Loc. item Ravanel. in verb. dominus. necessity (as we use to say) knowes no law, that is, no positive Law; provided it be not a necessity contracted by idleness or improvidence. This is the exposition of some very learned and godly; and it seemes to suit well with the case of the disciples, as also the context v. 27. The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath: Therefore (viz. in case of pure ne­cessity) the Son of man, or mankind, is Lord of the Sab­bath day. Take it in which sense we will, it makes nothing for the Saturday Sabbath. The objectors notion is alto­gether incoherent both with the sense of the Text, and scope of the context: but to proceed.

Touching that Text Math. 24.20. Ans. 3 Pray that your flight be not in the Winter, nor on the Sabbath day. I have two things to answer.

1. By way of supposition: supposing it were meant of the Jewes Sabbath, it would signifie no more but this, that it would be superstitiously kept among the unbeleev­ing Jewes forty yeares after our Saviours death, (as it is to this day) and therefore pray that your flight may not be either in the winter, when it will be doleful dirty; or on the Sabbath, when it will be dangerous travelling [Page 143]through the coasts of Judea, and bring you into peril of persecution by your own countrey-men, which was one of Pauls perils 2 Cor. 11.26. For although by that time the disciples were sufficiently instructed in their Christian li­berty, that their flight was as lawfull on that day as ano­ther, and therefore they could not flye with scruple of conscience, yet the superstitious Jewes (to whom such flight might be offensive) in all reason would Shimei-like, barke at such harmless passengers, if not bite and snap them. And whereas it is objected,T.T. p. 78. That it cannot be ra­tionally conceived, that the Jewes instead of securing them­selves should trifle away their time in persecuting the Christi­ans. This objection is answered by himself in the very next words almost: For, sayes he, the Jewes were so su­perstitious that they durst not fight for their life; Then I may well inferre, that tis most likely they were also so zealous that they would persecute any who should flye for their life, if they themselves would rather dye then flye, or fight for their lives (as he suggests) much more would they hinder the flight of others. So that if the old Sabbath were intended by our Saviour, it was rather with a note of dislike then approbation; as foreseeing that through the superstition of the Jewes it would be an occasion of perse­cution to his servants, as it had often been to himself. Sup­posing I say (for I grant it not) that the Jewes Sabbath was here meant, it must be construed in such a sense; name­ly, that they are counselled to deprecate their flight on that day for the better avoiding of bodily calamities; for in re­ference to that day we cannot so much as suppose any soule distress incident to the disciples by reason of such flight; we cannot conceive how they should be straightned in consci­ence out of any religious respect to that day at the siege or sacking of Jerusalem, since the adversary himself confesses, That all ceremonies were then abolished by Apostolical procla­mation; For which he cites Colos. 2.16, 17. Which Text does irrefragably prove the repeale of the old Sabbath, as was said before. And thus he is caught in his own trap. But

2. By way of affirmation, I assert, That these words of our blessed Saviour (pray that your flight be not on the Sabbath) are to be understood of our Christian Sabbath, the first day of the week; not directly indeed, but by very good consequence, as Mr. Cawdrey and Mr. Byfield do con­vincingly argue it. For (sayes the one) our Saviour does here speak of a Sabbath indefinitely, and a Sabbath to be observed long after his death, even at the destruction of Jerusalem; and this was spoken to his disciples apart from the multitude, sayes the other v. 3. and the period of time here pointed at was forty years after his death, when the Jewish Sabbath was gone, and the Gospel sufficiently pub­lished, whereby the ceremonial Law was evacuated, and become not only dead but deadly. Not that the old Law of a Sabbath (the fourth Commandment) was then out of force, but the Law of the old Sabbath. And then the conclusion is this, Christ shewes a Sabbath to continue and a religious respect due to a Sabbath still after his death; yet not the Jewes Sabbath, therefore he intended the Christian Sabbath to be observed according to the fourth Command­ment. As for the Jewes Sabbath tis certain, that it was void at this point of time; yea long before this forewarned flight, the Apostles and Christians had their assemblies a­part from the other Jewes, and kept the Lords day, the first day of the week; as on the Great day of Pentecost, Acts 2. and at Troas Acts 20.7. And although sometimes the Apostles did preach on the seventh day, yet as Mr. C. notes, it was only before the time mentioned Acts 20 never after, and only in other Cities abroad, not at Jerusalem; for there we never read a word of the Sabbath in all the story of the Acts. I conclude therefore, with that reverend Author, that no reason can be given why our Saviour in this pro­phetical caution should regard the Jewish Sabbath, but al­together the contrary, in regard the Christians inhabiting in Jerusalem and the Coasts about Judea preferred the Lords day before it; and it would be grievous to gracious hearts to have their holy rest interrupted with the noise of [Page 145]warlike tumults, and the hurry of a tumultuous flight; well might the disciples be taught to pray, Lord, when ever we be driven from the place of our Residence, let it not be on a day of holy rest, for that would be as uncomfortable to our souls as a winters flight would be cumbersome to our bodies? Not that it would be sinful or unlawful (when life lay at stake) to flye on the Sabbath; for to save a mans life is a Sabbath-dayes duty, and a matter of far greater moment then to leade a beast to the water, or pull an oxe out of a pit, both which are allowable: it may therefore be scored down among the rest of T.T's. errors and over­sights, that he makes it a sin to flye on the Sabbath day, when peril of life puts a man upon it, for h [...] terms it, a dis­honor to God and prophaning his sacred season; p. 77. and yet he sayes in the next page, That had their flight bin on the Sab­bath, as long as they carried nothing, they could not be count­ed Transgressors; Which may pass for another of his con­tradictions. But for a closure to this answer, we have deliberately weighed our Saviours words and sayings con­cerning the Sabbath, but cannot find that ever he spake one word or one syllable, in countenance of the old se­venth day, as the Sabbath of Christians; his words prove no such thing. And lastly

Whereas his workes are pleaded as the crown of that day, Answ. 4 I am content (if the author think good) to venture the whole weight of the cause in this bottom. That day which Christ has crowned with his greatest wonders is to be most highly esteemed among Christians. 'Tis his own grant,p. 78. and 'tis a truth; now let him have but a little patience, and we shall prove by undeniable Arguments, that in this respect the first day of the week carries away the Crown from all other dayes, old Sabbath and all. If Christs resurrection, his often apparitions, the mission of his Spirit, the inspi­ration of his Apostles, the conversion of three thousand souls ot once, be worthy the name of wonders, surely the first day of the week is a day of wonder, a day of honor and renown above all the dayes that ever the Sun shone [Page 146]upon: The most glorious day that ever God created, the most solemn day that ever the Church celebrated; a day that has crowned Christ, and a day that Christ himself has crowned with the greatest glory of any day that ever daw­ned upon the world.Rom. 1.4. I speak but the words of truth and soberness;Luke 13.32. Psalm 118.24. Joh. 20.22, 23. Cant. 3.11. the Lords day is no day of small things; 'tis the day of the Lords power, the day of his perfection, the day of his praise and glory, the day of his bounty and blessing, the day of his espousals and of the gladness of his heart, which can be understood so properly of no day as of this (the Resurrection day). Let prophane Esaus de­spise it, and proud Notionists oppose it at their peril;Behold King Solomon with the crown wherewith his mother crown­ed him in the day of his espousals and in the day of the gladness of his heart; never was Christ more visibly Crowned by his Church then on the Lords day, which also was the day of his espousals when he was made sure to his Church by a sure Covenant, even the sure mercies of David Hos. 2.19, 20. Acts 13.34. but let neither of them blame me, if I honor and esteem it above all dayes, till they can shew me another day which the Saviour of the world has honored and exalted above it. Never tell me of one or two miracles wrought on the seventh day (yet I desire to adore Christ in all his miracles) but shew me such a confluence of wonders and won­derful transactions wrought by him whose name is wonderful on that day, as on this, and I will confess I have lost the day. Alas! It cannot be, that one transcendent act (the Resurrection of the Lord Jesus from the dead, the finishing act of our Redemption) weighs down all the honor of the seventh day, with advantage; 'Tis objected, that our Saviour was pleased to put forth his Divine vertue on the seventh day in sundry miracles, mi­racles of healing and the like; I answer, 'Tis very true, and to him be all the glory. But if it were an honor to that day that our Heavenly physitian healed the sick, what a Crown of glory was it to his own day, that he raised the dead? Yea that being dead he raised himself from the dead? so also if he dignified the seventh day by casting out unclean Spirits; how much more the first day by sending his holy Spirit? If his preaching in the Synagogues were an honor to the se­venth [Page 147]day; how much more his presenting himself, in that great Assembly of Divines twice (at least) on the first day of the week? Did Christ ever rise from the dead on the seventh day? Did he ever appear to his disciples on that day? Did he breath forth the blessed Spirit on that day? Did he ever preach a Sermon (after his Resurrection) on that day? But I need go no further; here is light enough if men had but eyes; I hope by this time the Objector sees the invalidity of his second Argument; that which he calls the Sons confirmation. He proceeds to a third, from the Spirits approbation of the seventh day.

What ever the blessed Spirit shall approve of, Obj. 3 we may rest upon it as an infallible truth: T. T. p. 81. to 94. But he has highly approved of the seventh day; witness, first his high applause of the pious womens resting on the seventh day according to the Commandment, Luke 23. ult. Which although it were after Christs crucifixion, yet St Luke was not inspired to write his Gospel till after his ascention. Secondly, The Spirits glori­ous manifestation, and mighty operation on the day of Pen­tecost Acts 2. Which he would fain perswade us to be the seventh day. Thirdly, The Spirits constant appellation, calling the seventh day, and none but that, the Sabbath day &c.] Here is a great shew of Argument, but it signifies little and concludes nothing, when it comes to scanning. For

Although it seem to be spoken in praise of these holy wo­men, Answ. 1 that they rested the Sabbath-day according to the Commandment, yet (as was elswhere noted) this was be­fore our Saviours resurrection, not after: And how ever they are commended for keeping the Sabbath before Christs resurrection, yet others are condemned, or sharply blamed for observing dayes (the seventh day not except­ed) after Christs assention; I mean (as the Apostle does) Jewish dayes, Gal. 4.10. O but St. Luke wrote not his Gospel till after the ascention: Answer. What then? was the old Sabbath therefore in force at that time? by the same rule he may conclude the Passeover (mentioned by the same Evangelist in thech. 22, v. 7. foregoing Chapter) was then [Page 148]in force too: We are to judge of these womens practise according to the date of their act, not according to the date of the Evangelists book. Besides some take these words to be no commendation, but a bare historical narration: And if the particular day be here intended, as referring to the Commandment they conceive it may be spoken sig­nantèr, and (according to the original) the Text may be rendered thus; they returned and prepared spices and oint­ments [...]. and rested that Sabbath day indeed according to the Commandment; that is, they rested indeed that Sab­bath day, but never after (upon that day) according to the Commandment. Again, others expound it thus, it was not the particular day on which the Sabbath was then kept, so much as theirMr. Collier against Fisher p. 13, 14. manner of keeping it which is looke at in referring to the Commandment; and so the commendation pitches rather upon the quomodo then the quando; therefore it is not said, they rested the seventh day (as T.T. prints it) but they rested the Sabbath day, or day of rest according to the Commandment, the most that can be made of it is this, that tis a commendable thing to dedicate a day of rest to religious and holy rest.

The Spirits appellation argues not his divine approbation; Answ. 2 my meaning is, The Holy Ghosts often (I cannot say al­wayes) calling the seventh day, Sabbath day, proves not his approbation of that day for our Christian weekly holy­day under the Gospel, because under the same name and title he has bin pleased to disown that day, Colos. 2.16. No matter though it be sometimes called Sabbath after it was discharged, for so is circumcision called circumcision, and the other Festivals of the Jewes (Pentecost especially) called1 Cor. 16.8. Pentecost, long after it was degraded from the dignity of a solemn Festival; as a man may be called by his proper name afer he is dead and buried. And so I might proceed to the refutation of his next notion about the feast of Pen­tecost; viz. That it fell that year on the Saturday or se­venth day; but this shall receive a more full answer in a more fit and proper place. His fourth and last Argument [Page 149]for the seventh day, is from the Saints observation; which runs chiefly upon the practice of Paul; it would be too te­dious to transcribe his whole story. Take the strength of it as it follower in this plausible Objection.

As it was Christs constant custome to celebrate the seventh day Sabbath Luke 4.18. So it was Pauls Acts 172. Obj. 4 and such as his custome was, such was his commission: and we must be followers of Paul as he was of Christ 1 Cor. 11.1. tis his own rule, Philip. 4.9. Those things which ye have both learn­ed, and received, and heard, and seen in me, do; Only it must be understood with these limitations, that Pauls practice be plain, possible, peaceable, Evangelicall and unrepealed; for we may not follow Paul in his compliance with the Jewes in ce­remonials, no not to gain the Jewes. But his practice in observ­ing the seventh day was truly Evangelical, and never in the least tittle repealed, nor altered; neither was it his single practice, but the custome of all his companions and associates Acts 13.13, 14. ch. 15.40.16, 13, 17, 24. And that not only among the Jewes but the Gentiles also Acts 13.42. ch. 18.4. Therefore he did it not to please the Jewes, but purposely for a pattern to the Gentiles: Hence he exhorts the Corinthians (Gentile Churches) to follow him as he followed Christ; and it was at Corinth that he kept the Sabbath Acts 18. There­fore this was the pattern wherein he would have them be his followers, and us also, for the Epistle is written to us as well as to them, 1 Cor. 1.2. Thus he pleads Pauls custome, and addes, It was his constant custome; and whereas (saies he) it is made a great Argument for the observation of the first day, that Paul preached once that day Acts 20.7. it is as clear Paul preached every Sabbath-day Acts 18.4. Only the Translators have not dealt so clearly (upon which account a­mong others he charges them with sin yea with inexcuseable sin, p. 139.) because Acts 20.7. they render the word (preach­ing) for the greater advancement of the first day, whereas Acts 18.4. they call it (reasoning) to obscure the seventh day, although the Greek word be the same in both places. Then he frames an objection against himself (which he can never an swer)

Obj. Paul only took that opportunity to preach to the people. To which he answers, 1. They that object thus speak with­out book, 2. They make the Apostle a constant dissembler. 3. They may as warrantably lay this crime to Christ him­self, (that he took such opportunities, and not in conscience of the Sabbath). Thus he words it out, and casts seducing glosses upon the sacred Scriptures, to beguile unstable souls; but I shall indeavour to undeceive him and others by sundry answers to his specious Argument.

The proposition upon which he argues (that we must follow Paul as he followed Christ) is true in a Scripture sense, Ans. 1 but his exposition and application of it is false; for if he take Pauls following of Christ materially, for his doing the same things that Christ did (as it seems he does) and then argue universally from it (as he must if he will make any thing of it) his conclusion will contradict himself; for he has granted some exempt cases wherein Pauls practice does not bind us, and yet his practice therein was materi­ally the same with Christs; and I will give him some in­stances to put it out of question, that in some cases Paul did what Christ did, and yet we are not bound to do as Paul did.Luke 2.42. John 2.13 ch. 5.1. ch. 7.10. For example, our Saviour Christ used at the solemn festivals of the Jewes to go up to Jerusalem (as at the feast of Passeover, Pentecost and the rest) and Paul did the like; He hasted to be at Jerusalem at the Feast of Pentecost,Acts 18.21. ch. 20.16. and I must by all means (saies he) keep this feast that cometh in Jerusalem. So that, if to practice the same things in any kind that Christ did, be to follow Christ, herein Paul was a follower of Christ; yet I hope it fol­lowes not that herein we must be followers of Paul, un­less he would have us all turn Jewes. The like I may say concerning the Jewes Sabbath: if he object against the pa­rallel, and say it will not hold, because those other Festi­vals are repealed, but so is not the seventh day: I reply, let him shew me a repeal for the one, and I suppose I can shew him as good a repeal for the other. His grand ob­jection is, That the seventh day was never expresly re­pealed; [Page 151]I answer no more was Pentecost: Where does the Holy Ghost say in expresse termes, Pentecost is abrogated: if he say it is included among the rest of those holidayes Gal. 4. Colos. 2. I will ask him, how can he tell that, as long as it is not expresly named? If he say it is implyed, I an­swer so is the seventh day, and then we are agreed. No­thing can be objected against this answer, for the instance I have given is plain and pertinent. And although I am fully convinced that Pentecost is abrogated as well as the Saturday Sabbath (and that as well as this) yet I am per­swaded if a man listed to be contentious, he might make as much ado about the Feast of Pentecost, and have as much to say for it from the practice of the Apostle, as can be said for the Saturday Sabbath, yea more; for whoever heard St. Paul say of the Sabbath, as he sayes of Pentecost, I must needs keep the Feast? If he had said as much of the seventh day I should have thought he had made conscience of keep­ing it, which doubtless he did not, or he would never have omitted it at Troas, as it seems he did Acts 20.7. where he tarried seven dayes, and not a syllable of keeping the se­venth day; but the first day of the week.

But sayes the Objector, it was Christs custome to cele­brate the seventh day Sabbath, and so it was Pauls. Christ as his custome was went into the Synagogue on the Sabbath day Luke 4.16. And Paul as his manner was did the same thing. Christs custom herein was the very same with Pauls. Answer, Tis not said that Paul ob­served their Sabbaths; but he went into their Synago­gues, and rea­soned with them three Sabbaths. If we should grant him his Argument he would get nothing by it. For it makes as much for the Jewes Sy­nagogues as the Jewes Sabbath. And what would follow from hence? Suppose there were a Synagogue of the Jewes in Colchester, as there is at Amsterdam; will he say that Christians are bound in conscience to frequent it because Christ as his custome, and Paul as his manner was frequent­ed their Synagogues? If Paul did it from a principle of conscience, or obedience to the Law, as Christ did, I see not how he can avoid it; but if Paul did it only in a way of Christian prudence, to win the Jewes, he has lost his [Page 152]Argument; for the like I say of the Sabbath.

Whereas he further dictates, Ans. 2, That it was both Christs and Pauls constant custom to observe the seventh day; I an­swer, if by constant he mean continual, I deny both, for however our blessed Saviour during his state of humiliation, observed that day while he lived, yet he never owned it af­ter his resurrection from the dead, no not once (that we can find) during all those forty dayes between his Resur­rection and Ascention, which made up almost six weeks. In which space he often appeared to his disciples on the first day of the week, instructing them in the things pertain­ing to the kingdom of God. But not once did he shew his blessed face, or ever open his mouth all that while on the seventh day that we read of; which doubtless he would have done, and we should have heard of it, had it bin his pleasure to have the Sabbath continued on that day after his resurrection, as it was before. And as for St. Paul, (whatever his custom was among the Jewes) tis certain that among the Christian Gentiles separated from the Jewes he kept the first day of the week, Acts 20. and taught others to keep it 1 Cor. 16.1, 2. But not a word of keeping the se­venth day in all his Epistles.

Tis as falsly as boldly asserted, Ans. 3 That Paul did constantly observe the seventh day both among Jewes and Gentiles. The places alledged prove no such thing; tis said indeed Acts 13.42. that the Gentiles besought Paul to preach the next Sabbath day, when almost the whole City came together to hear the word of God; and Acts 18.4. He reasoned in the Synagogue every Sabbath, and perswaded the Jewes and the Greeks: But what Gentiles were these? Not Gen­tile-Churches distinguished from the Jewes, but either Jew­ish proselytes Acts 13.43. Or Pagan Gentiles mingled among the Jewes; and admitting some Christian converts among them, yet still they were such as had no Church-assemblies by themselves, but frequented the Synagogue-assemblies, where the Jewes observed no other Sabbath but the seventh day Acts 13. ch. 17. ch. 18. And therefore as [Page 153]long as the Jewes were tractable Paul and others frequent­ed their Synagogues on their Sabbaths, not out of any reli­gious respect (on his part at least) to the Jewes Sabbath but meerly for the opportunity of their assemblies; upon which account he also went up to Jerusalem at their other Festivals; as tis said, ch. 18. He hasted to be at Jerusalem at the Feast of Pentecost: What meant Pauls hasting thi­ther, sayes Chrysostome? Why, [...] Hom. 43. in Act. [...]. Idem. it was not for the Feasts sake, but for the multitudes sake, then met together; he hasted thither to preach the word. So here it was not out of any devotion either to the Jewes Sabbath or their Syna­gogue, that he reasoned with them everly Sabbath-day (as long as they would hear reason) but because of the con­course of people then and there assembled: As, if there were a Synagogue of the Iewes in London, a Minister of Christ might occasionally visit it on their Saturday-Sabbath to dispute with those infidels and convince them that Jesus is the Christ; yet be far enough from owning either their Synagogue, or their Sabbath; and that Pauls practice a­mong the Jewes and such Gentiles as the Text speaks of, amounts to no more then this;1 Cor. 9.20. namely an occasional act or at most a prudentiall act (Whereby to the Jewes he be­came as a Jew, that he might win the Jewes, and to them under the law, as though he were under the Law) is evident, because when he saw no hope of winning them to the faith of Christ, but they grew obstinate and refractory, con­tradicting, blaspheming, and openly opposing the Gospel, yea persecuting those that embraced it, Paul and his con­verts, now no longer frequent their Synagogues, but sepa­rate themselves and joyn in Christian assemblies by them­selves.Acts 17.4, 5. Acts 19 9. ch. 18.17. Thus the beleeving Jewes and Proselytes of Thes­salonica, so also those at Ephesus, and at Corinth when they opposed themselves and blasphemed, Paul shook his rayment against them, to signifie that God had now shak­en them off, and he would have no more to do with them; and after this, Acts 18.6. we hear no more of his preach­ing on the Jewes Sabbath. For when the Churches of Christ [Page 154]were separated from the Synagogues, they kept the first day of the week, passing by the Jewish Sabbath. The converted Gentiles we are sure did so Acts 20.7. And whereas tis objected, That this was but once, whereas tis clear that Paul preached every Sabbath day. I answer, if this were true, yet the consequence (that therefore the Jewes Sabbath was more respected by Paul then the Lords day) is utterly false. For one single instance of Apostoli­cal practice in a Gentile Church, will weigh down a hun­dred in a Jewish Synagogue, since among the Jewes the A­postle became all to all that he might win some. Whereas among the Gentiles his practice was purely Evangelical. And to turn the point of the Argument against the Ob­jector; we must be followers of Paul as he was of Christ. Now Christ celebrated the first day of the week in a pure Gospel Church, John. 20.26. And never the seventh day (after his resurrection) and as Christ did, so did Paul, Acts 20. and as he did, so must we. Himself grants that we must follow Paul only in such practices as were Evangeli­cal and unrepealed. Now the first day of the week is such. Purely Evangelical, and never yet repealed, therefore he must eat his words or yield his cause. As for the old seventh day it was both legal (according to his principles, it must be an appendix to the Covenant of works being instituted be­fore the fall, when there was no Gospel, therefore purely legal) and according to my principles, partly legal (as cir­cumcision was) therefore repealed among the rest of those legal dayes of worship: Colos. 2. for though he cannot read the repeal there, yet through mercy I and others can. Or if it be not repealed, it is expired, and was never revi­ved by Apostolical practice or precept in any one Christian Church. I have given him one instance of a Christian Church meeting on the first day of the week to worship Christ, let him shew me but such another for the Jewes Sabbath among the Gentiles, & erit mihi magnus Apol­lo. Ans. 4

Pauls practice among the Jewes (in things temporary) [Page 155]is no pattern for the Gentiles.Acts 21.25 St. James telles him, that whatever they did among the Jewes in respect of legal cu­stomes, (to win upon their weakness). yet as toucking the Gentiles which beleeved they had written and concluded that they should observe no such thing. And what if Paul did ob­serve the seventh day among the Jewes; must this needs conclude against the change of the Sabbath, from the last to the first day of the week? he may as well say, the A­postlesActs 16.3. circumcising of Timothy to gratifie the Jewes, disproves the changing of circumcision into baptism. If it be Objected, that the consequence is not good because however Paul circumcised Timothy the better to win upon the Synagogue Jewes (whoActs 10 28. would have no familiar con­verse with uncircumcised Gentiles) yet he would by no means yeild to haveGal. 2.3, 4, 5. Titus circumcised in compliance with the Jewes in Christian Churches. I answer, the very same may I affirm touching the Jewes Sabbath, which however it might be tollerated for a while in the Synagogues, yet it was never allowed in the Churches of Christ among the Gentiles, nor ever practiced without reproof, as in Gal. 4. or if it were, I desire to see the place, and the proof, which I confesse I am yet to seek.

