THESES SABBATICAE. OR, THE DOCTRINE OF THE Sabbath: WHEREIN The Sabbaths I. Morality. II. Change. III. Beginning. IV. Sanctification. are clearly discussed. Which were first handled more largely in sundry SERMONS in Cambridg in New-England in opening of the fourth COMMANDMENT. In unfolding whereof many Scriptures are cleared, divers Cases of Conscience resolved, and the Moral Law as a rule of life to a Believer, occasionally and distinctly handled. By THOMAS SHEPARD, Pastor of the Church of Christ at Cambridge in New England. What evil thing is this that ye do, and profane the Sabbath day? did not your fathers thus, and did not our God bring all this evil upon us, and upon this City? yet ye bring more wrath upon Israel by profaning the Sabbath. Nehem. 13 17, 18. If ye hollow the Sabbath to do no work therein, then shall there enter into the gates of this City Kings and Princes. Jer. 17.24.25. London, Printed by T. R. and E. M. for john Rothwell. Sun and Fountain in Paul's Churchyard. 1650. THE Preface OF THE AUTHOR To the READER. THat a seventh part of time hath been religiously and universally observed both under the Law and under the Gospel, is without all controversy; the great doubt and difficulty which now remains concerning this Time, is the Morality of it, whether it was thus universally observed in the Christian Churches by unwritten Tradition, or by Divine Commission; Whether from the Church's Custom or Christ's Command. Whether as a Moral Duty, or as a Humane Law; for although some would make ●he observation of such a portion of time the sour fruit of the Ebionites superstitious Doctrines, yet all the Ancient and best Writers in the purest times do give such honour to it, that whoever doubts of it must either be utterly ignorant, or wilfully blinded in the knowledge of the Histories and Doctrines of those times; and must desire a Candle to show him the Sun at noon day: Clemens only seems to cast some stain upon it by making all days equal, and every day a Sabbath; but upon narrow search, his meaning may appear, not to deny the observation of the day, but only to blame the froth and vanity of sundry Christians, who, if they externally observed the day, they cared not how they lived every day after: nor is it to be wondered at, if Origen turn this day sometime into an Allegory and a continual spiritual Rest-day, who miserably transforms (many times) the plainest Scriptures into such shapes, and turns their substance into such shadows, and beating out the best of the Kernels, feeds his guests with such chaff and husks; and although many other Festivals were observed by those times, which may make the Sabbath suspected to be borne out of the same womb of humane custom with the rest, yet we shall find the seventh days Rest to have another Crown of glory set upon the had of it by the holy menn of God in those times then upon those which superstition so soon hatched and brought forth, so that they that read the Histories of those times in observing two Sabbaths in some places, Easter, Whitsunday, yea divers Ethnic and Heathenish days, will need no other comment on those texts of Paul, wherein he condemns the observation of Days; which beginning to fly abroad in the day light of the Apostles, might well outface the succeeding ages, and multiply with more authority in darker times; yet so, as that the seventh day's rest (call it what you will) still kept its place and ancient glory, as in the sequel shall appear. When therefore the good will of him who dwelled in the burning bush of the afflicted Primitive Churches, gave Princes and Emperors to be their nursing fathers; pious Constantine among other Christian Edicts, enjoins the observation of the Lords Day: wherein (if he was bound by his place to be a nourishing father) he went not beyond his Commission, in swaddling and cherishing this truth and appointment of Christ, and not suffering it to die and perish through the wickedness of men; the power of Princes extending to see Christ's Laws observed, though not to impose any humane inventions and Church constitutions of their own. It's true indeed that this Princely Edict was mixed with some imperfection and corruption, it following too short in some things, and extending too far in others; but there is no just cause for any to stumble much at this, that knows the sick head and heart by the weak and feeble pulse and crazy temper of those clouted, though otherwise triumphing times. The Successors of this manchild (borne out of the long and weary throws of the poor travelling Church) were enlarged generally in their care and conscience to preserve the religious honour due to this day, until the time of Charles the Great, who in the latter end of his reign observing how greatly the Sabbath was profaned (especially by the continuance and lewdness of Churchmen) did therefore call five national Counsels (which I need not here mention) in all which the Sabbath is advanced to as strict observation to the full, as hath been of late years condemned by some in the Sabbatarian Reformers: that it is a wonder how any man should cast off all shame, and so far forget himself, as to make the Sabbath a device of Fulco, or Peter Bruis, Eustachius, or the Book at Golgotha, and put the Visor of Novelty upon the aged face of it, as if it were scarce known to any of the Martyrs in Queen Mary's time, but receiving strength and growth from Master Perkins, was first hatched and received life from under the wings of a few late Disciplinarian Zelots. And it cannot be denied but that the Sabbath (like many other precious appointments and truths of God) did shake off her dust, and put on her comely and beautiful garments, and hath been much honoured and magnified since the times of the Reformation; the doctrine and darkness of Popery (like that of the Pharisees) not only obscuring the Doctrine of Faith, but also of the Law and obedience of Faith, and so hath obscured this of the Sabbath; only herein they did excel their forefathers the Scribes and Pharisees, for these added their own superstitious resting from things needful and lawful to their merely external observation of the day; but they (unto their eternal observation of the name of the Day) added their abominable profanations to it, in May-games and Maypoles, in sports and pastimes, in dancing and revel, and so laid it level, and made it equal (in a manner) to the rest of their Holy days; that as they came to shuffle out the second Commandment almost out of the Decalogue, so in time they came to be blinded with that horror of darkness, as to translate the words of the Commandment into some of their Catechisms, Remember to keep the Holy Festivals, and therefore those Worthies of the Reformation who have contended for all that honour which is due to this day, are unjustly aspersed for pleading for a jewish and superstitious strictness, when the cause they handle is no other in truth, then to vindicate the Sabbath both in the Doctrine and observation of it from Papists profaneness; and therefore all the world may see that under pretence of opposing in others a kind of judaizing upon this day, the adversaries of it do nothing else but maintain a gross point of practical Popery, who are by Law most ignorant and gross prophaners of this day, and therefore when many of Christ's servants are branded and condemned for placing so much of Religion in the observation of this day, and yet Bishop White and some others of them shall acknowledge as much as they plead for, if other▪ Festivals be taken in with it ordained by the Church, (as that they are the Nursery of Religion and all virtue, a means of planting Faith and saving knowledge, of heavenly and temporal blessings, and the profanation of them hateful to God and all good men that fear God▪ and to be punished in those which shall offend) they do hereby plainly hold forth▪ what market they drive to, and what spirit acts them in setting up man's posts by God's Pillars, and in giving equal honour to other Festivals and Holy days, which those whom they oppose do maintain as due to the Sabbath alone, upon better grounds. The Day star from on high visiting the first Reformers in Germany enabled them to see many things, and so to scatter much, yea most of the Popish and horrible darkness which generally overspread the face of all Europe at that day; but divers of them did not (as well they might not) see all things with the like clearness, whereof this of the Sabbath hath seemed to be one: their chief difficulty lay here; they saw a Moral command for a seventh day, and yet withal a Change of that first seventh day, and hence thought that something in it was Moral in respect of the Command, and yet something Ceremonial because of the Change: and therefore they issued their thoughts here, that 〈◊〉 was partly Moral and partly Ceremonial, and hence their observation of the day hath been (answerable to their judgements) more lax and lose; whose arguments to prove the day partly Ceremonial, have (upon narrow examination) made it wholly Ceremonial; it being the usual unhappiness of such arguments as are produced in defence of a lesser Error, to grow big with some manchild in them, which in time grows up; and so serve only to maintain a far greater; and hence by that part of the controversy they have laid foundations of much looseness upon that day among themselves, and have unawares laid the corner stones of some gross points of Familisme, and strengthened hereby the hands of Arminians, Malignants and Prelates, as to profane the Sabbath, so to make use of their Principles for the introduction of all humane inventions under the name and shadow of the Church; which if it hath power to authorise and establish such a day of worship: let any man living then name what invention he can, but that it may much more easily be ushered in upon the same ground: and therefore though posterity hath cause for ever to admire God's goodness for that abundance of light and life poured out by those vessels of glory in the first beginnings of Reformation, yet in this narrow of the Sabbath it is no wonder if they stepped a littele beside the truth; and it is to be charitably hoped and believed, that had they then foreseen what ill use some in after ages would make of their Principles, they would have been no otherwise minded then some of their followers and friends especially in the Churches of Scotland and England, who might well see alittle farther (as they use to speak) when they stood upon such tall men's shoulders. It's easy to demonstrate by Scripture and argument as well as by experience, that Religion is just as the Sabbath is, and decays and grows as the Sabbath is esteemed: the immediate honour and worship of God which is brought forth and swaddled in the three first Commandments, is nursed up and suckled in the bosom of the Sabbath: if Popery will have gross ignorance & blind devotion continued among its miserable captives, let it then be made (like the other Festivals) a merry and a sporting Sabbath; if any State would reduce the people under it to the Romish Faith and blind obedience again, let them erect (for lawful pastimes and sports) a dancing Sabbath; if the God of this world would have all Professors enjoy a total immunity from the Law of God, and all manner of Licentiousness allowed them without check of Conscience, let him then make an everyday Sabbath: if there hath been more of the power of godliness appearing in that small enclosure of the British Nation then in those vast continents elsewhere, where Reformation and more exact Church-Discipline have taken place, it cannot well be imputed to any outward means more, than their excelling care and conscience of honouring the Sabbath and although Master Rogers in his Preface to the 39 Articles injuriously and wretchedly makes the strict observation of the Sabbath the last refuge of lies by which stratagem the godly Ministers in former times being driven out of all their other strong holds, did hope in time to drive out the Prelacy and bring in again their Discipline; yet thus much may be gathered from the mouth of such an accuser that the worship and government of the Kingdom and Church of Christ jesus is accordingly set forward as the Sabbath is honoured; Prelacy, Popery, profaneness must down and shall down in time, if the Sabbath be exactly kept. But why the Lord Christ should keep his servants in England and Scotland to clear up and vindicate this point of the Sabbath, and welcome it with more Love than some precious ones in foreign Churches, no man can imagine any other cause then Gods own Free Grace and tender Love, whose wind blows where and when it will; Deus nobis haec otia fecit, and the times are coming wherein God's work will better declare the reason of this and some other discoveries by the British Nation, which modesty and humility would forbid all sober minds to make mention of now. That a seventh day's rest hath (therefore) been of universal observation is without controversy; the Morality of it (as hath been said) is now the controversy; in the Primitive times when the Question was propounded Servasti Dominicum? hast thou kept the Lords Day? their answer was generally this, Christianus sum, intermittere non possum; i. I am a Christian, I cannot neglect it: the observation of this day was the badge of their Christianity. This was their practice; but what their judgement was about the Morality of it is not safe to inquire from the tractates of some of our late Writers in this controversy; for it is no wonder if they that thrust the Sabbath out of Paradise, and banish it out of the world until Moses time, and then make it a mere ceremony all his time till Christ's Ascension, if since that time they bring it a peg lower, and make it to be a humane Constitution of the Church, rather than any Divine Institution of Christ jesus; and herein, those that oppose the Morality of it by dint of argument, and out of candour and conscience propose their grounds on which they remain unsatisfied, I do from my heart both highly and heartily honour, and especially the labours of Master Primrose and Master Ironside, many of whose Arguments and Answers to what is usually said in defence of the Morality of the day, who ever ponders them, shall find them heavy; the foundations and sinews of whose discourses I have therefore had a special eye to in the ensuing Theses, with a most free submission of what is here returned in answer thereto, to the censure of better minds and riper thoughts, being verily persuaded that whoever finds no Knots or Difficulties to humble his spirit herein, either knows not himself, or not the Controversy: but as for those whose chief arguments are reproaches and revile of embittered and corrupt hearts, rather than solid reasons of modest minds; I wholly decline the pursuit of such creatures whose weapons is their swell, and not any strength, and do leave them to his tribunal who judgeth righteously, for blearing the eyes of the world, and endeavouring to exasperate Princes, and make wise men believe that this Doctrine of the Sabbath is but a late Novelty, a Doctrine tending to a high degree of Schism, a fanatic judaizing, like his at Tewksbury Sabbata sancta colo. i e. a piece of Disciplinary Policy to advance Presbytery, a superstitious seething over of the hot or whining simplicity of an overrigid, crabbed, precise, crack-brained Puritanical party: the righteous God hath his little days of judgement in this life to clear up and vindicate the righteous cause of his innocent servants against all gainsayers, and who sees not (but those that will be blind) that the Lord hath begun to do something this way by these late broils? the controversy God hath with a Land, is many times in defence of the controversies of his faithful Witnesses, the sword maintains argument, and makes way for that which the Word could not; those plants which (not many years since) most men would not believe not to be of Gods planting) hath the Lord pulled up: the three innocent Firebrands so fast tied to some Fox's tails, are now pretty well quenched, and the tails almost cut off; this cause of the Sabbath also the Lord jesus is now handling; God hath cast down the Crowns of Princes, stained the Robes of Nobles with dirt and blood; broken the Crosier's, and torn the Mitres in pieces for the controversy of his Sabbath, Jer. 17.27. he hath already made way for his Discipline also (which they feared the precise Sabbath would introduce again) by such a way as hath made all hearts to ache, just according to the words never to be forgotten, of Mr. Udal in his Preface to the Demonstration of Discipline. The Council of Matiscon imputed the irruption of the Goths into the Empire, to the profanation of the Sabbath. Germany may now see, (or else one day they shall see) that one great cause of their troubles is, that the Sabbath wanted its Rest, in the days of their quietness. England was at rest, till they troubled God's Sabbath. The Lord jesus must reign; the Government of his House, the Laws of his Kingdom, the Solemn days of his worship must be established; the cause of his suffering and afflicted servants (not of our late religious scorners at Ordinances, Laws and Sabbaths) who are now at rest from their labours, but in former times wept, and prayed and petitioned, and preached and writ, and suffered, and died for these things, and are now crying under the Altar, must and shall certainly be cleared before men and Angels: Heaven and earth shall pass away, before one tittle of the Law (much less a whole Sabbath) shall perish. But while I am thus musing, me thinks no measure of tears are sufficient to lament the present state of times, that when the Lord jesus was come forth to vindicate the cause and controversy of Zion, there should rise up other Instruments of spiritual wickednesses in high places, to blot out the name and sweet remembrance of this Day from off the face of the earth; the enemies of the Sabbath are now not so much malignant time-servers, and aspiring brambles whom preferment principally biased to knock at the Sabbath; but those who have eaten bread with Christ, (a generation of professing people) do lift up their heel against his Sabbath: so that what could not formerly be done against it by Angels of darkness the old Serpent takes another course to effect it by seeming Angels of light; who by a new device are raised up to build the sepulchers of those who persecuted the Prophets in former times, & to justify all the books of sports, & the reading of them yea all the former & present profanations, yea scoffs & scorns against the Sabbath day. For as in former times they have Ceremonialized it out of the Decalogue, yet by humane constitution have retained it in the Church; so these of later times have spritualized it out of the Decalogue, ye out of of all the Churches in the world. For by making the Christian Sabbath to be only a spiritual Sabbath in the bosom of God out of Heb. 4. they hereby abolish a seventh day's Sabbath, and make every day equally a Sabbath to a Christian man. This I hope will be the last, but it is the most specious and fairest colour and banner that ever was erected to fight under against the Christian Sabbath; and is most fit to deceive not only some sudden men of loose and wanton wits, but especially men of spiritual, but too shallow minds. In times of Light (as these are reputed to be) Satan comes not abroad usually to deceive with fleshly and gross forgeries, and his cloven foot, (for every one almost would then discern his haltings) but with more mystical, yet strong delusions, and invisible chains of darkness, whereby he binds his captives the faster to the judgement of the great day. And therefore the watchword given in the bright and shining times of the Apostle, was, to Try the Spirits; and, Believe not every Spirit; And take heed of Spirits, who indeed were only fleshly and corrupt men, yet called Spirits, because they pretended to have much of the Spirit, and their doctrines seemed only to advance the Spirit; the fittest and fairest cobwebs to deceive and entangle the world in those discerning times, that possible could be spun out of the poisonful bowels of corrupt and ambitious wit. The times are now come, wherein by the refined mystical divinity of the old Monks, not only the Sabbath, but also all the Ordinances of Christ in the New-Testament are allegorized and spirituallized out of the world: And therefore 'tis no marvel when they abolish the outward Sabbath because of a spiritual Sabbath in Christ, if (through God's righteous judgement blinding their hearts) they be also left to reject the outward Word, because of an inward wo●d to teach them; and outward Baptism and Lords Supper, because of an inward Baptism by the Holy Ghost and spiritual Bread from Heaven the Lord Christ jesus; and all outward Ordinances, Ministries, Churches, because of an inward Kingdom and Temple: and the Argument will hold strongly, that if because they have an inward Sabbath of Rest in the bosom of Christ (which I deny not) that they may therefore cast away all external Sabbaths, they may then very well reject all outward Baptism, Lord's Supper, all Churches, all Ordinances, because herein there is also the inward Baptism, spiritual feeding upon Christ and inward Kingdom and Temple of God. But thus they wickedly separate and sever what God hath joined and may well stand together, through the madness of which hellish practice I have long observed almost all the late and most pernicious errors of these times arise; and those men who have formerly wept for God's precious Sabbaths and Ordinances, and have prayed for them, and pleaded for them, and have offered their lives in sacrifice for them, and fought for them, yea, that have felt perhaps the comfort, sweetness, and blessing of God's Sabbaths, yea the redeeming and saving-power of God's Ordinances to their own souls; yet through pretences of more spiritual enjoyments above, and beyond, and without all these, they can part with these their old friends without weeping, and reject them as polluted rags, and fleshly forms, and dark veils and curtains which must be drawn aside, that so they may not hinder the true Light from shining in them. This therefore is the reason why the love of man● at this day is grown cold toward the external Sabbath; because the internal and spiritual Sabbath is now all in all: And therefore many men walk either with bold consciences, and will observe no Sabbath; or else with loose consciences, thinking it lawful to observe it (if men will enjoin it) but no● thinking that they are tied and bound thereunto from any precept of God. That place of Hebrews 4. which they so much stick to▪ wants not light to demonstrate that the Sabbatisme there may well agree not only with the internal, but the outward Christian Sabbath: but some of the ensuing Theses will serve to clear up these things. This only I fear; that because of these indignites done thus to God's Sabbaths even by the under-workings of some of Gods own people, that the time hastens, wherein if no man should speak, yet the right hand of the sore displeasure of a provoked God by plagues and confusion upon the glory of all flesh, will plead for his own Name, and for that in special which is engraven upon the forehead of his holy Sabbaths. Jerusalem remembered with regret of heart, in the days of her affliction and misery, all her pleasant things, and especially this of the Sabbath, Lam. 1.7. If the days of our rest and quietness cannot make us to relish the good things of his Temple in the fruition of our Sabbaths; then doubt not of it, but that the days of our affliction shall make a remnant to remember that they were pleasant things: of all the mercies of God to Israel, this is reckoned to be one of the greatest, that he gave his Laws to Israel, Psal. 147.19, 20. And of all Laws, this of the Sabbath; (For so the remnant of the Captivity acknowledged it, Nehem. 9.14. who perhaps had far lower thoughts of it before their bondage. And if the very making of it known be such a sweet mercy, what then is the rest and peace of it, the blessing and comfort of it? for which I doubt not but many thousands are admiring God in heaven at this day. And shall a shady imagination of an Every-day-sabbath, make us sell away for nothing such a heavenly and precious season, and make it common? The Lord jesus wished his Disciples to pray that their flight from Jerusalem might not be in winter, nor on the Sabbath-day, Matth. 24.20. accounting it a great misery, that his people should lose the public benefit (through the disturbance of any) of one Sabbath-day; (for be it jewish or Christian Sabbath, I now dispute not; sure I am it was a Sabbath-day, which it seems was to continue after Christ's Ascension to the Father, and therefore not wholly ceremonial) And shall we account it no affliction or misery to fight or fly, to ride or go, to work or play, to hear the Word in public, or stay at home upon the Sabbath-day? Is it no mercy in these days to enjoy many Sabbaths, which was so sore a misery in Christ's account, and in the Apostles days to lose but one? if man's heart be lost in the necessary cumbers of the week, (upon the Sabbath) the Lord is wont to recall it again to him; if any fear that the time of Grace is past, the continuance of the Sabbaths, (the special seasons of grace) confutes him; if a man's soul be wearied with daily griefs and outward troubles, the bosom of jesus Christ (which is in special wise opened every Lord's day) may refresh him; and shall we have and profess so little love to such a time, (more precious than gold to humbled hearts) as to cast away such a rich portion of precious time, and make it common under a pretence of making every day a Sabbath, which is either impossible to do▪ or sinful: the loudest voice (one of them of the love of Christ, which now sounds in the world continually in the years of his people, is this, Come into my bosom ye weary sinners and enjoy your rest; and the next voice to that is this of the Sabbath to call us off from all occasions, and then to say to us, Come to me my people, and rest in my bosom of sweetest mercy all this day: Which call would not be a mercy, if it were every day; for than our own occasions must be neglected, which the wise and fatherly providence of God forbids; and spiritual work only minded and intended, which God did never command: Nor should any marvel that the voice of the Law should contain such a voice of Love, and therefore should not think that this controversy about the Law (or for this one law of the Sabbath is unfit and unsuitable to these Evangelicall and Gospel times: for although the Law is dreadful and full of terror as considered without Christ, and is to man fallen a voice of words and a voice of terror and fear, which genders unto bondage; yet as it is revealed with reference to Christ, and a people in Christ, so every Commandment doth spirare amorem (as he speaks) and breathes out Christ's love, for which the Saints cannot but bless the Lord with everlasting wonderment that ever he made them to know these heart-secrets of his good will and love, especially then when he writes them in their hearts, and thereby gives unto them the comfort thereof. And verily if it be such a sweet voice of love to call us in to this Rest of the day, certainly if ever the Enlish Nation be deprived of these seasons (which God in mercy forbid) it will be a black appearance of God against them in the days of their distress, when he shall seem to shut them out of his Rest in his bosom by depriving them of the Rest of this day. What will ye do in the solemn day, in the day of the feast of the Lord? For lo they are gone because of destruction; Egypt shall gather them, Memphis shall bury them, their ●ilver shall be desired, nettles shall possess them; thorns shall be in their Tabernacles; the days of visitation are come, the days of recompense are come, Israel shall know it; the Prophet is a fool, the spiritual man is mad, for the multitude of thine iniquity, and the great hatred. Host 9.5, 6, 7. But let men yet make much of God's Sabbaths, and begin here; and if it be too tedius to draw near to God every day, let them but make conscience of trying and tasting how good the Lord is but this one day in a week, and the Lord will yet reserve mercy for his people, Jer. 17, 24, 25.26. for keep this, keep all; lose this, lose all: which lest I should seem to plead for out of a frothy and groundless affection to the Day, and lest any in these times should be worse than the Crane and the Swallow who know their times of return, I have therefore endeavoured to clear up those four great difficulties about this Day in the Theses here following. 1. Concerning the Morality. 2. The Change. 3. The Beginning. 4. The Sanctification of the Sabbath. Being fully persuaded that whosoever shall break one of the least Commandments, and teach men so, shall be called least in the Kingdom of God. I do therefore desire the Reader to take along with him these two things. 1. Suspending his judgement concerning the truth and validity of any part or of any particular Thesis, until he hath read over the whole; for they have a dependence one upon another for mutual clearing of one another; and lest I should bis coctum apponere, and say the same thing twice, I have therefore purposely left out that in one part, and one Thesis which is to be cleared in another, either for proof of it, or resolution of objections against it; and although this dependence may not so easily appear (because I have not so expressly set down the method) yet the wisehearted I hope will easily find it out, or else pick out and accept what they see to be of God, in such a confused heap; for it was enough to my ends if I might lay in any broken pieces of timber to forward this building, which those that are able to wade deeper into this controversy, may please to make use of (if there be any thing in them, or in any of them) in their own better and more orderly frame; for it hath been, and still is my earnest desire to heaven that God would raise up some or other of his precious servants to clear up these controversies more fully than yet they have been, that the zeal for God's Sabbaths may not be fire without light, which perhaps hath hitherto been too little through the wickedness of former times, encouraging the books one way, and suppressing those of most weight and worth, for the other. 