Tis no lesse notorious an untruth, that not only Paul, Answ. 5 but all his companions kept the seventh day: Some of them might possibly attend him to the Synagogue, but few of that train which accompanyed him to Troas, Acts 20.5. Where he celebrated the Lords day and Lords Sup­per among the disciples. As for the women which on the Sabbath day resorted to the rivers side, where prayer was wont to be made, they were Jewish proselytesses (witness their meeting on the Jewish Sabbath) Lydia to be sure was so, for she was a worshipper of God before Paul came there, but unbaptized if not unconverted till then. What he would make of this meeting by the rivers side, I know not, unless it be to furnish his Sabbath-keepers with medi­tations, as he seems to speak in the close of his book p. 144. which shewes his high esteem of Rivers, and ponds and [Page 156]such like watry places.De bello Jud. lib. 7. ch. 24. Tis a wonder he forgot Josephus his story concerning that River in Palestina, called the Sabbatical River, which being dry six dayes, used to fill up its channel, and run very swiftly the seventh day; from whence the Jewish Rabbins plead stoutly for their Saturday Sabbath: But as one answers them wittily out of Galati­nus; in case that River whiles it was in being was a good Argument that the Jewes Sabbath was to be observed; now, since there is no such River to be found, it is a bet­ter Argument that their Sabbath is not any where to be regarded. Mr. Brabourn and he had best go on Pilgrimage to find out that famous river; I dare say it would be a more taking Argument among simple people for the Saturday Sabbath then any they have yet alledged.

For his quarrell with the reverend Translators, Ans. 6 I tell him again tis causelesse: What if they translate [...], preach­ing, Acts 20.7. and reasoning, Acts 18.4. or, disputing, as it is rendred, Acts 19.9. Sure they saw good ground for this variation: Though the word be the same, yet the scope of the Texts is not the same; for Acts 20. Paul was among Christians, and Christians that came together to communicate at the Lords table, and that's no time to dispute, but to beleeve, to act faith, and not reason, therefore well is it said there; Paul preached to them; some quickening Sermon doubtless to excite their Sacramental graces. But Acts 18. he was among a company of un­beleeving, wrangling Jewes, and there they do well to render it reasoning; Mark 9.34. Acts 17.17. which (unless the context carry it ano­ther way) is the most apt and usuall signification of the word. [...]. The very art of reasoning [Logick] has its name from this compound. What rashnesse therefore and sin­ful saucy boldness is it in this Author, to throw dirt in the faces of those eminent instruments (the Translators of the Bible) charging them with inexcuseable sin because they cross his humours and erroneous conceipts?

To say, Answ. 7 as we do, that Paul took the opportunity of the old Sabbath to preach to the people, is not to render him [Page 157]a constant dissembler, as he reproachfully accuseth us; but to commend him as a diligent dispenser of the word of truth, who for the quicker progress of the Gospel, was willing to embrace all opportunities; to preach in season and out of season wherever he came. Neither is it to speak without book, as we shewed above; nor does it charge Christ with any criminal imputation; he kept the Sabbath (while it was in force) from a principle of conscience, in obedience to the Law, Paul from a principle of Christian prudence and indulgence, the better to promote the Go­spel; and so his custom was not formally the same with Christs, neither does his custom argue his commission, un­lesse it be in things Moral and Evangelical, and among the Gentiles,Ro. 11.13. ch. 15.16. Gal. 2.7. 1 Tim. 2.7. to whom he was cheifly sent as a commis­sion-officer of Christ, to preach the Gospel of the uncir­cumcision. Lastly, Pauls reasoning in the Jewes Syna­gogue at Corinth, and that every Sabbath (till he were persecuted) and his general precept to the Corinthians, and other Christians to be followers of him, is as good a plea for the Synagogue, as the seventh day; and indeed a Jewes Sabbath, and a Jewes Synagogue would do well together. So that (all objections to the contrary notwithstanding) it remains a firm and immoveable truth of God, that the old seventh day is discharged, from being a Sab­bath, or day of weekly solemn worship to the people of God.

Now by way of Transition to the second branch of my Argument [that the first day of the week is designed for a day of weekly solemn worship under the Gospell] I would re­mind the Reader of what was premised and proved before; viz. That the Law of the fourth Commandment (for the proportion, of six working dayes, and a seventh every week for solemn worship, ordinarily) is still in force un­der the Gospel. Which being made good, and the old seventh day manifested to be void, one Argument will put it out of all question, that the first day of the week, is the only day of weekly worship to be observed under the Go­spel. As thus:

That day of the week upon which above all others (in the vacancy of the old seventh day) God has set his mind in the Law; and upon which, above all other dayes Christ has set his mark in the Gospel, must needs be the Christians weekly day of solemn worship, or Sabbath day.

But the first day of the week (the old seventh day being void) is the day above all others in the week upon which God has set his mind in the Law; and upon which above all other dayes, Christ has set his mark in the Gospel: Therefore, The first day of the week must needs be the Christians weekly day of solemn worship or Sabbath day.

The proposition is undeniable; for what better warrant can be pretended for a weekly Sabbath, then Gods mind or will in the Law and Christ Mark in the Gospel?

The Assumption is all that requires proof, namely, [That the seventh day being void, the first day of the week is the day above all others upon which God has set his mind in the Law, and Christ his mark, his signal mark in the Gos­pel] Both which shall be distinctly and demonstratively proved, by Scripture-consequence and evidence.

1. That (the seventh or last day of the week being void, as we have proved) the first day of the week is the only day, upon which it appears that God has set his mind in the Law; I mean, the Law of the fourth Commandment, which may be thus made out. It was the mind and pleasure of God, that the proportion stated in the Commandment, (six dayes in the week for civil imployment, and one for sacred and religious rest) should be observed in all ages,Exod. 35.2. Ezek. 46.1. See Mr. Gaw­drey p. 1. ch. 9. S. 53. and part 3. ch. 3. both under the Law, and under the Gospel. Now the seventh day which was observed under the Law, being discharged; there is no other day but the first day of the week on which Gods proportion can be preserved and perpetuated with­out intermission and interruption. ‘[For take any other day, as the second, or third, or fifth, or sixth, and there would be losse of time; it would not be (for once at least) one day in seven, but one of some other number; and besides, the six working dayes would not come all toge­ther, [Page 159]but some of them would go before the day of rest, and others would come after it, in one and the same week. Both which would offer violence to the Holy Commandment, which as it requires but one day in a week for religion, to six for worldly businesse, and allots six for worldly business to one for religion or­dinarily; so it takes order that the six working dayes must go together, and the day of rest not come be­tween them in the same week, but either go before, or follow them. Now in pitching upon the first day of the week both these were punctually observed at the first change of the day; for in the revolution of twice seven dayes there were two dayes for religion, the last of the first seven, and the first of the latter seven; and in each revolution the six working dayes are all together].’ And thus it is still successively week after week; and thus it shall be perpetually (I question not) to the last week of the world; for I am assured that the old seventh day is void, and I am fully convinced that (whatever the Lord Christ could have done) we cannot make choice of any o­ther weekly day of worship, but the first of the week, to hold up the morality of the fourth Commandment; which as the above mentioned Author (at whose torch I have light­ed my candle) observes, is a thing worthy of special note, any may afford a satisfying reason, why there is no expresse institution of the first day of the week in the new Testament viz. Because the vertue of the fourth Commandment doth of it self fall upon that day, the former being void, being the only day capable of keeping up Gods proportion perpetually determined in the Commandment; yet I con­fess (as formerly) that the Commandment does not di­rectly institute the day, but falls upon the observation of it, and supposes the institution; neither do I urge it di­rectly for the designation of the day; for the first day of the week is not expresly mentioned in the fourth Command­ment, (no more is the last day of the week neither) (but a seventh day is; which although (as I said before) it could [Page 160]not be restrained to one day more then another; yet my meaning was, and is, that it could not be so tyed to the last of seven, as not to be applyed to the first of seven, if God so pleased. Briefly, this argument concludes rather for the observation, than the designation of the first day day of the week, as the only day upon which (in the va­cancy of the old Sabbath) God has set his mind in the Law. And good reason. For

2. This is the day, upon which, above all other dayes Christ has set his mark, his special, signall, characteristical mark in the Gospel, to mark it out for a day of weekly solemn worship under the new Testament. A seven-fold mark he has set upon it, which the malice of men and divels shall ne­ver be able to obliterate. As

1. His glorious Resurrection upon this day. 2^dly. His se­veral veral Apparitions. 3^dly His gracious actions and speeches at those apparitions 4^th The Mission of his Holy Spirit on this day. 5^th The inscription of his own blessed name upon it. 6^th His Apostles and Apostolical Churches observation of it. 7^th Their prescription about it. Of which I shall treat in order, as they lie, answering all objections that oppose themselves against this conquering truth of Christ.

1. What a mark of honour, yea, what a crown of glory is it to this day, that it had the favour above all the dayes of the week to be Christs resurrection-day? The Sun in the firmament arises and shines upon other dayes as well as this, but the Sun of righteousness never arose upon any day but this, and if we will beleeve the Holy Ghost, the institution of the day had its foundation here.Psalm 118.22, 23, 24. For the dis­covery whereof I shall once more desire the Reader to turn to that Text, Psam 118. The stone which the builders refused is become the head-stone of the corner, So 1 Pet. 2.7. this is the Lords doing and it is marvellous in our eyes. This is the day which the Lord hath made, &c. The Apostle Peter expounds this Text and applies it to Christ Acts 4.11. where, (speak. to Caiaphas and the rest of the Councill who went for buil­ders) [Page 161]he boldly tells them, This is the stone which ye buil­ders refused; which is become the head of the corner; he speaks it of Christ and of Christs resurrection; for v. 10. he had spoken of their refusing him in his Crucifixion, and Gods exalting him in his resurrection. Whom ye crucified and whom God raised from the dead. Thereby making him both a corner-stone, and head of the corner; Head of all principality and power. Coloss. 2.10. head (or Lord) of the living and the dead, yeas, head of Heaven and earth, hav­ing all power in Heaven and earth then given to him. Matth. 28.18. Thus of Davids prophetical prediction. Next let us consider his application of it; 1. In respect of the deed done; 2. In respect of the day on which it was done. 3. In respect of the duty of that day.

1. The deed or work done (the raising of Christ from the dead) he magnifies as the Lords own act, his marvel­ous stupendious act; This is the Lords doing and it is mar­vellous in our eyes, v. 23. No wonder, for indeed this was the greatest wonder the ever was wrought in the world, concerning which we may say as Moses in another case, Ask now of the dayes that are past, which were before thee, Deut. 4.32. since God created man upon the earth, and ask from the one side of Heaven to the other, whet her there hath been any such things as this great thing is or hath been heard like it? That one by his own power should raise himself from the dead, no history no chronicle can paralel it. So wonderful was our Saviours resurrection, that it challenges wonder even from his enemies. behold ye despisers and wonder, Acts 13.41. Sayes the Apostle; wonder, at what? Why at Gods raising Christ from the dead, of which he had treated before, verse 36, 37.

2. The Psalmist applies it further to the day on which this work of wonder was wrought. This is the day which the Lord hath made; and mark the connection, the day de­pends upon the deed or work done. Factum domini (as one sayes) facit diem domini. The Lords deed makes it the Lords day: Here the institution of the day is undeni­ably [Page 162]founded upon the resurrection of Christ; upon this account 'tis stiled the day which the Lord hath made, be­cause the stone, cast aside of the builders (Christ crucifyed) was made the head of the corner; that is, raised from the dead, as St. Peter expounds, and as Christs resurrection was the Lords own doing, so the Psalmist foresaw that the resurrection-day would be a day of the Lords own making. If it be objected, So is every day. I answer but not every day alike. For look as it was in the works of Creation, all were Gods works, all of his making; but man (the master-piece) more especially, of whom it may be said with an accent, this is the creature which God had made; so here, all the dayes in the week are of Gods making, but this in the Text above all; the Holy Ghost sets an Emphasis upon it, This is the day which the Lord hath made: Made 1 How made? not by was of Creation, so 'twas made before, Gen. 1. But by way of institution; The day which the Lord hath made. What has he made it? A working-day, so it was before, if therefore he has made it any thing, it must be a holy solemn day, a day more solemn and sacred then all the dayes that God ever made before. And so the word signifies, not only to makes but to magnify, 'tis equivalent to sanctifie.

3. The Psalmist proceeds to the prophetical delineation of the duties of this day, Let us be glad and rejoyce therein; Yea he brings in the Church shouting and singing Hosan­na's to Christ on this day, v. 26.Math. 21.9. Blessed is he that cometh to us in the Name of the Lord: As when theZech. 4.7. Temple was fi­nished, the head-stone was brought forth with shouting, crying grace, grace, thereunto. So here, when the work of our redemption should be finished, and Christ exalted as head and corner-stone of his Church by his triumphant Resurrection, the Holy Ghost intimates the solemn gra­tulation, and publick praise that the Church should offer on that day. So we are to understand the next words, were (asIsal 56.7. Mal. 1.11. usually) New Testament-worship is set forth in an old Testament-dress, v. 27. God is the Lord which [Page 163]hath she wed us light, (light indeed when the Sun of righte­ousness arises) he has made it a day of light and gladness to poor self-condemned sinners; therefore bind ye the sacri­fice with cords to the horns of the altar: That is, offer to the Lord the sacrifice of publick praise and thanksgiving, verse 29. Oh give thanks unto the Lord, for he is good, his mercy endureth for ever! So that, tis evident, a day of solemn worship is here intended, and Christs resurrection day is principally pointed at, as a day which the Lord would institute and a day which the Church should cele­brate; Saying, This is the day which the Lord hath made, let us be gland and rejoyce therein. What a plain Scripture-proof is this of Divine authority of the Lords day? So plain that the adversary is forced to grant it.page 61. It must needs be meant of Christs resurrection-day, saies he; and when he wrote his first book, he excited Christians to the weekly ce­lebration of it: Whereas in a late railing pamphlet since he seekes to smother the light and evidence of this Text by a silly evasion, that the Psalmist speaks not of every first day of the week, but Easter-day, as may be conjectured. But I shall easily shake off this slight exception. Away with conjectures, let us search the Scriptures; what day does the Holy Ghost in Scripture call Christs resurrection-day? Ask Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John they'l tell you,Math. 28.1. Mark 6.2. Luke 24.1. John 20.1, 19. tis the first day of the week; the day of the year is never mentioned, nor the day of the month on which Christ arose, but the day of the week only, to teach us doubt­less that Christs resurrection-day must be no yearly, or monthly, but a weekly solemnity. Good reason, that the work of Redemption should have as frequent a comme­moration, as the work of Creation had. Now ponder this, good Reader; and the Lord print it upon thy heart; the day of the Saviours Resurrection prophetically extolled in the old Testament, as the day which the Lord hath made, is historically noted down in the New Testament as the first day of the week; and now we shall draw an argu­ment which I hope will be an arrow of conviction to the [Page 164]contrary-minded, the rather because it comes out of Gods own quiver; thus the day of Christs resurrection is the day which he Lord hath made for duties of solemn worship; but the first day of the week is the day of Christs Resur­rection; therefore the first day of the week is the day, which the Lord hath made for duties of solemn worship. The proposition is warranted by the Testimony of the Psalmist, the assumption is confirmed by the harmony of all the four Evangelists, the conclusion therefore will stand, as long as the world stands; namely, that the first day of the week is a day of divine institution; mark'd out by the finger of God, the spirit of Christ for a day of so­lemn weekly worship under the Gospel. For, as I hinted before, the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.Acts 1.16. 2 Tim. 3.16. 1 Pet. 1.11. and ch. 3.19. Rom. 15.4. It was by the spirit of our great Prophet, that all the Prophets of old did speak: Like stars they all borrowed their light from this Sun; they were irradiated and inspi­red by Christ; and when a holy Prophet foretels, such a thing shall be, we may as confidently build upon it, as if Christ himself had said, I will have it so. For indeed it is the voice of Christ that speaks in the old Testament, as well as in the new: And possibly this may be one rea­son why the Lord Christ has spoken so little in the Gospel concerning some new Testament-ordinances (as the Lords day for one) namely, because the Prophets had spoken so much before; and Christ would not take off his people from the study of the old Testament, upon which the authority of the new does so much depend. Me thinks, as to the controversie of the Christian Sabbath, this should abundantly satisfie any sober Christian; that the day of Christs resurrection was prophesied of by David and others, as a day which the Lord would make and institute, and accordingly practised by the inspired Apostles upon the first day of the week, and this practice perpetuated by the Church of Christ, the Catholick Church in all ages since for above sixteen hundred years. What can be objected with any colour of reason against so clear a truth?

Christ hath not left one syllable for the institution or ce­lebration of this day. T.T. p. 120. Answ.

Not one syllable? Why did he not grant before, that Psalm 118. compared with Acts 4. Must needs be meant of the resurrection-day; and does not the spirit speak expresly,Mr. Perkins in his cases of con­science argues for the Christian Sabbath from this text. Cypri­an, Austin and Ambrose, and all the ancients who have ever cited or sa­luted this place, Psalm 118. do ex­pound it and understand it of the Lords day. See Mr. L. strange. This is the day which the Lord hath made? Is it a day of the Lords making and will he make nothing of that? What else can be made of it, but a prediction of a Di­vine institution which is equivalent to a precept especially when expounded by Apostolical practice, as this has been. Let it be seriously considered, in what other sense can a day (made long before in respect of Creation) be stiled the day which the Lord hath made, than in respect to a divine institution? An institution then it is, and the occasion of it Christs re­surrection which was the concluding act of our Redempti­on; and what an impression of glory does this stamp up­on the day, above all the dayes that God ever made, the seventh day and all? As some * years are crowned with Gods goodness above others, so dayes also. The work crownes the day, as I have often said; and the greater the work, the greater the day, now that work in which God is most glorified in all his attributes must needs be the greatest work; such is the work of Redemption;Quasi hactenus nullus fuerit in orbe dies. Mol­lerus in Loc. there­fore the day set apart in commemoration of it, must wear away the crown from all other dayes. Such is Christs re­surrection-day, therefore Emphatically stiled, The day which the Lord hath made; as if there had never been a day in the world till this day dawned at the rising of the Sun of righteousnesse, never such a day. Tis worthy to be noted, what a wonderful concurrence of remarkable pe­riods of time met together at our Saviours resurrection, both in respect of the year and the day.Is. 61.2. ch. 63.34. John 4.34, 35. Heb. 2.14, 15.

1. The year was a Sabbatical year, the year of Jubilee, as may be gathered from scripture; which if it make no­thing [Page 166]for the Christian Sabbath, yet it makes much against the Jewes Sabbath, themselves being witnesses. For the Hebrew Doctors have spoken rarely to this purpose, e­ven to the admiration of considerate Christians. The Di­vine Majesty, say they, will be to Israel in a Jubilee Freedom, Redemption and finisher of Sabbaths. H. Broughtons Si­nai-sight.

2. The day of our Lords Resurrection was a remarkable day in many respects. As

1. It was the eighth day in a continued reckoning of dayes, and eight was a number of greater prefection then seven in some respect; witness Circumcision, which was so strictly tyed to the eighth day,John 7.22. Sacramentum hoc suit diei il­lius octavi, quo dominus resur­rexit ad justifi­cationem no­stram. Ep. ad Fid. ita Aug. de Gelebr. Pasch. that if it had fallen on the weekly Sabbath it must not be omitted for the Sab­baths sake. The antients insist much on this. Circumci­sion on the eighth day was a type of that eighth day on which our Lord rose again for our justification, sayes Cy­prian.

2. Christs resurrection was also on the third day after his passion, which himself foretold as the day of his per­fection. For so some expound that saying of his, The third day I shall be perfected, Luke 13.32. Besides, this third day was a day ofHo. 6.2. Lu. 24.46. note in the Law and the Prophets, a day appointed, and appropriated to the Messiah, sig­nally markt out in the Kalendar of the Prophets and figu­red by many famous Types; as that of Isaac, who was virtuallyJames 2.21. offered and restored again theGen. 22.4. third day (as it may be computed) and that in a kind ofHeb. 11.19. figure, as the Apostle intimates. So also Hezskiah who was in account a dead man, and on the2 Kings 20.5. third day miraculously revived a­gain. SoJonah 2.10. Math. 12 40. See Ainsw. in Gen. 22. Jonah and others: from which instances the Rabbins it serms could conclude Christs Resurrection on the third day; There be many a three dayes, say they, in Scripture, of which one is the Resurrection of the Mes­siah.