2. To consider that I do most willingly give way to the publishing of these things; which I could in many respects have much more readily committed to the fire then to the light; when I consider the great abilities of others; the need such as I am have to sit down and learn; the hazards and knocks men get only by coming but into the field in Polemical matters, and the unusefulnesse of any thing herein for those in remote places where knowledge abounds, and where to cast any thing of this nature, is to cast water into the Sea; I confess I am ashamed therefore to be seen in this garment; and therefore that I have thus far yielded, hath been rather to please others than myself, who have many ways compelled me hereunto; the things for substance contained herein were first preached in my ordinary course upon the Sabbath days in opening the Commandments; the desires of some Students in the College, and the need I saw of resolving some doubts arising about these things in the hearts of some ordinary hearers among the people, occasioned a more large discussing of the controversy; to which I was the more inclined, because one among us (who wanted not abilities) was taken away from us, who had promised the clearing up of all these matters; when therefore these things were more plainly and fully opened and applied to the consciences of some more popular capacities as well as others, I was then put upon it to reduce the Doctrinal part of these Sermons upon the fourth Commandment, into certain Theses for the use of some Students desirous thereof; when being scattered and coming to the view of some of the Elders in the Country, I was by some of them desired to take off some obscurity arising from the brevity and littleness of them by greater enlargements and a few more explications of them which promising to do, and then coming to the bearing of many; I was then desired by all the Elders in the Country, then met together to commit them to public view; which hitherto my heart hath opposed, and therefore should still have smothered them, but that some have so far compelled me, as that I feared I should resist and fight against God, in not listening to them; in which many things are left out, which perhaps might be more useful to a plain people, which then in the application of matters of Doctrine were publicly delivered; and some few things are added, especial in that particular wherein the directive power of the Moral Law is cleared against the loose wits of these times. We are strangers here (for the most part) to the books and writings which are now in Europe, but it's much feared that the increase and growth of the many Tares and Errors in England, hath been by reason of the sleepiness of some of the honest husbandmen; and that those who are best able to pluck them up, have not seasonably stood in the gap, and kept them out by a zealous convicting and public bearing witness against them by word and writing, and that therefore such as have with too much tenderness and compliance tolerated Errors, Error will one day grow up to that head that it will not tolerate or suffer them to speak truth; We have ● Proverb here, That the Devil is not so soon risen but Christ is up before him; and if any of his precious servants have slept and lain longer a be● than their Master hath done, and have not spoke● or printed soon enough for jesus Christ in other matters, yet oh that in this matter of the Sabbath God would betimes awaken; and that these weaknesses might stir up their strength: for I muc● fear and foresee that if it be not done, there is a● hour and a nick of temptation in such a juncture 〈◊〉 times approaching, wherein the enemy will come 〈◊〉 like a flood, and rise up from all quarters against the Doctrine of the Sabbath, and then farewell all the good days of the son of man, if this be lost, which then men shall desire to see and shall not see them. I have therefore been the more willing to let my own shame and weakness appear to the world (if so it be found) if this might be any means of doing the least good for keeping up the price of God's Sabbaths in the hearts of any; I have therefore spent the more time about the Morality of the Sabbath, because the clearing up of this, giveth light to all the rest. The general CONTENTS of the Theses concerning the Morality of the Sabbath. 1. GOD is the superior disposer of man's time. Thes. 1 2. Man who is made next to God, and to return to his rest at the end of the larger circle of his life, is to return to him at the end of the lesser circle of every week. Thes. 7 3. What a Moral Law is not. 10, 11 4. How a Divine Law may be said to be Moral 14 5. What a Moral law is strictly taken. 16 6. A Moral Law considered in a strict sense is not good merely because commanded, but is therefore commanded because it is good. 17 7. What is that goodness in a Moral Law for which it is commanded. 21 8. By what Rules may that goodness be known, which are four. 24, 25 9 Divers consectaries flowing from the description of a Moral Law. 1. That Divine determination of something in a Law doth not always take away the morality of it. 26 2. That those are not Moral laws only, which are known to all men by the light of corrupt nature. 29 3. That the whole Decalogue in all the parts of it is the Moral Law of God: Thes. 30. where Objections are answered to. 38 10. Three sorts of Laws which were among the Jews, Moral, Ceremonial, Judicial. 38 11. The true state of the Question whether the Sabbath be a Moral or Ceremonial Law. 43 12. The agreement on all hands how far the Law of the Sabbath is Moral. 44 13. Something general is agreed on, and whether it lies under this general, viz. a seventh day. 46 14. The chief means of resolving this controversy in opening the meaning of the fourth Commandment. 47 15. The things which are Moral in the fourth Commandment, are either primarily or secundarily moral. 48 16. Those things which are primarily & generally moral in the forth Commandment, are 3. 1. A time of worship. 2. A day. 3. A 7th day determined. 17. Not the worship itself, but only the solemn time of it is required in the fourth Commandment. 53 18. How holy duties are for time. 56 19 Instituted worship is not directly required in the fourth, but in the second Commandment, wherein the meaning of the second Commandment is occasionally cleared against Wallaeus. 59 20. If the moral worship itself be not required herein, much less is the whole ceremonial worship. 63 21. Neither the public worship only, nor Jewish holy days required in this fourth Commandment 64 22. Not a part of a day, but a whole day is moral by the fourth Commandment. 65 23. God's wisdom did rather choose a whole day together for special worship then borrow a part of every day. 66 24. The sin of Familists and others who allow God no special day, but make all days equal. 68 25. How any day is said to be holy, and that though all places are alike holy, yet all days are not therefore alike holy. 69, 70 26. Answer to such Scriptures as seem to make all days alike holy under the New Testament. 72, 73. to 79 27. The chief reason why some abolish the day of the Sabbath in the fourth Commandment, is because they abandon the whole Decalogue itself as any Rule of life unto his people. 79 28. An inward Sabbath may well consist with a Sabbath day. 80 29. The great controversy whether the Law be a rule of life to a believer, discussed in sundry Theses. 81 30. The Spirit is not the rule of life. 86 31. Not the will of God's Decree, but the will of his command is the rule of life. 91 32. The fundamental Error of Antinomians. 93 33. The rule of the Law is kept in Christ as matter of our justification, not sanctification. 94 34. How Christ is our Sanctification as well as our Justification. 95 35. Duties of Christian thankfulness to God were not performed by Christ for believers under that notion of thankfulness, but by way of merit. 97 36. Whether a believer is to act in virtue of a command. 98 37. The sin of those who affirm that Christian obedience is not to be put forth by virtue of a command. 100 38. To act by virtue of a Commandment, and by virtue of God's Spirit, are subordinate one to another. 101 39 Whether the Law is our rule as given by Moses on mount Sinai, or only as it is given by Christ on mount Zion. 102 40. How Works and Law-duties are sometime commended and sometime condemned 105, 106 41. The new creature how it is under the Law. 107 42. How the children of God under the Old Testament were under the Law as a Schoolmaster, and not those of the New. 108 43. How the Gospel requires doing, and how not, and about conditional promises in the Gospel. 110 44. Various motives to obedience from the Law and Gospel, from God as a Creator, and from Christ as a Redeemer, do not vary the Rule. 111 45. Unbelief is not the only sin. 112 46. Three evils arising from their Doctrine who deny the Directive use of the moral Law. 113 47. The sin of such as deny the humbling work of the Law under Gospel ministrations. 114 48. Their Error who will not have a Christian pray for pardon of sin, or mourn for sin. 115 49. Whether Sanctification be a doubtful evidence, and may not be a just evidence, and whe●●er the Gospel and all the promises of it belong to a sinner as a sinner, and whether sight of corruption be (by the Gospel) the settled evidence of salvation as some plead for. 117 50. Whether the first evidence be without the being, or only the seeing of grace. 118 51. The true grounds of evidencing Gods love in Christ, cleared. 119. 52. Not only a day, nor only a Sabbath day, but a seventh day determined is the last thing generally moral in the fourth Commandment. 120.122 53. That which is particularly moral herein, is this or that particular seventh day. 123 54. The morality of a Sabbath may be as strongly and easily urged from the Commandment of observing that particular seventh day from the creation, as the morality of a day. 125 55. It is not in man's liberty to take any one of the seven days in a week to be the Christian Sabbath. 126 56. A determined time is here required, but not what nature, but what counsel shall determine, and consequently this or that seventh day. 130 57 The force of God's example in resting the seventh, and working six days, how far it extends. 132 58. No reason that God must have a seventh year, because he will have a seventh day 134 59 How a circumstance of time is capable of morality. 137 60. The Law of the Sabbath is a Homogeneal part of the Moral Law, and is therefore Moral: and whether it be Moral in respect of the letter. 138 61. Whether the Decalogue is said to be the Moral Law in respect of the greater part only. 139 62. The Law of the Sabbath hath equal glory with all the other nine Morals, and hath therefore equal morality. 140 63. The Sabbath was given as a moral law to man in innocency. 151 64. The Sabbath said to be sanctified, Gen. 2 not merely in a way of Destination or Anticipation. 162 65. Adam in innocency might need a Sabbath. 174 66. No types of Christ given to man in innocency. 177 67. The Sabbath was no type in respect of its original institution. 178 68 The Heathens by the light of corrupt nature had some kind of knowledge of the Sabbath. 189 69. The Law of nature diversely taken, and what it is. 194 70. No argument to prove the Sabbath ceremonial, because Christ appointed no special day for the Lords Supper. 198 71. No argument to prove the Sabbath ceremonial, because it is reckoned among the ceremonials. 199 72. Christ is not said to be the Lord of the Sabbath, because it was ceremonial. 200 73. Though the Sahbath be made for man, yet it is not therefore ceremonial. 201 74. A fond distinction of the Sabbath in sensu mystico & literali. 202 75. Although we are bound to rest every day from sin, yet we are not therefore to make every day a Sabbath. 203 76. The Sabbath was not proper to the Jews, because they only were able (as some say) to observe the exact time of it. 204 77. An answer to M. Carpenters and Heylins new invented argument against the morality of the Sabbath. 206 FINIS. PART. I. The Morality of the Sabbath. Wherein the chief Arguments used by Gomarus, Mr. Primrose, Mr. Ironside, Mr. Broad, with sundry others against it, are briefly answered, the reasons for it more fully cleared: Wherein also the great Controversy, whether the whole Moral Law contained in the Decalogue be a Rule of life to a Believer, is occasionally and distinctly handled. THE MORALITY OF THE SABBATH. Thesis' 1. TIme is one of the most precious blessings, which worthless man in this world enjoys, a jewel of inestimable worth, a golden stream dissolving, and as it were, continually running down by us, out of one eternity into another; yet seldom taken notice of until it is quite passed away from us; Man (saith Solomon) knows not his time, Eccles. 9.12. It is therefore most just and meet, that he who hath the disposing of all other things less precious and momentous, should also be the supreme Lord and disposer of all our times. Thesis' 2. He who is the disposer of all our times, is the sovereign Lord of our persons also, and is therefore the utmost and last end of both: for if our persons and all our times be of him, they are then to be improved for him, as he sees most mere. Thesis' 3. Now although all creatures in the world, are of God, and for God, so that being of him, they receive their being from him as their first efficient, and being for him, are therefore * Deus qu● principium dat esso qua finis firmat & stabilit esse datum: Gibbe●●. de lib. Dei & create. preserved and governed by him, as their utmost end; yet no other inferior visible creature is set so near to God, and consequently is not in that manner for God, as man is. Thesis' 4. For although all inferior creatures are made lastly for God, yet they are made nextly for man; but man having nothing better than himself, between him and God, therefore made, both lastly and nextly for God, and hence is, that no inferior Creature, which comes out and issu●eth from God, hath such a reflux and return again bac● unto God, as man hath; because, in and by this reflux an● return into him, man's immortal being is eternally pre●served, like water running into the Sea again, from whence it first came. Thesis' 5. For whatever is set next, and as it were contiguous to external, is eternal; Omne contiguum ae●erno spirituali est a●ternum (say some) and hence it is that the soul is eternal because it is made nextly for God, and as it were con●tiguous to him. The body also shall be eternal, because contiguous to the eternal soul: But no other in●feriour Creatures are thus eternal: For although they b● made nextly for man, yet so, as that they are firstly for th● body, which is of itself mortal, and not eternal, an● therefore not being contiguous to that which is spiritually eternal, are not so themselves▪ and the reason of this i● because all inferior Creatures, as they come out from God, so their motion is toward man, for whom they a●● nextly made, Field of the Church, chap. 2. and they go out straight forward from God as it were in a straight line toward man, to the last end an● term of which straight line when they are come, in the ser●vice of man, they than cannot proceed any further, and d● therefore perish and cease to be, without reflecting, or re●turning back again immediately unto God. But ma● being made immediately and nextly for God, hath therefore his motion so toward God, as that he returns immediately unto him again, and is not led in a straight line, but led (〈◊〉 it were) about in a circular motion, and hence returning immediately to him, he is hereby eternally preserved i● him, for whom he is immediately made, and unto whom h● is nextly contiguous, as hath been said. Thesis' 6. Now although in this return of man to God, (suppo●sing it to be internal, regular and spiritual) man's blesse● being once lost is hereby recovered and preserved in God yet when man is left unto himself, the motions of his soul out of this circle, in straying from God, are innumerable and would be endless, if God who set him next unto himself, did not some time or other, recall, return, and ●ead him back again (as it were in a heavenly circle) into himself. Thesis' 7. Look therefore as when man hath run his race, finished his course, and passed through the bigger and larger circle of his life, he than returns unto his eternal rest; so it 〈◊〉 contrived and ordered by divine wisdom, as that he shall ●n a special manner return unto and into his rest once ●t lest within the lesser and smaller circle of every week, ●hat so his perfect blessedness to come might be foretasted every Sabbath day, and so be begun here: that look as man standing in innocency, had cause thus to return ●rom the pleasant labours of his weekly paradise employments, (as shall be shown in due place) so man fallen, much more from his toilsome and wearisome labours, to this his rest again: And therefore, as because all creatures were made for man, man was therefore made in the last place after them; so man being made for God and his worship, thence it is that the Sabbath (wherein man was to draw most near unto God) was appointed after the creation of man, as * Tu hic ord●nem considera, alia creantur prepter hominem, ideo post illa co●ditur homo. Homo vero ad Dei cultum, ideo statem post illius creationem Sabbathi benedictio, & sanctificatio inducitur. Pet Mart. in prac 4 m. Peter Martyr observes: For although man is not made for the Sabbath merely in respect of the outward rest of it, as the Pharisees dreamt, yet he is made for the Sabbath in respect of God in it, and the holiness of it, to both which then the soul is to have its weekly revolution back again, as into that Rest, which is the end of all our lives, labour, and in special of all our weekly labour and work. Thesis' 8. As therefore our blessed rest in the fruition of God at the end and period of our lives, is no ceremony, but a glorious privilege, and a moral duty, it being our closing with our utmost end to which we are called: so it cannot be that such a Law which calls and commands man in this life to return to the same rest for substance every Sabbath day, should be a ceremonial, but rather a Moral and perpetual Law: unless it should appear that this weekly Sabbath like the other annual Sabbath, hath been ordained and instituted principally for some ceremonious ends, rather than to be a part, and indeed the beginning of our rest to come; there being little difference between this and that to come, but only this, that here our rest is but begun, there it is perfected; here it is interrupted by our weekly labours, there it is continued, here we are led into our rest by means and ordinances, but there we shall be possessed with it, without our need of any help from them; our God who is our rest, being then become unto us immediately All in All. Thesis' 9 Were it not for man's work and labour ordained and appointed for him in this life, he should enjoy a continual Sabbath, a perpetual Rest. And therefore we see, that when man's life is ended, his sun set, and his work done upon earth, nothing else remains for him, but only to enter into his perpetual and eternal Rest: All our time should be solemn and sacred to the Lord of time, if there were no common work and labour h●re, which necessarily occasions common time; why then should any think that a weekly Sabbath is ceremonial, when, were it not for this life's labour, a perpetual and continual Sabbath would then be undoubtedly accounted moral. It's hard for any to think a servants awful attendance on his Lord and Master at certain special times not to be morally due from him; who but for some more private and personal occasions allowed him to attend unto, should at all times continually be serving of him. Thesis' 10. The word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and no Scripture phrase, and therefore not proper, fitly and fully to express the question in controversy, to wit, whether the fourth Commandment be a moral precept. The best friends of this word find it slippery, and can hardly tell what it is, and what they would have to be understood by it, and hence it is become a bone of much Contention, a fit mist, and swampe, for such to fight in, who desire so to contend with their Adversaries, as that themselves may not be known, either where they are, or on what ground they stand: Yet it being a word generally taken up, and commonly used, it may not therefore be amiss, to follow the market measure, and to retain the word with just and meet explications thereof. Thesis' 11. They who describe a moral law, to be such a law as is not typically ceremonial, and therefore not durable, do well and truly express what it is not, but they do not positively express what it is. Thesis' 12. Some describe and draw out the proportions of the moral law, by the law of nature, and so make it to be that law, which every man is taught by the light of nature. That which is morally and universally just (say some) which reason, when it is not misled, and the inward law of nature dictateth, by common principles of honesty, or aught to dictate unto all men without any outward usher: It is that (say others) which may be proved not only just but necessary, by principles drawn from the light of nature, which all reasonable men, even in nature corrupted, have still in their hearts, which either they do acknowledge, or may at least be convinced of without the Scriptures, by principles still left in the hearts of all men. But this description seems too narrow: For 1. Although it be true that the law natural is part of the law moral, yet if the law moral be resolved into the law of nature only, and the law of nature be shrunk up and drawn into so narrow a compass, as what the principles left in corrupt man only suggest and dictate; than it will necessarily follow, that many of those holy rules and principles are not the law of nature, which were the most perfect impressions of the law of nature, in man's first creation and perfection, but now by man's apostasy are obliterated and blotted out, unless any shall think worse than the blind Papists, either that man's mind is not now corrupted by the fall, in losing any of the first impressions of innocent nature; or shall maintain with them, that the Image of God (of which those first impressions were a part) was not natural to man in that estate. 2. It will then follow that there is no morale discipline, (as they call it) that is, nothing moral by discipline informing, or positively moral, but only by nature dictating, which is cross not only to the judgements, but solid Arguments of men judicious and most indifferent. 3. If that only is to be accounted moral which is so easily known of all men, by the light of nature corrupted, than the imperfect light of man's corrupt mind must be the principal judge of that which is moral, rather than the perfect rule of morality contained in the Scripture, which Assertion would not a little advance corrupt and blind Nature, and dethrone the perfection of the holy Scripture. Thesis' 13. They who define a moral law, to be such a law as is perpetual and universal, binding all persons in all ages and times, do come somewhat nearer to the mark, and are not far off from the truth, and such a description is most plain and obvious to such as are not curious: and in this sense our adversaries in this cause affirm the Sabbath not to be moral, meaning, that it is not a Law perpetual and universal. Others on the contrary affirming that it is moral, intent thus much, that it is perpetual and universal, a law which binds all persons, all times, and in all ages, and herein lies the chief matter of controversy at this day. Now in what respect and how far forth the law of the Sabbath is perpetual, shall be hereafter shown; mean while it may not be amiss to inquire more narrowly into the nature of a moral law. For though a Law primarily moral is perpetual, yet perpetuity seems to be an adjunct rather than of the essence of a moral law, and the difficulty will still remain untouched, viz. to know when a law is perpetual, and what is internal and intrinsical to such a law as makes it perpetual or moral; whereinto I would not search, lest I should seem to affect curiosity, but that our critical adversaries put us upon it, with whom there is nothing lost in case we● gain nothing by wrestling a little with them upon their own grounds, where for a while we shall come up to them. Thesis' 14. A divine law may be said to be moral two ways, 1. More largely and generally moral. 2. More strictly and specially moral. Thesis' 15. A law generally moral is this, that the whole sovereign will of the Lord be done and submitted unto by every creature; and in this large sense every law of God whether ceremonial, judicial, or for special trial, may be said to be moral, because the sovereign will of God is in all these laws to be adored: It is a moral duty that Gods will be done, and hence it is that so far forth as the will of God is in them, so far forth to yield obedience to them is a moral duty, but the question is not about this morality, nor what things are thus moral. Thesis' 16. A law more strictly and specially moral, which concerns the manners of all men, and of which we now speak, may be thus described, viz. It is such a Law, which is therefore commanded because it is good, and is not therefore good merely because it is commanded. Thesis' 17. This is Augustine's description of it long since, whom most of the Schoolmen follow, Aug. de lib. arb li. 1 ca 3. which learned * Camer in Matth 16. Cameron with sundry late Wri●●● confirm, and which our adversaries in this controversy plead hard for, and unto which the evidence of Scripture and reason seems to incline: for laws merely judicial and ceremonial are good laws, Deut. 6.18, 24. but this was merely because they were commanded, and therefore it had been simply evil to burn Incense, offer Sacrifice, or perform any ceremonial duty in the worship of God, unless they had been commanded. What is there therefore in moral laws which is not in those laws? verily this inward goodness in them which others have not, and because of which goodness they are therefore commanded: For to love God, to honour parents, to preserve the life of man, to be merciful and bountiful and just in all our dealings, etc. are inwardly good, and are therefore commanded, and are therefore moral laws: and hence we see that when the Apostle would set forth the glory and excellency of the moral law (for of no other law can he speak, Rom. 7.7, 12.) he gives these titles to it, that it is holy, just and good: which holiness, justice and goodness, he opposeth to his own moral (not ceremonial) wickedness: I am carnal (saith he) but the law is holy, just and good. And look as it was evil in itself for to have a nature contrary to the law, so the Law which was contrary to that nature, was good in itself and was therefore commanded, and therefore in this thing, moral laws are in a higher degree good, than such as were only ceremonial, which were therefore good merely because commanded. The Prophet Micah therefore perceiving how forward many were in ceremonial duties & sacrifices, in opposition hereunto, he tells them, The Lord hath showed thee, O man, what is good (speaking of moral duties, of showing mercy, and walking humbly with God, Micah 6.8.) Was not Sacrifice and Offerings good, as well as mercy and walking humbly? Yes verily, but herein lies the difference (as our most Orthodox generally make it) Sacrifice and Offerings were not per se and in themselves good, but only as commanded for higher ends, and to further moral obedience, jer. 7.22, 23, and 6.19, 20. Isa. 1.14, 16, Psal. 50.13, 14, 15. but such moral obedience as th● Prophet mentions, viz. to show mercy and to walk humbly, were good in themselves, and were therefore commanded of God, and here called by the Prophet good. The sum of moral obedience is love to God and man, Matth. 22. But what love is this? surely 'tis in such things ●● are in themselves lovely, and consequently in themselves good, for otherwise ceremonial obedience should be a part of moral obedience, because in performing such obediences is merely ceremonial, we show our love to God also, It being a branch of love to have respect unto all God's Commandments, Deut. 6.1, 2, 3. with 5, 6. Only herein our love toward God appears in ceremonial duties, because these laws are commanded, our love appears in the other, because the things commanded are also lovely in themselves▪ The Image of God is good in itself, as God himself is good in himself, now the moral law is an exact rule of nothing else but God's Image, as is evident, Eph. 4.24. where the Image of God is made to consist in holiness and righteousness, the first Table being the rule of the one, the second Table being the rule of the other; and hence it follows undeniably, that moral laws, respecting only God's Image, have respect only to such things as are good in themselves, and wherein we resemble and are made like unto God. C●●●et. Pral. in ●●p. Mat. 16. Some things (saith Cameron) are good in themselves, viz. such things wherein God's Image shines forth, as he is holy, just and good, Colos. 3.10. Ephes. 4.24. Some things are indifferent, neither good nor bad in themselves, but merely as commanded or forbidden, which also bear not God's Image, unless it be sub ratione entis, but not sub ratione boni moralis, i. e. they resemble God as he is a being, but not as he is holy, just and good in himself, the rule of which resemblance is the moral law, which therefore commands things because they are good. Thesis' 18. God out of his absolute sovereignty could have made laws binding all persons in all ages (and in this respect moral) without having any more goodness in them, then merely his own will, but it is his will and good pleasure to make all laws that are moral to be first good in themselves for all men, before he will impose them upon all men. And hence it is a weakness for any to affirm, that a moral law is not such a Law which is therefore commanded because it is good, because (say they) 'tis not the goodness of the thing, but the sovereign will of God which makes all things good; for it is the sovereign will of God (as is proved) to make every moral law good, and therefore to command it, rather than to make it good by a mere commanding of it. Thesis' 19 The will of God is indeed the rule of all goodness, and consequently of all moral laws, but we know there is voluntas decreti, and voluntas mandati, the first of which, viz. the will of God's decree (as it appears in the execution of it) makes a thing to be good, whether it be creature or law: the second of these, viz. the will of God's command, enjoins the practice of such a duty, the rule and law to guide which is first made good (if it be a moral law) by the wisdom and power of the will of God's decree; so that the will of God appearing in both these (viz. God's decreeing and commanding will) is the complete rule of every moral law: So that as no law is morally good merely because it is commanded, so neither is it thus good unless also it be commanded. God's will in all moral laws, is first to make them good, and then to command them, when they are thus far made good; both which together make up a moral law. Thesis' 20. 'tis true that sin is the transgression of God's law; there is nothing therefore sinful but it is the transgression of some law, and hence there is no obedience good, but what is conformable unto some law. But we must know that as transgression of any law doth not make a thing morally sinful (for then to break a ceremonial law would be a moral sin) so also obedience to every law doth not make a duty morally lawful and good (for then obedience to a ceremonial law, must be a moral obedience;) moral transgression therefore is a breach of such a law, which forbids a thing because it is evil, as moral obedience is our conformity to such a law which commands a thing because it is good: not that anything is morally evil in itself before it be forbidden, for then there should be a moral sin before, and without any law to forbid it, which is most absurd, but because a thing is evil in itself, and is therefore forbidden, it is therefore morally evil: God may and doth make it fundamentally evil before it be forbidden, but it is not morally evil until it be forbidden. The like may be said concerning moral obedience according to any moral law: No man should therefore think, that this description given of a moral law, should give occasion to any to imagine, that some things are morally good or evil, before any law pass upon them, and that therefore there are some duties, and some sins, which are so without and before any law of God. For we see that things good in themselves must be commanded, else they are not moral duties, yet withal they are therefore commanded because they are good in themselves. It's true that by the verdict of some of the Schoolmen, some duties are morally good, before any law commands them (as to love and magnify God) and that some sins (as to curse and blaspheme God) are morally evil, before any law forbids them: but (to omit other answers) if such suppositions may be rationally made (which some deny) yet it may be upon good grounds denied, that any duty can be morally good, or any sin morally evil, until some law pass upon them either to command or forbid the same. 