3. Christs Resurrection was on the first day of the week, as the Evangelists unanimously testifie. Which although [Page 167]it be termed by the blaspemous Jewes [...] the Na­zarens day (in a way of reproach) yet in Scripture-ac­count, it is a day of greatest renown, being the first in or­der in the Creation, and the first in dignity by our Savi­ours resurrection. The first-fruits of time, and the first­born of dayes; and accordingly the only day in which our Lord became the1 Cor. 15.20. first-fruits of them that slept, and theCol. 1.18. first born from the dead, that in all things he might have the preheminence.

4. To all these may be added what some have probably argued; that this first day of the week was our blessed Re­deemers Birth-day, as well as his Resurrection day, yea the day of his Ascension into Heaven, as well as the mis­sion of his Spirit; but this I leave to Mr. Aspinwal to make good: Only thus much I dare assert, that the day of our Saviours resurrection, the first day of the week is the fittest for the commemoration of his Nativitie, Passion, Ascensi­on, and all other blessed transactions in the work of our Salvation. For the Resurrection of Christ implyes all the rest, but is not necessarily of them: And if the Lord Jesus had not risen from the dead; what benefit had we had, either by his birth, life, death or burial? or being dead and buryed, how had he ascended, and the Spirit (the Com­forter) descended, unless he had first bin raised from the dead? Besides his Resurrection and Ascension are comput­edLuke 24.26. Eph. 4.8, 9, 10. See Dr. Twisse p. 117. Sect. 5. 1 John 20.17. in Scripture as one compleat motion. As his dying and continuing under the power of death for a time, were but one entire work of Redemption: For however after his resurrection he stayed a sew dayes here upon earth to confirm the faith of his followers, and settle the affairs of his Kingdom, yet he was no sooner risen but presently he speaks of his ascending; and indeed his rising was in refe­rence to his ascending partly, if not a part of it: It was the first step of his triumphant passage into his kingdom and glory. So that in a right sense very Lords day is our Christmass-day, Easter-day, Ascension-day, Whitsunday, and all; my meaning, that in a right celebration of our [Page 168]Christian Sabbath, we solemnize the memorial of all these blessed ingredients in the work of our Redemption. We need not contend for an annual Solemnization of our Sa­viours birth-day, resurrection-day, ascension-day; nei­ther need we fear oblivion of these gracious and glorious mysteries, if the Lords day were duly observed. We can­not better keep alive the memory of these mercies, than by keeping a day in commemoration of them once a week; and no day so fit as the Lords day, in which we have the sum of all: A day that brought forth the greatest good to faln man of any day, even a compleat Redeemer; who on this day redeemed us with triumph from the tyranny of Satan, the dominion of death and hell; andJohn 10.25. ch. 14. 19. restored us to life and Salvation, yea, assured it unto us. Therefore I conclude with that renowned father; the Lords day was declared by the Lords Resurrection to be the Christians day;Dies Domini­cus Christi re­surrectione de­claratus est, & ex illo caepit ha­bere festivita­tem suam. Au­gust Ep. 119. ad Jan. item de Ci­vitate Dei. lib. 22. cap. ult. & Serm. 15. de verb. Apost. and from that very time it began to be celebrated as the Christian mans Festival: or rather with that of the Psalmist, This is the day which the Lord hath made. 'Tis no day of mans making, if the God of truth may be be­leeved. 'Tis a plant of the Lords own planting, therefore the Divel and all his instruments shall never be able to pluck it up. Neither can all the men, nor all the Churches in the world alter it to another day. And how remarkable is it that the Church for sixteen hundred years should no where offer or attempt to alter it, but in all places, and all ages observe it? What does this speak, but the Divine authority of it, by which mens Spirits have been awed, and their hands tied from such presumptuous undertakings; the truth is (as I noted before) 'tis built upon the founda­tion of the Prophets and Apostles, Jesus Christ (by his re­surrection) being the chief corner-stone. And because no­thing can ever fall out in this world comparable to Christs Resurrection in glory and power, therefore no day can be set up like unto this, neither can it be changed for any o­ther.See Dr. Bownd lib. 1. p. 47. No man can translate the work, therefore no man can translate the day: The like cause can never be offered [Page 169]to change this day which at first occasioned the choice of it. Therefore it must and shall remain, till the end of all things; men do but kick against the pricks in opposing the Lords day; they that would raze out the remembrance of this day, must first pick out Christs mark which he ha's wrought into it by the work of Redemption, and so blot out the testimony of all the four Evangelists concerning Christs Resurrection the first day of the week, together with the prophecy of the Psalmist; which if they dare do, Yet

2. We have another conspicuous mark to note it by a­bove all other dayes in the week, namely our Saviours frequent apparitions on this day; after his Resurrection from the dead. Here let it be observed,

First, That these glorious apparitions of our now glo­rified Redeemer, were no common favours, but choice and speciall evidences of his owning providence, both as to persons and times. For as he appeared not to all sorts of persons, but to some selectActs 10.41. chosen witnesses, who were either eminently devoted to his service, or designed to teach others; so neither did he make his appearance to those persons every day, but principally and most usually upon the day designed by the Prophets to his worship and service, and now consecrated by his blessed Resurrection; mostly vouchsafing his gracious visits to holy men in holy time; such (at least) as were so, or should be so.

Secondly, Although it beActs 1.20. said, that he was seen of his Apostles fourty dayes between his Resurrection and ascen­sion; yet it cannot be construed thus, [...]. Theophyl. that he was seen every day during those fourty dayes; but only thus, that there were so many dayes between his Resurrection and Ascension, in which he was sometimes seen. And this is all that the Greek will bear, for it is not [in fourty dayes] but [by four­ty dayes] that is, by the space of fourty dayes at times; for sometimes he disappeared.

Thirdly, However it may be supposed that our Saviour did appear on other dayes (as once he did upon a working [Page 170]day) yet no other day of the week ha's the honour to be denominated, as the day of his appearing, but the first day of the week onely: 'Tis never said, he appeared on the second or third day, much less the last day of the week or the seventh day; but the first day of the week is expresly and emphatically noted by name.John 20.19. [...] tis not barely said, [the same day] but [the same day being the first of the week. That same day, that first day of the week came Jesus and stood in the midst of his disciples, as if he would have it specially noted.

Fourthly, Tis evident that our Lord appeared often on this day gracing it with his beatifical presence above all dayes. In theJoh. 20.14, 15.16. morning to Mary Magdalen, and the rest of the holyMath. 28.9. women, who, when they saw him, fell at his feet and worshipped him; and in the evening of the same day to the eleven disciples, andLu. 24.33.36. them that were with them gathered together in a way of Church.John 20.19. [...]. assemb­ly, and this assembly convened it seemes by our Saviours own means, who appearing to Mary commanded her to carry tidings to his disciples of his joyful Resurrection. However a Christian assembly it was, and the first that injoyed the presence of Christ after his death and Resur­rection; then it followes,John 20.26. After eight dayes the disciples were within again, and Thomas with them, then came Jesus and stood in the midst [after eight dayes] that is, as some would have it, after the day-light of the eighth day was past, or as the Geneva-translation reads it, eight dayes after; or, after eight dayes were come; that is on the eighth day: Which reckoning the Resurrection-day in­clusively, was just that day seven-night, or the next first day of the week, there are six working-dayes in the week, and Sabbath and Sabbath make eight, now Christ appeared the first;See Mr. L'­strange p. 73. and the next succeeding, which was the eighth day so the antients generally expound it: It is necessary that this should be the Lords day sayes Cyrill, and Nazianzen made an oration on purpose for it, stiling it [...] the new Lords day, because it was the first Lords day so­lemnized in the weekly revolution after the Resurrection-day. We shall clear it by Scripture, when we come to [Page 171]answer the Objections; mean while let it be noted, that this was the second solemn apparition of our blessed Savi­our, after he rose from the dead; for the next mentioned by this Evangelist is said to be the third time that he shew­ed himself; which what else can it signifie to us,John 21.14. but that he appeared not between those two first dayes? not on the seventh day, nor on any of the other six; he was absent all the week and appeared to none (except to some single persons as Peter) he made no publick apparitions at solemn assemblies but upon his own day.

Now methinks ingenous Christians should thus reason within themselves; certainly 'tis written for our instructi­on, that the Lord Jesus rose from the dead on this day, that in the morning of the day he shewed himself to the holy women; that the same day at evening [being the first day of the week] the disciples were assembled, and Je­sus came and stood in the midst, and after eight dayes a­gain i.e. that day senven-night (for though part of the former and part of the latter day made it eight dayes, yet could it be but seven nights if we count it by nights, according to the account of natural dayes, such as the dayes of the week are) surely these things are not written in vain; that our Saviour should solemnly shew himself in a Christian assembly on the very day of his Resurrection, and that there was no other apparition till that day seven night; this no doubt was of purposed providence, to give original to that Ordinance of the Lords day which accordingly ha's been observed ever since. St. Paul makes it one Argument (in conjunction with others) of his Apostleship, that Christ had appeared to him.1 Cor. 9.1. ch. 15. 8, 9. Am not I an Apostle, have not I seen Christ Jesus our Lord? And may not I in con­sociation with other arguments (as prophetical prediction Psalm 118. and Apostolical practice Acts 20. allege this as one proof of our Christian Sabbath? That Christ Je­sus our Lord was often seen upon it, seen in assemblies of his Saints, seen in his royal robes, in his state of im­mortality, and not only seen but heard, preaching peace [Page 172]to poor sinners; opening Scriptures, cheering, quickening warming cold, dead, sad hearts; for when the disciples saw him they wereLuke 24.32. John 20.21. glad, and their hearts did burn within them, while he opened the Scriptures to them; and all this on the first day of the week. Tis true after this double apparition, our Saviour appeared on a working day, as the disciples were a fishing, and that was the third time of shewing himself or the third day of his appearing.John 21.3.14. But what of this, The disciples were sufficiently confirmed in the authority and solemnity of the Lords day by the two former appariti­ons; therefore well might Christ appear the third time up­on a working day and countenance worki-day-business by his presence, to teach his disciples and us that every day is not a Sabbath day. But this fishing-day is not named; it might as well be on the Jewes Sabbath as any other day of the week, for ought appeares to the contrary in the Text; yet I do not say, it was; I will not speak, where the Scripture is silent.

How often the first day of the week was celebrated by our Saviour between his Resurrection and ascension, is not punctually set down in Scripture. Junius is confident for every week. But there is good evidence for the two first, and none against the three last. Much may be said for that famous apparition on a Mountaine in Galilee; which learn­ed Lightfoot, Math. 28.16, 17, 19, 20. Fenner and others conclude without doubt to have been on the first day of the week.Mar. 16.15, 16.

Now the ascension-day drawes on, and Christ with­drawes his Corporal presence from his disciples, but on the day of Pentecost he visits them again by his spiritual pre­sence. Acts 2. And that this also was on the first day of the week shall be fully clear'd, when we come to the fourth mark:

Lastly,Rev. 1.10. Some years after all these it pleased the Lord Je­sus to appear again on this day: Namely, to his servant John in the Isle of Patmos, (little paradise we may call it; for the presence of Christ makes a wilderness a paradise, e­specially so much of his presence as this blessed Apostle now [Page 173]enjoyed; more than ever was vouchsafed to any man up­on earth, since Christ went up to Heaven) I was in the spirit, sayes he, upon the Lords day; what then? Why v. 12. I saw seven Golden Candle-sticks; and v. 13. In the midst of them one like the son of man; So like him that indeed it was the son of man, the man Christ Jesus; on the Lords day then John saw Jesus Christ in the midst of his Churches, filling them with his blessed presence, that day above all others; and holding the stars in his right hand; that is, holding forth Heavenly light, by the Mi­nistry of the word on that day especially; this John saw, and this he is commanded to set down in writing verse 19. and accordingly written it is, and written for our learning, upon whom the ends of the world are come. And what may we learn from it? Surely this at first view. viz. That in St. Johns time the Golden Churches of Christ were wont to meet, Gospel-Ministers to preach, and Christ himself to be present with them by his spirit on the Lords day. And this is written for a pattern to after-ages, and there is aVerse 3. blessing pronounced on those that read and keep the things that are written in this book. Blessed be Christ for this blessed book; here we have another glorious appear­ance of Christ on the Lords day (not to one man only, or one Church only, but seven Churches, in which no doubt there were more then seven thousand soules) and that this Lords day was also the first day of the week none but peev­ish spirits ever question'd. Ignatius who was trained up in the School of this great Apostle (and in all reason was most likely to know his terms)Epist. ad Magnes. clearly makes it a weekly holy-day observed by Christians in the room of the abro­gated Sabbath of the Jewes. Yea, the Lords day was never taken for other, than the first day of the week by any Christian writer in any age, since the dayes of St. John till this last age of liberty and lyes, that ever I could see or learn. Fathers, Councils, Schoolmen, ancient, modern writers, (two or three of this generation excepted) do constantly understand it of Christs Resurrection-day, the first day [Page 174]of the week; and one would think the constant Dialect of the Church of Christ a sufficient Dictionary to interpret a word or phrase in Scripture, especially in such a sense as does not cross but correspond with Scripture. So does this, for how agreeable to Scripture is it to take the Lords day for that day which the Lord hath made? Besides 'tis ob­servable, that this same beloved disciple, who was so ex­act in penning the first apparition John 20. is a spectator of the last Rev. 1. and just as he had related, that he sees this; the circumstances are remarkable. John 26.19, 26. Christ appears in the midst of the disciples; and Rev. 1.13. in the midst of the Candle-sticks, or Churches; John 20.19. he appears upon the Resurrection-day arguing his Re­surrection; and Rev. 1.18. repeating the same argument, Saying, I am he that liveth and was dead, and have the keyes of death and hell: To say no more, John 20. he ap­peared on the first day of the week, and here again upon the day under a new name (the Lords day) because it ap­peared by his Resurrection and former apparitions to be the day which the Lord had owned above other dayes, yea the day which the Lord had made and instituted. Thus we see how Christs often appearing on this day tends to the further marking out of the day. But this mark is sore­ly shot at; objections come thick: but short answers will serve, when nothing is objected, but what has been answered by others; or nothing to any purpose.

He is not ashamed to say,T. T. Obj. 1. p. 121. I beleeve it will be found up­on inquiry that Christ never appeared to any assembly, no not any one first day; for it is most certain, that the day up­on the Scripture-account begins with the evening. Now upon the Resurrection-day we find Christ at the village seven miles from Jerusalem, when it was towards evening and the day far spent Luke 24.29, 30. after which he supped with the two, which took up some time, then they returned that seven miles and a half to Jerusalem on foot; so that by that time they came there, the day must be quite spent; and though tis said he ap­peared the first day at evening, yet the first day was then as [Page 175]fully ended as the Sabbath at sun-set when they brought their sick, which was forbidden on the Sabbath-day; Mark 1.32.

Christ appeared in the morning of the Resurrection-day as well as at evening; very early, as well as very late; Ans. 1 Math. 28.9. Mark 16.9. Discourse of the instic. dignity and end of the Lords day. p. 33 to teach us that the whole day is his; 'tis the day which the Lord hath made, not a peice of the day. Thus I remem­ber Dr. Hakewil long ago stopt the mouth of this objecti­on, Christ appeared to his Apostles at night (sayes he) to instruct them and teach us, that even then it ceaseth not to be the Lords day.

Tis so farre from certain, that the day in Scripture-ac­count begins in the evening, that 'tis certainly false, Ans. 2 as shall appear hereafter. The instance of the disciples, re­turning from Emmaus to Jerusalem, and that late, makes much against himself. For, as late as it was in the evening before they got home (the later the better, as to the case in hand) yet the Holy Ghost does not call it the second, but the first day of the week. John 20.19. the same day at evening being the first day of the week, note it well: First, The Evangelist calls this time of evening the same day in which Christ arose from the dead. Secondly, He calls it the first day of the week; by which two expressions he puts the matter out of all doubt, that this evening was a part of the first day of the week. Thus the Holy Ghost provides against future errors. Let the objector now blush to consider, how shamefully he has given the lye to the spirit of truth 1. In affirming that Christ never appeared to any assembly, any one first day of the week. 2 That the first day was then fully ended, fully ended? then the Evangelist was much mistaken to tells us it was the same day; he should rather have said the second day, or the next day:] Mark 1.32. does (at most) but speak the opinion and practice of the degenerate Jewes; who, if they stated the end of the Sabbath at the sun-set evening by a traditional account (and therefore brought not their sick to be healed till the Sun was down) yet their superstiti­ous [Page 176]opinion proves not that according to the true Scriptu­rall account the Sabbath began and ended at evening. Be­sides it is but a bare conjecture, that they brought their sick to be healed no sooner, out of respect to the Sabbath;See Tremel. his Annot. in Math. 12.8. and Ainsworth in Ex. 20.10. for they held that peril of life doth drive away the Sab­bath. Some think the only reason why they came no soon­er was, because they had no sooner intelligence of our Saviours Miraculous healing power; But to end the contro­versie, however the Jewes Sabbath might be supposed to begin and end at evening, yet 'tis apparent that the first day of the week ended not with the Sun-set-evening; be­cause it is expresly said in this very chapter Mark. 1.35. That the morning of it was a great while before day. Thus 'tis said of Christ, that in the morning rising up a great while before day, (or [...]. greatly in the night as the Greek ha's it) he departed into a solitary place to pray. And this was on the morrow of the Sabbath as the context shewes. So that if it were the morning of the day while it was yet night, long before sun-rising, then it could not be the e­vening or end of the day till long after the Sun-setting; so Math. 28.1. John 20.1.

As for Christs second apparition, Obj. 2 tis expresly said it was after eight dayes and therefore could not be on the first day of the week. John 20.26.

Why, Ans. did he never read thatMark 8.31. [...]. Vide Bez. Calv. Rollock, Piscat. Jansen. upon the places. See Mr. Cawdry p. 4. ch. 1. The reckoning of these eight dayes is inclu­sive, see the like Lu. 9.28. com­pared wi [...]h Mat. 17.1. See Dr. Gouge Sabb. Sanct. p. 21. Scripture, That the son of man must suffer and after three dayes rise again? After three dayes, therefore it could not be the third day, does that follow? As much as this; after eight dayes therefore it could not be the eighth day, or the first day of the week Mr. Sprint p. 138. Observes that 'tis as if the Evangelist had said, the eighth day after by an Hebraism; quoting the like speech Luke 1.59. ch. 2.21. or after the eighth day was come. Thus the like expression is used Jer. 25.12. When seventy years are fulfilled the people shall return; that is on the seventieth year; so Acts 2.1. When the day of Pentecost was fulfilled, i. e. Fully come. This appeares to me to be the vulgar acceptation of the phrase, as in a like case, [Page 177] Math. 27.63. the cheif Priests and Pharisees told Pilate that Christ should say while he was yet alive, after three dayes I will rise again; wherefore they intreat him of all loves, that he would command the sepulcher to be made sure till the third day. Whence tis evident, that by this phrase [after three dayes] they understood Christs purpose of rising [on the third day] otherwise they would have de­sired a guard for a longer space than three dayes.

Christ was ever seen of some or other of his disciples four­ty dayes. Acts 1, 2, 3. Obj. 3

That Christ was seen by the space of fourty dayes im­plies not that he was seen every day of the fourty; only that he stayed fourty dayes before he ascended and ap­peared at times, as was said before; besides we are not now arguing his apparitions to single persons only, but as­semblies.

Oh! Obj. 4 But the disciples were assembled only for fear of the Jewes, not to celebrate the Sabbath in honour of Christs Re­surrection, for they believed not that he was risen, the wo­mens tidings therefore seemed idle tales to them.

The privacy of their meeting and shutting the doors was indeed for fear of the Jewes. Ans. 1 But why they should fear the Jewes more on those two dayes than any other, I see no reason, neither can it be any reason of their then as­sembling.

Tis probable; Ans. 2 that their first assembly was not (on their parts) out of any religious respect to the day, for as yet they understood not that it was, or was to be the Christian Sab­bath, (therefore some of them were travelling into the countrey Luke 24. for fear of the Jewes too it may be,Math. 28.13, 14, 15. because the lying souldiers had given it out that the disci­ples came by night and had stoln away the body of Jesus) yet on Gods part in assembling them, and on Christs part in appearing to them, there was doubtless some special re­spect to the day which they understood afterwards, and therefore the Evangelist is so precise in the notation of it; for John 20.1. having spoken of the first day of the week [Page 178] verse. 19. he reduplicates it most emphatically, saying, the same day then in the evening, that day being the first day of the week (as if he would be loth to be mistaken in that point of time) and though for the present the A­postles might be ignorant of their own practise, what it tended to (as Mary was when she poured the box of oint­ment on our Saviours head, that she did it for his burying) yet afterwards, by Christs second apparition that day se­ven-night, they were better instructed, witness their af­ter-assembling on that day Acts 2. and Acts 20. to con­clude this; why our blessed Saviour should neglect the Jewes Sabbath and afford his-glorious presence in Christi­an assemblies on the first day of the week thus often and thus eminently, but to establish the day for sacred assem­blies, and to teach us on what day especially we may ex­pect his presence and blessing, I confess I am to seek: And although this mark may seem obscure to persons possest with prejudice, yet the objectors attempts to deface it are utterly invalid: he ha's indeed trampled upon it with the Prelates old shoes (for his objections are the very same which the Prelatical party (so much defied by himself) urged long ago) but he cannot tread out the divine impression which Christ ha's stampt upon it. The apparitions of Christ on this day do further tend to mark out the day especially in a joynt consideration with the next scripture-mark viz.