'Tis indeed suitable and meet in nature for man to love God, and unsuitable and unmeet to blaspheme and hate God; but such suitableness or unsuitableness, as they make things fundamentally good or evil, so they cannot make any thing morally good or evil, unless we suppose some Law; for it would be in this case with man as 'tis in brute creatures, who do many things unnatural (as to eat up and destroy their own young) which yet are not morally sinful, because they are not under any moral law; and * Alex Hal. pa●t. 3. Q. 32. Art. 1. one of the most ancient and best of the Schoolmen, though he thinks that the observance of the Sabbath before Moses time was not secund●m rationem praecepti, or debitè fieri, i. was not actually commanded; yet that it was secundum rationem honesti, hoc est dignè steri. i. It was congruous, and a thing meet and worthy to be observed even from the first creation: But will any of our Adversaries hence say, that because it was meet and worthy to be observed, that therefore it was a moral law from the beginning of the world, while it had no command (as is by them supposed) to be observed? For it must be something meet and congruous, and worthy to be observed of man, which when it is commanded makes it to be a moral law, for then the Law commands a thing that is good, and because 'tis good i● is therefore commanded, which goodness we must a little more narrowly now inquire into. Thesis' 21. If it be demanded therefore, What is that goodness in a moral law for which it is therefore commanded? The Answer is given by Vasques, Suarez, Smifinga, and most of the Schoolmen, and sundry of our own Writers, that it is nothing else, but That comely suitableness and meetness in the thing commanded unto humane nature as rational, or unto man as rational, and consequently unto every man. When I say, Irons Q 2. cap. 8. as Rational, I understand as Master Ironside doth, viz. as right reason neither blinded nor corrupted doth require. When I say as suitable to man, and consequently to every man, I hereby exclude all laws merely Judicial and Evangelicall from being moral, the first of which are suitable to some men only, the other are not suitable to men as men, but to man as corrupt and fallen; and therefore bind not all men, but only those among whom they are sufficiently and actually promulgated, as is evident, Rom. 10.14 john. 15.22. But moral laws are suitable to all men, and have an inward meetness and congruity to be observed of all men: For look as when the Lord gives Laws to any particular nation, whether immediately by himself, or mediately by man, he ever makes them suitable to the people's peace and good of that nation; so when he makes laws binding all mankind in all Nations, he makes them suitable to humane nature or all mankind therein. And look as national Laws bind not merely by the mere will of the Lawgiver, but from the * Driedo de lib. Christ. lib. 3. cap. 3. Vasquez. To. 2. Dis. 12. goodness and suitableness in the thing unto their common good; so here moral laws which concern all Nations, bind not merely because of the will of God (which of itself is sufficient to bind all men, if he had pleased to put no more in moral laws) but also because of some goodness in the things commanded, which is nothing else but such suitableness as is mentioned unto the common good of man. What this suitableness to humane nature is, we shall show, in due place; mean while, I do not understand by suitableness to humane nature, the inclination of humane nature now corrupted by sin; for infused and supernatural virtues and graces (to which therefore humane nature is not inclined) are (as Vasquez truly and strongly maintains) in some sense natural and good in themselves, not because humane nature is inclined to them, but because they are very congruous and consentaneous thereunto, and perfecting humane nature, as such, and consequently suitable thereunto: A good is said to be utile & delectabile in respect of some profit or delight which comes to man by it, Suarez metaph. Disp. 10. Sect. 2. Surifing●. de Deo. Tract. 3. Disp. 1. Sect. 32. but bonum honestum in genere moris (as Suarez and his fellows call it) consists in a kind of decency, comeliness and sweet proportion between such an act, and such a nature as acts by right reason; to which nature it is exceeding comely and suitable, whether any profit or delight come thereby yea or no. As now in the divine nature, it's exceeding beautiful and comely for it (and therefore good in itself) to be bountiful and merciful, and to do good unto the creature, although no profit could come to him thereby: It is God's nature, as I may so say, so to do; so 'tis in humane nature, it's a comely thing to honour parents, reverence God's Name, to be loving and merciful to all men, in heart, word and deed; to give God a fit and the most meet proportion of time for solemn service of him, who allows us many days to serve our own good; this is good nature, and being thus seemly and suitable to it, this and such like things are therefore good in themselves, though perhaps neither profit or pleasure should come unto man hereby: And hence it's well observed by some of the Schoolmen, that right reason doth not make a thing moral, but only judgeth and discerneth what is moral; for right reason doth not make a thing suitable, but only seeth whether it be so or no, a thing may be suitable before right reason see it, yet when 'tis presented to reason it sees it suitable, as the wall is white before the eye see it, yet when the eye doth see it, it appears white also: It may be a meet and comely thing to give God a seventh part of our time, though no man's reason can of itself find out such a meet proportion, yet when reason sees it, it's forced to acknowledge a comeliness of equity, and suitableness therein, as shall hereafter appear. Thesis' 22. But here let it be observed, that although all moral laws are thus suitable to man's nature, yet they are not all alike suitable thereunto, and consequently not equally good in themselves; for some laws are more immediately suitable and good, others mediately: And as Wallaeus well observes out of Scotus, Wal. disser● the 4. prac. ca 3. that there is a double morality, the first is de lege naturae strictè sumpta, i. e. such laws as are so deeply engraven upon nature, as that these principles cannot be blotted out, but by abolishing of nature. The second is, de lege naturae latè sumpta, and these laws do much depend upon the will of the Lawgiver, but yet they are very congruous and suitable to humane nature, even from the light of those principles of nature. And hence I suppose it will follow, that the law for a seventh part of time to be dedicated to God, may well be a moral law, although it depends much upon the will of the Lawgiver, and is not so immediately written upon man's heart, nor so equally suitable to humane nature, as the law of love and thankfulness to God our Creator is: Came●. pra●▪ in Mat. ca 16. For (as Cameron well observes) that some things which are good in themselves have more of God's Image stamped upon them, some have less of it: and hence it is that though all moral laws are good in themselves, yet not equally so▪ there is more unsuitableness to hate and curse God, than to lust after another man's house or servant, and yet both are evil in themselves and breaches of moral rules. Thesis' 23. Hence therefore it follows, that because moral precepts are of such things as are good in themselves, they are therefore perpetual and unchangeable, and because they are in this respect good in themselves, to wit, because they are suitable and comely to man's nature as rational; hence also they are universal: so that perpetuity and universality seem to be the inseparable adjuncts, rather than the essence of a moral law: yet when they are called perpetual and unchangeable, we must understand them in respect of Gods ordinary dispensation; for he who is the great Lawgiver, may and doth sometime extraordinarily dispense with moral laws. Abraham might have killed his Son by extraordinary dispensation: Adam's Sons and Daughters did marry one another by special Commission, which now to do ordinarily would be incestuous, and consequently against a m●●●ll Law, as is evident, Leviticus 18. Only let it be here remembered that when I call moral Laws perpetual and universal, that I speak of such laws as are primarily moral, which do firstly and originally suit with humane nature: for laws as are at second hand moral and as it were accidentally so, may be changeable as hereafter shall appear. Thesis' 24. How these things may evince the morality of a seventh part of time, will be difficult to conceive, unless further enquiry be made, to wit, when and by what rules may it be known that any law is suitable and agreeable unto humane nature, and consequently good in itself? For resolution of which doubt, there is great silence generally in most Writers: Bishop White endeavours it by giving three rules to clear up this mist; but (pace tanti viri) I much fear that he much darkens and obscures the truth herein, White Treat. of Sab. day. p. 26 28. and muds the streams. For 1. Because the Sabbath is not simply moral, but hath something positive in it, he therefore makes it temporary, as appears in his conclusion of that discourse: when as 'tis evident by his own confession, that some laws positively moral are general and universal. For laws positively moral (he saith) are either personal only, as was Abraham's coming out of his own Country, Gen. 12.1. Some are for one Nation or Republic only, Exod. 22.1, 3●7. Some are common and general for all mankind, as the law of Polygamy. 2. He seems to make laws simply and entirely moral to be such as are in their inward nature morally good, before and without any external imposition of the Lawgiver: Now if by external imposition he means the external manner of Mosaical administration of the law, there is then some truth in what he affirms; for doubtless before Moses time the Patriarches had the law revealed after another manner; but if by external imposition be meant external Revelation, whether immediately by God himself unto man's conscience, or mediately by man, then it's most false that any thing can be morally good or evil, much less entirely and simply so, before and without some such law: for though it may be good and suitable to man before a law pas●e upon it, yet nothing can be morally good or evil without some law, for then there should be some sin which is not the transgression of a law, and some obedience which is not directed by any law, both which are impossible and abominable. 3. He makes moral laws by external imposition and constitution only, to be such, as before the external imposition of them, are a diaphorous, and good or evil only by reason of some circumstance. When as we know that some such laws as are most entirely moral, yet in respect of their inward nature generally considered, they are indifferent also: for not to kill and take away man's life is a moral law entirely so, yet, in the general nature of it, it is indifferent, and by circumstance may become either lawful or unlawful; lawful in case of war or public execution of justice; unlawful out of a private spirit and personal revenge. In one word, the whole drift of his discourse herein, is to show that the Sabbath is not moral, and this he would prove because the Sabbath is not simply and entirely moral, (which is a most feeble and weak consequence) and this he proves, because the Sabbath day hath (in respect of its inward nature) no more holiness and goodness than any other day, all the days of the week being equally good by creation. But he might well know that the day is not the law of the fourth Commandment, but the keeping holy of the Sabbath day, which is a thing inwardly good, and entirely moral if we speak of some day: Ibid. Nay, (saith the Bishop) the law of nature teacheth that some sufficient and convenient time be set apart for God's worship; if therefore some day be moral, although all days by creation be indifferent and equal, according to his own confession, what then should hinder the quota pars, or the seventh part of time from being moral? will he say because all days are equally holy, and good by creation? then why should he grant any day at all to be entirely moral in respect of a sufficient and convenient time to be set apart for God? If he saith the will and imposition of the Lawgiver abolisheth its morality, because he binds to a seventh part of time; then we shall show that this is most false and feeble in the sequel. Thesis' 25. There are therefore four rules to guide our judgements aright herein, whereby we may know when a law is suitable and agreeable to humane nature, and consequently good in itself; which will be sufficient to clear up the Law of the Sabbath, to be truly moral (whether in a higher or lower degree of morality it makes no matter) and that it is not a law merely temporary and ceremonial. 1. Such laws as necessarily flow from natural relation, both between God and man, as well as between man and man; these are good in themselves, because suitable and congruous to humane nature: for there is a decency and sweet comeliness to attend to those rules to which our relations bind us. For from this ground the Prophet Malachy calls for fear and honour of God as moral duties, because they are so comely and seemly for us, in respect of the relation between us, If I be your Lord, and Master and Father, where is my fear? where is my honour? Mal. 1.6. Love also between man and wife is pressed as a comely duty by the Apostle, from that near relation between them, being made one flesh, Ephes. 5.28, 29. there are scarce any who question the morality of the duties of the second Table, because they are so evidently comely, suitable and agreeable to humane nature, considered relatively, as man stands in relation to those who are or should be unto him as his own flesh; and therefore he is to honour superiors, and therefore must not kill, nor steal, nor lie, nor covet, nor defile the flesh, etc. but the morality of all the rules of the first Table is not seen so evidently, because the relation between God and man, which makes them comely and suitable to man, is not so well considered: for if there be a God, and this God be our God, according to the first Commandment, then it's very comely and meet for man to honour, love, fear him, delight, trust in him, etc. and if this God must be worshipped of man, in respect of the mutual relation between them, then 'tis comely and meet to worship him with his own worhsip, according to the second Commandment, and to worship him with all holy reverence according to the third Commandment; and if he must be thus worshipped, and yet at all times (in respect of our necessary worldly employments) cannot be so solemnly honoured and worshipped as is comely and meet for so great a God, then 'tis very fit and comely for all men to have some set and stated time of worship, according to some fit proportion, which the Lord of time only can best make, and therefore a seventh part of time which he doth make, according to the fourth Commandment. 2. Such laws are drawn from the imitable Attributes and Works of God, are congruous and suitable to man's nature: For what greater comeliness can there be, or what can be more suitable to that nature, which is immediately made for God, then to be like unto God, and to attend unto those rules which guide thereunto? Hence to be merciful to men in misery, to forgive our enemies and those that do us wrong, to be bountiful to those that be in want, to be patient when we suffer evil, are all moral duties, because they are comely and suitable to man, and that because herein he resembles and is made like unto God: Hence to labour six days and rest a leventh is a moral, because a comely and suitable duty, that because herein man follows the example of God, and becomes most like unto him. And hence it is that a seventh year of rest cannot be urged upon man to be as much moral as a seventh day of rest, because man hath God's example and pattern in resting a seventh day, but not in resting any seventh year; God never made himself an example of any ceremonial duty, it being unsuitable to his glorious excellency so to do, but only of moral and spiritual holiness; and therefore there is somewhat else in a seventh day that is not in a seventh year: and it is utterly false to think (as some do) that there is as much equity for the observation of the one as there is of the other. And here by the way may be seen a gross mistake of Mr. Primrose, Prim. par. 2. cap. 7. Sect. 13, 14, 15. who would make God's example herein not to be morally imitable of us, nor man necessarily bound thereunto, it being not naturally and in respect of itself imitable, but only because it pleased God to command man so to do: as also because this action of God did not flow from such attributes of God as are in their nature imitable, as mercy, bounty, etc. but from one of those attributes as is not imitable, and which we ought not to imitate, viz. his omnipotency. But suppose it did flow from his omnipotency, and that we ought not to imitate his omnipotency, and that we who are weakness itself cannot imitate omnipotent actions, yet its obvious to common sense, that such acts which arise from such attributes as cannot be imitated of us, in respect of the particular effects which are produced by them, yet in the actings of such attributes there may be something morally good which is imitable of us. As for example, though we are not to imitate God in his miraculous works (as in the burning of Sodom and such like) yet there may be that justice and wisdom of God shining therein which we ought to imitate, for we ought to see before we censure and condemn, as God did in proceeding against Sodom: So 'tis in this extraordinary work of making the Word, wherein although we are not to go about to make another world within that time as God did, yet therein the labour and rest of God was seen, which is imitable of man; which labour and rest as they are moral duties, so they are confirmed by a moral example, and therefore most seemly and comely for man to imitate from such an example: And whereas he affirms that this example was not moral, because it was not itself imitable, being grounded only upon God's free will: The reason is weak; for to labour in ones Calling is without controversy a moral duty (as idleness is a moral sin) yet if one would ask why man is to labour here, and not rather to lead a contemplative life in the vision and fruition of God immediately? I suppose no reason can be given, but the good pleasure of God, who in his deep wisdom saw it most meet for man to spend some proportionable time in labour for himself, and some in rest for God, whereunto he gave man such an eminent example from the beginning of the world. Master Primrose cannot deny but that a convenient time for labour and rest in general, is moral: Ibid. But (saith he) if God had not declared his will by a Commandment particularly to labour six days and rest the seventh, the Jews would not have thought themselves bound to this observation from God's example only; which shows that there is no morality in it to bind the conscience for ever. But it may be as well doubted whether acts of bounty and mercy (to which he thinks we are bound merely from God's example) in respect of the particular application of these acts, to enemies of God and of ourselves as well as to friends, be of binding virtue merely by God's example, unless we had a commandment thereunto: for in moral precepts, as the thing is commanded because it is good, so 'tis not morally good * Vid. Thes. 9 unless it be commanded: but suppose that God's example of labour six days and rest the seventh, should not have been binding as other examples, unless there had been a commandment for so doing, yet this is no argument that this example is not moral at all, but only that it is not so * P●aecopt●rum m●ralium t●●p●ex est gradus, etc. Aqui. 1 2. q. 100L, art. 11. equally moral and known to be so, as some other duties be; for man may spend too much time in labour, and give God too short or too little time for rest, if therefore he wants the light of a commandment or rule to direct and guide him to the fittest and most meet proportion of time for both, is he not apt hereby to break the rule of morality, which consists (as hath been shown) in that which is most suitable, comely and convenient for man to give to God or man? The commandment therefore in this case measuring out and declaring such a proportion, and what time is most convenient and comely for man to take to himself for labour, or to give to God for rest, it doth not abolish the morality of the example, but doth rather establish and make it: It sets out the most comely and meet proportion of time for labour and rest, and therefore such a time as is most good in itself, because most comely and proportionable, which being therefore commanded is a moral duty in man, and the example hereof morally binding in God. 3. Such laws which man's reason may see, either by innate light, or by any other external help and light to be just and good and fit for man to observe, such laws are congruous and suitable to humane nature. I say by any external help, as well as by innate light, for neither internal nor external light do make a thing just and suitable to man, no more than the light of the Sun or the light of a Lantern do make the King's highway to the City, but they only declare and manifest the way, or that which was so in itself before: Hence it comes to pass that although man's reason cannot see the equity of some laws, antecedenter by innate light, before it be illuminated by some external light, yet if by this external light the mind sees the equity, justice, and holiness of such a law, this may sufficiently argue the morality of such a law, which was just and good, before any light discovered it, and is now discovered only, not made to be so, whether by internal or external light: And hence Aquinas well observes, Aquin. 1.2. q. 99 art. 2. & 100 ar●. ●. that moral laws (which he makes to be such as are congruous to right reason) sometimes are such, as not only command such things which reason doth, readily see to be comely and meet, but also such laws about which man's reason may readily and easily err and go astray from that which is comely and meet. And hence it is, that although no reason or wit of man could ever have found out the most just and equal proportion of time, or what proportion is most comely and suitable, or that a seventh part of time should have been universally observed as holy to God; yet if any external light and teaching from above, shall reveal this time, and the equity and suitableness of it, so that reason shall acknowledge it equal and good, that if we have six days for ourselves, God should have one for himself, this is a strong argument that such a command is moral, because reason thus illuminated cannot but acknowledge it most meet and equal: For though reason may not by any natural or innate light readily see that such a division of time is most suitable, and yet may readily err and misconceive the most suitable and convenient proportion and division of time, it's then a sufficient proof of the morality of such a command, if the congruity and equity of it be discerned consequenter only (as we lay) and by external light. 4. What ever law was once writ upon man's heart in pure nature is still suitable and congruous and convenient to humane nature, and consequently good in itself and moral. For whatever was so writ upon Adam's heart, was not writ there as upon a private person, but as a common person, having the common nature of man, and standing in the room of all mankind: Hence as nothing was writ then but what was common to all men, so such things thus writ were good for all men and suitable to all men, it being most injurious to God, to think that any thing evil should be imprinted there: if therefore it be proved that the law of the Sabbath was then writ upon man's heart, than it undeniably follows that it is meet and suitable to all men still to observe a Sabbath day; and indeed to the right understanding of what is suitable to man as man, and consequently moral, there is nothing more helpful, than to consider of our primitive estate and what was suitable to our nature then; for if that which is moral in marriage is to be searched for, in the first and ancient records of our first creation by the appointment of our Saviour; I then know no reason (whatever others object) but morality in all other laws and duties is there to be sought also; for although our original perfection is now defaced and lost, and in that respect is a merum non ens, (as some call it) yet it had once a being, and therefore in this controversy we may lawfully inquire after it, considering especially that this being which once it had, may be suffiently known by the contrary being of universal corruption that is in us now, as also by the light of the Scriptures, in which the searcher and maker of all hearts declares it unto us, and indeed there are many moral duties which will never appear good and suitable to man, but rather hard and unreasonable (because impossible) until we see and remember from whence we are fallen, and what once we had. Thesis' 26. If therefore a moral law command that which is suitable to humane nature, and good in itself, than it follows from hence, (which was touched before) that divine determination of something in a law, doth not always take away morality from a law, for divine determination is many times no more but a plain and positive declaration of that which is suitable, just and good and equal for man to observe: now that which points out and declares unto us the morality of a law, cannot possibly abolish and destroy such a law. For a moral law commanding that which is suitable and good (as hath been shown) it is impossible that the Commandment which determineth and directeth to that which is good, that by this determination it should overthrow the being of such a good law, nay verily particular determination and positiveness (as some call it) is so far from abolishing, as that it rather adds to the being, as well as to the clearing up and manifestation of such a law. For if it be not sufficient to make a moral law, that the thing be good in itself, but that also it must be commanded; then the Commandment which many times only detemines to that which is good (and consequently determination) doth add unto the being of a moral law. Thesis' 27. There is scarce any thing but it is morally indifferent, until it falls under some divine determination: Vid. Course of conformity. pag. 114. but divine determination of twofold. 1. Of such things which are not good, fit or needful for man to observe without a command, as Sacrifices and Sacraments, and such likes: now herein, in such laws, positive determination may be very well inconsistent with morality; and it may be safely said that such a law is not moral, but rather positive, and thus the learned sometimes speak. 