3. The gracious speeches, actions, and transactions of Christ at his several appearings, tending partly to prove his Resurrection, the ground of our hope and the hinge of the day, to this purpose we may observe how sweetly our gracious Redeemer condescended to his poor doubting stag­gering disciples, manifesting himself even to all their sen­ses, to their hearing by his heavenly voice, to their see­ing by his visible presence, yea, to their feeling by offering his sacred body to be touched and handled by them; and partly to dignify his Resurrection-day; distinguishing it from all other dayes by Sabbath-exercises; As

1. By his heavenly instructions; opening the Scriptures,Luke 24.46. and preaching peace to his disciples; and to us as well as them; having slain the enmity by his Cross,Eph. 2.16, 17. he came and preached peace; and this day he came with his Olive branch in his mouth, saying; peace be unto you.

2. By giving forth commissions to his Apostles John 20, 19. As my father hath sent me, so send I you; whose sins ye remit they are remitted, &c. And then breathing upon them the Holy Ghost.

3. By convincing demonstrations of his Resurrection, to strengthen the faith of Thomas; John 20.26. to which some add.

4. His celebration of the sacred supper according to that promise, I will no more drink of the fruit of the vine, Mark 14.25. untill that day I drink it new in the kingdom of God. That is, af­ter I rise from the dead, which therefore tis like, that then he did. Yea, then he brake bread, and was known of the disciples in breaking of bread as he sate with them,Luke 24.30. [...]. (not at meat as we read it) the word only implyes his gesture of sit­ing. However, his first and second apparition toge­ther with the forementioned great transactions of instruct­ing, inspiring blessing, sending his Apostles on this day, and performing most of these at their solemn meetings, do argue more for this day than any other; that it is the day which Christ ha's selected and sealed for the religious as­semblies and Sabbath-exercises of his Church in all future ages to the end of the world. But I must contract.

4 Another indeleble mark of honour fix'd upon the first day of the week, is The mission of the Holy Ghost, or send­ing the promise of the father, as a princely largess, or royal gift of Christ upon his Coronation-day;Luke 24.40. John 15.26. Acts 1.4. ch. 2. 33. such a gift as was never given before, but when God gave his Son Je­sus Christ. God so loved the world that he gave his son; and Christ so loved the world that he gave his spirit. And as Christ was given according to the fulness of the promise up­on the day of his Resurrection; so was the blessed spirit of promise upon the day of Pentecost. And the same wonder­ful [Page 180]providence that ordered the Resurrection of Christ to fall upon the first day of the week, did also take order for the sending of the spirit on the same day. For that the day of Pentecost Acts 2.1. was the first day of the week, as it is generally taken for granted by Christian writers, so it may be evidently proved by the Scriptures. I shall not puzle the Reader with perplexing intricacies, nor lead men into labyrinths to find out the truth: Let plain Scripture determin the matter, look to the statute-lawes of Moses concerning the feast of Pentecost Exod. 34.21, 22. Six dayes shalt thou work but on the seventh day thou shalt rest both in earing-time and in barvest, and thou shalt observe the feast of weekes, of the first-fruits of Wheat-harvest Levit. 23.10, 11, 12, 15, 16. When ye be come into the land which I give you, and shall reap the harvest thereof, then ye shall bring a sheaf of your first-fruits of your harvest unto the Priest, and he shall wave it together with the offering of a lamb without blemish; on the morrow after the Sabbath he shall wave it; and ye shall count unto you from the morrow after the Sabbath, from the day that yee brought the sheaf, seven Sabbaths shall be complete even unto the morrow after the seventh Sabbath ye shall number fifty dayes, So Numb. 28.26. and more fully Deut. 16.9. Seven weekes shalt thou number unto thee, begin to number the seven weeks from such time as thou beginnest to put the sickle to the Corn. From the harmony of which four texts it appeares, that this feast had three significant names which were all made good at that solemn Pentecost Acts. 2.

1.Deut. 16.10. It was called the feast of weekes, or of sevens; be­cause from the waving of the sheaf, thehy reckoned as ma­ny weekes to this feast, as there be dayes in the week; namely seven weekes. Which evidently shadowed out some weekly Festival under the Gospel; the day whereof was denoted by that dya of Pentecost, Acts 2.

2.Exod. 23.16. Levit. 23.10. It was called the feast of first-fruits, and of harvest, because as they began their harvest upon the first of the fif­ty dayes when they offered the sheaf of first-fruits, so they [Page 181]had ended it upon the fiftieth day (which was properly the Feast-day) upon which they offered the wave-loaves. and indeed these fiftie dayes, or seven weekes,Levit. 23.17. were the appointed weekes of their harvest, by the offering of the sheaf at the beginning of their harvest there after fruits were sanctified, and the offering of the loaves on the fiftieth day was not only an eucharistical oblation, but also a token of the harvest's being finished and ended.

3. It is called the Feast of Pentecost, because it was ever kept the fiftieth day; the fiftieth day, how reckoned? From the morrow after the Sabbath (that is, the first day of the week) but what mark had they to know this morrow by? Moses tells them; When you shall reap the harvest of yur land; or, when you begin to reap it, for so tis expound­ed in Deuteronomie. Deut. 16.9. [...] Begin to number the seven weekes from such time as thou beginnest to put the sickel to the corn: In the Hebrew it runs thus, from beginning to put the sickle into the standing corn, thou shalt begin to num­ber the seven weekes: So that when they began their har­vest, they must begin their account of the fifty dayes, and the first of the fifty was the morrow of the Sabbath, or the day following the Sabbath (namely, the first day of the week) and as they began, so they must end the account on the same day; as the first, so the fiftieth day (or day of Pentecost) must be on the morrow of the Sabbath, Levit. 23.15, 16. and this is injoyned by the express command of God to be observed as a statute forever throughout their generations, this is the plain Scripture-account, and who can but observe the wisdom of God in it, in ordering the matter thus, that this Feast of weeks should never fall up­on the seventh day, but ever upon the first of the week; (the morrow after the Sabbath, or the day immediatly following it) if at least his statute-law had been observed?) What else could this presignifie (as learned Dr. Ʋsher speakes) but that under the state of the Gospel the solem­nity of the weekly service should be celebrated upon that day?

Now I hope that famous Pentecost Acts 2.1. will be no Parable, although we state it (according to the Divine oracle) upon the first day of the week, the morrow after the Jewes Sabbath, we need no Almanacks to help us here, the Bible is sufficient.

And because the Sabbatrians stand so much upon sup­posed mysteryes in the Feast of Pentecost, according to their traditional account; I shall acquaint them with the reall mysteries of Christ accomplished exactly according to this true scripturall account,See Dr. Usher there they may see the type and the truth admirably concurring. For as at the time of the Passeover1 Cor. 5.7. Christ our Passeover was Sacrificed for us, and lay in his grave the whole Sabbath following; so on the morrow after the Sabbath (when the sheaf of first-fruits was offered to God) Christ rose from the dead, and be­came the1 Cor. 15.20. first-fruits of them that slept, Math. 27.52, 53. many dead bo­dies of Saints that slept arising likewise after him. From thence was the count taken of the seven Sabbaths or fifty dayes,Numb. 28.26. Exod. 34.22. and upon the morrow after the seventh Sabbath (which was our Lords day) was that famous feast of weekes that day of Pentecost Acts 2.1. upon which day the A­postles having themselves received the first-fruits of the spi­rit,Acts 2.1.4, 5, 41. begat three thousand souls with the word of truth, and presented them as the first-fruits of the Christian Church unto God,James 1.18. Rev. 4.14. and unto the Lamb; and from that time forward doth Waldensis note, that the Lords day was observed in the Christian Church in the place of the Sabbath.In his learned letter to Dr. Twisse p. 91.92. Thus Dr. Ʋsher that Library of learning. If it be objected, that in this discourse he states Christ suffer­ing at the feast of the Passeover, and so falls in which the vulgar opinion which takes the morrow after the Sabbath Levit. 23. For the morrow after the Passeover-Sabbath; I answer that cannot be, for he had declared before, that the Sabbath there intended is the ordinary weekly Sabbath and the morrow after it the first day of the week and he cites Isychius and Rupertus as interpreting it so before him to whom I shall mae bold to add [Nazianzen] who [Page 183]was before them all; [...]. Orat. in Sanct. Pen­tecost and in his 44^th o­ration (speaking of the Feast of Pente­cost) ‘[This nation sayes he (meaning the Jewish nation) uses to consecrate to God, not only the first of their fruits, and first-born; but the first-fruits of their dayes and years also. Thus the illustrious number of seven ha's carried the honour of Pentecost; for seven being composed upon its self makes fifty, wanting but one day which we have taken from this future age, being both the eighth and the first day.]’ His phrase is something dark, but his argument is clearly this, that the Jewes Pentecost was fain to be beholding to the Christians eighth day, or first day of the week to make up the com­plete number of fity dayes. (And the like he sayes a little before concerning their Jubilee every fiftieth year) for se­ven times seven, makes but fourty nine; to perfect the number therefore they borrowed the first day of the week and so consecrated to God the first fruits of their dayes, as well as of their land. So that this computation of the fifty-dayes to Pentecost from the morrow of the weekly Sabbath wants no authority to back it, neither humane nor Divine. But the plain word of God is our best warrnat and me­thinks that should satisfie. Dr. Twiss was no child at ar­gument, nor one that would be satisfied upon slight grounds; but upon Bp. Ʋshers discovery of this truth by the fore-mentioned Scripture-evidence, he professes that he had received greatIn his printed letter to Bp. Usher. satisfaction; and acknowledges that the mystery of the feast of first-fruits was opened to the singular advantage of the honour of the Lords day.

The only material objection against this interpretation, is the judgment of Mr. Ainsworth, and the English Anno­tatours, who take the Sabbath Levit. 23. For the Passe-over-Sabbath; tis true, they do so; but herein they are [Page 184]led by the common opinion of the Hebrew Doctors, who indeed are excellent guides, when they keep the beaten rode of Scripture (and sometimes to direct us at a doubt­full turning) but here it may be proved, that they them­selves are out of the way, I do not say, our Christian writers, but the Hebrew Doctors, who in many things did make voyd the Commandments of God by their own traditions, and if there be any mistake, let it lie at their doores. And cerainly a mistake there is in this point. For that the morrow after the Sabbath could not be meant of the Passeover-Sabbath is clear; For

First, It must be such a morrow after the Sabbath as must never fall upon the weekly Sabbath; the reason is plain, be­cause it was the begining of their harvest, when they put their sickle to the corn, or harvested their harvest Le. 23.10. which they are expresly forbidden to do upon their weekly Sabbath. Ex. 34.21, 22. Six dayes shalt thou labour, but on the seventh thoushalt rest both in earing-time and harvest. And see how this is coupled with the feast of first-fruits in the ve­ry same place, Thou shalt observe the feast of weekes, &c. Now observe it, if the morrow after the Sabbath Levit. 23. had been the morrow after the Passeover-Sabbath, this would often have fallen upon the weekly Sabbath. For the Passe-over-Sabbath being fixed upon a certain day of the month viz. the 15^th of Nisan, when ever this 15^th of Nisan fell upon the Friday, the morrow after it must needs be on the Saturday, and so they must begin to reap their harvest upon the weekly Sabbath against an expresse command of God. The Hebrew Doctors foresaw this inconvenience, and had no other way to salve it, but by affirming,See Ains­worth in Levit. 23. that this reaping did drive away the Sabbath, and that it was lawfull on the Sabbath-day: A most impious opinion. For it crosses the very letter of Gods Law; In earing-time and in harvest thou shalt rest.

Secondly, The morrow after the Sabbath at the begin­ing of their account, must be such a morrow as concludes it, Levit. 13.15, 16. therefore it could not be the mor­row [Page 185]of the Passeover-Sabbath, or any Festival-Sabbath; for there was no such Sabbath at the end of the account, whatever there was at the beginning of it.

Thirdly, The Passeover-Sabbath was fixed to a certain day of the month,Numb. 28.17. namely the fifteenth day of the first month; and thus all their other Festivals, they had their fixed dayes. But this feast of Pentecost is no where affixed in all the bookes of Moses to any one certain day of the month (nor indeed could it be, unless God should make a ceremonial Law to cross the Law of nature, or rather to limit the course of divine Providence, to ripen their corn just against such a day of the month) which (as Dr Ʋsher observes) is a very great presumption that the Feast of Pentecost was a moveable Feast, (namely as to the day of the month) but immoveable as to the day of the week; so varying that it might always fall upon the day immediately following the ordinary Sabbath.

Fourthly, The Anti-type is the best key to unlock the type. And this is clear in the new Testament; for that Christ was our first-fruits in reference to his Resurrection, St. Paul assures us, 1 Cor. 15.20. and that he rose from the dead on the morrow after the weekly Sabbath, all the 4 Evangelists do inform us. And T. T. ha's granted us, that these things must be punctually fulfilled by Christ, as well in the time as in the type. From his own grant therefore I con­clude; That the day of first-fruits was the first day of the week, therefore so was the day of Pentecost, to the everlast­ing honour of that Lords day and the glory of God the Ho­ly Ghost who sanctifyed it by his presence and power; send­ing down a new supply of tongues from Heaven (as if all the tongues upon earth were not sufficient) to sound forth the praises of our Redeemer, and spread his Gospel all the world over upon the first day of the week, as an earnest whereof there was a glorious beginning made this day, the Gospel being now published to some of all nations; for there was now a great concourse, even of every nation under Heaven, met at Jerusalem, Acts 2.5. and at this [Page 186]meeting three thousand soules converted, and baptized v. 41. a double baptism was indeed dispensed this day, the Apostles were now baptized with fire, and three thousand converts with water. Which was such a solemnity as the Church of God never saw the like from that day to this.

I need say no more,T. T. p. 81. the adversary confesses that this was the most glorious Sabbath that ever Church enjoyed. Only he would fain perswade himself and others that it was the Saturday-Sabbath; but herein he befooles himself, and deceives others. His Grammar, Logick, and Arithme­tick never falled him more than in this point. See what a Grammarian he is! Mr. Aspinwal had objected that the word [ [...]] translated [fully come] should rather be rendred [fully past] to which T. T. learnedly replies, that the Greek (being a Gerund in do) signifies [fulfilling] now I confesse tis the first time that ever I heard of a Greek Gerund in do; it may be this author learnt some Latin-Greek-Grammar, while he was a Roman-Catholick. I wish he do not stick too much in the Gerund in do stil. One passage in his book renders it a little suspicious, as p. 146 [Let us, sayes he, celebrate the seventh-day-Sabbath, a day of delights to the Lord, and so obtain meercy for the Sabbath-pollution of our dayes of ignorance] What does he hope to obtain mercy by doing? Nay, then I do not much wonder at his zeal for the Saturday-Sabbath, I ra­ther wonder he does not cry up the old Covenant again. To trace him yet further; he is a little out in his Arithme­tick too. For in beginning the count of the fifty dayes on a Saturday he begins at the wrong end, making the last day of the week to be the first of the week, the seventh day the eighth day, the first day the second day, the sixth day the last day against his own professed principles; and is not here strange confusion? Let me ask him in good earnest if the seventh day were the first day in all those seven weeks, Deut. 16. how was the fourth Commandment kept all that while, which according to his opinion, will brook [Page 187]no other weekly Sabbath but the last of the week? Thus for his Arithmetick. Now for his Logick: But here he is quite lost; his Conclusions are flat Contradictions, and his his best Arguments Barbarous absurdities: I do him no wrong, let the Reader judge.

I Affirm, sayes he, Object. 1 Pag. 22. of his last book. (with the most Learned of this Age) That the Sabbath from whence our Reckoning arises (Levit. 23.11, 15.) was not the weekly Sabbath, but the first day of the Passeover-Feasts. And a little before he calls it, The Passeover, on the morrow of which Sabbath the waving of the Sheaf was exactly accomplished in Christ by the Cruci­fying Priests, who waved him between Heaven and Earth upon the sixth day of the week, from which day began the Count of the Apostles Pentecost, punctually beginning and ending upon the Seventh-day-Sabbath.

Here are strange mysteries indeed! First, Answ. he states the Crucifixion of Christ on the morrow of the Passeover-Sab­bath, and yet he had argued before. That Christ was Cru­cifyed on the Passeover-Sabbath it self; upon the day cal­led Good Friday, sayes he, was our First-fruits waved by the Priests upon the Cross: And what day that was, he tell us, namely, The fifteenth of Nisan, which was the first day of the Passeover-Feast, say his Learned Authors. And I affirm with them, sayes the Objector, That this was the Sabbath, Lev. 23. So that to make good his cross conceits, he would have Christ Crucifyed two dayes together, name­ly, on the Passeover Sabbath, and the morrow after it, that is, Friday and Saturday; which exceeds the cruelty of the crucifying Priests themselves.

Secondly, To salve this sore the coyns another conceit, namely, that the Passeover-day, and the Passeover-Sab­bath were all one:Pag. 83.84 For thus he argues in his first book [The Israelites were appointed to bring (on the morrow after their Passeover-Sabbath) a Sheaf of their First-fruits to be waved by the Priests before the Lord, and from that day to count seven weeks: And here let the believer (who sees all Types ended in Christ) with confidence behold his dying Redeemer, as the un­doubted [Page 188]Sheaf of First-fruits waved upon the Cross by the Cru­cifying Priests the very morrow after he had eaten the Passeo­ver.] As if the morrow after the Passeover-Sabbath were all one with the morrow after the Passeover. Whereas the Learned Authors, whom he cites, will tell him, That the Passeover-day was no Sabbath, but a half-holiday, Ainsw. Lev. 23.5. But here again he is at odds with himself, for in his last book he boasts of his concurrence with the most Learned of this Age, saying, ‘I affirm with them, That the Sabbath (Lev. 23.) is not the weekly Sabbath, but the first day of the Passeover-feast, that is the fifteenth day, as they affirm; therefore it could not be the fourteenth day.’ And if he wikll contradict himself, who can help it?

Thirdly, Another gross Error is this, That he makes Christ the Anti-type of the First-fruits in reference to his Death, and quotes 1 Cor. 15.23. to prove it; which speaks expressely of his Resurrection. What shameful abuse of Scripture is this?

‘The morrow after the Sabbath on which the account began, Object. 2 is known by three things, First, by the Sickles en­tring into the Corn, Deut. 16 9. Secondly, by the waving of the First-fruits, Lev. 23.11. Thirdly, by offering the same day a Lamb without Spot, Lev. 23.12. Now all these were punctually fulfilled in Christ on the day caleld Good Friday: Then the Sickle was put to him to cut him down, then he was Waved on the Cros, then this Lamb without spot was offered; from which day the holy Sabbath is the first of the account, and at the end of seven full weeks the same day that began did end the account.’

All this may be answered in a word. The Type and the time (to use his own language) hold no proportion. For the Sickle must be put to the Corn, the First-fruits Waved, and the Lamb offered the morrow after the Sabbath, Lev. 23.10.12. Whereas Christ suffered and dyed the day be­fore the Sabbath, and not upon that day which he counts the morrow after the passeover-Sabbath (for then he must [Page 189]have been Crucifyed upon the Saturday) but upon that which he calls the Passeover-Sabbath it self, namely, the fifteenth day of the Moneth. And here let him see how he hath lost his Cause, and his Credit too: For, I hope, he will stand to the judgment of Mr. Ainsworth and the English Annotators (else why does he cite them;) now they both affirm, That the Passeover Sabbath must be the fifteenth of Nisan, and the morrow after it (from which they began to reckon) must needs be the sixteenth day. From which they reckoned Exclusively (from the night of the sixteenth day, sayes Mr. Ainsworth Law. 23.15) Now Christ suffered upon the Friday, which was the fifteenth day, and the supposed Passeover-Sabbath. The next day (being the Sabbath) was the sixteenth of Nisan, from which day (namely when the day was ended) they must begin to reckon the fifty dayes to Pentecost, and so it falls pat upon the first day of the week; and thus T. T. reckons in his first book, excluding the morrow after the Passeover-Sabbath from being one of the fifty dayes. And so against his will he must be forced to begin upon the first day of the week, and that day that begins the account must needs end it; and so his confidence is utterly dismounted. Indeed in his last book he begins to reckon the sixteenth day Inclusively; but in the very next page he contradicts himself again, (leaving out the morrow after the Passeo­ver-Sabbath as none of the number) a just jugment of God to make men fight with themselves, when they would fight against his Truth.

The Waving of the First-fruits, Answ. and putting the Sickle into the Corn, are Erroneously and falsely applied to the death of Christ; they do both more properly relate to his Resurrection. The Resurrection of the Just at the last day is resembled to reaping, Matth. 13.39. The Harvest is the end of the world, and the Reapers are the Angels. Now Christ by virtue of his Resurrection was the First-fruits of that harvest, The First-fruits of them that sleep, 1 Cor. 15. The waving of the First-fruits under the Law [Page 190]did Typifie Christs rising from the dead, and presenting himself alive before God upon the day of his Resurrection. Again, the offering of the Lamb without Blemish, Lev. 23.12. makes not that day a Type of our Saviours dying day; for it was their daily offering, and upon the last of the fifty dayes they were to offer seven Lambs without blemish, Levit. 23.20. Yet Christ dyed but once, and by that one offering hath perfected for ever them that are san­ctified, Heb 9.28. ch. 10 14.

But Mr. Jemison has prevented me in this Argument, and to give him his due he has done worthily in it, as to the substance of what he hath written. To conclude, af­ter all attempts to the contrary, the glory of the Spirit's Mission rests upon the First day of the week: This day the Church of Christ was visited from on high, the promise of the Father was sent, Acts 1.4. The blessed Spirit came, the Disciples were assembled, Peter preached, thousands con­verted and Baptized, Acts 2. and all this is written for our instruction. Why the Church assembled (as Mr. Sprint argues) why on that day? Why the holy Ghost? Why Preaching? Why Conversion, and administration of Sacraments? Why the Promise of Christ accomplished, all on this day? but still to declare the will and Ordinance of Christ in blessing and sanctifying this day to his Church; and so marking it out for a day of publick solemn worship, as a day in all its Prerogatives superlative above other dayes, the day of our Saviours Resurrection, by which we are Justified; the day of the holy Spirits Descension, by whom we are Sanctified.

Fifthly, [...]. Andr. Caesar. Another signal mark, is the inscription of his royal name upon it whose day it is, Rev. 1.10. tis stiled the Lords day. Surely 'tis some additionall honour to this il­lustrious day, that as it was the first day of time mention­ed the beginning of the first book of the Bible, so it is the last day of same noted in the beginning of this last book of the Bible, to the praise of him who is our Alpha and O­mega; the very name speaks Christ the Author of it, if not [Page 191]his Resurrection (whereby he was declared both Lord and Christ) the occasion of it. The antients had it in singular esteem for the very name sake. 'tis an elegant and pious poem which I find written upon it by Sedlius, an antient Christian Poet who was but a few yearsVid. Sixti Senesis Bibli­oth. sanct. p. 308. Jerome's Juni­or.