2. Of such things as are equal, good in themselves, needful and suitable for man; and here particular determination and morality may kiss each other, and are not to be opposed one to another: and hence it is that if God's Commandment positively determines us to observe any part of instituted worship (suppose Sacraments or Sacrifices) yet such laws are not moral (although it be moral in general to worship God after his own will;) because the things themselves are not good in themselves nor needful: but if God shall determine us to observe a Sabbath day, this determination doth not take away the morality of the command; because it being good in itself to give God the meetest and fittest proportion of time for holy Rest, and the commandment declaring that this seventh part, or so, is such a time, hence it comes to pass that this time is good in itself, and therefore determination by the commandment in this case, doth not abolish the morality hereof. It is a moral duty to pay tribute to Caesar, to give to Caesar that which is Caesar's: hence because a man may give too much or too little to him, that determination which directs us to that particular which is Caesar's due and most meet for him to receive, and us to give, that is best in itself, and is therefore moral; so prayer is a moral duty, but because a man may be tempted to pray too oft, or else too seldom, hence determination of the fittest and this fittest season, makes this or that moral. So 'tis here in the Sabbath. I do willingly and freely profess thus far with our Adversaries of the morality of the Sabbath; that it is a moral duty to give God some time and day of holy Rest and worship, as 'tis moral to give Caesar his due, and to pray to God: but because we may give God too many days, or too few, hence the determination of the most meet and fittest proportion of time, and particularly of this time, makes this and that to be also moral. If no day at all in general was good and fit for man to give to God, and God should notwithstanding command a seventh day, than the commandment of such a day with such positive determination could not be moral any more than the determination of sacrrifices and such like. But every day (say some of our Adversaries) some day (say others of them) being acknowledged to be equal, just and good, and most meet to give to God, hence it is that determination of a seventh day doth not abolish but clear up that which is moral, because it points out unto man that which is most meet and equal: Hence therefore it follows, that a seventh day is therefore commanded because it is good, and not good merely because commanded. Determination also, declaring what is most meet, declareth hereby that this commandment is also moral, and not merely positive and ceremonial: which not being well considered by some, this fourth commandment (having some more positiveness and determination then divers of the rest) hath therefore been the chief stumbling stone and rock of offence to many against the morality of it, by which they have miserably bruised themselves, while they have endeavoured to destroy it, upon so gross a mistake. Thesis' 28. It is true that God out of his absolute sovereignty and good pleasure of his will, might have determined us to observe a fourth, a ninth, a twentieth part of our time in holy rest more or less, as well as to a seven●h; yet let us consider of God as acting by counsel, and weighing and considering with himself, what is most meet and equal, and what proportion of time is most fit for himself; and then (with leave of better thoughts when I see better reason) I suppose no man can prove (unless he be made privy to the unknown secrets of the wisdom of God) that any other proportion had been as meet as this now made by the actual determination of God; there was not therefore the mere and sovereign will of God which thus determined of this seventh part of time, but also the wisdom of God, which considering all things saw it most mee● and suitable for man to give, and God to receive from man, and therefore being commanded, and thus particularly determined, becomes moral. Thesis' 29. If that commandment be moral which is therefore commanded because it is good, then hence it follows in the second place, that such laws only are not moral laws, which are known to all men by the light of corrupt nature: For as hath been already said, a law may be holy, just, good, suitable and meet for all men to observe, whether the light of corrupt nature, by awakening or sleeping principles (as some call them) know it or no, and such a comeliness and suitableness in such a law is sufficient to make it moral. There were many secret moral sins in Paul which he never saw, nor could have seen by the light of corrupt nature, until the law fell upon him with mighty efficacy and power, Romans 7. for God is not bound to crook his moral laws to what our corrupt minds are actually able of themselves to see, any more than to what our corrupt wills are actually able to do: If the light of nature be imperfect in us since the fall (which no wise man doubts of) then there may be many things truly moral, which the light of nature now sees not, because 'tis imperfect, which in its perfection it did see, and this consideration of the great imperfection of the light of nature, is alone sufficient for ever to stop their mouths and silence their hearts, who go about to make an imperfect light and law of nature, the perfect rule and only measure of moral duties; and who make so narrow a limitation of that which is moral to that which is thus imperfectly natural: 'tis not now lex nata, but lex data, which is the rule of moral duties: The holy Scriptures contain the perfect rule of all moral actions, whether man's corrupted and imperfect light of nature see them or no. It is a common, but a most perilous, and almost groundless mistake of many in this controversy, who when they would know what is moral and what is not so, of such things as are set down in the Scriptures, they then ●lye to the light of corrupt nature, making it to be the supreme Judge hereof, and there fall to examining of them, whether they are seen by the light of nature or no, which is no less folly than to set up a corrupt and blind Judge to determine and declare that which is moral, to make the perfect rule of morality in Scripture to bow down its back to the imperfection and weakness of nature, to pull out the Sun in heaven from giving light, and to walk by the light of a dim candle, and a stinking snuff in the socket almost gone out; to make the horne-book of natural light, the perfection of learning of the deepest matters in moral duties; to make Aristotle's Ethics as complete a teacher of true morality, as Adam's heart in innocency; and in a word to make man fallen and in a manner perfectly corrupt and miserable, to be as sufficiently furnished with knowledge of moral duties, as man standing, when he was perfectly holy and happy: Imagine therefore that the light of nature could never have found out one day in seven to be comely and most meet for man to give unto God; yet if such a proportion of time be most meet for man to give to God, and it appears so to be when God reveals it, it may and should then be accounted a moral law, although the light of nature left in all men could never discern it. The Schoolmen, and most of the popish generation not considering these things (which notwithstanding are some of their own principles) have digged pits for themselves, and made snares for some of their followers, in abolishing the fourth Commandment from being (in the true sense of it) moral, because they could not see how such a special part of time, viz. a seventh part, could be natural, or by the light of corrupt nature discernible; which things so discernible they sometimes conclude to be only moral. But how far the light of corrupt nature may discern this proportion, shall be spoken to in its proper place. Thesis' 30. If lastly, those things which are thus commanded because they are good, be moral, than the whole Decalogue may hence appear to be the moral law of God, because there is no one law in it, which is therefore good only because 'tis commanded, but is therefore commanded, because it is good and suitable to humane nature: When I say, suitable to humane nature, I do not mean humane nature considered absolutely, but relatively, either in relation to God, or relation unto man: for not only the light of nature, but of common sense also, bear witness that every precept of the second Table, wherein man is considered in relation to man, is thus far good: for how comely and good is it to honour Parents, to be tender of other men's lives and comforts, to preserve one's self and others from filthy pollutions, to do no wrong but all the good we can to other men's estates? etc. Nor do I think that any will question any one Commandment of this Table to be good and suitable to humane nature, unless it be some Nimrod or Brennus (that professed he knew no greater justice than for the stronger, like the bigger fishes of the Sea, to swallow up the lesser in case they be hungry) or some Turkish Tartar or Cannibal, or some surfeited Professor, transformed into some licentious opinionist, and so grown Master of his own Conscience, and that can audaciously outface the very light of nature and common sense, through the righteous judgement of God blinding and hardening his heart: And if the Commandments of the second Table be thus far good in themselves, are not those of the first Table much more? Is love to man (when drawn out into all the six streams of the second Table) good in itself, and shall not love to God, drawn out in the four precepts of the first Table, as the Spring from whence all our love to man should flow, much more? Are the streams morally sweet, and is not the spring itself of the same nature? Love to God, and love to man are the common principles (saith Aquinas truly) of the law of nature; and all particular precepts (saith he perhaps unawares) are conclusions flowing from these principles, out of Matth. 22. And are the principles good in themselves, and suitable to humane nature, and do not all the conclusions participate of their nature? For what are all particular precepts, but particular unfoldings of love to God, and love to man? If all the precepts of the second Table be moral, which do only concern man, why should any of the first fall short of that glory, which do immediately concern God? Shall man have six, and all of them morally good, and God have but four, and some one or more of them not so? Is it comely and good to have God to be our God in the first Commandment, to worship him after his own mind in the second, to give him his worship with all the highest respect and reverence of his Name in the third, and is it not as comely, good and suitable, that this great God and King should have some magnificent day of state to be attended on by his poor servants and creatures, both publicly and privately, with special respect and service, as oft as himself sees mere, and which we cannot but see and confess to be most equal and just, according to the fourth Commandment? If man's life must be divided into labour and rest, is it not equal and good if we have six days, that God should have a seventh? If the bruit beasts could speak they would say that a seventh day's rest is good for them, Exod. 23.12. and shall man (who hath more cause and more need of rest, even of holy rest) say that it is not good for him even to rest in the bosom of God himself, to which he is called this day? Take away a Sabbath, who can defend us from Atheism, Barbarism, and all manner of Devilism and profaneness? And is it evil thus to want it, and shall it not be good to have it? I confess if God had commanded a perpetual Sabbath, it had not then been good but sinful to observe any set Sabbath: but if God will have man to labour for himself six days, and this labour be morally good being now commanded; why is it not then as good to observe a seventh in rest to God, being also commanded of him? Thesis' 31. It is therefore at least an indigested assertion of those who affirm that the Decalogue sets out the precepts of the law of Nature, Aqui●. 1, 2, q. 98. Art. 5. Zanchy in 4. Praec. and yet withal doth superad certain precepts proper to the Jewish people; in which last respect they say all men are not bound to the observance thereof (and they produce the fourth Commandment for proof) but in respect of the first they are: But although in the application of a law, something may be proper to the Jewish people, yet (with leave of the learned) there is never a law in it but it is moral and common to all: for to make any law in the Decalogue proper, is an assertion springing from a false and blind principle, viz. That that law only is moral which is natural; not natural, as suitable to humane nature, but which is seen and known by the common light of corrupt nature without the help of any external usher or teacher. If also any laws in the Decalogue be proper, how will any find out and discern moral laws which concern all, from proper laws which appertain only to some? For if God hath made such a mingling, and not severed moral laws by themselves, than man hath no law or revelation by any dictinct and severed laws left unto him to discern laws proper and peculiar, from laws moral and common, which how pernicious it may be to men's souls to be left to such uncertainty, as also how injurious to God and cross to his main ends in discovering moral laws, let the wise consider; for if they say that we must fly for help herein to the light of corrupt nature, then as hath been shown, an imperfect light, and a blind guide, and a corrupt judge must be the chief rule of discerning that which is moral, from that which is peculiar and proper, for doubtless such a kind of light is the light of corrupt nature. Thesis' 32. Some think that those commandments only are morally good, which the Gospel hath declared and confirmed to be so: and by this shift they think to avoid the absurdity of flying to the blind guide of corrupt nature to judge of these colours, viz. what is moral and what is not, Mr. Primrose therefore excludes the fourth Commandment from being moral, the other nine being ratified by the light of the Gospel, which this (he saith) is not: but if his meaning be that there must be a general ratification of laws moral by the verdict of the Gospel, than the fourth Commandment cannot be excluded from being moral, because it hath a ratification in general from the Gospel: for therein we read that the moral law is holy, just and good, Rom. 7. and that Christ came not to destroy the least jot or tittle of the law, Matth. 5. much less a whole law of the fourth Commandment. In the Gospel also God promiseth to write his Law upon our hearts, wherein the fourth Commandment is not excepted. But if his meaning be● this, that the Gospel must particularly mention, and so make a particular ratification (as it were) by name of every moral law, than his assertion is unsound; there being many judicial laws of Moses, of which some are wholly moral, others containing in them something of common and moral equity, which we have no express mention of in the blessed Gospel: and let him turn over all the leaves of the Gospel, he shall not find that proportion of time which himself affirms to be moral in the fourth Commandment, to be expressly and particularly mentioned in the Gospel; and therefore that also must be excluded from being moral upon his own principles, as well as what we contend for in this Commandment so to be. Thesis' 33. Some of those who maintain the law of the Sabbath to be ceremonial, Prim. 2. par. cap. 6. S. 8. Irons. quest. ●. cap. 9 affirm that every Law in the Decalogue is not moral upon this ground, to wit, because the Law is called God's Covenant, which Covenant they show from sundry instances, not only to comprehend morals, but also ceremonials: for they make it the excellency of the Decalogue to comprehend, as a short epitome, all God's Ordinances, both moral and ceremonial, which epitome is more largely opened in the writings of Moses, where not only moral, but also ceremonial laws are expressed and dispersed. And hence they think that as the other nine are the summary and epitome of all moral Ordinances, so the fourth Commandment which was kept with the practice of Ceremonies, was the summary and epitome of all the ceremonial ordinances, and hence the fourth Commandment becomes ceremonial. But for answer to this wily notion, unjustly fathered upon Austin and Calvin by some, it may thus far be granted, that as the word Law is sometimes taken more strictly for the Decalogue only, Rom. 3.20. james 3.8. and sometimes more largely, for the whole doctrine contained in all the writings of the Old Testament, wherein the Gospel also is comprehended, Psal. 19.7. Psalm 119.1.51, 55. so the word Covenant is sometime taken more strictly for the covenant of works, which is contained compendiously in the Decalogue only, writ by the finger of God, in two Tables, Deut. 4.13, 14 Exod. 34.38. and sometime more largely for all the holy writings of Moses, Exodus 24.7, 8. and 34.10. Levit. 26.14. jer. 34.13. Now although all the writings of Moses may be called the Covenant, as it is largely taken; and so the covenant comprehends not only moral, but ceremonial laws; yet they are never called That Covenant which was writ by the finger of God in two Tables of stone, and given to Moses: and in this strict sense the word Covenant comprehends no other laws but moral, nor can the places and texts which they allege evince the contrary, for in that place of Exodus 24.7. it is not said that the Tables of the Covenant, but the Book of the Covenant was read in the audience of all the people; which Book, we readily acknowledge to comprehend ceremonials as well as morals, but not the Tables of the Covenant, of which the question now is: so also when the Lord saith, Exod. 34.10. that he will make a Covenant, his meaning is that he will revive his Covenant by writing (as it is there set down in the same chapter) in which writing it is very true that there is mentioned made of many ceremonial laws; but suppose this covenant written by Moses comprehends sundry ceremonial laws, will it therefore follow that the Tables of the Covenant written with the finger of God did the like? No such matter, and therefore there is an * So Iuni●●, W●llet, in loc. express difference put in the same chapter, verse 27, 28. between the covenant written by Moses, and the ten Commandments written by the finger of God. But secondly, Let it be granted that the Decalogue comprehends summarily all the laws which are particularly dispersed here and there in the writings of Moses, yet it doth not follow that there must be one ceremonial law written by the finger of God, and lifted up in the Decalogue to be the epitome and summary of all ceremonial laws elsewhere explained in the writings of Moses: For all laws, whether ceremonial or judicial, may be referred to the Decalogue as appendices to it or applications of it, and so to comprehend all other laws as their summary. But such a summary will no way enforce a necessity of making any one of them the epitome of ceremonials, and the other nine of them of the morals, for we know that many judicial laws are comprehended under moral laws, being referred as appendices thereunto by Calvin, Martyr, Chemnitius, Ames, and sundry others, and yet it will not follow from hence that one of the laws in the Decalogue must be a judicial law as the summary of all judicials, which are branches of the Covenant as well as Master Primrose his ceremonials. Thesis' 34. It should not seem strange that that law which in the general nature of it is moral, may in the particular application of it be unto a thing ceremonial, and in this respect it cannot be denied but that the moral law may comprehend all ceremonial laws; but it will not hence follow (as Mr. Primrose infers) that one law in the Decalogue must be ceremonial as the head and summary of all ceremonial laws, because we say ceremonial laws may be comprehended under some moral law, as special applications thereof: ex gr. It is a moral law to worship God according to his own will, and not after man's inventions, as the second Commandment holds it forth: Now in the application of this law the Lord points out his own instituted worship in sundry significant ceremonies, sacrifices, sacraments, etc. which particular institutions (though ceremonial) are to be referred unto, and are comprehended under the second Commandment which is a moral law: for if God will be worshipped with his own worship according to this Commandment, than its necessary for the Lord to show (and that under his Commandment) what those institutions be, wherein he will be worshipped, many of which are ceremonial, which are therefore directly comprehended here. Thesis' 35. There is therefore no necessity of making one law in the Decalogue to be ceremonial, that it may be the summary head of all ceremonials, viz. because ceremonials are branches of the covenant, which is the Decalogue; for upon the like ground there must be one judicial law also as the summary of all judicials, nay one Evangelicall law also as the head of all Evangelicals, sprinkled here and there in Moses his writings, of which we read john 5.43. Rev. 10.6, 7, 8. with Deut. 30.12, 13. Gal. 3.8. with Gen. 12.3. for judicials and Evangelicals are branches of the Covenant, as well as ceremonials, if Mr. Primrose his principle be true; but if by his own confession nine of them are morals, and one of them only the head of ceremonials, how shall judicial and Evangelicall summaries come in? which either he must make room for in the Decalogue, or acknowledge his foundation to be rotten, upon which he hath built up one ceremonial law among the nine morals. Thesis' 36. It is true, that among men, the same body of Laws may be framed up of divers articles, as Mr. Primrose pleads, but that the Decalogue was such a body as had ceremonials mixed with morals, it can never be made good by any colour of proof, except it be that which we have shown will as strongly enforce an introduction of some one judicial and another Evangelicall law into the Decalogue, as well as one ceremonial; but such a confusion of Law and Gospel, Evangelicals and judicials, ceremonials and morals, the blessed God abhors: for it neither suits with God's wisdom and end in giving the law, nor yet with man's weakness (which God pities) to make such a jumbling and confusion of things together: for who can then tell what law is moral and what Evangelicall, and what ceremonial, unless it be (as was shown) by flying for light to the dictates and instinct of nature, to show unto poor deceitful man, what laws are moral and what not, wherein the remedy would have been as bad as the disease? Thesis' 37. If there must be one law in the Decalogue, ceremonial, Prim. part. 2. cap. 6. S. 8. that so the more Authority may be procured hereby (as Mr. Primrose pleads) unto all God's Ordinances, and therefore one of the ceremonials was written in the Decalogue with Gods own finger, and honoured with the like prerogatives as the moral laws were, which were immediately spoken by God himself: Then (if this reasoning be solid) why was not one judicial and another Evangelicall precept alike honoured also? For was there not as much need to procure Authority to this as well as to ceremonials? and yet we see their Authority was sufficiently procured without being shusted into the Decalogue, and so might ceremonials also. Thesis' 38. There were three sorts of laws which are commonly known, and which were most eminently appearing among the Jews, 1. Moral. 2. Ceremonial. 3. Judicial. Thesis' 39 The moral respected their manners as they were men, and are therefore called moral. The ceremonial respected them as a Church, and as such a kind of Church. The judicial as a Common wealth, and as that particular Commonwealth. Moral laws were to govern them as an human society. Ceremonial as a sacred society, Judicial as a civil society: Thus the Learned speak, and being candidly understood, are true. Thesis' 40. The moral law contained in the Decalogue, is nothing else but the law of nature revived, or a second edition and impression of that primitive and perfect law of nature, which in the state of innocency was engraven upon man's heart, but now again written upon Tables of stone, by the finger of God. For man being made in the Image of God, he had therefore the law of holiness, and righteousness, in which Gods Image consisted, written in his heart: but having by his fall broken this Table, and lost this Image, neither knowing or doing the will of God through the law of sin now engraven on it: Hence the Lord hath in much pity made known his law again, and given us a fair copy of it in the two Tables of stone, which are the copy of that which was writ upon man's heart at first, because the first Table contains Love to God in holiness; the second, Love to man in righteousness: which holiness and righteousness are the two parts of God's Image which was once engraven upon man's soul, in his primitive and perfect estate, Ephes. 4.24. Nor indeed do I see how that popish Argument will be otherwise answered, pleading for a possibility in man to keep the law perfectly in his lapsed and fallen estate in this life, for, say they, God makes no laws of impossible things, it being unjust for God to require and exact that of a man which he is not able to do: to which it is commonly and truly answered, That man had once power to keep the law in his innocent estate, and hence though man be not able to keep it now, yet God may require it, because he once gave him power to keep it; and that therefore it is no more unjust to exact such obedience which he cannot perform, than for a creditor to require his money of his broken debtor, or spendthrift, who is now failed (as they say) and not able to repay. Man therefore having once power to keep the law, and now having no power, this argues strongly that the law of the Decalogue contains nothing but what was once written as a law of life upon his heart in his innocent estate: for I see not how God's justice can be cleared if he exacts such obedience in the Decalogue which is impossible for man to give, unless the very same law and power of obedience was written upon his heart at first: and therefore it is a wild notion of theirs who think that the Covenant of works which God made with Adam, is not the same for matter with the Covenant of works expressed in the moral law; for we see that there is the same Image of holiness and righteousness required in the Tables of stone, as the condition of this Covenant, which was once written upon man's heart, and required in the same manner of him. Now this law thus revived and reprinted is the Decalogue, because most natural and suitable to humane nature, when it was made most perfect, therefore it is universal and perpetual; the substance also of this law being love to God and man, holiness toward God, and righteousness toward man, Matt. 22.37, 39 Luke 1. Hence also this law must needs be moral, universal and perpetual, unless any should be so wicked as to imagine it to be no duty of universal or perpetual equity, either to love God, or to love man, to perform duties of holiness toward the one, or duties of righteousness toward the other: Hence again, the things commanded in this law are therefore commanded because they are good, and are therefore moral, unless any shall think that it is not good in itself to love God or man, to be holy or righteous; and which is still observable, there is such a love required herein, and such a loveliness put upon these laws, as that by virtue of these all our obedience in other things, which are not moral, becomes lovely; for there were many ceremonial observances, in which and by which the people of God expressed their love to God, as Mr. Primrose truly concludes from Deut. 6.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. and Matth. 22.37, 38, 40. but yet this love did arise by virtue of a moral rule, par. 2. cap. 6. l. 12. for therefore it was love to worship God in ceremonial duties, because it was lovely to worship God with his own worship (of which these were parts) which is the moral rule of the second Commandment. And hence Master Primrose may see his gross mistake in making one law of the Decalogue ceremonial, because the summary of the Decalogue being love to God and love to man, and our love to God being shown in ceremonial as well as in moral duties, because our love is seen & shown in our obedience to all the Commandments of God, ceremonial as well as moral. For though there be love in ceremonial duties, it is not so much in respect of themselves, as in respect of some moral rule by virtue of which such duties are attended. Thesis' 41. The ceremonial law consisting chiefly of types and shadows of things to come, Heb. 8.5. and therefore being to cease when the body was come, Col. 2.17. was not therefore perpetual (as the law moral) but temporary, and of binding power only to the nation of the Jews and their proselytes, and not putting any tie upon all Nations, as the moral law did. Every ceremonial law was temporary, but every temporary law was not ceremonial (as some say) as is demonstrable from sundry judicials, which in their determinations were proper to that Nation, while that Jewish polity continued, and are not therefore now to be observed. Thesis' 42. The judicial laws some of them being hedges and fences to safeguard both moral and ceremonial precepts, their binding power was therefore mixed and various, for those which did safeguard any moral law (which is perpetual) whether by just punishments or otherwise, do still morally bind all Nations: Pisc. pr●fat. on Exod. For as Piscator argues, a moral law is as good and as precious now in these times as then, and there is as much need of the preservation of these fences to preserve these laws, in these times, and at all times, as well as then, there being as much danger of the treading down of those laws by the wild beasts of the world, and brutish men (sometimes even in Churches) now as then; and hence God would have all Nations preserve these fences for ever, as he would have that law preserved for ever which these safeguard: but on the other side these judicials which did safeguard ceremonial laws, which we know were not perpetual, but proper to that Nation, hence those judicials which compass these about are not perpetual nor universal; the ceremonials being plucked up by their roots, to what purpose then should their fences and hedges stand? As on the contrary the morals abiding, why should not their judicials and fences remain? The learned generally doubt not to affirm, that Moses judicials bind all nations, so far forth as they contain any moral equity in them, which moral equity doth appear, not only in respect of the end of the law, when it is ordered for common and universal good, but chiefly in respect of the law which they safeguard and fence, Vid. Pisc. pr●f. in Exod. Vid jun. de Pol. Mos. which if it be moral, it's most just and equal, that either the same or like judicial fence (according to some fit proportion) should preserve it still, because 'tis but just and equal, that a moral and universal law should be universally preserved: from whence by the way, the weakness of their reasonings may be observed, who that they may take away the power of the civil Magistrate in matters of the first Table (which once he had in the Jewish commonwealth) affirm that such civil power, then, did arise from the judicial, and not from any moral law: when as it's manifest that this his power in preserving Gods worship pure from Idolatrous and profane mixtures, according to the judicial laws, was no more but a fence and safeguard set about moral Commandments; which fences and preservatives are therefore (for substance) to continue in as much power and authority now, as they did in those days, as long as such laws continue in their morality, which these preserve: the duties of the first Table being also as much moral as those of the second, to the preserving of which later from hurt and spoil in respect of their morality, no wise man questions the extent of his power. Thesis' 43. If therefore the question be now made, whether the law of the fourth Commandment be moral or no, we must then remember that the true state of the question is not in this, to wit, Whether the law of the Sabbath be a principle of the light of nature, known and evident of itself, or at least such as every man that hath the use of reason may readily find out, without some external revelation (as Mr. Ironside injuriously states it wrestling herein with his own shadow, Irons. quaest. 2. cap. 8. with many others of his fellowship in this controversy.) For morality (as hath been declared) is of larger extent than such naturality. But the question is, whether it is one of those laws which is therefore commanded, because it is holy, just and good in itself, whether man see it by any previous light of corrupt nature, I or no; and being thus commanded as such a law, whether it be not therefore of perpetual and universal obligation, binding all Nations and persons in all ages, in their hearts, lives, manners, to the observance thereof, as a part of that holiness we owe to God, and which God requires of all men according to rules of moral equity: or on the contrary whether it be not rather a typical, ceremonial, figurative and temporary precept, binding only some persons, or that one Nation of the Jews for some time, from the obedience of which law, Christians (in respect of any law of God) are now exempted? Thesis' 44. For clearing up whereof, it may not be amiss to take notice of the agreement (at least in words) herein, on all hands, even by those who oppose that morality of the Sabbath which we plead for. All sides agree in this, viz. That the law of this fourth Commandment concerning the Sabbath, is moral. But as the differences about the meaning of Tu es Petrus are many, so here the difficulty lies to know, how, and in what sense and respect it may be called moral; for Master Ironside expressly consents in this, Irons. quast. 2. cap. 9 viz. That all the Commandments of the Decalogue are moral, but every one in his proportion and degree, and so (saith he) is that of the Sabbath, it is moral for substance, but not for circumstance. Prim. par. 2. cap. 6. Sect. 15, 19 Master Primrose also (when he is awake) expressly confesseth thus much, viz. That the Sabbath is moral in its foundation, end, marrow and principal substance; and that a stinted time is moral, and grounded on the principles of nature; and therefore the Gentiles (saith he) had their set days of religion: and this (he tells us) is ratified by the Gospel, which commendeth to the faithful the Assembling of themselves together for Word and Sacraments, and consequently that they have appointed times to attend upon them, wherein the word of God be read and preached as under the old Testament every Sabbath day: nay he yields yet more, viz. That not only stinted times, but that also there should be a convenient proportion and suitable frequency of time for God's service, now under the Gospel, as under the Law; and therefore affirms, that the Jewish annual Feasts, and new Moons, being but once a year or once a month, and so being rare and seldom, could not teach us the convenient and most suitable frequency of God's public service, as the Sabbath did, which returned weekly, and therefore he saith that the Commandment runs not thus, viz. Remember to keep the new Moons, but Remember to keep holy the Sabbath day. So that by Mr. Primrose concession, not only a time, but a stinted time, not only a stinted, but also such a convenient proportion and suitable frequency of time, as is once in seven days, is morally holy by virtue of the fourth Commandment. Gomarus also concludes that the public worship of God required in the fourth Commandment, Gom. Invest. Orig. Sab. ca 5 calls for observation, not only of certain, but also of sufficient days for worship; and what these sufficient days be, is to be gathered from the fourth Commandment, viz. that they be not more rare and less frequent, than the weekly Sabbaths of the Israelites, because, if God (as he shows) challenged a weekly Sabbath of a stiffnecked people laden with the burden of many other Festivals and Ceremonies, how then should Christians, freed from their yokes and burdens, have them less frequent? Master Breerwood also to the like purpose professeth, Breer. p. 47, 48 That Christians should no● be less devout and religious in celebrating the Lords day, than the Jews were in celebrating their Sabbath, and his reason (labouring with some spice of a contradiction) is this, viz. because the obligation of our thankfulness to God is more than theirs, although the obligation of his Commandment to us in that behalf is less: for I confess it's beyond my shallowness to conceive, how the thankfulness should be more and the Commandment less; unless he will imagine some such popish work, as exceeds the command. Wallaeus comes almost quite over the threshold unto us, and maintains upon solid arguments, Wal. dissers. de pr●c. 4. c 4. that by the force and analogy of this fourth Commandment, all the true worshippers of God, are bound to the exact observation of one day in the circle and compass of seven; and then he produceth a cloud of witnesses, both ancient Fathers, and the chief of our late reformers, testifying to th● same morality of one day in seven, which himself maintains; that whoever shall read him herein, would wonder how it should ever enter into the hearts of learned men (as White, Rogers, Dow, the * Heylin. Historian, and many others) to imagine and go about to befool the world, as if the morality of a seventh day was the late and sour fruit growing out of the crabbed and rigid stock of some English Puritans and reformers, wherein they are forsaken of all their fellows, whom in all other things they so much admire in other Reformed Churches. It being therefore confessed on all hands that the Sabbath is moral (though I confess at other times our Adversaries unsay this at least in their Arguments;) the Controversy therefore only lies in this, viz. How and in what respect it should be so? Thesis' 45. The general consent herein also is this, to wit, That the morality of the Sabbath chiefly is in respect of some generality, or in respect of something which is more general in this Commandment, rather than in respect of that particular day which the Commandment doth also point at: for if the morality of it did lie in observing that particular day only, how could there be a change of that day to another? For if the morality of a Sabbath was limited unto a particularity, or to that one particular day, it is then impossible that any other day to which that first is changed, should be moral by virtue of the same Commandment: but we shall show in fit place, that the day is lawfully changed and morally observed, and therefore that which is in this Commandment firstly moral, must of necessity be somewhat more general. Thesis' 46. The general which we acknowledge to be moral in this command (rightly understood) is a seventh day. Our adversaries would make it more general, and resolve it into a day or some day for solemn worship, yet when they are forced to see and acknowledge by the dint of argument, that this is too general, because thus the Commandment may be observed, if one day in a thousand, or once in one's life it be sanctified; they do therefore many times come nearer to us, to somewhat less general than a day, viz. to a stinted, fixed and appointed day, and to such an appointed day as contains a sufficient proportion of time for God, with convenient frequency, no less frequent than theirs in the old Testament, which was every seventh day, as may be seen Thesis' 44. and truly thus much being acknowledged by them, one would think that the controversy (with this sort of men) was brought unto a comfortable and quiet issue and full agreement, but it is strange to see how contrary the language is of these men sleeping, from what it is when they are awake: They strike fiercely at a seventh day, and a determined time, as impossible to be moral, when they meet with them in the dark, and yet we see, acknowledge them (in effect) to be moral, when they meet with them sometimes in the light. Thesis' 47. But because a seventh day may be accounted convenient by some, and moral by others, and because the determination of it may be made by some, either more lax or narrow, viz. either to any day in seven, which man or the Church may appoint; or to such a seventh day as God shall determine, It is therefore needful for the clearing up of this controversy, to seek out with an impartial and sober mind, the true meaning of the fourth Commandment, and to inquire more particularly and exactly what is required it it, and what is commanded by virtue of it, which some able men not taking a right observation of in the dark and tempestuous times of controversy, have therefore made miserable shipwreck, not only of the truth, but also of themselves, and souls of others. Thesis' 48. The things which are morally enjoined in this Commandment, are these two, 1. Some things are Primariò; i. Primarily, firstly and more generally moral. 2. Some things are secundariò; i Secondarily, derivatively and consequently moral. A time, a day, a seventh day of rest are in the first respect moral, but in the other respect this or that particular seventh day may be said to be moral: Things primarily moral are perpetual; things secondarily moral are not necessarily so: As for example, To honour superiors and fathers, whether of Commonwealth or family, is primarily moral, but to honour these or those particular superiors is secondarily moral, because our honouring of them ariseth from that primary and general law of moral equity, viz. that if our fathers are to be honoured, then in the second place it follows, that these and those particular persons being our lawful fathers, are to be honoured also: To honour our fathers whom God hath set over us, is perpetual; to honour these or those particular fathers, is not perpetual, because themselves are not perpetual but changeable. It was a moral duty to honour this particular King David, but it was not perpetual, for when David was taken away, they were not bound to honour King David any more, when King Solomon his son became his successor: nor was it a ceremonial duty to honour this or that particular King, because it was changeable from one to another, but it was a moral duty so to do; wherein the law and rule is not changed (it being primarily moral) but only the object, which we are bound to honour secondarily in respect of the general rule: So 'tis in this law of the Sabbath; To keep a day, a seventh day's Sabbath, is perpetual, it being primarily moral, but to observe this or that particular day, is of itself changeable being secondarily moral: For if it be a moral duty to sanctify a seventh day which God shall appoint, then it's moral (as it were) in the second place to sanctify this or that seventh interchangeably which God doth appoint, and yet it doth not follow that this or that particular seventh is in itself ceremonial, because it is changeable● for in such a change the moral rule is not changed, but the moral object only to which it is morally applied; the duty is not changed, but only the day: and in this respect it should not seem hard to make somethings moral which are not perpetual; for laws primarily moral are properly perpetual, but laws secondarily moral, not necessarily so, but changeable, because, as hath been said, herein there is no change of the rule, but only of the object or application of the rule, which may be variously and yet morally observed. Thesis' 49. This distinction of things primarily and secondarily moral is taken from the truth of things, and which those who study this controversy will see themselves forced unto by the shifts and fallacies of the adversaries of the truth herein; the Commandments of God are exceeding broad according to David's measure, Psalm 119 96. and very comprehensive, and hence the generals include many particulars, and sometime the particulars have a special respect to things more general, as is evident in the second and fifth Commandment, Broad. Tract. de Sob. cap. 4. which Synecdoche, Master Broad acknowledgeth to be in all other commands except the Sabbath, wherein he will have no general understood, but only a commandment to observe that particular day only, that so he may go one step further than some of his betters, and utterly abolish the morality of this command: but whether this Commandment is so narrowly restrained, will appear more fully in showing the truth of this distinction out of the Commandment, more particularly. Thesis' 50. Those things first which are primarily and more generally moral, and morally commanded, are these three, 1. That there be some solemn convenient time set apart for God's worship. 2. That this time be not any small pittance of time, but a solemn day of worship, bearing the most meet proportion to those day's man hath for himself. 3. That this day be not any day indefinitely which man sees meet, but (as 'tis in the Commandment) the Sabbath or Rest day, which God himself interprets and determines to a seventh day. Some of our Adversaries in this Controversy, will not acknowledge any set time or day to be moral by virtue of this Commandment, because they think that That particular seventh day from the creation is only commanded but now abolished under the Gospel; and it only is commanded (they say) because it is only expressed and made mention of in the Commandment; I confess that That particular seventh is expressed and pointed at, but not only expressed (as we shall show in fit place) but suppose it were granted, that That seventh only is expressed, yet it will not follow that therefore a seventh day, and consequently a day, and consequently a time of worship is excluded: for look as 'tis in the second Commandment, we see the worship of a graven Image is particularly forbidden, and yet that which is more general, is also herein forbidden, viz. the worship of God by humane inventions: and why may not the like general be enjoined by commanding that particular seventh in the fourth Commandment? Others of our adversaries, on the contrary, acknowledge therefore, that in this particular seventh (which they make ceremonial) something more general and moral is herein required, but this general they limit to a time or some day of worship, but a seventh day which is more general than that particular seventh, yet less general than a day or time, they fly from this as from some serpent or bugbear, and will not admit it as any thing generally moral in this Commandment: But it is very observable in this Controversy, that upon the same grounds on which they would exclude this general of a seventh from being moral, they may as well exclude their own generals, viz. a time or a day from being moral: for if they think it irrational, that because a particular seventh day is required, that therefore a seventh day more general cannot be commanded; why is it not as irrational upon the same ground to exclude a time, a day also? Surely a seventh day lies nearer the bosom of a particular seventh, and is of nearer kin to it then a day. And I marvel that they should gather a solemn time and day of worship, which is more general, rather than a seventh out of that particular day, as not possibly to be intended, although in a manner expressed in the Commandment itself. I know there are some who think that there is nothing generally moral in this Commandment, but a seventh day; which unless it be well and warily explicated, I then crave leave to concur thus far with our adversaries, viz. That a solemn time, and a day of worship are generally moral in this command, but not only moral, but that a seventh day also which God shall determine is generally, yea principally moral also in this Commandment. Thesis' 51. First therefore, That which is most generally moral in this command, is that which is called Tempus cultus or the time of worship; now this time must either be indeterminate time, which necessarily attends all acts of worship, and duties of piety, or else determinate and solemn time. Indeterminate time is not required here, because to make a special commandment about such a time, would be both needless and ridiculous, for if it be impossible that any duty should be performed without such time, then wherever that duty is required, the time which necessarily attends it must be supposed and enjoined in the same commandment: Some determinate and solemn time is therefore herein generally, though not only commanded. Thesis' 52. 'tis a scruple to some to know to what commandment solemn time should be referred; to which the answer is easy; that the same things may be referred in several respects unto several commandments, and so may this: Solemn time may be referred to the second Commandment, where solemn worship (in respect of the means of worship) is required, in some respect to the first Commandment, which requiring us to acknowledge God as our sovereign Lord and happiness, he would have us therefore to have some full scope of time to be serlous and solemnly taken up in the worship of him: But it's referred to this fourth Commandment as it stands in a general reference and relation to a seventh day's Sabbath, wherein this general of solemn time is swallowed up and preserved; and verily if the six days labour be required in the fourth Commandment, in case it be done in reference to the seventh days rest, much more all solemn time of worship, as it stands in reference to a Sabbath day. Thesis' 53. The worship itself therefore is not required in this Commandment, if only the time of worship be enjoined: and if ignorance or prejudice did not by ass and sway men's judgements from the naked and genuine meaning of each Commandment, it would soon appear that the whole worship of God itself, is contained in the three first Commandments, and therefore nothing left that could possibly be enjoined by the fourth, but only the time: I know a time of worship may in some respect be called worship, but the worship itself in all other respects is not required in this but in other Commandments; for in the first Commandment we are to have God to be our God, by love of him, trust to him, delight in him, etc. (which nature, as it were, calls for, if God be our God) than all that which we call natural worship, is required here: and if devised forms of worship be forbidden in the second Commandment, which are of humane invention and institution, than all Gods instituted worship must be commanded herein: and if vain and irreverent manner of worship be forbidden in the third Commandment, than all common worship as some call it, or rather all that holy and reverend manner of worship which we owe to God is required in the same command; and if all natural, instituted and common worship or holy manner of worship be required in the three first commands, I marvel then how any worship (any further than as a time of worship, may be called worship,) can be required in this fourth command, The time therefore, and not the worship itself is required herein: for if any worship be required, it's either the whole worship of God, or some special kind of worship; if the whole worship, than there should be no worship of God required directly in the three first Commandments, but the very same which is commanded in the fourth also, which gross Tautology is most absurd to imagine in the short sum of these ten words; but if any special kind of worship should be required and not the whole, than the Sabbath day is sanctified to some one kind of worship, rather than to the exercise of all kind of worship, which is most false and profane: for who will affirm that the Sabbath is to be sanctified, suppose by that kind of worship which is public, and not private also, by external, and not by internal worship also; by natural worship in love and fear God, etc. and not with instituted in the use of all God's Ordinances, and that with all holy preparation and reverence also? Thesis' 54. The exercise of worship is one thing, the worship itself is another; 'tis most true that the holy exercise of all worship is here required, but most false that the worship itself is so: The worship itself is required in the three first commands, but the special exercise of all this worship at such a time, is required in the fourth Command: the exercise of holiness and holy duties is here required as the end, and a holy rest as a means thereunto, and in this respect it is true which Wallaeus observes, Wal. diss. de 4 pr●●. cap. 5. viz. That it is not a bare and naked circumstance of time, but the rest itself from labour, and the application of the day to holy uses which is here enjoined; but doth it therefore follow that the worship itself, and the holy duties themselves are here directly commanded? which he seems to maintain: no verily, no more than that works of mercy in the second Table, are required in this fourth Command of the first Table, because the exercise of mercy and love as well as of piety and necessity is required also in this Command. Thesis' 55. It is generally and frequently affirmed by those who seek to support the morality of the Sabbath, to wit, that the exercise of worship and holy duties at this time, is required for the duties sake, as at other times, the time is required for the times sake; by which words they seem to make the bare circumstance of time to be required here; but this assertion had need be understood with much candour, and the true explication of it; for in some sense its most true which our Saviour affirms, that man is not made for the Sabbath or the time of it, Mark 2.27. Thesis' 56. This time therefore may be considered two ways, 1. Abstractly. 2. Concretely. 1. Abstractly, for the bare circumwance of time, abstracted and stripped from all other considerations, and so it is very absurd to imagine all the holy duties of the Sabbath to be for the time, as if God and all his holy worship should give homage unto, and attend upon a naked empty circumstance: Time in this respect is rather for the worship's sake. 2. Concretely, as it is wholly sanctified and set apart for God, or as it is a holy time; set a part for holy rest, that so man might attend upon God: and in this respect all holy duties are for this time, because in this respect they are for God who is all in all in holy time: And therefore Wallaeus need not put us upon search to see whether the holy rest of the day be required in the second or any other Command, Wal. ibid. for 'tis not affirmed by any, that the naked circumstance of time is here only required, without any holy rest; but that a holy time of rest is herein commanded, and therefore to be referred to this command: hence also it is most false which some affirm, Do●. viz. That the rest from ordinary labours on this day, as it is connected with holy duties of worship without which they cannot be performed, is as necessary now, as when the Jewish Sabbath was in being; but otherwise out of these duties there is no holy time of rest commanded. For such a restraint of time to holy duties as makes the time holy for the duties sake, so that no time is holy but in the performance of holy duties, and these duties (upon narrow examination) only public duties, doth but open a gap for licentiousness, voluptuousness, sports, Maypoles and Dog-markets, and such like profaneness, out of the time of holy public worship; or what private worship each man shall think most meet. For in this sense holy duties are for the time, because the whole day being sanctified, holy duties are therefore to attend, and in this respect are for this time; and not the time for them, viz. That when the time of the exercise of some holy duties doth cease, the time of holy rest or holy time must then cease also. Thesis' 57 Nor should it seem strange that holy duties should attend holy time, and be for the sake of such time; because, although it be true that this time is sanctified, that man may perform holy duties, yet man is now called to the performance of all holy duties, that he may lastly honour God in all holiness in such a special time: Which time if any humane power only should put any holiness in, and it therefore should be attended on, what would it be else but an observing of days and times, condemned by the Apostle, Romans 14. Gal. 4. which dirty ditch of observing times, they unawares fall into who plead against a determined Sabbath, sanctified of God, and yet would have some time and day observed by the appointment of men: For the observation of such days which God shall appoint, cannot be condemned as an observing of times: but the observation of days which humane wisdom shall think fit may be quickly reduced to such a transgression. Thesis' 58. If any think that there is a peculiar manner of holiness, and of worshipping God herein required, which is not required in any other Commandment; it may be readily granted, if by peculiar manner of sanctification, be meant a more special degree and manner of exercising the whole worship of God, in respect of such a time: but it doth not therefore follow, that any new kind of worship (which Wallaeus hence pleads for) is required herein: Wal. dissert. de 4. praec. c 6. for this higher degree and special manner of worship is not the substance of any new worship, it being only a peculiar degree of worship, In hoc quarto praecept● aliquem peculiarem sanctificationis modum mandar● quae in aliis praeceptis non mandatur, a nobis qu●que extra controversiam deb●t coll●●ari, ●um in his decem verbis Tautologia supervacu● non committ●●ur. Wal. Ibid. and therefore varies not the kind: And if the three first Commandments enjoin the worship itself, than they do command the highest measures and degrees also severally, for where any duty is required, the highest degree and extension of it is also therewithal required. Hence therefore it still follows, that this peculiar manner of exercising holy duties upon this day, is chiefly with reference and relation to the time which God hath sanctified, that herein he might be in a special manner worshipped and served: And verily Wallaeus foreseeing the blow, had no other way to expedite himself from making the three first Commandments, either to be mere cipers, or the fourth Commandment from labouring with a needless Tautology, but by flying for refuge to this peculiar manner of holiness which he thinks is required herein, and not in any of the rest; but what hath been said may be sufficient to clear up the ungroundedness of this mistake. Thesis' 59 A little error is a great breeder, and begets many more; and hence it is that Wallaeus among many others, that he might make the worship itself to be required in the fourth Commandment, disputes therefore against those who place the instituted worship of God▪ directly under the second Commandment, which if he could make good, he had then the fairer probabilities to show that the worship itself was required directly in the fourth Command; which principle if it was granted, would expose the morality of the Sabbath to sorer blows and bruises then perhaps appears at first blush: It may not therefore be amiss, but be rather of special use for the clearing up both of the meaning and morality of the fourth command, Wal. diss. de 4 praes. cap. 51 to demonstrate, that the instituted worship of God, (which Wallaeus calls, Cultus externus & instrumentalis salutis nostrae, per auditum verbi & sacramentorum usum, etc.) is directly required in the affirmative part of the second command. Thesis' 60. The clearing up of this, depends much upon a right and true understanding of two things in the second Commandment; 1. What the graven Image and likeness is. 2. What is meant by those words. [Love me and keep my Commandments.] Thesis' 61. First, Graven Images, after which the whole world almost hath been enticed, and gone a whoring from the true worship of God; were worshipped two ways: 1. Terminatiuè, i. When people terminated their worship upon the dumb Idols themselves, as if they were gods, without looking any further to any God more supreme and glorious: This is the sin of many of the ignorant sort of Papists by Bellarmine's own confession, as also many of the brutish sort of the blind heathens: And this kind of worship and Idolatry is directly forbidden, not in the second, but in the first Commandment; and that appears upon this undeniable ground, to wit, that if the first Commandment expressly enjoins us to have no other God but Jehovah, to trust in, pray to, love, fear no other God but Jehovah, then for any to have and worship such Images as their gods which are not Jehovah, is directly forbidden here: Hence therefore it undeniably follows, that by the making to ourselves a graven Image, in the second Commandment, somewhat else must be understood then the worshipping of Images terminatively as gods. 2. Or else they were worshipped relatiuè, i. Relatively or in reference to the true God, as means and helps, In which, At which, and by which, the true God was worshipped: And thus the learned and well instructed Papists maintain their abominable worship of Images, whether graven or painted, crosses, crucifixes, etc. to be good and lawful; for say they, we do not worship, nor are we so senseless as to honour the Image, or Crucifix itself, but only as helps to devotion, to carry our hearts to God and Christ, resembled by these Images: Thus also the Jews of old, they did never worship the Images themselves, but God in them and by them: They were not grown so soon, so extremely sottish, as to think that the golden Calf was the true God himself which brought them a few weeks before out of the land of Egypt, but it was a visible help to carry their hearts to God only, and therefore the Feast was proclaimed to jehovah, Exod. 32.4, 5. Micha's Idolatrous mother professeth that she had dedicated the eleven hundred shekels of silver to jehovah to make a molten Image, judge 17.3. she was not simple (no not in those confused and blind times) to think that the Image was jehovah, nor did her son Micah think so, and therefore he doth not say, Now I know that the Teraphim will bless me, but that jehovah will now bless me, having set up an Image for his service. Nay verily, the wisest and best instructed among the Heathens did never think that the Idols and Images themselves were God, but they only worshipped God by them; which if any doubt of, Vid Rain. de Eccles. Rom. Idol. l. 2. c. 3. let him but read Doctor Rainolds, who by pregnant and most evident proofs demonstrates, that neither the jews, nor the Heathens in their deepest apostasies, did ever worship their Images any other ways then relatively, as helps and means of the worship of the true God; and hereby sets forth the abominable Idolatry of the Romish Church, for such a worship of their Images, which even themselves condemn in the Idolatrous jews and Heathens, who had as much to say for their Image worship as the Papists have: Hence therefore it follows, that if the graven Image in the second Commandment, was not worshipped as God, but only as a means devised and invented by man to carry the heart unto God, then (by a usual Synecdoche in every command) all humane inventions and institutions, and devised means of worship, or of carrying the heart better unto God, are forbidden in this Commandment; and if all humane institutions and devised means of worship, be herein directly forbidden, then certainly All divine institutions and means of worship, and consequently All Gods instituted worship, in Ministry, Sacraments, etc. is directly commanded in the affirmative part of this second Command; and consequently not in the fourth Command: And if all Orthodox Divines condemn the Popish relative worship of Images, as directly cross and contrary to the second Command, I then see no reason why any should question, but that all the instituted means of worship (Images as it were of Gods own devising) should belong to the affirmitive part of the same Command. The second thing to be explained in this Commandment is, What is love to God and keeping of his Commandments, which we read of in the close of the Commandment? Love to God is here opposed to Hatred of God, and those that Love him, to those that Hate him: Now this Hatred is not hating of God at large (for there is a hatred of God in every sin, Prov. 1.29. and 8.36.) but in particular, when it appears in this particular sin of setting up of Images and men's inventions, forbidden in this Commandment, which therefore sets down the proper punishment for this sin: So by love of God, is not meant love of God at large (which is seen in keeping every Command) but in particular, when we love God in his own Ordinances and institutions. Look therefore as hatred of God in setting up man's inventions and institutions (which superstitious persons think to be much love to God) is here condemned in the negative part of the Commandment; so on the contrary, love to God in closing with him and seeking of him in his own Institutions, whether Word or Sacraments, etc. is here enjoined in the affirmative part of this Command, and consequently not (as Wallaeus would have it) in the affirmative part of the fourth Command, Keeping my Commandments being set down as a fruit of this love, and both together being opposed to hatred of God: Hence by Commandments, cannot be meant in general, all the ten Commandments (as some imagine upon miserable weak grounds, which I lift not to mention) but in special, God's Institutions and Ordinances commanded in special by him, to which humane inventions and Images of men's heads and hands, are commonly in Scripture opposed, and are therefore condemned, because not commanded, or because none of his Commandments, jer. 7.31. Deut. 12.30, 31. Matth. 15.9. If therefore (again) God's Institutions and Commandments are here enjoined in this second Commandment, they cannot be directly required in the fourth Command. These things being thus cleared, the objections of Wallaeus are easily answered: For first, he saith, That from the negative part of this second Commandment cannot be gathered such an affirmative part as this is, Object. 1. viz. That God will be worshipped by the Word and Sacraments. But that this assertion thus barely propounded, but not proved, is false, appears from what hath been said concerning the true meaning of the negative part of this Command: For if humane inventions, under the name of graven Image be forbidden, then Divine Institutions, such as Word and Sacraments be, are here commanded, and from that negative any ordinary capacity may readily see what the affirmative is. He saith again secondly, That if instituted worship was contained under the affirmative part of the second Commandment, Object. 