In English thus,

But we have more antient Records than this, appropri­ating the title of Lords day to our Christian Sabbath.Omnes ferè sa­crae Scripturae interp etes, tam veteres quam Recentiores de primo dïe heb­domadis intelli­gunt. Wallaeus dissert. de 4. prae: cap. 6. p 150. Ig­natius (who lived in St. Johns time) makes it a weekly holy day of the Christians observed in the room of the Jewes Sabbath: So Tertullian, Atharasius, Hierom, Austin, who not? By this title we may trace it down from the Apostles times through the Ocean of the Fathers, Councills, Schoolmen to this present age, wherein we live. And to come to Scripture; there seemes to be much in that which Beza observes out of an antient Greek manu-script, where­in that first day of the week 1 Cor. 16.2. is expresly called the Lords day; and the Syriack translation tells us,Institut. The­ol. loc. 48. de ca­na. Dom. that the Christians meeting together to receive the Lords Sup­per 1 Cor. 11.20. was upon the Lords day: And Bucanus saith, this Sacrament is called the Lords Supper, as in re­spect of the institutor and the end of it,I had rather in­terpret the Lords day by the Lords Sup­per than as Bu­can. does the Lords Supper by the Lords day. so also in respect of the day on which it was wont to be administ; viz. The Lords day, citeing that Text Acts 20.7. and hence also the antients stiled it, Dies panis, the day of bread, because the Churches of Christ ever used to break bread on this day. But to end all disputes, if Scripture may be safely inter­preted [Page 192]by Scripture, and dark places by plain ones, then let us expound the Lords day Rev. 1.10. by the Lords Sup­per 1 Cor. 11.20, Here let the reader take notice, that the blessed Spirit of God (who had his choice of words, and never spake any thing but upon admirable reason) never vouchsafed this title of honour in the new Testament, but only to the Supper and the day; the Lords Supper and the Lords day. [...], 1 Cor. 11.20. [...]. Rev. 1.10. Neither can any third Text be produced, where this Epithet is applyed to any thing else. Now the phrase being the same (and thus singular) the sense must needs be the same. Look therefore in what notion the Supper is the Lords Supper, in the same sense is the day (stiled the Lords day. The supper is the Lords, because the Lord Christ instituted it, yea and substituted it in the room of the Passe­over; and why not the day His,So Mr. Per­kins in his cases of conscience. because he instituted, and substituted it in the room of the old Sabbath? Tis e­vidently a day of Christs institution, a day of the Lords own making, and with reference to his Resurrection, he made it such a day of the week, not such a day of the year as we proved before in a word, let any other day be set up in constitution with the first day of the week, for the title of Lords day, and we shall easily non-suit it, ‘Our Saviours birth-day bids fair for it. Obj. 1 T.T. Answ. ’

Then it must be a day of divine institution, which I hope he will not say.

But I answer further, if the day of Christs nativity, or any other day besides the first day of the week had been devoted to Christ, and intended by John in this place, he had spoken very obscurely to say, I was in the spirit on the Lords day; he would rather have said, I was in the spirit on one of the Lords dayes.Annot. ad loc. But to put this fancy to flight, observe the day here dignified with this magnificet title must needs be some noted day, the circumstances of time, place, and person are set down (as Beza observes) the better to conciliate credit to the truth of these heavenly visions; therefore all (but that of the place) have an e­minent badge of cognizance upon them; John was a known [Page 193]person; and the Lords day (with an emphatical Article, [...] a well-known day doubtless, he that relates to others such a thing done such a day, presup­poses the day sufficiently and certainly known; for a doubt­full circumstance darkens a story, and drawes a curtain in stead of opening a casement to give light to the matter; now let us put it to the question; what day was more e­minently and unquestionably known in all the Churches of Christ than the first day of the week? Which the Secreta­ries of Christ (all the four Evangelists) had so exactly no­ted, and the Psalmist so prophetically extolled, as a day of the Lords making? St. John could not but know that these seven Churches knew the first day of the week to be Christs Resurrection-day, and neither he nor they could be ignorant that Christs Resurrection-day was the day which the Lord had made, and whats that but the Lords day? As for our Saviours Birth-day (although it were a day of wonderful mercy) yet it is left in great obscurity, not one of the Evangelists marking it out by name; nei­ther can it be so clearly resolved, either what day of theUnless the adversary will grant Mr. A. that it was the first day of the week. week, or what day of the month, or what month of the year, nor hardly what year of the world our Saviour was born in, but it may be matter of controversie. See divers disputes about it in Dr. Willets Hexapl. on Dan. chapter 11.

If John intends any single day, tis most likely to be the se­venth day which was antiently stiled the Lords holy day, Obj. 2 Isai 57.6. and is declared by Christ to be his day, Mark 2. last. and no other day throughout the Gospel does he declare to be his. This he and Mr. Braburn in contradiction to the whole Christian world) would fain perswade us that the Lords day which St. John speaks was the old Sabbath. But

He may as well say that the Lords Supper which St. Paul speakes of was the old Passeover, Ans. 1 since that was theExod. 12.11. Luke 22.20. Lords Supper in the old Testament, as much as the seventh day was the Lords Sabbath.

Christ never declared the seventh day to be the Lords day, Ans. 2 although he declared himself to be Lord of the Sab­bath-day. My meaning is, that he never owned the se­venth day as the Author and institutor of it in a strict Evan­gelical sense, neither could he, for it was instituted long before. Heb. 4.4. therefore (let it be well considered) the Lords day (Rev. 1.10) for this very reason cannot possibly be understood of the Jewes Sabbath, because it is such a Lords day as relates peculiarly to the Lord Christ; not as the Lord our Creator; but the Lord our Redeemer; to Christ actually exalted to be Lord over all; relates to him, I say, as the Lords Supper does; not only as his by posses­sion, but his by institution: for these two (and these on­ly) the Supper and the day are called [the Lords] in Scrip­ture. The Greek word is used but twice in all the new Testament, only these two have the honour to be matcht in this glorious appellation; and we must interpret the one by the other, therefore, if the Lords Supper be a Gospel-ordinance and institution of Jesus Christ, so is the Lords day; This paralel will pinch the adversary, he cannot so much as pretend that the seventh day, (nor indeed any o­ther day but the first of the week) was instituted by Christ, so as to be equalized in phrase with that pure Evangelicall ordinance the Lords Supper. There is a vulgar objection abroad, that every day is the Lords day; therefore this Text makes as much for an every-day-Sabbath as the week­ly Lords day Sabbath. But the answer is easie, they may as well say every Table is the Lords table, and every Supper the Lords Supper, and so turn levellers of dayes and duties together. Well, we have brought it to this issue, that there is a day, a speciall day under Gospel (but not Jewes seventh day) which the Lord Jess ha's instituted and owned above all dayes by stamping his own most blessed name upon it, (as upon his sacred Supper) and this we are sure can be no other than the first day of the week.

The objector (fearing belike that the former shift would faile him) ha's another evasion to second it, Obj. 3 namely that [Page 195]old thread bare Notion of Gomarus. I rather think (sayes he) that the Lords day which S. John spake of was the Lords Judgment-day, which the Lord himself calls his day, Luke 17. Phil. 1.16. And so he dreams that the day on which S. John dated his Epistles to the seven Churches, was the day of Judgment.

But,

This (as one sayes0 is void of all judgment: Answ. See Mr. Ley Sund. Sab. For in the readiest construction of the words S. John spake of a day that was in being before the Vision came, and so known that the Reader might take notice when it came. But the day of Judgment is not yet come (unless it be to such dreamers) and so utterly unknown to man, that our Saviour hath taught us,Mat. 24.36 Mark. 13.32 Of that day and hour knoweth no man: no, not the Angels in heaven, but my Father only. The prooses he alleges are impertinent; for although the day of Judgment be stiled the day of the Lord (appella­tively.) yet is it never termed the Lords day (denomina­tively) as Mr. Cawdrey might have taught him, if he had not thought himself too wise to learn of his betters. Thus all his cloudy notions are scattered, and the Lords day (Rev. 1.10.) discovered by evidence of Scripture and An­tiquity to be the first day of the week.

Now as the blessed Martyr Ignatius exhorteth, Let every one that loves the Lord Jesus Christ keep holy the Lords day. Let the zeale of Primitive Christians herein provoke us to holy emulation. [...]. Ignat. ad Magnes. Plinius sub Trajano scripsit, Solitos hoc stato die conve­nire Christianos ante lucem, carmen­que Christo quasi Deo Communi voce dicere; postea Sacramento se ob­stringere ne scelus aliquid, ne furta, ne latrocinia, ne adulteria commit­terent. Magdeb. Cent. 2. c. 6. Even a Heathen could ob­serve how those precious morning stars used to meet early on this day and sing Hymnes to Christ: an not only to sing his praises, but to celebrate his holy Supper (the Lords Supper upon the Lords day doubtless) binding themselves in a holy Covenant to hate and flie sin. And 'tis known to have been the common question put to Christians by Pagan persecuing Gover­nours [Page 196][Dost thou observe the Lords day?] the usual an­swer was [I am a Christian, I dare not intermit it.] This was wont to be the distinguishing Shibboleth, the cogni­zance of Christians in the purest times of Christinity. O blessed souls! because they were Christians they durst not intermit the Lords day; no, though they lost their dearest lives for keeping of it. How ill do they deserve the Name of Christians in these dayes, who make no Conscience of this day; yea, who have the impudence to Preach against it, Write against it, Work upon it as if it were a common day. I remember what the holy Apostle spake in a like case to those that polluted the Lords Table, using it as if it were their own table, What, have ye not houses of your own ot eat and drink in? 1 Cor. 11.22 or despise ye the Church of God? The like may I say to all prophaners of the Lords day, Have ye not dayes enough of your own to work and to play in? or despise ye the Lords day? Is it a sin, a pro­oking sin, to use the Lords Table as if it were your own table, to eat Sacramental Bread as if it were common bread? and is it no sin to use the Lords day as a common day, as if it were your own day? Why, is it not paralel in phrase with the Lords Supper? Is not the Lords Name and Su­perscrition found upon the one as well as the other? I charge thee therefore (Reader) in the Name of the Lord Jesus so visibly graven upo this day, render to Christ the things that are Christs: Be assured the Lord will not hold thee guiltless for taking his Name in vain, and spending his time in vain; his time (I mean) upon which he has stampt his noble and royal Name. This is the fifth Mark or Seal of the day, The Inscription of Christs glorious Name upon it.

6. The sixth is, The Apostles and Apostolical Churches observation of it. The holy Apostles were men intimate­ly acquainted with the Secrets of Christ (being most of them trained up in his School) and personally conversant with him by the space ofActs 1.3 forty dayes between his Resur­rection and Ascension; asDrut. 9.11 Moses was forty dayes with [Page 197]god upon the Mount. Besides, they had immediate In­spiration, and authoritative Mission from Christ himself to manage the publick affairs of his Kingdom. Our Saviour made them a kind of Letter of Atturney (as one speaks) to speak and act in his Name, as if he himself had been personally present,John 20.21. As my Father sent me so send I you: and Luke 10.16. Non minùs ra­tum est quod A­postoli dictante S.S. P. tradide­runt, quàm quod ipse Christus tradidit. Cypri­an. he that heareth you heareth me. Neither does this extend only to their Verbal preaching, but to their visi­ble preaching also, their practice I mean (at least in things Evangelical and of moral, general, perpetual concernment to the Churches of Christ) otherwise why is their practice propounded as our Patern?Philip. 3.17, Walk as ye have us for an ensample. And,Philip. 4.19. Those things which ye have seen in me do. And again, Be 1 Cor. 11.2. followers of me as I am of Christ, sayes the great Apostle. Yea, not only the Apostles themselves, but the first Churches planted by them are imitable paterns to other Churches, especially in things apperteining to the publick exercise of Gospel-worship:1 Thes. 2.14. we may exemplifie both together in the observation of the Lords day; not once, but often; not by single persons only, but by sundry Churches and Church-assemblies met on this day. That general Assembly, Acts 2.1. when they were all together with one accord, we have already proved to have been upon this high and holy day: and how they keep it we have seen, and how God crowned it with the effusion of his holy Spirit, as also the Conversion of souls is further considerable. For 'tis very probable, that not only the three thousand (Acts 2.41.) but the other five thousand also (Acts 4.3.) were all converted upon this day of Pen­tencost. [...] Acts 3.1. notes identity of time as 2 Sam. 21.9. Deut. 25.5. and the ninth hour ch. 3. hath refe­rence to the third hour, ch. 2. See. Dr. Light­foots Harm. in Acts. For it was but the third hour of the day, or nine a Clock in the morning when the first Sermon was preach­ed which brought in the three thousand (Acts 2.15.) and at the ninth hour, that is about three a clock in the afternoon, Peter and John went into the Temple, Acts 3.1. wrought a glorious miracle, preacht another powerful Sermon, which gained five thousand more (Ch. 4.) such [Page 198]a Spirit of Conversion was never poured out upon any day, as this. Well might the Holy Ghost call itPsalm 120.3. the day of the Lords power; the adversary acknowledges, it was spoken of this very day.

Again, As this Church at Jerusalem, so the Churches of Corinth and Galatia kept this day too, as shall present­ly appear from 1 Cor. 16.2. and so the Church of Troas in Phrygia, (Acts 20.7.) which was a neighbour Church to them of Galatia: And the like may be said for the seven Churches of Asia; for upon the Lords day St. John saw them all in a vision, and saw Christ in the midst of them; saw him, as the Saints have been wont to see him in his glorious goings in the sanctuary, walking amidst his gol­den Candlesticks,Psalm 68.14. Isai. 30.20. with stars in his hand, that is, Gospel-Ministers, shining like stars in the Firmament of the Church and diffusing the light of the glorious Gospel in the actual exercise of their Ministry on this day especially. Yea up­on this day John himself was ravished in spirit, which made the place of his exile like Pauls third Heaven to him, now I demand how this could come to pass, that so many several Churches, as the Church at Jerusalem, Corinth, Galatia, Troas, Ephesus Thyatira and the rest (many of which were at a great distance one from another) should so unanimously consent and concurr in keeping this day, if the Apostles by the authority of Christ had not setled it, as an Ordinance in all Christian Churches. Let any rational man tell me how all these Apostolical Churches should so early, and in the beginning of their plantation consent to­gether to keep the same day, unless they had been directed by their first founders the holy Apostles themselves. Add to this, the joint and uniform practice of all Christian Churches in all succeeding ages since; and he ha's hardly the faith of a Christian, if the reason of a man, that dares so much as question the divine authority of the Lords day; for whence came this universal agreement all the Christian world over, that all the Churches of Christ should so ear­ly, [Page 199]soEven Herericks themselves and such as were for the Jewes Sabbath (as Ebion and his followers) did al­wayes observe the Lords day also; Euseb. lib. 3. and so do the Ethio­rick Churches to this day as Dr. Heiten testifies. universally, so constantly ob­serve this day, (not one Church ever at­tempting to alter it) but from some au­thority superior to the Churches them­selves? Certainly such customes as were never ordained by Christ, or his Apostles were never observed by all Christian Churches throughout the world, as the Lords day hath been. Such unity of custom, in universality of place, with perpetuity of practice, all meeting together in that which ha's some footing in Scripture must needs argue a di­vine institution; yea, if there had been no express Scripture testimony of the Apostles practice and observation of it; as our Divines do solidly argue for the baptisme of infants, although there be no express precept, nor express example of it found in Scripture, yet the grounds and reasons of it being found in Scripture, with the general practice of the Church concurring we dare not but own it and maintain it. How much more the Lords day? yea, if there had been nei­ther precept nor practice of it in Scripture; as long as the grounds of it are laid in Scripture; namely a Moral law for the substance of it (as one day in seven) and a prophesie for the particularity of the Church, without any contradiction till these last disputing dayes, wherein men are grown so bold as to deny principles. I do the rather instance this, be­cause I have to deal with an Anabaptist, who confidently calls the baptiseing of grown personsLet him shew me one Scripture for that, if he can either precept or pre­sident for the baptiseing of such at years of diferetion as were born of Christian parents; To tell us of the Apostles baptiseing men and wo­men is no newes; but were they such men and such women as are plung­ed now adaies, no verily, they were not born of baptized Christian pa­rents as blessed be God we are. born of Christian parents a flourishing truth after it ha's been convicted and condemned by the learnedest pens in Christendom for a foolish error. But to come to that I aim at; let me advise this man in coole blood to ask his own con­science this question; namely, whether or no, if he could find in Scripture expresse Apostolical practice (consequential proof [Page 190]satisfies me and others) for infant-Baptisme, he would not own it, as an Ordinance of Christ? Or thus, whether (if the Holy Ghost had expresly affirmed in Scripture that in the Apostles times baptisme was (once at least) administred to infants in a solemn assembly of Christians. Paul himself being present and actually assisting in the administration) his own conscience would not tell him, nay then surely infant-baptism is an Ordinance of Christ? Let him say the same concerning the celebration of the first day of the week. For the Holy Ghost ha's expresly declared, that this day was solemnly kept at Troas, Paul himself being present and principally ingaged in the work of the day. For let the Text be consulted; Acts 20.6, 7, 8. We came to Troas in five dayes, where we abode seven dayes, and upon the first day of the week when the disciples came together (or were ga­thered together in a Church-assemblie) to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow, and there were many lights in the upper room where they were assembled together; and there sate in a window a certain young man named Eutychus &c. Here note

1.Una Sabbati, id est, Die domini­ [...], & dies domi­nica recordatio dominicae resur­rectionis, Ven. Beda. In Acts 20. Tom 5. When this solemn assembly met together; on the first day of the week, saies the Text. The day which all the E­vangelists witness to be Christs Resurrection-day. This day then the disciples were congregated: But why the first day of the week? Why not th elast day of the week, which was the Jewes Sabbath: strange, if that had been the Christian Sabbath, that these primitive Christians had not have met on that day, especially since it was but the day before! yet more strange, that we read not a word of Pauls keeping it, since he tarried at Troas seven dayes. But most of all, that we read not one word in all the New Testament of his owning that day in any Christian Church at all; only the first day of the week; a fair argument that the day was changed upon the account of our Saviours Re­surrection.

2. The Church is assembled on the first day of the week, but how? Privately, it may be: No, publickly and open­ly [Page 201](as those times would bear) yea, probably the compa­ny was very numerous; for it seemes the room below would not hold them, but they were fain to get up into the windowes three stories high, as Eutychus did, Acts 20.8. doubtless it was no small appearance. Well

3. Here is a full assembly met upon the first day of the week, but why then? To break bread, sayes the Text, to receive the Eucharist, sayes the Syriack translation; that is, toMath. 26.26, Acts 2.46. 1 Cor. 11.24. receive the Lords Supper upon the Lords day. The Lords Supper? What without preparatory prayer and o­ther Sabbath-exercises; that had been but a faint devoti­on, will some say, Mr. Shepard answers it well. Breaking of bread is here putThus prayer is put for the whole worship of God. Gen. 4.26. ch. 12.8. Acts 2.21. Rom. 10.12, 13. Synecdochically, the part for the whole; there is no more reason to exclude prayer, preach­ing, singing of Psalms, because these are not mentioned, than to exclude drinking of wine in the Sacrament (as the blind Papists do) because neither is that expressed, but breaking of bread only. So that the first day of the week in effect is called the day of meeting to break bread, which was e­ver accompanied with prayer, preaching and other holy exercises. Now (as the fore-mentionedThes. 35. Author observes) if ever the Saints used to break bread on any other day, yet the day is never mentioned as a speciall time for such a pur­pose; nor do we find in all the Scriptures a day distinctly mentioned for holy duties (as this first day of the week is) wherein a whole Church meet together for such ends, but that day was holy: The nameing of the particular day for such ends, implies the holiness of it. Well, the Saints at Troas meet on this day to receive the Sacrament.

But,

4. Have they no Sermon? yes, and Paul himself preaches it v. 7. And continued his speech till mid-night, and about break of day he departed: Which yeeldeth us two notes, one, that the first day of the week is no travelling day. St. Paul would not, we are sure he did not travel this day, but the day after; another, that the first day of the week is a solemn holy-day, to be spent in spirituall exercises and [Page 202]Sabbath-day duties, as preaching, hearing, praying, con­ferring, breaking of bread, in commemoration of Christ, his death and Resurrection. Why else does the Holy Ghost story this down so exactly and precisely? Is it not written for our learning upon whom the ends of the world are come? Yea doubtlesse for our learning; that we might forecast our journeyes and other affairs in such sort, as to keep holy the Lords day, and not intrench upon it by travelling or the like; thus we have plain Apostolicall pra­ctice for the observation of this day. But see how this clear Text and truth is cavill'd at.

This meeting of the Saints at Troas was occasional; Obj. 1 T.T. p. 123. Answ. and what was the occasion of it, he intimates in the next words viz. Paul's departing by Sea.

This is a sorry shift, for the Text saies not, that the dis­ciples were assembled by reason of Paul's departure the next day; but they were assembled this day to break bread without the least reference to Paul's journey the day fol­lowing. So that this Church-meeting was not occasional, but a thing usual upon the first day of the week. And the context clearly implies, that the puting off of Pauls jour­ney till the next day was occasioned by the Church's meet­ing this day, not this meeting by his departure the next day; for the Apostle seems to stay purposely and wait se­ven dayes among them; that he might have a publick op­portunity of preaching and communicating with them upon the usual day of their publick assemblies; which appears by this convention to have been the first day of the week, here was therefore nothing occasional in all this so­lemnity; neither the assembly, [...]. nor Sacrament, no nor the Sermon neither; but only the length and continuance of the Sermon till mid-night; this indeed was occasional, by reason of St. Pauls departure on the morrow, so the Text it self imports; Paul being to depart on the morrow preached and continued his Sermon till mid-night; he preacht a long Sermon, because it was his last Sermon, he was like to preach among them.

The Saints assembled and brake bread every day, Obj. 2 Acts 2.26. therefore they may as well plead for an every day Sab­bath as for the first day Sabbath from Acts 20.7.