2. than this Commandment is mutable, because God was thus worshipped one way before Christ, and another way since Christ; but (saith he) the second Commandment is moral, and therefore immutable, and therefore such mutable worship cannot be enjoined herein. But we have * Vid. Thes. 34 formerly shown that although this Commandment be moral and immutable in respect of itself, yet in respect of the application of it to this or that object or thing commanded, it may be in that respect mutable: For it is an immutable law that God must be worshipped with his own worship, such as he shall institute (and this is the sum of the second Commandment itself) yet the things instituted (wherein there is only an application of the command) may be mutable: the second Commandment doth not immutably bind to the observance of this or that particular instituted worship only: But to observe Gods instituted worship, and to attend his appointments, which is the only moral law and rule in the affirmative part of this Command. He thirdly objects, That the worshipping of God in Word and Sacraments, Object. 3. etc. is never opposed in all the Scripture to the worshipping of Images. But this is false; for God's Institutions (of which Word and Sacraments are a part) are frequently opposed to humane inventions, the worship appointed by God to the worship devised by man: Images of Gods devising, are oft opposed to Images of men's owne inventing; the voice of God which was only heard with the ear, is opposed to an Image or similitude which might be seen, Deut. 4.12. A graven Image, a teacher of lies, is opposed to the Lords teaching of truth, and also to his presence in his Temple, which was the seat of instituted worship, Habak. 2.18, 19, 20. The worship of Images which God would have abolished, is opposed to the worship of God by Sacrifices and Ceremonies, in the place which God should choose, Deuter. 12.1. to 20. but yet he tells us, That to worship God in Images, and to worship him in Spirit and Truth (which is inward worship) are opposite: as also the lifting up of pure hands in every place, John 4.28. 1 Tim. 2.8. He tells us also that acknowledging of God in his Immensity and Infinite Majesty, are opposed to Image-worship, Rom. 1.20, 21, 22. Isa. 40.22. Be it so: But will it therefore follow, that to worship God according to his own Institutions▪ is not to worship him in Spirit and in Truth? Is it rather a carnal than a spiritual worship, to attend on God in Word and Sacraments? May we not lift up pure hands in the use of Gods own institutions? Is not God's Immensity and Majesty acknowledged and seen in the use of his own Ordinances, as well as creatures and providences? I confess the blinder sort of Heathens might worship stocks and stones and Images of creeping things, and fourfooted Beasts, in the place of God himself terminatively, and God might account of all their Image-worship as such, though used relatively, and hence the opposition may well be made between worshipping them as God, and an infinite God; and this worship (as was said) falls then under the first Commandment: but assuredly this Image-worship which the Apostle condemns, Rom. 1.21, 23. in debasing the infinite Majesty, and limiting it to this and that Image wherein they did worship it, is forbidden (being only relative worship) in the second Command: For I think the Apostle in Rom. 1. hath an eye principally at the most lascivious Idolaters in the world, viz. the Egyptians, among whom principally we read of those Images of creeping things and fourfooted beasts, in their Hieroglyphics: and yet we know that all that base worship did set out something or other of the Deity, which therein (and so relatively) they did worship. But I must not enter into the Discourse of these things here: sufficient is said to clear up this point, viz. That Gods instituted worship falls directly under the second, not fourth Command. Thesis' 62. It is true, that the exercise of public worship of many together, is to be at this time upon the Sabbath, but doth it follow that therefore this public worship itself falls directly under this command? For if public Assemblies be (as some think) a part of natural worship, so as that the light of nature directs all men dwelling together as creatures, to worship God together publicly as Creator, than this worship falls directly under the first (not fourth) Commandment, where natural worship is directly commanded; but if public Assemblies be considered as distinct Churches politically united and combined, publicly to worship God; then such Churches considered thus as political, not mystical Assemblies, do fall directly under the second Command, as parts of instituted worship: for as all devised forms of Churches, whether Diocesan, Provincial, national, Universal (being the inventions of man to further the worship of God) are condemned directly in the second Command: 〈◊〉 all such Churches as are framed into a spituall policy, after the fashion and pattern of the Word and primitive institution, are (with leave of Erastus and his disciples) enjoined in the same Commandment, and therefore not in the fourth. Gom. Inu. sent. & Orig. Sab. ca 5. Prim▪ par. 2. cap. 6. Sect. 15. Gomarus and Master Primrose therefore do much mistake the mark, and scope of the fourth Commandment, who affirm, That as in the three first Commandments, God ordained the inward and outward service, which he will have every particular man to yield to him in private and severally from the society of men every day, so in the fourth Commandment he enjoineth a service common and public, which all must yield together unto him, forbearing in the mean while all other business. But why should they think that public worship is more required here than private? Will they say that the Sabbath is not to be sanctified by private and inward worship, as well as by public and external worship? Is not private preparation, meditation, secret prayer and converse with God, required upon this day, as well as public praying and hearing the Word? If they say that these are required indeed, but 'tis in reference to the public, and for the public worship sake, it may be then as easily replied, that the public worship is also for the sake of the private, that each man secretly and privately might muse and feed upon the good of public helps; they are mutually helpful one to another, and therefore are appointed one for another, unless any will think that no more holiness is required upon this day than while public worship continues; which we hope shall appear to be a piece of professed profaneness: In the mean while, look as they have no reason to think that private worship is required in this command, because the exercise of private worship is at this time required; so they have as little reason to think that the public worship itself is herein enjoined, because the exercise of it is to be also at such a time. It is therefore the time, not the worship itself, either public or private, which is here directly commanded: although it be true that both of them are herein indirectly required, viz. in relation to the Time. Thesis' 63. If therefore the moral worship it self, whether public, external or private, be not directly required in this fourth Command, much less is the whole Ceremonial worship here enjoined, Prim. par. 2. cap. 6. S. 3, 4, 5. as Master Primrose maintains, for the whole Ceremonial worship, both in Sacrifices, Ceremonies, Type●, etc. was significant, and were, as I may so say, God's Images, or media cultus, means of worship, by carrying the mind and heart to God, by their special significations, and therefore were instituted worship, and therefore directly contained under the second, and therefore not under the fourth Command: And if there be but nine Commandments which are moral, and this one (by his reckoning) is to be ceremonial, and the head of all ceremonials, and that therefore unto it all ceremonial worship is to appertain, than the observation of a Sabbath is the greatest Ceremony, according as we see in all other Commandments, the lesser sins are condemned under the grosser, as anger under murder, and lust under adultery; and inferior duties under the chief and principal, as honouring the aged and Masters, etc. under honouring of parents; and so if all ceremonials are referred to this, than the Sabbath is the grossest and greatest ceremony one of them; and if so, then 'tis a greater sin to sanctify a Sabbath at any time, than to observe new moons and other festivals, which are less Ceremonial, and are therefore wholly cashiered, because ceremonial; and if so, why then doth Master Primrose tell us, That the Sabbath is moral for substance, principal scope and end, and that its unmeet for us to observe fewer days than the jews, in respect of weekly Sabbaths? Why is not the name and memorial of the Sabbath abandoned wholly and utterly accursed from off the face of the earth, as well as new moons and other Jewish festivals, which upon his principles are less ceremonial than the weekly Sabbath? It may be an audacious Familist, whose Conscience is grown Iron, and whose brow is brass, through a conceit of his immunity from, and Christian liberty in respect of any thing which hath the superscription of law or works upon it, may abandon all Sabbaths together with new Moons equally: but those I now aim at, I suppose dare not, nor I hope any pious mind else, who considers but this one thing, viz. that when the Lord commands us to Remember to keep the Sabbath holy, he must then (according to this interpretation) command us, that above all other Commandments we observe his Ceremonial worship (which they say is here enjoined) rather than his moral worship which they acknowledge to be enjoined in all the other nine Commands, at the gate of none of which Commands is written this word Remember; which undoubtedly implies a special attendance to be shown unto this, above any other; for as we shall show, keep this, keep all, break this, slight this, slight all; and therefore no wonder if no other Command hath this word Remember writ upon the portal of ●t, which word of fence, denotes special affection and action in the Hebrew Language: but I suppose it may strike the hardest brow and heart with terror and horror, to go about to affix and impute such a meaning to this Commandment, viz. That principally above all other duties we remember to observe those things which are ceremonial: for although the observation of Ceremonies be urged and required of God, as Master Primrose truly observes from Psalm 118.27. Ibid. Sect. 6. jeremiah 17.26: joel 19.13. Malachy 1.7, 8, 10, 13, 14. yet that God should require and urge the observation of these above any other worship, is evidently cross to reason, and expressly cross to Scripture, Isaiah 1.11, 12, 13, 14, 15. Isaiah 66.3. Psalm 50.13. jeremiah 6.20. Amos 3.21. Micah 6.7. To remember therefore to keep the Sabbath, is not to remember to observe Ceremonial duties. Thesis' 64. Nor should it seem strange, that Jewish holy days are not here enjoined, where a holy time, a Sabbath day is commanded: for those Jewish holy days were principally instituted (as Wallaeus well observes) for signification of Christ and his benefits (as may appear from ● Cor. 5.7. Wal. dissert. de 4. p●aec. Luke 4.19. Hebrews 10.5.) and therefore being significant were parts of instituted worship, belonging to the second, not fourth Command, but the Sabbath day (as shall be shown) is in its original institution and consecration of another nature and not significant: yet this may be granted, that ceremonial holy days may be referred to the fourth Command, as appendices of it; and if Calvin, Vrsin, Danaeus and others aims at no more, it may be granted, but it will not follow from hence that they therefore belong to the second command indirectly, and directly to the fourth (which Master Primrose contends for) but rather directly to the second, and reductively and indirectly, as appendices to the fourth: which appendices, as they may be put to, so they may be taken off again, the moral Commandment remaining entire: even as we know Calvin refers many ceremonial duties as appendices to such Commands, concerning the morality of which Master Primrose doubts not: and therefore for him to think that the Sabbath comprehends all jewish Festival days, upon this ground, viz. because the Sabbath is joined with, and put in among the reckoning of such Festivals, Leviticus 23. Isaiah 1.13, 14. hath no more force in it, than by retorting the argument, and upon the like ground prove it to be moral, because it is joined with Moral Commandments, as honouring of Parents, Leviticus 19.3. and prayer, Isaiah 1.19. and by his own confession with the other nine which are all of them moral also. Thesis' 65. Secondly, not only a solemn time, but more particularly a solemn day, a whole day of worship is here also required by virtue of this forth Command; and the Lord gives us good reason for it, that if he gives us many whole days for our own work, than (not some part of a day) but a day, a whole day, according to the reason and express words of the Commandment, should be marked out and set apart for his work and service: if that place, Isaiah 56.6, 7. will not demonstrate a seventh day's Sabbath under the new Testament, yet ●●sufficiently and fully clears the point in hand, viz. that a Sabbath day is to be observed by the sons of the stranger or Gentiles who are called strangers to the Commonwealth of Irsael, Ephesians 2.12. and indeed Wallaeus freely confesseth and proveth that a whole day is here required; Wal. diss. de 4 pr●●. cap. 5▪ and if a whole day, I hope none will think that the time out of public Assemblies is common and profane, if a whole day be holy: Prim. part 2. c. 6.8.15. and therefore Mr. Primrose tells us, that the Gentiles having no other law but the light of nature, have appointed set days, for the exercise of their religion, and that as the Jews had their set days, (which we know were whole days) so should Christians have theirs, for their public Assemblies under the Gospel; which I hope must be therefore whole days also: it is also considerable that if the three first Commandments requiring God's worship, do consequently require some time for that worship (as being a necessary adjunct to all actions whether moral or civil, and without which they cannot be performed) then the fourth Command, must require somewhat more particularly than a time of worship: and therefore they that place the morality of the fourth Command in requiring only a time of worship (because say they a time of worship is necessary,) may upon this ground wholly and perfectly abolish the fourth Command as superfluous and needless, because such a time of worship is required in all other Commandments necessarily. They may also imagine as great a morality in the command of building the Temple the place of worship, because a place of worship is necessary as well as a time: it is not therefore a time, but such a time as is preserved in a day even in a whole day for worship which is here commanded. Thesis' 66. The wise God could have appointed some part of every day to be kept holy rather than a whole day together; but his wisdom saw this proportion of time every day to be more unmeet, in respect of man's daily cumbers, which do so easily entangle man's thoughts and affections, so as within some small piece of a day he cannot ordinarily nor so easily recover and unloose himself to find the end of a Sabbath service, which is most sweet and full rest in the bosom of his God, as he may within the compass of a whole day set a part for that end: or suppose he could so do in a piece and part of a day, yet Gods Name should lose by it, if he should not have the ho●●ur of some solemn day, which we see do serve to advance the names of idol gods, and men on earth: it's meet and just that God's Name should be magnified by us commonly every day, by setting a part some time which we may well spare (as whet to the scythe) out of our callings for God, and this doth honour him, but a day, much more. Thesis' 67. They therefore who maintain that a seventh day is not moral, because it is but a circumstance of time, may as well abolish time to be moral, or any day to be moral, because a day (let it fall out when it will) is but a circumstance of time; which notwithstanding they account to be moral in this command; but we know that much morality lies in circumstances, and why a day sanctified may not be as much moral as a duty, I yet see not. Thesis' 68 The Familists and Antinomians of late, like the Manichees of old, do make All days equally holy under the Gospel, and none to be observed more than another by virtue of any command of God, unless it be from some command of man to which the outward man they think should not stick to conform, or unless it be pro re nata, or upon several occasions, which special occasions are only to give the Alarms for Church meetings and public Christian Assemblies: an audacious assertion, cross to the very light of nature among the blind heathens, who have universally allowed the deity whom they ignorantly worshipped, the honour of some solemn days; cross to the verdict of popish Schoolmen and Prelatists, whose stomaches never stood much toward any Sabbath at all; cross to the scope of the Law of the Sabbath, which if it hath any general morality (not denied scarce to any of Moses Judicials,) surely one would think it should lie in the observation of some day or days, though not in a seventh day, for which now we do not contend. Cross also to the appointment of the Gospel, foretold by Isaiah and Ezekiel, Isa. 56.4, 6. Ezek. 43.27. made mention of by our Saviour to continue long after the abolishing of all ceremonies by his death, Mat. 24.20. who therefore bids them pray, that their flight may not be in the winter, nor on the Sabbath day, which whether it be the Jewish or Christian Sabbath, I dispute not, only this is evident, that he hath an eye to some special set day, and which was lastly ordained by Christ, and observed in the Primitive Churches, commonly called the Lords day, as shall be shown in due place, and which notion under pretence of more spiritualness in making every day a Sabbath (which is utterly unlawful and impossible, unless it be lawful to neglect our own work all the week long and without which there can be no true Sabbath) doth really undermine the true Sabbath, in special set days; and look as to make every man a King & Judge in a Christian Commonwealth, would be the introduction of confusion, and consequently the destruction of a civil government, so to crown every day with equal honour unto Gods set days and Sabbaths which he hath anointed and exalted above the rest, this anarchy and confusion of days, doth utterly subvert the true Sabbath: to make every day a Sabbath, is a real debasing and dethroning of God's Sabbath. Thesis' 69. 'Tis true, that every day considered materially and physically, as a day, is equally holy, but this is no argument to prove that therefore every day is morally and theologically holy; for those things which of themselves are common, may by divine appointment superadded to them become holy, witness the dedicated things of the Temple, and so 'tis in days and times; under the old Testament we see some days were more holy by God's appointment than others, and yet all days than were materially and alike holy. Thesis' 70. 'Tis true, that under the new Testament, all places (in a safe sense) are equally holy; but it doth not follow from h●nce (as our Adversaries would infer) that therefore all times are so; and Wallaeus himself confesseth the argument to be invalid: for it was not easy nor meet, but very dissonant from divine and heavenly wisdom, to appoint in his word all particular places where his people should meet, their meetings being to be in so many thousand several Countries, and various situations, which places are indeed for their general nature commanded and necessary, but in respect of application to circumstances of this and that place and country, the variation of them is almost endless, and therefore very incongruous and useless to set them down in the word: but it was not so in respect of solemn time, or a solemn day of worship, for herein the Lord might easily appoint a particular day to be observed, according to the rising and setting of the Sun proportionably throughout all the world: and the Scripture hath expressly fore told in respect of place, that neither in jerusalem, judea, nor Samaria, but that in every place incense should be offered up to God, Malach. 1.11. but it hath not so spoken, but rather the contrary in respect of time. Thesis' 71. Nor is any time morally holy, in this sense, viz. instrumentally holy, or as an instrument and means by which God will convey any spiritual and supernatural grace (as Sacraments now do, and sacrifices of old did) but being sanctified of God, they are holy seasons, in which, God is pleased to meet and bless his people rather than at other times and days of our own devising, or of more common use▪ reserving only the Lords prerogative to himself, to work at other times also more or less as he sees meet. Indeed it's true, that by our improvement of our time, and of such times, the Lord sweetly conveys himself to us, yet still 'tis not by time itself, nor by the day itself, but as he conveys himself to us by holy things, and at holy places (as the Ark and Temple) so in holy times. Thesis' 72. There are indeed sundry Scriptures, which to one who is willing to have all days equal, may carry a great breadth, and make a specious show; and I ingeniously confess, that upon a rigidum examen of them, they are more weighty and heavy than the disputers in this controversy usually feel them, and therefore they do more lightly cast them by and pass them over: and it is to be wished, that those who do not think that all days are equal, yet will not acknowledge a seventh day to be moral, had not put weapons unawares into the hands of others, strengthening them thereby to destroy the morality of any day, and so to lay all days level, for I scarce know an argument or Scripture alleged, by any German writer, against the morality of a seventh day, but it strikes directly against the morality of any day, which yet they acknowledge to be moral. Thesis' 73. The fairest colour and strongest force from Gal 4.10. and Col. 2.16. lies in the gradation which some suppose to be intended in both those places. Ye observe (saith the Apostle) days, and months, and times, and years, Gal. 4.10. Wherein the Apostle seems to ascend from the lesser to the greater, from days (which are less than months, and therefore weekly Sabbath days) to months, from months or new moons, to times, which are higher than months, and by which is meant their annual feasts and fasts, ordered according to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or fittest seasons of the year; and from times he ascends yet higher to years, viz. their sabbatical years, because they were celebrated once in many years, sometime seven, sometime fifty years: by which gradation it seems evident, that the observation of days (which are less than months) and therefore of weekly Sabbaths, are hereby condemned. The like gradation is urged from Col. 2.16. where the Apostle seems to descend from condemning the greater to the condemnation of the lesser: Let no man judge you (saith the Apostle) in respect of a holy day, new moon, or Sabbath days: there holy days seem to be their annual or sabbatical days, their new moons are less than them, being every month; and therefore by Sabbath days (they infer) must needs be meant the weekly Sabbaths, less than new moons: Indeed some understand by days and times (in Gal. 4.) heathenish days, but he speaking of such days as are beggarly rudiments, under which not the Heathens, but the Children of the old Testament were in bondage, verse 3. he must therefore speak not of Heathenish but of jewish days. I know also that some understand that of Col. 2.16. to be meant of jewish and ceremonial Sabbaths, which were annual, but this, the Apostles gradation seems to overthrow. Thesis' 74. To both these places therefore, a threefold Answer may be given: First, Admit the gradation in them both, yet by days, Gal. 4.10. is not necessarily meant, all weekly Sabbath days, for there were other days Ceremonial which the jews observed, and which the jewish teachers urged, besides the Sabbath; to instance only in Circumcision which they zealously pressed, Gal. 5.3. which we know was limited unto the eighth day, and which they might urge as well as Circumcision itself. However, look as the Apostle when he condemns them for observing times, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies Fit seasons, he doth not therein condemn them for observing all fit seasons (for then we must not pray nor hear the word in fit seasons) but he condemns the jewish Ceremonial times and seasons; so when he condemns the observation of days, the Apostle doth not condemn the observation of all days (for then days of fasting and feasting must be condemned, as well as days of resting, under the new Testament) but the observation of Ceremonial days, which the jews observed, and false teachers urged: and indeed the Apostle speaks of such days as were beggarly elements and rudiments: now james speaking of the moral law, which comprehends Sabbath days, he doth not call it a beggarly law, but a royal law, jam. 2.8.12. nor doth he make subjection thereunto, to be the bondage of servants (as that was, Gal. 4.9.) but the liberty of children, and therefore called a royal law of liberty. Secondly, Suppose the weekly Sabbath be here comprehended under days, as also that by Sabbaths is meant weekly Sabbaths, Col. 2.16. yet hereby cannot be meant the Christian Sabbath, but the jewish Sabbath: for the Apostle condemns that Sabbath and those Sabbath days, which the jewish teachers pleaded for, among the Colossians; now they never pleaded for the observation of the Christian Sabbath, but were zealous and strong proctors for that particular seventh day from the creation, which the jews their forefathers for many years before observed, and for the observation of which, some among us of late begin to struggle at this day: Now, as was said, admit the gradation; we do not observe the jewish Sabbath, nor judge others in respect of that Sabbath, no more than for observing new moons, or holy days, we do utterly condemn the observation of that Sabbath: If it be said, why, do we not observe new moons and holy days as well, by substituting other days in their room, as we do a Christian Sabbath in the room of that jewish Sabbath? we shall give the reason of it in its proper place, which I mention not here, lest I should bis coctam apponere. These places therefore are strong arguments for not observing that seventh day which was jewish and ceremonial, but they give no sufficient ground for abandoning all Christian Sabbaths under the Gospel. Thirdly, there is a double observation of days (as Wallaeus and Davenant well observe) 1. Moral. 2. Ceremonial. Daven in Col. 3. Wall. in 4. praec. Now the Apostle in the places alleged, speaks against the Ceremonial and Pharisaical observation of days, but not moral: For days of fasting are to be observed under the Gospel (the Lord Christ our Bridegroom being now taken from us, when our Saviour expressly tells us that then his Disciples, even when they had the greatest measures of * john 16. ●. Christ's spiritual presence, should fast, Matth. 9.15, 16.) But we are to observe these days, with moral, not ceremonial observation, such as the jews had, in sackcloth, ashes, tearing hair, rending Garments, and many other Ceremonial trappings; we are to rend our hearts, and cry mightily unto God upon those days, which is the moral observance of them: So 'tis in respect of the Sabbath, no Sabbath day under the Gospel is to be observed with ceremonial or pharisaical observation, with Jewish preparations, Sacrifices, needless abstinence from lawful work, and such like formalities; but doth it hence follow that no days are to be observed under the Gospel with moral observation, in hearing the Word, receiving the Sacraments, singing of Psalms? etc. There was no morality in the new moons, by virtue of any special commandment, and therefore it is in vain to ask, why new moons may not be observed still, as well as Sabbaths? provided that it be observatione morali, for there is a morality in observing the Sabbath, and that by a special command, which is not in new moons and holy days; and therefore as we utterly abandon all that which was in the Sabbath ceremonial, so we do and should heartily retain and observe that which is moral herein, with moral observance hereof. Thesis' 75. There were among the Jews, days ceremonially holy, as well as meats ceremonially unclean, now in that other place which they urge against the observation of any days under the Gospel, Rom. 14.5. therein days ceremonial are compared with meats ceremonial, and not moral days with ceremonial meats. It is therefore readily acknowledged that it was an error and weakness in some, to think themselves bound to certain ceremonial days, as well as it was to abstain from certain ceremonial meats; but will i● hence follow that it is a part of Christian liberty & strength to abandon all days as ceremonial? and that it is a part of Christian weakness to observe any day under the Gospel? this verily hath not the face of any reason for it from this Scripture, wherein the Apostle (doubtless) speaks of ceremonial, not moral days, as (shall appear) our Christian Sabbaths be: And look as it is duty (not weakness) sometime to abstain from some meats, as in the case of extraordinary humiliation, as we see in Daniel, Dan 9 and 11. so it may be duty (not weakness) still to observe some days; I say not the seventh day, for that is not now the question, but some days are or may be necessary to be observed now. Thesis' 76. If any man shall put any holiness in a day which God doth not, and so think one day more holy than another, this is most abominable superstition, and this is indeed to observe days; and of this the Apostle seems to speak, when he saith, Ye observe days: But when the Lord shall put holiness upon one day more than upon another, we do not then put any holiness in the day, but God doth it, nor do we place any holiness in one day more than in another, but God placeth it first, and this is no observation of days, which the Apostle condemns in those that were weak; but of the will of God which he every where commands. Thesis' 77. There is (as some call it) Sabbathum internum & externum, i. an internal and external Sabbath; the first (if I may lawfully call it a Sabbath) is to be kept every day in a special rest from sin; the second is to be observed at certain times and on special days; now if that other place, Isa. 66.23. (which is much urged for the equality of all days) be meant of a continual Sabbath, so that those words, from Sabbath to Sabbath, if they signify a constant continual worship of God indefinently, than the Prophet speaks of an internal Sabbath, which shall in special be observed under the Gospel; but this doth not abolish the observation of an external Sabbath also, no more then in the times before the Gospel, when the people of God were bound to observe a continual Sabbath and rest from sin, and yet were not exempted hereby from external Sabbaths, only because more grace is poured out upon the people of God under the new Testament then under the old, and under some times and seasons of the new Testament, and some people, more than at and upon others: hence this prophecy points at the times of the Gospel, wherein God's people shall worship God more spiritually and continually then in former times: But if by this phrase From Sabbath to Sabbath, be meant, succession, i one Sabbath after another successively, wherein God's people shall enjoy blessed fellowship with God from Sabbath to Sabbath, successively in the worship of him, one Sabbath after another; then this place is such a weapon in their own hands against themselves, as that it wounds to the heart that accursed conceit, that all days should be abandoned by those under the new Testament: But suppose that by Sabbath, is not meant the weekly Sabbath (for then, say some, what will you understand by new moons which are conjoined with them?) yet these two things are evident, 1. That Sabbaths and new moons were set times of worshipping God under the old Testament. 