It cannot be proved by Scripture that the Lords Supper is an every dayes Supper, Answ. or that ever it was celebrated on any day (after the first institution) but upon the Lords day; which may be reckoned as a special prerogative of this day above the Jewes Sabbath, and all other dayes: The Lords day and the Lords Supper are Scripture-compa­nions. Acts 2.26. is misquoted; I perceive this Author uses to quote Scripture at a venture; but I suppose he means (Acts 2.46.) and there indeed we read of the Saints con­tinuing daily with one accord in the Temple, and Domi frange­bant portionem. Syriack verse. break­ing bread from house to house; but to take this for Sa­cramentall bread, and make it their daily bread, is to mis­take the matter quite. For although verse 42. speak of bread Sacramentally broken, yet verse 46. the phrase is quite altered, and the [...]. word signifies ordinary bread, or common food; Piscator understands it of bread broken in a way of Charity, or dealing their bread to the hungry, as it isIsai 58.7. elswhere expressed.

If breaking of bread had been a service peculiarly de­signed for the honour of the first day, Obj. 3 the Apostle would not have deferr'd it till the second day, till after mid-night. verse II.

Neither does it appear that he did deferre it till after mid-night. For Eutychus dropt asleep in Sermon-time, Answ. verse 9. and the Sermon lasted but till mid-night verse 7. and as soon as Eutychus caught his fall (no doubt) Paul hasted to raise him again, And when he was come up again, he brake bread verse 11.Part 3: Thes. 63. all this while it might not be mid-night, for after all this he talked a long while, even till break of day. Besides (as Mr. Shephard observes) the Lords Supper might be administred before Pauls Sermon. And that breaking of bread verse 11. might be common bread; some ordinary repast for Paul after his long preach­ing, and before his long journey. And the word ( [...]) [Page 204]implies as much, and hence also 'tis spoken of one man principally; When he had broken bread, and eaten &c. however tis expresly said v. 7. that the disciples were assem­bled together (ex more sayesAd locum. Pellican) after their wont­ed manner) to break bread upon the first day of the week; and their purpose shewes, what was their usual pra­ctice.

The disciples came not together till towards evening, Obj. 4 for as soon they are met, we read of lights in the upper room, and this is no fair president for keeping a Sabbath

They must needs be come together before Candle-light­i ng, Answ. 1 by is own principles; otherwise, how is it said, they were assembled the first day of the week, since he holds that the day begins and ends with the Sun-set even­ing?

The text saith not, Answ. 2 they met in the evening of the first day, but on the first day; and it might be in the morning, for ought appears to the contrary. The lights in the upper room ar gue not that it was late in the day before they assembled, but long in the night before Paul ended his Sermon. Besides, supposing they came not together till to­wards the close of the day (remembring still what perillous persecuteing times those were) yet out of question the for­mer part of the day was spent in religious exercises, otherwise the disciples had rusht very rudely upon that sacred and solemn ordinance of the Lords Supper. We should count them but sorry Christians that should dare to come reak­ing out of the world, from their Merchandise, or shops, or fields, or farms to sit down, as guests at the Lords table.

The Saints example at Troas doth no more oblige us to their time, Obj. 5 than their meeting in an upper chamber doth tie us to the like place.

If time and place be equal circumstances in religion, Answ, See Mr. Wowe of the Sab. then the old Prelatical Argument were good; as, the true wor­shippers of God are not tied to worship him either in Je­rusalem or any other peculiar place, but must worship him in spirit and in truth in all places; so neither are they tied [Page 205]to any time of worship, but may pray continually. But this principle is out of plea now, and I am perswaded in urging of it the objector fights against conscience and struggles against his own convictions. For he ha's elswhere maintained time and place to be unequal circumstances, and if not equal, why does he argue from the one to the other? But the truth is, he ha's no game to play but what the Anti-Sabbatarian Prelatists have plaid and lost be­fore him. Only one card more, which was none of their pack.

Examples do only allow us a liberty; Obj. 6 page 13. of his Pamph­let. nothing but a clear command can oblige us to a duty. For instance, community of goods is the Saints liberty, because it was practiced; but liberality of our proper substance is a duty; because it is com­manded. Saints may freely seast before Communion because we have Apostolical president, but all true disciples must break bread, because we have Evangelical precept; so we have liberty to meet the first day, because we find the Saints at Troas then (occasionally) assembled: but we are tied in duty to celebrate the seventh day Sabbath, because it is commanded

If this rule were as true as it is false, Answ. 1 he might blot out all the examples of the Saints recorded in Scripture. For what are they good for? To allow us a liberty only? Why that we had before. Had we never heard of the Saints meet­ing and Pauls preaching on the first day of the week, yet I hope we had had free liberty to meet and worship on that day nevertheless; what followes now? Why, by this Doctors new divinity (absit blasphemia verbo) the Holy Ghost ha's inserted this story in vain. This leaf (yea and twenty more) might have been left out of the Bible with­out loss. See the poison of a rotten error!

'Tis no less false, Answ. 2 that nothing but a clear command can oblige us to duty. What must we limit the holy one of Is­rael? must he deliver his mind and will, only by way of pre­cept? May he not do it as well by promise, or prophesie or proportion or consequence? Must we teach the Lord how to teach us our duty? pray what expresse command [Page 206]was there to sanctifie the Sabbath, or what example of a­ny one man that did sanctifie it, for 2000. years after the Creation? I mean in expresse terms. Was it never a duty therefore till the Commandment came, and is not Aposto­licall example with a consequential command, a sufficient rule for the observation of the Lords day? He argued be­fore for the Jewes Sabbath; that we must be followers of Paul as he was of Christ, how much better may we urge the same argument for the Lords day? As thus, Christ was present upon this day in the assembly of his disciples, and kept it like a Sabbath, John 20.19.26. and so Paul, Acts 20.7. and we must follow Paul, as he did Christ; therefore we must keep holy the Lords day, the first day of the week; here the practice being Evangelical, the consequence is the more Logical. But to the objection; is nothing to be e­steemed of divine institution, and so of obligation to con­science, but what ha's a clear command in Scripture?Mat. 21.25, 26. with verse 32. Mark 11.30, 31. Luke 20.5, 6. what then will he say to Sacrificing before the Law? Where do we find any Commandment to sacrifice, before we find A­bel sacrificing? Or to look to the Gospel in the first dawn­ing of it. What express command was there for the bap­tism of John? Yet the poore Publicans and the people ge­nerally held it to be from Heaven (although the cheif Priests and Elders beleeved him not) because they held John as a Prophet; yet (which is remarkable) they had no pre­cept but only Johns practice to warrant it; and which is yet more remarkable, our blessed Saviour approves this their belief of John, and his baptism, and condemns those that rejected it as a human institution. In like manner we may safely imitate those contemned Publicans in beleeving the Lords day to be from Heaven by divine institution, and not of men by human ordination, suffering Pauls pra­ctice as an Apostle to over-rule us herein,See Mr. Abbot p. 66. Math. 11.11. as John Baptist as a Prophet did them (the least Apostle of Christ being greater than John the Baptist) and in so doing we need not question Christs approbation. Express precept indeed we have none in the new Testament; but that which is better [Page 207]than a precept, sayes Dr. T wiss, viz. the practice of the A­postles and Churches: For had the Apostles commanded it, and the Churches not practised it, their Commandment had been obnoxious to various interpretations, whereas their establishing it de facto in practice among the Churches is less liable to contradiction, if men were not given up to a Spirit of contradiction. Yet this must be added, and cannot well be denyed;Divino Spiritu: agebantur A­postoli non mi­nus in sacris in­stitutionibus quàm in ipsa Doctrinâ Evan­gelij. Ames. Medul. p. 359. Acts 1.2. so the Prophets were commanded. Zech. 1.6. Joh. 10.22. that the Apostles and Apostolical Churches practice (other arguments concurring) supposes and argues that there was a command, although there be no specification of it in Scripture; for the Apostles did no­thing in ordering the Church, but from and by Christ, either by precept or example, or divine inspiration; and their very inspiration was virtually preceptive. For 'tis said, That through the Holy Ghost Christ gave Commandments to his Apostles whom he had chosen; That is, he gave them Com­mandments by inspiring, and breathing the Holy Ghost upon them; which was upon the day of his Resurrection. Yea 'tis more than probable that they had a special war­rant from Christ in express charge concerning the celebra­tion of this day. For,Acts 1.3. of the things pertaining to the king­dom of God Christ spake unto them (namely by way of Commandment) after his Resurrection; but the Lords day and the worship therein performed, as it was in the A­postles dayes and ever since, is one of those things which appertain to the kingdom of God; therefore of this Christ spake by way of Commandment to his Apostles. If it be said, that the Lords day is not there expressed; I answer, no more are any other of those particulars appertaining to the kingdom of God which he spake,See Mr. Bernard of the Christi­an Sab. p. 134. therefore it cannot be excluded, till it can be proved, that the keeping of this day to the honour of Christ is none of the things which per­tain to the kingdom of God.

Again, The Commandments, Acts 1.2. are such as Christ would have his disciples teach his people to observe, Math. 28.18, 20. now we find the Churches of Christ observing this day. Acts 20.7. 1 Cor. 16.2. and the Apostle observ­ing [Page 208]it with them, yea, prescribing duties to them on this day. 1 Cor. 5.4, 11, 20. which was on the Lords day, ac­cording to the Syriack; but 1 Cor. 16.1, 2. is express: and the Apostle telleth the Corinthians,1 Cor. 14.37. That the things he wrote unto them were the Commandments of God; there­fore the practice of the Apostles and Churches planted by them implies a command, Yea

All Scripture-examples in moral or religious actions fall under the Government of the Ten Commandments: Answ. 3 Now the fourth Commandment having the government of time for weekly solemn worship, and the Apostle Paul tarrying a whole week at Troas, and observing the first day of the week only for solemn worship, it cannot be imagined but this observance was in obedience to the fourth Command­ment; and so of the exigency of the Apostles Commission, not of the Liberty; consequently it is the Saints duty, not their liberty.

The remainders of the Objection about community of goods and Love-Feasts are meer impertinencies, to plead for these in the peace & settlement of the Church, is to put a plea in the mouths of Levellers, Libertines and Epicures. Com­munity of goods was never the Saints Liberty, but in the Church'sAct. 4.34, 35 36, 37 compared with Act. 8.3, 4. extreme poverty and persecution, and then it was rather duty than liberty: and if ever the Church of God should be in the like state of extremity, she is bound to follow that Original Copy; but this can hardly be sup­posed.

And as for Love-feasts. I suppose the Author is to seek for Apostolical president to warrant them, whatever he sayes: 'Tis true, they were practised in the Apostles times, but never approved, nay they were sharply1 Cor. 11.21. Jude ver. 12. reproved, as also the Jewes Sabbath and observation of other Legal days were, Gal. 4.10.

Thus we have made good the sixth Mark for the Lords day; namely, the Apostles and Apostolical Churches obser­vation of it.

7. Seventhly and lastly, we shall adde this to all the rest, The Apostles Prescription about it.

Though either or these particulars singly considered may be thought too weak, yet I am assured, that all of them jointly combined will be too strong for the gates of hell to prevaile against; this last will adde some strength to all the rest. I shall ground it upon that noted Text, 1 Cor. 16.1, 2. Now concerning the Collection for the Saints, as I have given order to the Churches of Galatia, even so do ye; Ʋpon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come. Here we have to observe,

1. An Apostolical Ordinance, [...], As I have ordained, so do ye. He does not counsel them to do it, but commands them, and by his power Apostolical he enjoyns them to do it; and if Paul ordained it, certainly he had it from Christ, for he tells them,1 Cor. 11.23. That what he delivered to them, he received from the Lord; and the things that he wrote to them were the Commandments of the Lord, 1 Cor. 14.37.

2. The thing enacted by this Ordinance, and that is, [...], collecta. See Dr. Day his Sermons on this Text. Collection for the Saints. The word seems to be a meta­phor taken from gathering of fruits, or gleanings in harvest or rather (as Beza notes) from gathering of a shot at a banquet or friendly meeting; as men invited to a Feast or Banquet use to make a purse, and cast in every one his shot to gratifie the poor servants that belong to the house; So the Apostle requires these Corinthians when they meet together at the Feast of the Gospel, especially that heaven­ly Banquet of the Lords Supper, the Feast of the great King, that then they cast in something to make a purse for the poor servants of Christ, in testimony of their thankful­ness to the Master of the Feast, This some take to be the sense of the word; it signifies such a Collection or Con­tribution [Page 210]as men use to make when they meet at a Feast, and it suites well with the next Particular.

3. The time stated for such Collection; The first day of the work, Diem caetus de­signat. P. Matt. ad loc. Tum solitos fu­isse convenire apparet. Act. 20 7. Beza. the day designed for their solemn Assemblies, and that solemn Ordinance of the Lords Supper, as was proved before Acts 20.7. Hence in Justin Martyr's time, and ever since the Churches of Christ have walked according to this rule, annexing their charitable contributions to the celebration of the Lords Supper. But still the great Que­stion is unresolved, will some say, namely, Why the A­postle should limit this duty or work of mercy to the first day of the week? Some answer it thus; The Apostle therefore mentions the day,S. M. Cawdrey because there is a special mo­tive in it to stir up their charity; being a day wherein they had received such inestimable bounties from the hands of God, as the resurrection of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and the like. Now I confesse there is much weight in this answer. 'Tis the fittest time to expresse our thank­fulnesse to God, wherein we commemorate his greatest loving kindness to us. Chrysostom is very clear in his Com­mentary upon this Scripture. [Ʋpon the first day of the week let every one lay by him in store, [...]. Chrysost. Orat. 43. in 1 Cor. 11. &c.] See how he exhorts from the very time, (sayes he) for that very day were sufficient to induce them to charity; for call to mind (saith he) what you got on that day; for unutterable good things, even the root and rise of our life arose on that day: Nor in that respect only is the time proper to quic­ken charity, but because it hath rest also, and relaxation from labour or abruption of business; for the soul being discharged from labors becomes in a better frame and prepa­ration to take pity; and more than all this, the communicating on this day in the Sa­craments, so dreadful and immortal puts the mind in great forwardness, &c.

This exposition of Chrysostoms as it may deservedly challenge respect for the antiquity of it, (being above twelve hundred years old) so much more for the truth of it, being so agreeable to the Text it self. For observe it well. [...]. Ibid.

First, He calls the first day of the week Christs Resur­rection day, and a little before [the Lords day].

Secondly, He concludes it was a Sabbath day or day of rest from labor and worki-day business. And to my appre­hension this is clearly imployed in the Text. For upon this day the Apostle would have them contribute to the poor members of Christ as God had prospered them; to wit, in the six foregoing work-dayes which argues a recollection and thankfull calling to mind the blessing of God upon their week-day labours, and what can be more Sabbath like? Besides the Greek word is emphatical, [as God hath prospered] so we read it, but it may be rendred thus, [as God hath given a good journey] or [a good voyage] plainly intimating that upon every first day of the week they had rest and respit from their worldly imployments, [...]. Rom. 1.10. something like that of a travellour at his journey's end, or a mari­ner when his voyage is over, and he's at rest in his har­bour.

Thirdly, He counts the first day of the week their Sa­crament-day; as indeed it was; and the collection here in­joined, speaks as much: And doubtless this was a power­full argument to prompt them to liberality: It were sor­did ingratitude to spare a penny from the poor, when a man considers that God hath not spared the precious blood of his Son. Besides all this, the first day of the week was the day of their solemn assemblies, for prayer, preaching prophesying, singing of Psalms and other religious exer­cises; all which were as fire to kindle their compassions to­wards their distressed brethren; every word of God, every Sermon, every prayer, every Psalm that was sung might add some fuel to that Heavenly flame of their bro­therly love and Charity; and for these causes the Apostle chose that time as the most select and choice opportunity [Page 212]to put them upon the practice of that duty. But here we are way-laid with Objections.

If any can discern the Sts. assembling (1 Cor. 16.) it must be by some other light than Gods word. Obj. 1 T. T.

I hope he will grant this text to be Gods word, Answ. and then if he have but eyes, here is light enough. For let him look upon the words once again. What does Paul prescribe here? Collections or contibutions to the poor Saints. But who must contribute? every one. how must they contribute? by way of casting into the common treasury; so much theBucan con­cludes from hence that the Apostle gave order, there should be com­mune aerarium a common treasury in the Church. Loc. 42. de Ministe­rio. word [ [...]] implies verse 2. and why so? That there might be no gatherings, when Paul came. Which there must needs have been, if every man had kept his con­tribution at home in his own Coffer. So that it must be both a general and a publick contribution. Therefore it must be in a publick congregation. And why all this upon the first day of the week? Why not upon some other day but to mark out this day above others for the weekly season of solemn assemblies, as also to move them by the day to the duty, What need there any mention of the first day of the week, if they had not held their meetings on that day, and if there had not been some special argument in the day to perswade them to the duty?

Paul does not enjoin them to lay it before the Deacons, Obj. 2 but let every one of you lay by himself in store as God hath prospered him; That is, at his own house in the poores box &c.

At his own house? Answ. How then could it be avoided, but there must have been gatherings at Pauls coming? Which the Text forbiddeth. The Apostles care was to have their collections ready i. e. in a publick stock or bank against his coming, lest haply they of Macedonid coming along with him (to whom it seems he had boasted of the Corinthians forwardness) should find them unprepared;2 Cor. 9.3, 4. and so both he and they should be ashamed of his boasting.

That phrase [...] which is translated [by himself] may as well be rendred [of himself] that is, Answ. 2 sponte sua, [Page 213]of his own accord: And so Musculus in­terprets it; when tis said,Puta illud in Graco [...] non esse positum pro apud se seponat, sed hoc sensu quis­que vestrûm suapta sponte. i. e. in cae­tu sacro thesaurizans cui proposito nonsatisfecisset si quis (que) aqud se domi re­posuisset, etjusmodi nam (que) reposita tum demum collidenda essent cum ipse ad eos venisset, quod vitari volehat. Wolph. Museul. ad Loe. let every one lay by, treasuring up in store, tis not meant let every one lay by himself apart and privately, but at your publick meet­ings casting it into the publick treasury of the Church and that freely of his own good will; [That there may be no gather­ings when I come] whereas if every one had laid by in private onely at his own house, there would have been need of gatherings at his coming; the thing which he takes special care to prevent; it seems the Apostle came but seldom, and could not tarry long when he came, for he had the care of all the Chur­ches upon him, especially the Gentiles the world through 2 Cor. 11.28. His work was to gather and govern Chur­ches, he must not therefore spend his time in gathering moneyes, or going from house to house to call for every mans weekly contribution; this had been a leaving the word of God to serve tables, as the other Apostles said in a like case, Acts 6.2.

The survey the Apostle exhorts every man to take of his own estate that he might give thereafter, Obj. 3 does notably over­throw the conceit of a first-day-Sabbath, for he orders e­very man to lay by in store as God hath prospered him; that is according as his yearly revenue increaseth or his weekly trade proves more or lesse gainful. If the first day had been a Sabbath, the Apostle (knowing the proneness of our nature to mind earthly things) would never have put them upon the consideration of their outward estates,

That the first day of the week is a Sabbath, Ans. 1 or day of rest, is no conceit, but a Scripture-truth; as it shall ere long appear to the shame of such reviling adversa­ries.

2. That upon this day they must take a survey of their estates, because they must give according to their estates and incomes, is a conceit indeed; there is no colour of [Page 214]consequence in it; for I hope they might take their survey on the Saturday night; no necessity of deferring it to the Lords day. Suppose a Minister of Christ should urge this Apostolical ordinance still (as I am informed Mr. White of Dorchester did) pressing his people to contribute and lay up something in a common stock every first day of the week for the releif of the poore; and that according as God should blesse and prosper them in their callings the week before? Does it follow that therefore when the people are assembled together on the Lords day they must make the Church their Counting-house, or (before they come there) turn over their shop-bookes in stead of their Bibles? What a ridiculous inference were this? Good hu [...]ands (I should think) would end the week and their work together; good Christians (to be sure) will do so and not make the Lords day their counting-day, a recount­ing-day indeed they may and must make it; to recount the blessings of providence in a way of praise and thankfulness and this is a Sabbath-day duty, as appeares by thatPsalm 92. Psalm for the Sabbath. But further, to dash this dream of the adversary, let him consider that (in effect) as much isEz. 46.5, 6. said of the Sabbath in the old Testament, as (here) of the Lords day; and it may be tis meant of the Lords day-Sab­bath.

Tis further objected, That Pauls Epistle was read in these Churches on the Sabbath-day, Saturday he means, and then the Apostle exhorted them to Charity, and would have it to be their first work the next day while the sweet sense of the Epistle was upon their Spirits, &c. But,

This is frivolous; For Gal. 4.10. The Apostle had ut­terly condemned the Saturday-Sabbath among the rest of those legal dayes; and that he should build again the things he had destroyed, we are not so much as to suppose.

Now take the sum of all: On the first day of the week our Saviour was raised from the dead; on this day he often appeared after his resurrection; sent his holy Spirit on this day after his ascension, and stampt his own blessed name [Page 215]upon it; on this day the Saints assembled, the Apostles preached, the Sacraments were administred, Charities Col­lected; and concerning this day the Holy Prophets pro­phecyed; what day was ever markt out with more shining and illustrious Characters?

POSITION V. That the Lords day or first day of the week (com­monly called Sunday) is the Christian Sabbath, or day of holy rest.

THis does naturally result from the premises. For the day being changed, and yet the law concerning the Sabbath continued and established, the new day must needs be a day of rest, as it rests on the authority and morali­ty of the fourth Commandment, and as it succeeds the old day in Sabbath-solemnity. Yet it is not so much the name as the thing that I contend for; For although I am fully convinced, that as our spirituall exercises are called Sacrifices, because they succeed in the place of the Jewes Sacrifices, so, and much more significantly, may our Lords day be termed Sabbath, because itSucceeds I mean not in any ceremonious respect, but in relation to the fourth Com­mandment. suc­ceeds in the place of the Jewes Sabbath; yet I had rather insist upon the thing than the name, because the one being proved the other cannot well be denyed. No rational man will stick at nominal respect where there is a real right [Page 237]to it. A name of rest will be easily granted due to a day of rest, now that the Lords day is without dispute a day of rest, appears thus.Cum de re con­stat propier quam vorba di­cuntur, de ver­bis non debore contendi, &c. August. cont. Acad. l. 3. c. 13.