2. That it is usual with the Prophets to veil, (and not always to type out) the worship, and so the times of worship which were to be under the new Testament, under the Ordinances of God observed in the old, as may appear Isa. 19.19. Mal. 1.11. as also by Ezekiel's Temple, and such like: hence than it follows, that although this place should not evict a seventh day's Sabbath, yet it demonstrates at least thus much, that some let times and days shadowed out under the name of new moons and Sabbaths, are to be observed under the new Testament, and this is sufficient to prove the point in hand, That all days are not equal under the Gospel. Thesis' 78. The Kingdom of heaven indeed doth not consist in meat and drink, as the Apostle saith, Rom. 14.17. i. in the use of external indifferent things, as those meats and drinks, and some kind of days were, or if in some sense it did, yet not chiefly in them, as if almost all religion did chiefly consist in them: but doth it from hence follow, that it consists not in things commanded, nor in any set days of worship which are commanded? If because the kingdom of God consists in internal peace and righteousness, and joy of the holy Ghost, that therefore all external observances of times and duties of worship are not necessary to be attended by Gospel-worshippers (as some secretly imagine) than farewell all external Preaching, Sacraments, Profession and Confession of the Name of Christ, as well as Sabbaths: and let such artists of licentiousness bring in all profaneness into the world again, by a law from heaven, not condemning the acts of the outward man, though never so abominable, in abstinence from which (by this rule) the kingdom of heaven doth not consist. Is it no honour to the King of glory (as it is to earthly Princes) to be served sometimes upon special Festivals, in special state, with special and glorious attendance by his people, as well as after a common and usual manner every day? We have seen some who have at first held community of days only, to fall at last (through the righteous judgement of God blinding their hearts) to maintain community of wives; and that because the kingdom of God hath (as they have thought) consisted no more in outward relations (as that is between Husbands and Wives) than in the observation of external circumstances and days. Thesis' 79. But this is not the ordinary principle by which many are led to maintain an equality of days under the Gospel: but this chiefly, viz. that the moral law is not to be a Christians rule of life; for we acknowledge it to be no Covenant of life to a Believer, that either by the keeping of it he should be justified, or that for the breach of it he should be condemned; but they say that when a Believer hath life by the Covenant of grace, the law is now not so much as a rule of life to such a one; and then 'tis no wonder if they who blow out the light of the whole moral law from being a light to their feet and a lamp to their paths, if they hereby utterly extinguish this part of it, viz. the Commandment of the Sabbath: This dashing against the whole law, is the very mystery of this iniquity, why some do cashier this law of the Sabbath: and they do but hide themselves behind a thread, when they oppose it by their weapons, who therefore abandon it, because it alone is ceremonial, above any other law. Thesis' 80. The Sabbath (saith one) is perpetual and moral, but not the Sabbath day, H. Den. the Sabbath (which some make continual and inward only) is perpetually to be observed, but not the Sabbath day; a Sabbath is by Divine ordination, but a Sabbath day is to be observed only as a humane constitution. But they should do well to consider, whether that which they call an inward continual Sabbath be inconsistent with a special day; for I am sure that they under the old Testament were bound equally with us to observe a continual Sabbath in resting from all sin, and resting in God by jesus Christ, Heb. 4.1, 2. yet this did not exempt them from observing a special day: A special day is a most powerful means to Sabbatise every day; Why then may not a Sabbath and a Sabbath day consist together? An every day Sabbath is equally opposite to a time occasionally set, as to a set day, which the Commandment enjoins; and therefore if it exempts a Christian from observing a set day, it sets him free also from all observation of any such set time; for if because a Christian Sabbath ought to be continual, and that therefore there ought to be no set days, than there should not be any occasionally set times for the worship of God, because these neither can be continual; and if there ought to be no such set times, we may then bid good night to all the public worship and glory of God in the world, like the men with one eye to him who put his other eye quite out: And if any here reply that there is not the like reason, because holy time and days are not necessary, but holy duties are necessary, and therefore require some occasional set time for them: I answer, That let the difference be granted, yet that which I now dispute on is, this ground and supposition only, viz. That if all set days are to be abandoned, because a Christians Sabbath ought to be continual and inward, than all occasional set times also are to be abandoned upon the same ground, because these cannot be continual and inward no more than the other: as for them who think no holy day necessary, but holy duties lawful every day, we have already and shall hereafter clear up more fully in its proper place: Mean while it is yet doubtful to me, whether those who follow Master Saltmarsh and some others, Saltmarsh Sparkles of glory. p 265. will acknowledge the lawfulness of any occasional set times for public worship, of hearing the word and prayer, etc. For he makes the bosom of the Father to be the Christian Sabbath, typified in the seventh day of the first Creation, and he makes the six days of work to be a type, not only of the Lord jesus in his active and fulfilling administrations while he was in the flesh, but also to be a figure of the Christian in bondage, or (to use his own words) of a Christian under active and working administrations, as those of the law and Gospel are, as all forms of worship, Duties, Graces, Prayer, Ordinances, etc. From whence it will follow (from his principles, for I know not his practice) that all forms of worship, Duties, Graces, Prayer, Ordinances, are then to cease, as types and shadows and figures, when once the substance is come, to wit, when they come in this life to the highest attainment, which is the bosom of the Father, which bosom is the true Sabbath of a Christian man. Now I confess that the bosom of God in Christ is our rest, and our All in All in heaven, and our sweet consolation and rest on earth, and that we are not to rest in any means, Ordinances, Graces, Duties, but to look beyond them all, and to be carried by them above them all, to him that is better than all, to God in Christ Jesus; but to make this bosom of God a kind of cankerworm to fret and eat out the heart and being not only of all Sabbaths and Ordinances of worship, but also of all duties and graces of God's Spirit, nay of Christ Jesus himself, as he is manifested in the flesh, and is an external Mediator, whom * I. S. some lately have also cast into same box with the rest, Being sent only (as they think) to reveal, but not to procure the Father's love of delight, and therefore is little else than a mere form, and so to cease when the Father comes in the room of all forms, and so is All in All, This I dare say is such a high affront to the precious blood of Christ, and his glorious Name and blessed Spirit of grace, that he who hath his Furnace in Zion, and his fire in jerusalem, will not bear it long, without making their judgements and plagues (at least spiritual) exemplary and wonderful, and leading them forth in such crooked ways, with the workers of iniquity, when peace shall be upon Israel: Are these abstracted notions of a Deity (into the vision and contemplation of whose amazing glory (without seeing him as he is in Christ) a Christian (they say) must be plunged, lost, and swallowed up, and up to which he must ascend, even to the unaproachable light) the true and only Sabbath? Are these (I say) the new and glorious light breaking out in these days, which this age must wait for? which are nothing else (upon narrow search) than Monkish imaginations, the goodly cobwebs of the brain-imagery of those idolatrous and superstitious hypocrites the Anchorites, Monks and Friars; who to make the blind and simple world admire and gaze upon them, gave it out hereby, like Simon Magus, that they were some great ones, even the very power and familiars of God. Surely in these times of distraction, war and blood, if ever the Lord called for sackcloth, humiliation, repentance, faith, graces, holiness, precious esteem of God's Ordinances, and of that Gospel which hath been the power of God to the salvation of thousands, now is the time; and must God's people reject these things as their A. B. C? and must the new light of these times be the dreams and visions and slavering of doting and deluded old Monks? Shall the simplicity of Gospel-ministery be rejected, as a common thing, and shall Harphius his Theologia Mystica, Augustinus Elutherius, jacob Behmen, Cusanus, Raimundus Sebund, Theologia Germanica, and such like Monk-admirers, be set up as the new lights and beacons on the mountain of these elevated times? Surely (if so) God hath his time and ways of putting a better relish to his precious Gospel, and the cross of Christ, which was wont in Paul's time to be plainly preached, without such popish paintings, and wherein God's people knew how to reconcile their swe●● rest in the bosom of the Father, and their Sabbath day. Thesis' 81. If sin (which is the transgression of the law) be the greatest evil, than holiness (which is our conformity to the law) is our greatest good. If sin be man's greatest misery, than holiness is man's greatest happiness: It is therefore no bondage for a Christian to be bound to the observance of the law as his rule, because it only binds him fast to his greatest happiness, and thereby directs and keeps him- safe from falling into the greatest misery and woe: and if the great design of Christ in coming into the world, was not so much as to save man from affliction and sorrow (which are lesser evils) but chiefly from sin (which is the greatest evil) then the chief end of his coming was not (as some imagine) to lift his people up into the love and abstracted speculation of the Father above the law of God: but into his own bosom only, where only we have fellowship with the Father above the Law of sin. Thesis' 82. The blood of Christ was never shed to destroy all sense of sin and sight of sin in Believers, and consequently all attendance to any rule of the law, by which means chiefly sin comes to be seen: but he died rather to make them sensible of sin, for if he died to save men from sin (as is evident, 1 john 3.5. Tit. 3.14.) then he died to make his people sensible of sin, because hereby his people's hearts are chiefly weaned and severed from it and saved out of it (as by hardness and unsensibleness of heart under it, they chiefly cleave to it and it to them) and therefore we know that godly sorrow works repentance, never to be repent of, 2 Cor. 7.10. And that Pharaoh's hardness of heart strengthened him in his sin against God unto the last gasp, and hence it is also that the deepest and greatest spirit of mourning for sin is poured out upon Believers, after God hath poured out upon them the spirit of grace, as is evident, Zach. 12.10, 11. because the blood of Christ which was shed for the kill of their sin, now makes them sensible of their sin, because it's now sprinkled and applied to them, which it was not before, for they now see all their sins aggravated, being now not only sins against the law of God, but against the blood and love of the Son of God: It is therefore a most accursed doctrine of some Libertines, who imagining that (through the bloodshed and righteousness of Christ in their free justification) God sees no sin in his justified people, that therefore themselves are to see no sin, because now they are justified and washed with Christ's blood; and therefore lest they should be found out to be gross liars, they mince the matte●, they confess that they may see sin by the eye of sense and reason, but (faith being cross to reason) they are therefore to see the quite contrary, and so to see no sin in themselves by the eye of faith; from whence it follows that Christ shed his blood to destroy all sight and sense of sin to the eye of faith, though not to the eye of reason, and thus as by the eye of faith they should see no sin, so (it will follow) that by the same blood they are bound to see no law, no not so much as their rule, which as a rule is index sui & obliqui, and in revealing man's duty declares his sin. I know that in beholding our free justification by the blood of Christ, we are to exclude all law from our consciences as a covenant of life, not to see or fear any condemnation for sin, or any sin able to take away life: But will it hence follow that a justified person must see no sin by the eye of faith, nor any law as his rule to walk by, to discover sin? and is this the end and fruit of Christ's death too? Surely this doctrine, if it be not blasphemous, yet it may be known to be very false and pernicious, by the old rule of judging false Doctrines, viz. if either they tend to extenuate sin in man, or to vilify the precious grace of Jesus Christ, as this Doctrine doth. Thesis' 83. If sin be the transgression of the law (which is a truth written by the Apostle with the beams of the Sun, 1 john 3.4.) then of necessity a Believer is bound to attend the law as his rule, that so he may not sin or transgress that rule, Psalm 119.11. for whoever makes conscience of sin, cannot but make conscience of observing the rule, that so he may not sin, and consequently whoever make no conscience of observing the rule do openly profess thereby that they make no conscience of committing any sin, which is palpable and downright Atheism and profaneness; nay it is such profaneness (by some men's principles) which Christ hath purchased for them by his blood; for they make the death of Christ the foundation of this liberty and freedom from the law as their rule; the very thought of which abominable doctrine may smite a heart, who hath the least tenderness, with horror and trembling. Porquius therefore a great Libertine, and the Beelzebub of those flies in calvin's time, shuts his sore eyes against this definition of sin, Calv. adv. Liber●. delivered by the Apostle, and makes this only to be a sin, viz. to see, know, or feel sin, and that the great sin of man is to think that he doth sin, and that this is to put off the old man, viz. Non cernendo amplius peccatum, i. by not seeing sin. So that when the Apostle tells us that sin is the trangression of the law, Porquius tells us, That sin is the seeing and taking notice of any such transgression; surely if they that confess sin shall find mercy, than they that will not so much as see sin shall find none at all: A Believer indeed is to die unto the Law, and to see no sin in himself in point of imputation (for so he sees the truth, there being no condemnation to them in Christ Jesus) but thus to die unto the law, so as to see no sin inherent in himself, against the law, this is impious (for so to see no sin and die unto the law is an untruth, if the Apostle may be believed, 1 john 1.10.) Those that so annihilate a Christian, and make him nothing and God all, so that a Christian must neither scire, velle or sentire any thing of himself, but he must be melted into God, and die to these (for then they say he is out of the flesh) and live in God, and God must be himself, and such like language, which in truth is nothing else but the swelling leaven of the devout and proud Monks, laid up of late in that little peck of meal of Theologia Germanica, out of which some risen up of late have made their cakes, for the ordinary food of their deluded hearers: I say these men had need take heed how they stand upon this precipice, and that they deliver their judgements warlly, for although a Christian is to be nothing by seeing and loathing himself for sin, that so Christ may be all in all to him; yet so to be made nothing, as to see, know, think, feel, will, desire nothing in respect of ones self, doth inevitably lead to see no sin in ones self, by seeing which the soul is most of all humbled, and so God and Jesus Christ is most of all exalted; and yet such a kind of annihilation the old Monks have pleaded for, and preached also (as I could show abundantly from out of their own writings) insomuch that sometime they counsel men not to pray, because they must be so far annihilated, as nihil velle; and sometimes they would feign themselves unable to bear the burden of the species of their own pitchers in their cells from one end of them unto another, because forsooth they were so far annihilated (as neither to vel●● so neither to scire or know any thing beside God, whom they pretended to be all unto them, Vid. Taule●i vit●. and themselves nothing, when God knows these things were but brain bubbles, and themselves in these things as errand hypocrites as the earth bore, and the most subtle underminers of the grace of Christ, and the salvation of men's souls. Thesis' 84. A true Believer, though he cannot keep the law perfectly, as his rule, yet he loves it dear, he blames his own heart when he cannot keep it, but doth not find fall with the law as too hard, but cries out with Paul, The law is holy and good, but I am carnal: he loves this Copy though he can but scribble after it; when therefore the question is made, viz. Whether a Believer be bound to the law as his rule? the meaning is not whether he hath power to keep it exactly as his rule, or by what means he is to seek power to keep it; but the question is, whether it be in its self a Believers rule; for to be a rule is one thing, but to be able to keep it, and by what means we should keep it, whether by our own strength or no, or by power from on high, is another. Thesis' 85. If the Apowle had thought that all Believers were free from this directive power of the law, he would never have persuaded them to love, upon this ground, viz. because all the law is fulfilled in love, Gal. 5.13, 14. for they might then have c●st off this argument as weak and feeble, and have truly said (if this principle were true) what have we to with the law? Thesis' 86. There is the inward law written on the heart, called the law of the Spirit of life, Rom. 8.2. and there is the outward law revealed and written in the holy Scriptures, now the external and outward law is properly the rule of a Christian life, and not the internal and inward law (as some conceive) for to outward law is perfect, in that it perfectly declares what is God's will and what not; but the inward Law (as received and writ in our hearts) is imperfect in this life, and therefore unfit to be our rule: The inward law is our actual (yet imperfect) conformity to the rule of the law without, it is not therefore the rule itself: The law within is the thing to be ruled, Psal. 17.4. Psalm 119.4.5. The outward law therefore is the rule: The law of the Spirit of life (which is the internal law) is called a law, not in respect of perfect direction (which is essential to the rule) but in respect of mighty and effectual operation, there being a power in it as of a strong law effectually and sweetly compelling to the obedience of the law: For as the law of sin within us (which the Apostle calls, the law of our members, and is contrary to the law of our minds, or the law of the spirit of life within us) is not the rule of knowing and judging what sin is, but the law of God without, Romans 7.7. and yet it is called a law, because it hath a compulsive power to act and incline to sin, like a mighty and forcible law; so the law of the spirit of life, the law of our minds, is called a law, not that it is the rule of a Christians life, but that it compels the heart, and forceth it like a living law to the obedience of that directing rule (when it ●s made known to it) from without: It is therefore a great mistake to think, that because God translates the law without into a Believers heart, that therefore this heart-law is his only or principal rule of life, or to imagine that the spirit without the external law is the rule of life; the spirit is the principle indeed of our obedience, whereby we conform unto the rule, but it is not therefore the rule itself. It is true indeed, 1. That the spirit inclines the heart to the obedience of the rule; 2. It illuminates the mind also many times to see it by secret shinings of preventing light, as well as brings things to their remembrance, which they knew before: 3. It acts them also sometime, so as that when they know not what to pray, it prompts them, Romans 8.26. When they know not what to speak before their Adversaries, in that day it's given to them, Matth. 10.19. When they know not whither to go nor how to go, it's then a voice behind them, and leads them to fountains of living waters, Isaiah 30.21. Revel. 7.17. But all these and such like quickening acts of the spirit, do not argue it to be our rule, according to which we ought to walk, but only by which or by means of which we come to walk, and are inclined, directed and enabled to walk according to the rule, which is the law of God without. For the Pilot of the ship is not the compass of the ship, because that by the Pilot the ship is guided: nor doth it argue that the Spirit is our rule, because he guides us according to the rule: It is not essential to the rule to give power to conform unto it, but to be that according to which we are to be conformed: And therefore it's a crazy argument to prove the law of the Spirit to be the rule of our life, because it chiefly gives us power to conform unto the rule; for if the law be that according to which are to be guided, although it should give us no power, yet this is sufficient to make it to be our rule. Thesis' 87. The Spirit of God which writ the Scriptures, and in them this rule of the holy law, is in the Scriptures and in that law, as well as in a Believers heart; and therefore to forsake and reject the Scriptures or this written rule, is to forsake and reject the holy Spirit speaking in it as their rule; nay, 'tis to forsake that Spirit which is the supreme Judge, according to which all private spirits, nay all the actings, dictates, movings, speakings of Gods own Spirit in us, are to be tried, examined and judged. To the law and the testimony, was the voice of the Prophets in their days, Isa. 8.20. The Lord Christ himself refers the Jews to the searching of Scriptures concerning himself, john 5.39. The men of Bereah are commended for examining the holy and infallible dictates of God's Spirit, in Paul's Ministry, according to what was written in the Scriptures of old. It is therefore but a cracking noise of windy words for any to say that they open no gap to licentiousness by renouncing the written and external law as their rule, considering that they cleave to a more inward and better rule, viz. The law of the spirit within: for (as hath been shown) they do indeed renounce the holy Spirit speaking in the rule, viz. the law without, which though it be no rule of the Spirit (as some object) yet it is that rule according to which the Spirit guides us to walk, and by which we are to judge whether the guidance be the spirits guidance or no. Thesis' 88 Some say, That the difference between the old Testament dispensation and the new, Saltmarsh Sparkles p. 243. or pure Gospel and new Covenant, is this, to wit, That the one, or that of Moses was a Ministry from without, and that of Christ from within: and hence they say that the mere Commandments or letter of Scripture, is not a law to a Christian why he should walk in holy duties, but the law written on our hearts, the law of life. But if this be the difference between the old and new Testament dispensation, the ministry of the old, and the ministry of the new, then let all Believers burn their Bibles, and cast all the sacred writings of the new Testament & old, unto spiders and cobwebs in old holes and corners, and never be read, spoken or meditated on, for these external things are none of Christ's Ministry, on which now Believers are to attend: and then I marvel why the Apostles preached, or why they writ the Gospel for after times (for that was the chief end of their writing, as it was of the Prophets in their times, Isaiah 30.8.) that men might believe, and believing have eternal life, and know hereby that they have eternal life, john 20.31. 1 john 5.13. For either their writing and preaching the Gospel was not an external and outward Ministry (which is cross to common sense) or it was not Christ's Ministry, which is blasphemous to imagine: and it is a vain shift for any to say, That although it was Christ's Ministry, yet it was his Ministry as under the Law and in the flesh, and not in mere glory and spirit: for its evident that the Apostles preachings and writings, were the effect of Christ's ascension and glory, Ephes. 4.8.11. when he was most in the spirit, and had received the spirit that he might pour it out by this outward Ministry, Acts 2.33. and it is a mere New-nothing and dream of Master Saltmarsh and and others, to distinguish between Christ in the flesh and Christ in the Spirit, as if the one Christ had a divers Ministry from the other: For when the Comforter is come (which is Christ in the Spirit) what will he do? he will lead (it's said) unto all truth, john 16.13 But what truth will he guide us into? Verily no other (for substance) but what Christ in the flesh had spoken, and therefore it's said, that he shall bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you, John 14.26. and therefore (if I may use their phrase) Christ in the Spirit leads us to what Christ in the flesh said; inward Christ leads the faithful to the outward Ministry of Christ; Christ in the Spirit to Christ speaking in the letter, the Spirit of truth to the Word of truth, the Spirit within to the Word without, by which we shall be judged at the last day, john 12.48. and therefore certainly are to be regulated by it now. Thesis' 89. It is true, that the faithful receive an unction or an anointing of the Spirit, which teacheth them all things; but is this teaching immediate or mediate? If immediate, why doth john tell them that he writ to them that hereby they might know they had eternal life, 1 john 5.13. but if it be mediate, viz. by the word externally preached or writ, than the external word still is to be our rule, which the anointing of the Spirit helps us to know: It is true, the Apostle saith, 1 john 2.27. that they being taught of the Spirit, did not need that any man should teach them; what then? was their teaching therefore immediate? No verily, for the Apostle explains his meaning in the words following, viz. otherwise, and after another way and manner, then as the Spirit taught them, for so the words run, You need not that any man should teach you, but as the anointing teacheth you all things, and is truth. For if Ministers are to preach and write in demonstration of the Spirit, than those that hear them and are taught by them, need no man to teach them otherwise, than as the same Spirit in the same demonstration teacheth them all things: It might be truly said that the men of Bereah did need no man to teach them otherwise than as the Spirit in comparing and searching the Scriptures did teach them the things which Paul spoke. And Calvin well observes upon this place, that the scope of the Apostle in these words, is to confirm his Doctrine which he writ to them, it being no unknown thing, but a thing known to them by the anointing of the Spirit, which either they had received by former Ministry of the word, or which now they might receive by this writing: As therefore the Spirit leads us to the Word, so the word leads us to the Spirit, but never to a spirit without and beyond the word, I mean so far forth as that the outward administration of Christ in the flesh or in the word or letter must cease, and be laid aside, when the inward administration of Christ in the Spirit comes. Thesis' 90. It's as weak an argument to imagine, That we are not to be led and guided by any outward commands, in our obedience unto God (because God is to work all our works for us, and because we are not to live, but Christ is to live in us) as to think that we are not to look to any promises without us to direct and support our faith, because Christ is also to fulfil and accomplish all the promises for us: For if the question be, by what are we to live? The Apostles answer is full, Gal. 2.19, 20. that as he did not live but by the faith of the Son of God, so are we: But if the question be, According to what rule are we to live, and wherein are we to live? The answer is given by David Psalm 119.4, 5. Thou hast commanded us to keep thy precepts diligently, Oh that my heart were directed to keep thy Statutes. Deal bountifully with thy servant that I may live and keep thy word, ver. 17. Let thy mercy come to me that I may live, for thy law is my delight, vers. 27. So that if the question be, What is the rule of faith by which we live? The answer is, the Gospel, Phil. 3.16. But if the question be, What is the rule of life itself? The answer is, the moral law; and of this later is the controversy. Thesis' 91. The commanding will of God, called Voluntas mandati, is to be our rule, and not the working will of God, Voluntas decreti, or the will of God's decree: for we cannot sin by fulfilling the one, but we may sin in fulfilling the other. God's secret and working will was fulfilled when Joseph's brethren sold him into Egypt, and when Nabuchadnezzar afflicted God's people seventy years, as also when the Scribes and Pharisees caused Christ to be crucified: yet in all these things they sinned and provoked God's wrath against them; How? Was it in crossing and thwarting Gods working will or the will of God's Decree? No verily, for it's expressly said, that Christ was crucified according to the determinate counsel and will of God, Acts 4.28. It was therefore by crossing Gods commanding will. It is therefore a hellish device of Libertines to exempt men from all Law, and from the sense of all sin: Because (say they) all things good and evil come from God's will, and all things that are done are wrought by him, and all that he doth is good, and therefore all sinful actions are good, because God works them; for what have we to do to take the measure of our ways by his working will? God's will is his own rule to work with, not our rule to work by: Our actions may be most sinful when his working in and about these may be most just and holy, for though God purposeth to leave the creature to fall and sin, yet he so purposed it, as that it should be only through their own fault that so they sin: And although a Christian is to submit humbly to the just dispensations of God when he leaves it to any evil, yet Gods working will in all such dispensations must not be our rule, for than we must will not only our own sin, but our own affliction and perdition for ever, for all these are contained under his working will: It is therefore a most subtle and pernicious practice in many, who when they are overtaken with any sin, or hampered with sin, they wash all off from themselves, and lay all the blame (if any be) upon God himself, saying, The Lord left me and he doth not help me, and he must do all, and hath undertaken to do all, if therefore I sin, upon him be the blame, or if there be any upon them it is but little: But why should any judge of the evil of their sin by Gods working will, for that is not your rule, but the commanding will of God, according to which Samuel convinced Saul (when he was left of God to spare Agag) that his disobedience against the commandment was rebellion, and as the sin of Witchcraft in the eyes of God, 1 Samuel 15.23. Thesis' 92. It is a great part of Christ's love to command us to do any thing for him, as well as to promise to do any thing for us: When the King of glory hath given us our lives by promise, it's then the next part of his special grace and favour to command us to stand before him and attend upon his greatness continually. They that see how justly they deserve to be forsaken of God and given over to their own hearts lusts, and to be for ever sinning and blaspheming God in hell, where God will never command them to think of him, speak of him, do for him, pray to him more, cannot but account it a high and special favour of Jesus Christ to command them any thing, or bid them do any thing for him; a poor humbled prodigal will account it great love to be made a hired servant; john Baptist will count it a high favour if he may but untie Christ's shoe-latchet, and be commanded by him to do the meanest work for him: David wondered at God's grace toward him, that God should command him, and in some measure enable him to offer willingly, Lord, (saith he) what are we? I do therefore marvel how any can pretend that they are acted by the love of Christ, and not by the law of commands, considering that there is so much love in this for Christ to command, and how they can profess their relish of preaching Gods free grace and love, and yet cannot away with sweet and gracious exhortations pressing to holiness and holy duties, in the revealing and urging of which there is so much freegrace and heart-love of Christ Jesus; surely if the love of Christ is to lead us, than the commands of Christ (wherein he discovers one chief part of his love) are to guide us and be a rule of life unto us, The man who in his cool and deliberate thoughts imagines that a Christian under the rule of the law, is a Christian under bondage, may be justly feared that himself is still under the bondage of sin and Satan, and never yet knew what the true love of Christ jesus is to this day. Thesis' 93. The fundamental error of Antinomians ariseth from this, in imagining the great difference between the law and Gospel to be this, viz. That the law requires doing, but the Gospel no doing, and that all believers being under the Gospel are therefore under no law of doing: but we must know that as the Gospel exacts no doing that thereby we may be just, so it requires doing also when by Christ jesus we are made just: For if the Gospel command us to be holy as God is holy, 1 Pet. 1.15. and perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect, Matth. 