First, As it is the day of our Redeemers rest from his painful work of Redemption, his rising from the dead was his resting from his work. By his Resurrection this day he entred into his rest; for hereby (as was said before) he entred into his glory; which will further appear by com­paring two texts together; viz. John 7.39. with John 20.22. The first tells us, That the spirit was not yet given be­cause Jesus was not yet glorified; therefore when the Spi­rit was given surely then Christ was glorified. Now the other Text informs us, That upon the day of Christs Re­surrection the Spirit was given, For he breathed on them and said, Receive the Holy Ghost. Now therefore undoubted­ly the Lord of glory was crowned with glory; not that he entred into the place of rest and glory upon the day of his Resurrection, but into the state of rest and glory; the place is but accidental to the state; that which I modest­ly propounded to further inquiry, page 128. Namely, Whe­ther Christ did not locally ascend into Heaven on the very day of his Resurrection; has been since concluded, and re­solved in the Negative by a Reverend Brother from that Text of Scripture, Hebr. 9 12. by his own blood he entred once into the Holy place. Which seems to a gue strongly, that our blessed High Priest entred once; and but once into Heaven. To which I do now freely subscribe, Errare possum, Haereticus esse nolo.

Secondly, The Lords day is a day of Religious Assem­blies for solemn weekly worship, therefore also a day of re­ligious rest from civil and secular imployments. Since 'tis impossible for men to meet together about solemn Wor­ship, and at the same time to follow their worldly occasi­ons. observed as Sabbaths; as the Feast of unleavened bread.Deut. 16.8. On the seventh day shall be a solemn Assembly to the Lord thy God: thou sahlt do not work therein. And as the seventh [Page 238]or last, so also the first day of that Feast was to be a day of rest, because a day of Convocation; On the first day shall be a holy convocation, ye shall do no servile work therein, saith the Lord. Numb. 28.17, 18. Now that first day of unleavened bread (being a memorial of their Redemption from Egypt) was typical of our Christian Sabbath, as was noted before. And be­sides, there being a moral equity in Gods argument, that a day of holy Worship and holy Convocations must be a day of rest, it is as applicable to the Lords day as ever it was to any day, for we have abundantly proved, that this is a holy Convocation-day, and 'tis a good note that of Mr. Ainsworth on Deut. 16.8. That the Hebrew word Gnat-se­reth, which we translate, solemn Assemblies, does also sig­nifie restraint from labour, whereby the Holy Ghost would teach us, that Holi days set apart for solemn assemblies must be days of holy rest and restraint from work. Such is the Lords day to us Christians, and no other day but that, a day of solemn Assembly it is, and has bin from the Apostles days till now, yea a day of solemn Worship, therfore a day of rest or Sabbath day, yea a day of solemn weekly worship, therefore the undoubted Sabbath of the fourth Command­ment, which is the standing rule for a day of weekly worship, and but a day ordinarily; for the Commandment numbers out six days in the week for worldly business,As when a man makes two Wils, the last does ipso facto make void the first, al­though there be no express clause to sig­nifie the repeal or revocation. and one for religious exercises, neither more nor lesse. So that suppo­sing there were no repeal of the last day of the week, yet the first day being instituted by Divine Authority, makes void the last, and takes possession of its place by the war­rant of the Divine Precept it self.

Again, as the Ministry and the Sacraments appointed by Christ are used by virtue of the second Commandment; so the day appointed by Christ must be observed by virtue of the fourth Commandment: because this is the general scope both of the second and fourth Commandment, that we must observe all the Institutions of God from time to time.

I might argue further from that prophetical speech of our Saviour, Matth. 24.20. where he presignifies to his [Page 239]Disciples, that there should be a Sabbath in force long after his death, at such time as the old seventh-day-Sabbath was either quite out of doors, or out of date at least: therefore he spake of the Christian Sabbath which we are obliged both by Law and Gospel to observe.

The Ancients indeed do seldom apply the title of Sab­bath to the Lords day, yet sometimes they do.They were but too jealous of Judaizing in this particular. Orat. in Chri­sti Resurrect. Ex illo Sabba­to praesens hoc Sabbatum ag­nosce, &c. Sic qu [...] que ritè sanctificamus Sabbatum Do­mini Dicente Domino omne [...]pus &c. Tract. de tempore, 152. Gregory Nyssen is express, for having spoken of the old Sabbath, he presently adds, from that Sabbath acknowledge thou this present Sabbath (the Lords day) this day of rest, which God hath blessed above other days: For in this the only begotten Son of God did truly rest from all his works. So also Austin (or he that writ the Book De tempore) having pleaded the due celebration of the Lords day, he concludes (with respect to the fourth Commandment concerning the Sabbath) so do we rightly sanctifie the Sabbath of the Lord, as the Lord hath said, In it thou shalt do no work. Hence that Royal Edict of Charles the Great published in the year 789. We ordain (says he) according as it is commanded in the Law of God, that no man do servile work on the Lords day; To which may be added the decree of King Edgar, expresly stiling the Lords day the Sabbath day;Diem Sabbati ab ipsa Die Sa­turni hora po­meridiara ter­tia usque in Lu­naris diei dila­culum. festum agitari. taking order that the Sab­bath should be celebrated from Saturday three a clock in the afternoon till Munday morning at break of day; and this was in the year of Christ 959. seven hundred years ago, better Antiquity than any can be produced, or so much as pretended against this appellation: If it be objected, That this was in times of Popery: I answer, That even since the Reformation, the Lords day hath been frequently called by the name Sabbath: Those precious but persecuted Saints,To all these might be added the Church of England, Can. 70. So Hom. of time and place of prayer. the Waldenses in a Catechism of theirs teach their children to call it by this name: And the holy Martyr Bp Hoop­er in his treatise on the ten Commandements uses the same Dialect, some scores more might be reckoned, if need were. But leaving these Authors, I return to the Objector, who sets all his wits a work to prove the Lords day a work­ing day, most sinfully and shamefully abusing the Scriptures [Page 240]to this purpose. I am loth to stain my Paper with his profane Sophisms, yet lest his ignorant and erroneous Pro­selites should take them for unanswerable Arguments. I shall briefly sum up all into one Objection and return se­veral answers to it.

Object.T.T. p. 14. of his Pamphlet. In stead of that honour put upon the first day of the week: First, The Father wrought upon it, Gen. 1. and therefore we should be his followers as dear children, Ephes. 5.1.

Secondly, The son travelled upon it, Luke 24.13, 15. And he hath given us an example that we should do as he hath done, John 13.15.

Thirdly, The Saints cast their accounts upon it, 1 Cor. 16.2. And so may we.

Thus he quotes Scripture to as good purpose as that Arch Sophister did, Matth. 4 But we shall answer him soberly though he deserve it not.

Answ. 1. That which was the Fathers working-day at the Worlds Creation, was the Sons Rest day from the work of Redemption, and we must not be sollowers of God in contradiction to Christ; or oppose the works of God a­gainst the Word of God, lest in stead of followers, as dear children, we be found fighters against him, as desperate ene­mies; the first day of the week was a common day when it was made at first (Gen. 1.) but since it is made again, and made a solemn day, a day of holy worship (Psal. 118.24) therefore no working day now, but to such as have no God to worship, or no hearts to worship him. God the Father wrought upon the first day of the week, yet Is­rael must not work on this day, once a year at least; Viz. on the day of unleavened bread, as often as it fell on this day, Numb. 23.18. why? because it was a day of holy Con­vocation, and so is every first day of the week to us; which (as some conceive) the Holy Ghost foretold long since by the Prophet Ezekiel saying,Ezek. 43.27. It shall be that upon the eight day and so forward, the Priests shall make your burnt offer­ings upon the altar, and your peace-offerings, or thank offer­ings; [Page 241]and I will accept you, saith the Lord; 'tis a clear pro­phecy of Gospel-times, if not the special time of Gospel­worship, upon the eighth day, i.e. the first day of the week.

Answ. 2. Touching our Saviours travelling this day, I have answered before: That it was without labour (such as is the motion of immortal and glorified bodies) and there­fore no President for us, who dwell in these corruptible houses of clay: And I add moreover, That Christs walk­ing with his Disciples that day was no more an impeach­ment to the holy rest of the first day, than the Fathers working every day to the Sabbatical rest of the seventh day: 'Tis our Saviours own Argument, (in answer to a like objection) My Father worketh hitherto and I work: John 5.17. That I termed this journey to Emmaus [a Sabbath-days journey] was in reference to the discourse by the way, not the length of the way: To which upon second thoughts I add this further answer, That 'tis very uncertain, whether Christ travelled all the way on foot to Emmaus, and back again: The Scripture is silent, and therefore we may not speak. The Objector indeed has it often up, That Christ travel­led fifteen miles on his Resurrection-day: but he speaks without Book, and can never prove it by Scripture, for he might overtake the two Disciples near Emmaus, and how he came there we read not, neither can we tell how he conveyed himself back again to Jerusalem. Guesses and conjectures are no arguments.

Answ. 3. That the Saints cast their accounts on this day, I utterly deny, we have nothing but the bold and bare word of the Objector to prove it, and let him not blame us, if we look not upon him, as such a Pythagoras, that his Ipse dixit should carry it.

More might be added in pursuance and prosecution of this Thesis (that the Lords day is the Christian Sabbath) but Mr. Cawdrey, Mr. Bernard, Mr. Ley, and sundry others have spared me this labour.

POSITION VI. That the Sabbath begins in the Morning.

THis Position hath been also handled and proved abun­dantly by others, chiefly by Mr. Cawdrey, and Mr. Pynchon, whose Arguments I judge unanswerable. 'Tis to me an unquestionable conclusion, That the Sabbath be­ing a natural day consisting of 24 hours, it must begin and end as the natural day it self does. Now in Scripture-ac­count the natural day begins and ends at or about mid­night, that it begins in the dark night, is evident from that fore-mentioned place, Mark 1.35. Where we read of our Saviours rising in the morning a great while before day; or while it was deep in the night. Hence also the even­ing of the natural day is reckoned from about noon or mid-day, Matth. 14.13. When the evening was come the Disciples came to Christ, The Scripture speaks of two evenings. Exod. 30.8. Chap. 16.12. about sending away the multitude to seek their dinner in the Villages, and that this was not the sun-set-evening is clear; for after the multitude had di­ned and were dismissed, we read of another evening, v. 23. so that the former evening (all circumstances considered) must needs be about mid-day, therefore it must have a morning answerable to it, which must necessarily begin a­bout mid-night, when theJonah 4.7. morning-Sun begins to ascend; as it does from mid-night till mid-day, orProv. 4.18. perfect day, and then it declines again, and theJer. 6.4. shadows begin to be stretched out (called the shadows of the evening) till they fall into the darkness of the night, which is deepest at mid-night.

Against those that begin the natural day, and so the Sab­bath at Sun-set evening, we may object this, (which they can never answer) That by their reckoning, Christ must rise from the dead the second, not the third day after his burial. For 'tis clear that he was not buried or inclosed in the heart of the earth, till after the sun-set evening.Matth. 27.57. Mark 15.42. For Joseph went not to Pilate to beg the body, till the even was come; namely, the later evening which begins at Sun-set, and after this, there were many things to be done before the blessed body of Christ was laid in the Se­pulchre. As theMark 15.46. buying of fine linnen to wrap it in, besides the imbalming or perfuming it withJohn 19.40. spices and o­dours, as the manner of the Jews was to bury. This (to­gether with other Funeral rites) took up some time, so that it must needs be after Sun-set before this sad Funeral was finished. Now if the Sabbath had begun with the Sun-set evening, Christs Resurrection-day being the morrow after the Sabbath, could be but the second day; whereas it is a great Article of our faith, grounded upon the1 Cor. 15.4. Scri­ptures, That Christ rose from the dead the third day, to ful­fill the type of Jonas.

Further, however the Jews in later times begun their Sabbath at evening (as we grant they did) superstitiously reckoning their preparation-time part of their Sabbath-time, yet it is very considerable, that the Holy Ghost keeps a contrary account, stating the end of the Sabbath towards the dawning of the day following: as Matth. 28.1. in the end of the Sabbath which dawned towards the first day of the week: Now if the Sabbath ended at the dawn­ing towards the next day, then it must needs begin about the same time the day before, and as the old Sabbath began and ended in Gods account, so must the Lords day.

In a word, how preposterous is it and incongruous both to Scripture and nature to begin the day at evening? how ill does this agree with those Texts of Scripture, that make the morning the first part of the day, and evening the last? The Angels we know are calledJob 38.7. morning stars, not even­ing [Page 244]start, because they were created in the beginning of the Creation, and the days of the Gospel are calledZech. 14.7. even­ing (in the evening it shall be light) because they are the last days; according to the common Dialect of Scripture,Psal. 5.3. Psal. 143.8 Gen. 49.27. morning time is first, evening last, and evening never sig­nifies early but late, because it is the later part of the day. But others have sufficiently cleared this truth al­ready, to add any more were but to light a candle to the Sun. A word or two in answer to the Objections, and we have done.

First, Object. 1 T. T. p. 56. We are told that Gen. 1. the day began at evening, for the darkness went before the light, and this darkness with the ensuing light (saies the Objector) made the first day, and so the second, third, fourth, &c.

This is a meer mistake; Answ. For we deny, that the first dark­ness, Gen. 1. was the evening or night of the first day, that darkness upon the face of the deep (for ought appears to the contrary) lasted not longer than a moment; the night of the first day was that which followed the light, after God had separated the light which he called day, from the darkness which he called night; to object the order of the words is vain, Moses himself takes off that Objecti­on by inverting that order in the following words, for v. 4. he puts light before darkness, and day before night.

The Ceremonial Sabbaths (because honoured as Sabbaths) were to begin at even, as 'tis said, Obj. 2 Levit. 23.32. From even to even shall ye celebrate your Sabbath.

This law concerned only the day of atonement, Answ. which was an extraordinary Sabbath for rest and strictness, be­ing their yearly Fast, wherein they were to afflict them­selves by abstinence fromJoel 1.13. and 2.16. sleep as well as food; and this is so far from proving that their weekly Sabbath began at even, that to me it is a good Argument to prove the con­trary, for it looks like a particular exception from a general rule; and to specifie the beginning of this extraordinary Sabbath at Even had been needless, if their ordinary Sab­baths had begun at the same time.

Nehemiah caused Jerusalems gates to be shut before the Sabbath, even while the declining Sun cast some obscurity on the city gates. Obj. 3 Neh. 13. [...]9.

This was to prevent the profanation of the Sabbath the next day, Answ. and it were to be wished all Christian Magistrates would have the like care of the Lords day. Besides 'tis said, he caused the gates to be shut, when they began to be dark, and yet saies the Text, this was before the Sabbath, which seems rather to intimate that in Nebemiahs time, the Sabbath did not begin in the evening; otherwise (as Mr. C. notes) he had done it not before, but in the Sabbath.

The precious women having attended our Saviour to his Sepulchre, returned and prepared spices and ointments, Obj. 4 and rested the Sabbath according to the Commandment.

This (as we said before) was after the sun-set evening besides the holy Women did not forbear to anoint the body of Christ that evening, because of the weekly Sab­bath, Answ. but possibly because of the Jews Passeover-Sab­bath,John 19.31. or rather the Jews preparation to it; of which we read John 19.42. We are sure,Mark 16.2. they came not to anoint him till the morning of the Resurrection-day; and it may be they stayed so long in conscience of the Sabbath, which was not ended till the morning after mid-night; therefore 'tis most likely our Lord had taught them that the Sabbath begins and ends in the morning; if it had ended at Sun-set, we may rationally think, they had visited the Sepulchre before they slept that night, and not have put it off till the next morning. As for those multiplied Scriptures that call for evening-sacrifices, Psal. 92 1. Isai. 30.29, they make as much for us, as for him; if not more: Since as we count the after-evening from sun-set till mid-night a part of the Sabbath, and spend it (our waking houres at least) in Sabbath-duties, repetition, meditation, prayer and praise; so we hold a preparation necessary the evening before. Of which in the next Posi­tion.

POSITION VII. The Lords Day must be kept holy to the Lord.

THe very appellation of it together with the Obser­vation of the Apostles and Primitive Christians is sufficient proof of this. 'Tis a pious and ponderous speech of a late worthy Writer,Dr. Cheynels Treatise of the Blessed Trini­ty, p. 402. The approved practise of the primitive Christians declares the doctrine of the Apo­stles, and the doctrine of the Apostles shews what was the command of Christ the Lord of the Sabbath concerning the sanctification of the first day of the week, which is therefore called the Lords day, and the Christian Sabbath. If it be the Lords day (as we have proved) then let it be consecrated to the Lord as holy and honourable,Isai. 58.13. even to that Lord whose name it bears, to him, I say, who hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written,Rev. 19.16. King of kings, and Lord of Lords; even the Lord of glory, a Lord as far above the greatest lords on earth, as they are above their meanest Subjects. 'Tis the Lords day and therefore the Lords due; let us render to Christ the things that are Christs: Why did the Lord make this day, but that all his faithful subjects and servants should keep it, and keep it holy to him that made it? O let the law of the living God over-awe our Consciences, which is still in force for a day of weekly worship at his appointment, and such we have proved the Lords day to be. More Argu­ments [Page 247]might be produced, But those already urged are sufficient to secure this truth from the dread of that down­fall threatned by the Adversary. The Devil and his agents may puff at the Christian Sabbath, but confident I am, they shall as soon blow out the Sun with a pair of bellows, as totally extinguish this Ordinance of Christ: the chief ground of my confidence is the Word of God, upon which it is founded; and next to that the writings of the antients, so many in several Countries, and several ages bearing witness as one man to this Christian cause, with whom although I would be loth to err in any thing, yet do I the less mistrust my self to err, while I keep them compa­ny, and do with more confidence look an adversary in the face, when my quiver is full of their Testimonies, as a late Author speaks on another occasion. To draw to a Conclusion, from Doctrinal Positions about the Christian Sabbath, we shall descend to some practical Directions; I cannot stand to speak fully and largely to the duties of the day, neither need I; other Treatises have done it al­ready as Mr. Sprints, Mr. Shepheards, Dr. Gouges, but especially Mr. Philip Goodwins; only for the help of those that want those excellent helps, I shall hint a few things, and commit all to the blessing of him whose day and ho­nour I have argued and contended for.

Briefly, the practice of the Christian-Sabbath stands chiefly in two things, viz. In preparation to it, and san­ctification of it.

1. There must be solemn and serious preparation the e­vening before, to get our hearts into a Sabbath frame, this the Lord calls for in the very front of the Commandement, Remember the Sabbath-day to keep it holy, remember it be­fore it comes, that you may keep it holy when it comes; this word [Remember] should be as a bell to toll us in from our Shops and Farms, to our Chambers and Clo­sets, there to commune with our own hearts, to cast up our spiritual accounts, to call over our wants, and (if we have hearts) to weep over our week day sins, and stir up our [Page 248]selves to take hold of Christ, that we may make peace with God, they that have any acquaintance with heart­work, find it hard to have to do with a dusty world, full of sins and snares, and not be defiled or intangled with it; earthly things are apt to leave a tincture upon the most holy and heavenly hearts: There must therefore be a rub­bing off this rust of the world, a washing these dirty hearts and hands before we are fit to draw nigh to God in so­lemn Worship;Exod. 19.14. What were those Ceremonial washings of old, but emblematical predictions and documents of prepa­ration to Gospel-worship? and (if I mistake not) something to this purpose is prophesied concerning the purest times and Churches in these later days.Rev. 15.2, 3. Revel. 15. We read of those that had gotten the victory over the Beast and his Image, i. e. those that had shaken off the yoke of Anti-Christian Tyranny and Superstition, standing upon a sea of glass with the harps of God in their hands; those harps in their hands speak them in a posture of publike worship. But what means their standing upon a sea of glass? Why among other things, I conceive, it alludes to that Laver or1 Kings 7.23. sea in Solomons Temple, in which the the Priests were wont to2 Chron. 4.6. wash when they went to wor­ship, and it may teach us thus much, that the people of God under the Gospel, as well as they under the Law, must wash before they worship, there must be some pre­paration.

Secondly, the sanctification of the Sabbath follows, and this also consists in two things. Holy rest, and holy work. First, we must keep it as a day of holy rest to the Lord, resting from our own works, our own words, and our own thoughts.