5.48. than the Gospel doth not only require doing, but also as much perfection of doing as the Law doth; the Law and the Gospel require the same perfection of holiness, only here is the difference (which many have not observed) the Gospel doth not urge this perfection nor require it of us as the Law doth; for the law calling and urging of it that so hereby we may be made just, it therefore accepts of nothing but perfection, but the Gospel requiring it because we are perfectly just already in Christ, hence though it commands as much as the Law, yet it accepts of less, even the least measure of sincerity and perfection mixed with the greatest measure of imperfection. Thesis' 94. The Law (say some of the Antinomians) is to be kept as an eternal rule of righteousness, but their meaning then is, That believers are thus to keep it in Christ who hath kept it for them, and if they meant no more but that Christ hath kept it for righteousness to their justification, they speak truly: but their meaning herein is not only in respect of their justification, but also in respect of their sanctification, for they make Christ's righteousness to be materially and formally their sanctification: hence they say, A believer hath repent in Christ, and mortified sin in Christ, and that mortification and vivification is nothing but a believing that Christ hath mortified sin for them, and been quickened for them, and that That sanctification which is inherent in Christ, and not that which is inherent in us, is an evidence of our justification. But this principle which confounds a Christians justification, and sanctification, as it casts the seed of denying all inherent graces in a Believer, so it lays the basis of refusing to do any duty, or conform to any law in our own persons: for if this principle be true (which no Orthodox writer doubts of) viz. That we are to seek for no righteousness in ourselves to our justification, because we are perfectly just and made righteous for that end in Christ, than it will undeniably follow that we are not to seek for any holiness and sanctification in ourselves, because we are perfectly sanctified also in Christ jesus, who hath repent, and believed, and mortified sin perfectly for us in his own person; Look therefore as the perfection of Christ's righteousness to our justification, should make a Christian abhor any personal righteousness of his own to his justification, so if we be perfectly sanctified in Christ, than perfection of Christ's holiness to our sanctification should make a believer not only renounce the Law, but to abhor all personal holiness through the Spirit to our sanctification, and then a Believer must abhor to seek any love or fear of God in his heart, which is not painted but professed profaneness, and the inlet not per accidens but per se, to all manner of looseness and wickedness in the world. Thesis' 95. We deny not but that Christ is our sanctification as well as our righteousness, 1 Cor. 1.30. but how? not materially and formally, but virtually and meritoriously, and (with meet explications) exemplarily: our righteousness to our justification is inherent in him, but our sanctification is inherent in ourselves, yet it is derived from him, and therefore it is virtually and meritoriously only in him: and hence it is that we are never commanded to justify ourselves, unless it be instrumentally and sacramentally, when as we are commanded by faith to wash ourselves, Isa. 1.16. and as Paul at his baptism was commanded to wash away his sins, Acts 22.16. but we are frequently and abundantly exhorted to repent, believe, mortify our affectiions upon earth, to walk in newness of life, to be holy in all manner of conversation, etc. because these things are wrought by Christ in us to our sanctification, and not wrought in Christ for us as our righteousness to our justification. Thesis' 96. They that are in Christ are said to be complete in Christ, Col. 2.10. and that they receive all grace from his fullness, job. 1.16. so that is seems that there is no grace in themselves, but it is first in him, and consequently that their sanctification is perfected in him: but we must know that though the perfection and fullness of all grace is first in Christ, yet that believers have not all in him after one and the same manner, nor for the same end: for our righteousness to our justification is so in him as never to be inherent in us, in this or in the world to come, but our righteousness to our sanctification is so far in him, as that it is to be derived and conveyed unto us, and hence it is formally in ourselves, but meritoriously and virtually only in him: even as our resurrection and glorification at last day, are not so in Christ as never to be derived to us (for then the resurrection were passed already) but they are so in him as that they are to be conveyed to us, and therefore they are meritoriously and virtually in him, and we are meritoriously and virtually risen in him: a Christian therefore may be complete in Christ, and yet not be perfectly formally sanctified in Christ, our sanctification being completed in him after another manner, and for other ends than our justification. Thesis' 97. The chief end of Christ's first coming was to lay down his life a ransom for many in way of satisfaction and merit, Phil. 2.8. Matth. 20.28. now by this satisfaction he did two things, 1. He brought in such a righteousness before God as might merit mercy and make us just: now this is wholly in Christ out of ourselves; but because there was a righteousness of new obedience and thankfulness to be wrought in us for this love, therefore, 2. By the same satisfaction he hath merited (not that this new obedience might justify us or make us accepted) but that it might be accepted though imperfect and polluted with sin, 1 Peter 2.5, 6. as also that it might be crowned and recompensed: Now hence it follows that the Lord Jesus hath not performed our duty of thankfulness and new obedience for us (sub hoc formali) or as of thankfulness; for though Christ was thankful and holy for us, yet it was not under this notion of thankfulness for his own love to us, for this is personally required of us, and it sounds very harsh to say that Christ walked in all holy thankfulness to himself, for his love to us; but he was thus thankful for us, sub ratione meriti, or in way of merit, it being part of that satisfaction which justice exacted. All that which might satisfy justice, and merit any mercy, Christ did for us in himself▪ but he did not believe and repent, and perform duties of thankfulness for us, because these and such like are not to satisfy justice, but follow as fruits of that satisfaction, and therefore are wrought within us, and so are personally required of us, and therefore when a Christian finds a want of these things in himself, he is not to comfort himself with fond thoughts of the imputation of these in Christ only unto him, but he is to look up to Christ Jesus for derivation of these out of Christ into himself; otherwise by making Christ his sanctification, only in way of imputation, he doth really destroy Christ from being his sanctification; for if Christ be our righteousness only by imputation, then if Christ be our sanctification, it must be by derivation from him, which they must needs destroy who make him their sole sanctification by mere imputation. Thesis' 98. Spiritual errors like strong wine make men's judgements reel and stagger, who are drunken therewith: And hence the Antinomians speak so variously in this point that we know not where to find them, or what they will stand to: for sometime they will say that a Believer is free from the law in all its authority and offices, but this being too gross, at other times they speak more warily, and affirm that a Christian is to observe the law as his rule personally, thus far forth, viz. To do what is commanded, but not in virtue of a command: Town. Ans. to Tayl. the spirit, say they, will bind and conform their hearts to the law, but they are not bound by any authority of the law to the directions thereof; the spirit, they say, is free, and they are under the government of the spirit, which is not to be controlled and ruled by any law. Now if by virtue of a command they meant, by virtue of our own natural strength and abilities looking to the command, so it's true that that a Believer is not so bound to act by virtue of the law, for than he was bound to conform to the law pharisaically, for what is our strength but weakness and sin? but if by virtue of a command they mean thus much, viz. that a Believer is not bound by the commanding power of any law to conform thereunto, only the spirit will conform his heart thereunto, so that he shall do the things (perhaps) which the law requires, but not because the law requires or commands them to be done: If this, I say, be their meaning (as surely it seems to be) than the mystery of this iniquity is so plain, that he that runs may read it: For hence it undeniably follows, that in a case a Believer fall into any sin, of whoredom, murder, theft, witchcraft, etc. These wicked acts though they be sins in themselves (because they are against the law) yet they are not sins unto him, because he is now set free from the law, and not bound to the obedience of it by virtue of any command: for where there is no law, there is no transgression; and if there be no law which binds him, there is no transgression then at least unto him: They are sins indeed in themselves, but not unto him, they are sins (as some say) to sense, but not to faith, sins in the conversation, but not to conscience, sins before men (because they may cross their laws) but not sins before God, who exempts them from all law: And it is in vain here to reply, that they may be sins To him, because they may be against the law of the Spirit which is his rule; for we have already shown, that although the spirit be the principle by which we obey, yet it is not our rule according to which we are to obey: Indeed it is an high aggravation of sin when it is against the spirit, but to cross the spirit doth not firstly make these things sinful, nor could they be sins unless they cross such a spirit as speaks in and by some holy law, the very essence of sin lying in the transgression (not of any law) but of the law, i. the known moral or Evangelicall law. Again, if these and such like be sins, because they are only against the law of the spirit, than it is no sin to bow down before an Image, to commit filthiness, theft, etc. supposing that the Spirit shall suspend his act and not restrain; nay than it will follow that sins of ignorance (of which the spirit hath not convinced a Christian) are no sins, nor to be repent of, which is expressly cross to the holy practice of David, Who knows his errors? Psal. 19.12. Lord cleanse me from my secret sins. If sin therefore be the transgression of the law (whether the Spirit work upon a Christian or no) then certainly, if he be under no commanding power of the law, he cannot be guilty or be said to commit any sin, and then the conclusion is this, That every Believer neither hath sin, or should say he doth sin, no not when he commits murder, adultery, and the foulest enormities in the world: Which Doctrine, though so directly and expressly against the light of Scripture, the confessions of all the Saints, yea of the light of nature and common sense, and is the very filth of the froth of the sum of the bottomless pit; yet some there are who are not ashamed to own it, the very 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and depth of a perfect Familist consisting in this, viz. when a man can sin and never feel it, ☜ or have any remorse or sorrow for it, and when one hath attained to this measure, He is then Deified, and then they profess the Godhead doth petere fundum animae (as they call it) when believing that he hath no sin, he can therefore neither see it or feel it. From which depth of darkness the God and Father of mercies deliver his poor people in these corrupting times, and I with that those who defend this kind of a Believers immunity from the law, did not lay this corner stone of hell and perdition to their followers; I am sure they lead them hereby to the mouth of this pit, who upon this principle, refuse either to mourn for sin, or pray for pardon of sin, or to imagine that God afflicts for sin, being now freed from the mandatory power of any law of God, they being now not bound to act by virtue of any command. Thesis' 99 If God did work upon Believers as upon blocks or brute creatures, they might then have some colour ●o cast off all attendance to the directive power of the law, and so leave all to the Spirits Omnipotent and immediate acts, as the Stars who being irrational and uncapable of acting by any rule, they are therefore acted and run their course by the mighty word of God's power, and therefore attend no rule; but Believers are rational Creatures, and therefore capable of acting by rule, and they are also sanctified and delivered from the power of their corrupt nature, and therefore have some inherent power so to act, for if they be not now dead in trespasses and sins, they have then some new life, and therefore some inherent power to act, according to the rule of life; the Image of God renewed in them, is (in part) like to the same Image which they had in the first creation, which gave man some liberty and power to act according to the will of him that created him: And if the first Adam by his fall conveys to us, not only condemnation, but also an inherent power of corruption, than the second Adam, the Lord jesus, much more conveys unto all his posterity, not only justification, but also some inherent power of grace and holiness, which is begun here and perfected in glory, for as sin hath abounded, so grace aboundeth much more: and yet suppose they had no inherent power thus to act, yet they have an adherent power, the Lord Christ jesus, by faith in whose Name they may and shall receive power to act: And therefore, although God works in us, both to will & to do of his good pleasure, yet this hinders not, but that we are to work out our salvation with fear and trembling, by attending the rule, by virtue of which we are bound to work, both by putting forth that power which we have already received from God, as also in fetching in that power we have not yet received, but is reserved daily in Christ's hands for us, to enable us thereunto. Thesis' 100 If they that say a Believer is not to act by virtue of a command, do mean this only, viz. That he is not to act by virtue of the bare letter and external words and syllables of it, they then speak truly, for such kind of acting is rather witchery than Christianity, to place power and virtue in bare characters and letters, which though mighty and powerful by the spirit, yet are empty and powerlesse without it: But if their meaning be that we are not to act by virtue of any command in any sense, than the assertion is both pernicious and perilous, for the Lord jesus being the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or first subject of all grace and gracious efficacy and power; hence it's true, we are not to make the command of God the first principle of our obedience, for this is proper unto Christ by the Spirit, john 5.40. john 16.13, 14. 2. Tim. 2.1. Ephes. 6.10. Rom. 8.2. But because the Lord jesus conveys by his Spirit virtue and efficacy through his word, not only words of promise, but also words of command (as is evident, jer. 3.22. Acts 2.38, 41. Mat. 9.9. Psalm 19.8.) Hence it is that a Believer is bound to act from a command, though not as from a first, yet as from a second principle, though not as from the first efficient, yet as from an instrument in the hand of Christ, who in commanding of the duty works by it, and enables to it; and therefore we see Abraham comes out of his own Country, because called and commanded of God to follow him he knew not whither, Heb 11.8. And Peter cast his net into the 〈◊〉, merely because he was commanded, Luke 5.5. And David desired, Oh that my heart were directed to keep thy precepts, because God had commanded, Psa. 119.45. There is a virtue, a vis or efficacy in the final cause, as well as in the efficient to produce the effect, and every wise agent is bound to act by virtue or for the sake of his utmost and last end. Now the naked commandment of the Lord, may be and should be the chief motive and last end of our obedience to his highness; for whatever is done merely because of God's command, is done for his glory (which glory should be our utmost end in all our obedience:) And hence it is that that obedience is most absolute and sincere (whether it be in doing or suffering the will of God) which is done merely in respect of commandment and will of God; when the soul can truly say, Lord, I should never submit to such a yoke but merely for thy sake, and because it's thy will and thou dost command it: What is it to love Christ? but to seek to please him and to give contentment to him; What is it to seek to give contentment to him, but to give contentment to his heart or his will? and what is his will, but the will of his commandment? If therefore it be unlawful to act by virtue of a command, than it is unlawful, 1. To love Christ, 2. To be sincere before Christ. 3. Or to act for the glory of Christ. And hence it is that let a man do the most glorious things in the world out of his own supposed good end (as the blind Papists do in their will-works and superstitions) which God never commanded, nay let him do all things which the law of God requires, give his goods to the poor, and his body to be burnt, and yet not do these things because commanded, let him then quit himself from hypocrisy and himself from being a deep hypocrite in all these if he can: Surely those who strain at this gnat, viz. not to do a duty because commanded, will make no bones of swallowing down this camel, viz. not to forsake sin, because 'tis forbidden, and whosoever shall forsake sin from any other ground, shows manifestly hereby that he hath little conscience of God's command; I know the love of Christ should make a Christian forsake every sin, but the last resolution and reason thereof is because his love forbids us to continue in sin; for to act by virtue of a command, is not to act only as a creature to God considered as a Creator, but by virtue of the will and commandment of God in a Redeemer, with whom a Believer hath now to do. Thesis' 101. To act therefore by virtue of a command, and by virtue of Christ's Spirit, are subordinate one to another, not opposite one against another's, as these men carry it. This caution being ever remembered, that such acting be not to make ourselves just, but because we are already just in Christ; not that hereby we might get life, but because we have life given us already; not to pacify God's justice, but to please his mercy, being pacified toward us by Christ already; for as junius well observes a great difference between placare Deum, jun. Thes. de bon. oper.. and placere Deo, i. between pacifying God and pleasing God, for Christ's blood only can pacify justice when it is provoked, but when revenging justice is pacified, mercy may be pleased with the sincere and humble obedience of sons, Col. 1.10. Heb. 13.21. When a Believer is once justified he cannot be made more just by all his obedience, nor less just by all his sins in point of justification, which is perfected at once: but he who is perfectly justified is but imperfectly sanctified, and in this respect may more or less please God or displease him, be more just or less just and holy before him: It is I confess a secret but a common sin in many, to seek to pacify God (when they perceive or fear his anger) by some obedience of their own, and so to seek for that in themselves chiefly which they should seek for in Christ, and for that in the Law which is only to be found in the Gospel; but corrupt practices in others should not breed (as usually they do) corrupt opinions in us, and to cast off the law from being a rule of pleasing God, because it is no rule to us of pacifying of God: For if we speak of revenging (not fatherly) anger, Christ's blood can only pacify that, and when that is pacified and God is satisfied, our obedience now pleaseth him and his mercy accepts it as very pleasing, the rule of which is the precious law of God. Thesis' 102. They that say the law is our rule as it is given by Christ, but not as it was given by Moses, do speak niceties, at least ambiguities; for if the Lord Christ give the law to a Believer as his rule, why should any then raise a dust, and affirm that the law is not our rule? For the Law may be considered either materially, or in itself, as it contains the matter of the Covenant of works: and thus considered, a Believer is not to be regulated by it, for he is wholly free from it as a covenant of life; or it may be considered finally, or rather relatively, as it stood in relation and reference unto the people of the God of Abraham, who were already under Abraham's Covenant, which was a Covenant of freegrace, viz. To be his God and the God of his seed, Gen. 17.7. And in this latter respect the law, as it was given by Moses, was given by Christ in Moses, and therefore the rule of love toward man (commanded by Moses) is called the law of Christ, Gal. 6.2. For the law as it was applied to this people, doth not run thus, viz. Do all this, and then I will be your God and redeemer (for this is a Covenant of works) but thus, viz. I am the Lord thy God (viz. by Abraham's Covenant) who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, and house of bondage, Therefore thou shalt do all this. If therefore the law delivered by Moses, was delivered by Christ in Moses, then there is no reason to set Christ and Moses together by the ears, in this respect I now speak of, and to affirm that the law, not as delivered by Moses, but as given by Christ, is our law and rule. Thesis' 103. The law therefore which contains in itself absolutely considered (which Luther calls Moses Mosissimus) the Covenant of works, yet relatively considered as it was delivered by Moses to a people under a Covenant of grace (which the same Author calls Moses Aaronicus) so it is not to be considered only as a Covenant of works, and therefore for any to affirm that the law is no Covenant of works, as it is delivered on Mount Zion, and by Jesus Christ, and that it is a Covenant of works only, as it is delivered on Mount Sinai and by Moses, is a bold assertion both unsafe and unsound: For if as it was delivered on Mount Sinai, it was delivered to a people under a Covenant of grace, than it was not delivered to them only as a Covenant of works, for then a people under a Covenant of grace, may again come under a Covenant of works, to disannul that Covenant of grace, but the Apostle expressly affirms the quite contrary, and shows that the Covenant made with Ahraham and his seed (which was to be a God to them, Gen. 17.7.) and which was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law which was four hundred and thirty years after▪ cannot disannul, Gal. 3.17. Now that the people were under a Covenant of grace when the law was delivered on Mount Sinai, let the Preface of the ten Commandments determine, wherein Gods first words are words of grace, I am the Lord thy God, etc. and therefore thou shalt have no other Gods but me, etc. I know Paraeus, Zanchy and others affirm, that the law is abrogated as it was in the hands of Moses, but not as it is in the hand of Christ, but their meaning is at sometime in respect of the manner of administration of the Law under Moses, and when they speak of the moral law simply considered, yet it never entered into their hearts, that the law as delivered on mount Sinai was delivered only as a Covenant of works, as some would maintain. Thesis' 104. But there is a greater mystery intended by some in this phrase, as given by Christ, for their meaning is this, to wit, As Christ by his Spirit writes it in our hearts, Saltmarsh Overflowing of Christ's blood. not any way a rule as written by Moses: A Believers heart (saith Master Saltmarsh) is the very law of Commands, and the two Tables of Moses, and in this respect it becomes not (saith he) the glory of Christ to be beholding to any of the light upon Moses face. It seems then that the law written is not to be a Christians rule, but only so far as it is written in the heart, a most accursed assertion; for how and why did Christ Jesus himself resist temptation to sin? was it not by cleaving to the written word? Matth. 44.10. and was not this done for our imitation? why did David and Christ jesus delight to do Gods will? was it not this, because it was written of them that so they should do? Psa. 40.7, 8. Did not the law in their hearts make them thus cleave to the written law without? Why did Paul persuade Children to honour their parents? was it not, because this was the first Commandment with promise? Ephes. 6.2. had it not been more Evangelically spoken to persuade them rather to look to the law of Moses written on their hearts within, to direct them hereunto, rather than to be beholding for any light upon Moses face to direct them herein? how comes it to pass that Paul preacheth no other thing but what was in the old Testament of Moses and the Prophets, who were only the Interpreters of Moses? Acts 22.20. How is it that Christ himself borrows light from Moses, Psalms and all the Prophets, to clear up his resurrection and suffering, Luke 24.27, 32▪ if no light must be borrowed from the face of Moses? if indeed we were perfect in this life as we shall be in heaven, there would then be no need of the writings of the Apostles, Prophets, or Moses, of Law or Gospel, but we being but imperfectly enlightened, it's no less than extreme ingratitude and unthankfulness to prefer our own imperfect and impure light, before that perfect, spotless and heavenly Law and counsels of God without us: which when the most perfect believer doth see he may cry out with Paul, The Law is holy but I am carnal: what is this but painted Popery, to make the spirit within to be the supreme judge and superior to the Spirit of God in the written word without? only they shrine it up in the Pope's private Conclave and Kitchen, or somewhat worse, but these in a company of poor, imperfect, deluded, and perhaps corrupted men: it's true the Covenant of grace (strictly taken) in the Gospel, needs not to borrow any light from the Covenant of works in the Law, but yet for all this the grace of God appearing in the Gospel, will have us to walk worthy of God unto all well pleasing according to the Law, Tit. 2.12, 13. and to mourn bitterly that we are so unlike the will and image of God revealed in the Law, Rom. 7.23, 24. Thesis' 105. The Apostle Paul as he sometimes condemns works and sometime commends them, so he sometimes rejects the Law, and sometimes commends the Law, sometime he would have Believers die to the law, and sometime he exhorts them to live in all holy obedience to it; the Apostle therefore must speak of the Law under various considerations, or else must speak Daggers and flat contradictions, and therefore of necessity we are to consider the Law not always under one respect, but variously; for consider the law as a Covenant of works, or as the way unto or matter of our justification, and so works are condemned and the Law is rejected and abrogated, and so we are to die to the Law, but consider the Law as a rule of life to a person justified already, and so the Law is to be received, and works are to be commended, and we are to live thereunto. Thesis' 106. When the Gospel nakedly urgeth Believers to good works and