1. We are bound upon the Lords day to rest and cease from our own works, whether works of labour, or works of pleasure, if I may so distinguish. The Lords day must neither be our working-day, nor our play-day; both these are prohibited by the letter of the fourth Commandment, and the analogy of that Text which seems to be written [Page 249]as a Commentary upon the Commandment, Isai. 58.13, 14. If thou turn away thy foot from the Sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day, and call the Sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord, honourable, and shalt honour him; not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thy own words, &c. In which words we have the lively Picture and Pourtraiture of a true Sabbath, in both parts of it; it must be celebrated with rest from our own ways, works, words, pleasures, and this rest must be accompanied, with a spiritual rejoycing in God, and de­light in his Sabbath, arising from an honourable esteem of the day, considering whose day it is, namely, the Lords. Now the scope of this Text is as applicable to our Chri­stian Sabbath as ever it was to the Jews Sabbath, ours be­ing first, a day of holy rejoycing in the Lord as well as theirs, Psal. 118.24. Secondly, a day which hath the Lord for its author as well as theirs. Thirdly, a day every whit as honourable as theirs, yea a degree above it, being insti­tuted upon a more noble account, Viz. The most gracious and glorious work of Redemption. Fourthly, a day in all respects as holy as theirs, holy I mean, in respect of se­paration and dedication to holy duties, as prayer, preach­ing, breaking of bread, praise and thanksgiving, Acts 2.1. and 20.7. Psal. 118.27, 28. Therefore it must be kept with rest from accustomed labour and pleasure, as well as theirs, and that by vertue of the fourth Commandment, which requires the sanctifying of one day in seven of di­vine appointment as a Sabbath, with rest from servile works, and secular imployments. And let it be further considered, both the fourth Commandement and the Pro­phet Isaiah in commenting upon it, do first and chiefly call for sanctity; Secondarily, for rest: First, Remember the Sabbath to sanctifie it, then, Thou shalt do no work. Sancti­fication is required as the end, cessation from labour as the means; the one as principal, the other as accessary. Now both Prophets and Apostles have markt out the Lords day as a holy day, to be spent in holy duties of solemn wor­ship, [Page 250]and that weekly; therefore by the Law of God and nature we are bound to keep it as a day of weekly rest, otherwise we separate the end from the means, which can­not be; rest from servile work being an inseparable adjunct to a day of solemn worship: What then shall we say to those that afterwarning make the Lords day either a com­mon working-day, or a sporting day? the former I may fitly call the Devils workmen, who will one day pay them their wages; the other the flesh's Bondmen whose plea­sure in the end will prove torment without end. The Lord awaken both to repentance better then that of Esau, whose sin (of the two) is greater then his,Hebr. 12.16. there are prophane Esau's under the Gospel, and they are the worst of Esau's; there is also a sin calledRom. 2.22. Sacrilege condemned in the Gospel, and Sabbath-breaking is very like it; when sinners lay sacrilegious hands upon that which is consecrated to the Lord, for a sin much like to which Ananias and his wife were once stricken with sudden death, and how many such dreadful strokes have been felt and heard in these later days? I shall not repeat what has been already committed to record by others. Mr. Bernard, Mr. Byfield and sun­dry others have been serious observers of Gods heavy hand in this kind. I could say something of what I have seen with my own eyes, and heard with my own ears. But I shall forbear,Numb. 10.1, 2. when men are struck dead in the very act of their sin, as Ʋzzah in touching the Ark, Nadab and Abihu in offering strange fire, when the sin and the judge­ment meet together, and do one point at the other, surely Gods hand is not to be slighted. Mr. Byfield has related many such tremendous strokes upon those that have pre­sumed to work on the Lords day, and ended their lives and their work together; having no more respit between their sin and their execution [or expiration] then with trembling lips to tell others the secret reflections of their own guilty Consciences, and how many Malefactors have we heard at their execution, bewailing their profanation of the Lords day, as the leading-cause of all their mischiefs and miseries? [Page 251]Now the Conscience of the sinner smarting under Gods revengeful rod is many times like a finger to point out the sin for which God smites, as we see in the case ofJudges 1.7, 8. Ado­nibezek. To be short, the exemplary judgments of God against this sin of Sabbath-breaking, falling in so great variety, and happening so thick together in many places, do call aloud to the inhabitants of the earth toIsai. 26.9, 10. learn righteousness; and it is doubtless our duty with humble reverence, and holy awfulness of the divine Majesty soberly to observe and improve them, inadverten­cy of Gods judiciary proceedings is aPsal. 28.5. and 10.4, 5. Isai. 5.12. sin frequently con­demned in Scripture, and severely threatned. Reader, if neither Scripture-Arguments, nor exemplary judgments will reclaim thee from violation of the Lords day, proceed on in thy prophaneness still; it may be the Lord will make thee the next example, to teach others what thou wilt not learn thy self.

Something might also be added from Christian experi­ence, 'tis observable, that when the Spirit comes effectually to convince of sin, commonly one of the first sins which the eye of inlightned Conscience fixes upon, is the neglect of the Lords day, and (conviction ending in conversion) one of the first duties which the soul comes seriously to close withal is the strict observing of the Lords day, grace works much this way, and does exceedingly dispose the heart to this duty; for which I dare appeal to the Con­sciences of many thousand living Witnesses.

Add to this the spiritual profit and sensible growth of grace, with the sweet comfort and final peace experienced this way. Tell me, where does true Religion thrive bet­ter, and the power of godliness flourish and prosper more than in Families, Cities Countries and Kingdoms where the Lords day is duly observed? on the contrary, where does superstition, irreligion, Atheism and profaneness abound more than where this day is neglected and vilifi­ed? 'tis a serious Observation of a learnedDr. Hakewils discourse of the Instituti­on, dignity, and end of the Lords day. Author, con­cerning the ingress and progress of Popery in former times: [Page 252]Namely, That after-ages much degenerating from the sim­plicity of the Primitive times, so infinitely multiplied and magnified their holy-days beyond all measure and reason, that the Lords day began to be slighted, and accounted with many a common Holy-day, perchance inferiour to some of their Saints days; which no doubt was a special occasion of that thick cloud of Superstition, which afterwards overshadowed the face of the Church; and in appearance the reducing of this day to its original honour would prove the readiest means to re­store the Church again to her original lustre and beauty even in those places where that cloud is not yet dispelled, &c. But this by the way.

Secondly, In order to the sanctifying of the Lords day, we must cease not only from doing our own works, but from speaking our own words. Good reason, for it is none of our own day, therefore let none say Our tongue is our own on this day. Christian, if thou canst not speak religiously on the Lords day, learn to speak sparingly; rather be silent, then sinful in thy speeches. Valerius Maximus reporteth of Zenocrates, that being in company with some who used ill language he was very mute; and being asked the rea­son, he replyed, It hath often repented me that I have spo­ken, never that I have held my peace. Thus much the Scri­pture teaches us, That in the multitude of words there want­eth not sin therefore Prov. 17.27, 28. he that spareth his words is wise. In­deed if a man speak of heavenly things on the Lords holy day he may with Paul continue his discourse till mid-night, and never speak too much; but of earthly things we cannot speak too little; Oh that our hearts and lips were more heavenly on the Lords day, that there might be more sprink­lings of grace and heaven in all our Sabbath-day discourses! how much were it to be wished that on this day Christians would speak less of what they saw, more of what they heard in the publike assemblies? Alas! should the Lord put that Question to many Christians now, which once he did on this day to the two Disciples going to Emmaus; What manner of communication is this that ye have one with [Page 253]another? how would it put some thousands to the blush, who have nothing but earth, or froth in their mouths?

Thirdly, we must also lay a charge upon our hearts not to think our own thoughts on the Lords day.Rom. 7.14. For the Law of God is spiritual, and bindeth the heart from thinking, as well as the tongue from speaking, or the hand from work­ing. Besides what vile hypocrisie is it to lay a restraint upon our words and actions, when in the mean time we give scope and liberty to our thoughts to wander after a thousand vanities? this is just like painted Sepulchres, fair without, but full of rottenness, and dead mens bones within. Further, our own vain and worldly thoughts are great di­stractions and obstructions to the duties of the day,Exod. 8.24. like that plague of flies in Egypt, which was so vexatious that they could neither work, nor eat, nor drink,and 10.12. but the Flies molested them. Such a plague is a worldly heart on the Lords day, a man can neither pray, nor hear, nor meditate, but earthly thoughts pester and disturb him; yea, like that plague of Locusts that devoured all; earthly thoughts eat up all the pleasant fruit of Sabbaths and Sermons;Luke 8.14. yea like thorns they choak the very seed of the Word and render it unprofitable: How highly does it concern us therefore on the Lords day especially to look to our hearts? Now if ever Solomons counsel is seasonable,Prov. 4.23. Keep thy heart with all diligence, Or, Cum omni custodiâ, with all keeping, as some read it; set guards and double guards upon it, for as Bernard truly speaks, Corde nihil fugacius, Nothing is more flitting then the heart of man; 'tis a wandring Dinah, we had need watch it warily, and check it speedily when it begins to hanker-after the world: In a word, to cure evill and earthly thoughts on the Lords day, we should do well to awe our hearts with the apprehension of Gods all-seeing eye: 'Tis observable that our Lord appeared to his servant John upon his own day in a heart-searching-si­militude, His eyes were as a flame of fire, Rev. 1.14. not only burn­ing in jealousie against sin and sinners, but bright and shining as the searcher of hearts and tryer of reins, by [Page 254]which title he then also stiled himself.Rev. 2.23. Consider Christian that on the Lords day especially thy heart lies under the view of that fiery flaming eye of Christ; therefore let thy thoughts be none but such as that pure and piercing eye will approve, and if Christ as the searcher of hearts be not awful to thee, yet me thinks Christ as the judge of secrets should. O let the terror of that last day work upon our hearts every Lords day, the seat of the Judge is fitly re­sembled by a cloud, not a throne of silver or gold, but a cloud: Rev. 14.14. Now as we know the clouds are storehouses of re­freshing showres, so also of storms and tempests; and thus doubtless that day of the Lord will be as a day of re­freshing to some, so a stormy day of tempests and terrors to others; and a great part of the tempest of that day will fall upon the thoughts and hearts of men, forEccles. 12. ult. God will bring every secret thing into judgement; we must be account­able not only for idle words, but vain thoughts. And thus much of the first thing, we must keep the Sabbath as a day of rest, but we must not rest in this rest; we must not make it a Sabbath of idleness, but a Sabbath of holiness; we must not so much cease from working, as change our work; servile work for soul work, worldly imployments for spi­ritual exercises: That is the next thing.

2. To our holy rest we must join holy work, and this is either publike or private; something indeed must be done in private before the publike, our closet-devotions and Fami­ly, duties common to other dayes must not he omitted this day, but rather augmented; their Sacrifices under the Law wereNumb. 28.9. doubled upon the Sabbath-day, and observe it,Exod. 3.7. their first service was the burning of Incense before the Lord.Matth. 28.1. Mark 16.2. John 20.1. Now prayer is our Incense, let this be our morn­ing exercise in private. Seek the Lord, O my soul, seek him early, do as Mary Magdalen did, she was early up to seek him whom her soul loved; she was last at the Cross, and first at the Sepulchre, in the dawning, while it was yet dark, very early in the morning say the E­vangelists. Oh that our love to Christ could keep pace [Page 255]with hers! Shall we love the world better than Christ? if we have a journey to go about worldly concernments we can set out betimes; oh that we were as wise for our souls, as we are for our bodies! let not sleep (that de­vourer of time) beguile us of our golden hours in the morning in which we are freshest and fittest for converse with God; let the sluggard that sleeps with the Sun­beams in his face remember that saying of Austin; If the Sun could speak, how roundly might it salute thee with this reproof? I laboured more then thou yesterday, and yet I am risen before thee to day. But this is too low an Argument, behold the Sun of righteousness is risen, and he rose early this day, therefore let us not sleep as do others, but say and sing with the Church,Isai. 26. [...]. With my soul have I desired thee in the night, yea, with my spirit within me will I seek thee early.

Having performed our morning exercises in private how cheerfully should we repair to the publike Assem­blies and draw nigh to God in publike Ordinances, on this acceptable day, this season of grace, when Christ sits in State (as one speaks) scattering treasures of grace amongst hungry and thirsty Saints that are poor in Spi­rit, and wait for spiritual alms at the Throne of grace? Psal. 84.1, 2. How amiable are thy Tabernacles O Lord of Hosts! My soul longeth, yea even fainteth for the courts of the Lord: My heart and my flesh cryeth out for the living God. And again,Psal 122.1. I was glad when they said unto me, let us go into the house of the Lord. For the Psal. 87.2. Lord loveth the gates of Zion more then all the dwellings of Jacob; and most sweet­ly the Prophet Isaiah (speaking of Gospel-times)Isai. 2, 1, 2. Ma­ny people shall go and say, Come and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob, and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths. A most lively prediction of our Christian solemn Assemblies, the select season of which is signified by t he practice of the Apostles and Primitive Saints to be the first day of the week; on this day they met to break [Page 256]bread, and Paul preached to them, Acts 20.7. on this day they were all together. with one accord in prayer, (Acts 2.1. with chap. 1.2, 4.) and at these meetings the Scriptures were read by the Apostles command,Tertul. Apol. cap. 39. Col. 4.16. 1 Thes. 5.27. to which may be added singing of Psalms, usual at their solemn Assemblies, 1 Cor. 14. an Ordinance by which God is much glorified, and the souls of his peo­ple sweetly cheered and refreshed; what greater act of honour can we do to the great God here on earth then publikely to praise him in the great Congregation? especi­ally on the Lords day,Psal. 111.1. when all the Churches of Christ in the world joyn consort with us in this melodious duty?Hebr. 10.25. Let us not therefore forsake the assembling of our selves together, as the manner of some is; while we enjoy publike Liberties and Ordinances, let us improve them; we know not how soon the songs of the Temple may be turned into howlings, and Ichabod may be written upon all our Church-doors, the glory is departed from Israel; Lam. 1.4, 16. the ways of Sion de mourn, because none come to her solemn assemblies. The Lord forbid that ever we should live to see that woful day, wherein we shall desire to see one of the dayes of the Son of man, but shall not see it: Let not our neglect of the Lords day provoke the Lord to deprive us of it; let us consci­enciously wait upon God in Sabbath-Assemblies and pub­lick Ordinances, lest we be forced (for contempt of the publike) to seek our bread in secret wandring up and down in caves and dens of the earth, destitute, afflicted; tor­mented, as we read of some, better than our selves, Heb. 11.38, 39.

Lastly, The publike solemnities of the day being ended, what remains but that we return again to our private exercises? searching the Scriptures concern­ing the truths taught in publike, as theActs 17.11. noble Bereans did; to which we may joyn Repetition and Conference, to whet the Word upon one anothers hearts; let not our souls be weary of Sabbath-work, only take heed, as of resting in the rest, so also in the work of the day: [Page 257]for what one truly speaks of duties and actings of grace, [they are good duties and good graces, but bad Christs] the like may I say of Sabbaths never so well kept, they are good Sabbaths, but bad Saviours; let our rest and confi­dence be only in Christ, and to such as take him for their rest, his work is but recreation, and so indeed we should esteem it in a spiritual sense; not looking upon it as a sowr task, or a rigid exaction, but calling the Sabbath a delight, we should keep it accordingly, even the whole day, with the whole man, as a day of delights to the Lord, being trans­ported beyond flesh and the world, and having our conver­sation in heaven, as much as is possible for creatures cloath­ed with flesh.

To come to a closure, There is a double duty to be performed in private on the Lords day, which I seriously advise Christians to make Conscience of; namely, the spi­ritual duty of meditation, and the celestial duty of praise.

First, how seasonable it is on the Sabbath to meditate, not only on the Word, but the Works of God, appears from Psal. 92. which is a Psalm for the Sabbath-day: How does the Psalmist there search and dive into the wonderful works of God? Vers. 5. How great are thy works O Lord! and thy thoughts are very deep. Here we have a large field, works of Creation, and works of Providence; here our souls may wander from sea to land, See Mr. Baxter Saints ever-lasting Rest. from earth to Heaven, from time to eternity; yea walk upon the Sun, Moon, and Stars, and enter into Heaven it self, the Paradise of God: How manifold are thy works, O Lord, in wisdome hast thou made them all! Every crea­ture of God that we cast our eyes upon this day should be as a flower to feed our Meditations. I speak of cur­sory Meditation; or that which is occasional; one speci­al use whereof is to feed our graces by our senses, and (as we are Christians) to conduct us to Christ by the view of all creatures and actions; when we look upon the Sun, it bids us look up to Christ the Sun of righteousness, every star [Page 258]may mind us of that star of Jacob, that bright and morn­ing star; if we look upon our houses, Christ is the door; if upon our bodies, he is the head; if upon our clothes, he is the garment of salvation; if upon our friends and relations, he is our husband, our friend, our Lord, our Law-giver, our King; if we walk, he is the way; if we read, he is the word; if we eat and drink, he is our food; if we live, Christ is our life: that is, a holy heart may make this spiritual use of all earthly objects and occasions to contemplate Christ in them; and if we improve not our senses this way, 'tis all one as if we were blind, or brutish.

But besides this, there is a more distinct, deliberate, so­lemn and set meditation required on the Lords day; and the work of Redemption being the occasion of the day, how should our hearts work upon this blessed subject! Come Christian, call in thy thoughts from all worldly con­cernments, and contemplate this rare contrivance of thy Redemption by Jesus Christ; ponder it deeply, get lively and strong apprehensions of it, that it may leave deep and lasting impressions upon thy soul; view over the several passages and transactions in this Master-piece of all Gods works; view it first in the platform, how gloriously was this laid, in the eternal projects andEphes. 1.4. purposes of Gods love! yea in that eternal promise past between the Father and the Son,Titus 1.2. In hopes of eternal life which God that can­not lie, promised before the world began. Mark it, here was a promise, a promise of eternal life, made by God, by God that cannot lie, and that before there was a world, or man in the world. Oh the everlastingness, infiniteness, unsearchable­ness of this love of God! that the everlasting God, the Majesty of heaven and earth should take care of me before the world was; that he should busie himself and his Son about a worthless wretched worm, born out of due time, the least of Saints, the greatest of sinners: O my soul ad­mire, adore this first love, this free love of God and Christ!

Next see the early discovery and shining forth of this mystery in the very morning of the world; no sooner is [Page 259]man fallen, but God reaches out aGen. 3.15. promise to him, and (after many ages) sends his blessed Son out of his bosome to fulfil it; in the Gal. 4.4. fulness of time Christ comes; we could not come up to him, lo! he comes down to us, O see the King of glory stooping, bowing the Heavens to come down and dwell in a dungeon, to lodge amongst prisoners, and pitch his tent in the rebels camp. Think O my soul, how did the holy Angels wonder to see the King of Heaven stepping down from his throne to sit on his footstool; yea putting off (to the view) the robes of a prince, to put on the livery of aPhil. 2.7, 8. servant, and that, after treason had been stampt upon it, taking our nature, I mean, after it had been up in arms against God; not that he took the sin of our nature (he that could make our nature without sin, could also, and did take it without sin) but the shame of it he took, in that he took it, when it was under a cloud, under a blot before God and Angels. How does this express the love of Christ, a heart full of love to lost sinners! q. d. poor soult I cannot keep from you, I love your very nature, and will joyn it to my self, and so I may save you from sin and wrath, I care not if I become one with you, and dwell in your very flesh: My glory shall not hinder, I will rather veil it for a while, and take the form of a servant, and become of no reputation, than you shall perish for ever. Again, how does this speak the unspeakable love of God;See M^r. Am­brose looking to Jesus, p. 342. as one sweetly observes, God did so love the very nature of his elect, that though for the present he had them not all with him in heaven, yet he must have their picture in his Son, to see them in, and love them in. O meditate much on this admira­ble strein of love till it melt thy heart and make it burn within thee!

From the Incarnation of our blessed Saviour we may trace him through the several passages of his life, to his death and passion, and here with an eye of faith look upon him whom thou hast pierced, behold the man, as he said, even that man of sorrows, suffering, bleeding, dying on that tree of shame and ignominy; dwell upon the death of Christ [Page 260]till it put life into thy dead heart; then follow thy crucified Lord from the cross to the Sepulchre: and by the way pon­der deeply the severity of Gods justice, the sinfulness of sin, the love of Christ, and the worth of souls, which are not re­deemed with corruptible things as silver and gold, but with the precious blood of Jesus Christ, 1 Pet. 1.18, 19. as a lamb without blemish and without spot. Why did the Primitive Saints sacramen­tally shew forth the Lords death, on the Lords day, Acts 20.7. but to signifie to us, that to contemplate and comme­morate the death of Christ is a special duty of the day? So also his Resurrection, which was the great transaction of the day, therefore a proper subject for serious meditation. It is Christ that died yea rather that is risen again, and become the first-fruits of them that slept. Consider, O my souls the holy triumph of thy Redeemer this day, when he trod on the ser­pents head, took from death its sting, from hell its stan­dard! Suppose thou hadst stood by the Sepulchre, and seen the Sun of righteousness (covered with a cloud before) shining forth most gloriously in the morning of the Resur­rection-day; how would this have raised, and ravished thy heart! How glad were the Disciples when they saw the Lord! so glad, that 'tis said, They beleeved not for joy: O the day of Christs rising from the dead was a day of joy and gladness!John 20.20. Luke 24.41. No day like this, when our surety was releas­ed, the Covenant and sure mercies of David confirmed, hope revived, heaven and eternal life assured.

In the midst of these thoughts who can but cry out with the Apostle, O that I may know him, and the power of his resurrection! Phil. 3.10. That I may feel the working of that mighty power which God wrought in Christ, Eph. 1.19. when he raised him from the dead! O that the same Rom. 1.4. and 6.4, 5. spirit of holiness which quickned Christ from the dead this day (and so made the day holy) would also quicken my soul from the death of sin to the life of holiness, that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so I also might walk in new­ness of life, being planted into the likeness of his resurrecti­on, as also of his death.

Our hearts being thus tuned by meditation, how should our tongues shew forth the praises of our precious Redee­mer! Let him have the praise and the glory of the whole work of our Redemption. Awake my glory, utter a song: Sing that Psalm of John the Divine, Ʋnto him that loved us, Rev. 1.5, 6. and washed us from our sins in his own blood, and hath made us Kings and Priests unto God, and his Father: To him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Thus give unto Christ the glory of his death, yea the praise of his Resur­rection, say with Peter, Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, 1 Pet. 1.3, 4. who acording to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again to a lively hope, by the Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance incorrup­tible and undefiled, reserved in heaven for us. Surely God requires a thousand thousand Hallelujahs for this blessed work of our Redemption; he calls upon all creatures to join with us in rejoycing upon this account:Isai. 44.23. Sing O ye Heavens, for the Lord hath done it, shout O ye lower parts of the earth, break forth into singing ye mountains, O forrest and every tree therein, for the Lord hath redeemed Jacob! Let us therefore devote our selves more solemnly to this Angelical service; begin the day with prayer, and end it with praise, not only in publike but in private. O that every house were in this respect a temple, that the songs of the Temple might be heard in all our tabernacles on the Lords day, that the streets might ring with our praises, even the high praises of our Creator and Redeemer! 'Tis Scri­pture counsel, That we should speak to our selves in Psalms, Ephes. 5, 19. and Hymns, and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in our hearts to the Lord, and singing with grace in our hearts; grace in the heart (as one saies well) is the best tune to every Psalm. We must sing with the Spirit, as well as pray with the spirit. And therefore we should labour to be (with S. John) in the Spirit on the Lords day. In a word, Christian prudence should direct us to chuse out sutable Psalms for such a solemn day, Psal. 118. is very proper and pertinent, The stone which the builders refu­sed [Page 262]is become the head of the corner; this is the Lords doing, and it is marvellons in our eyes. This is the day which the Lord hath made, we will be glad and rejoyce in it. God is the Lord which hath shewed us light, &c. Thou art my God and I will praise thee: Thou art my God I will exalt thee; O give thanks unto the Lord for he is good, for his mer­cy endureth for ever. Thus much in brief concerning the prime duties of the day. I shall conclude all with the words of that Prince of English Poets: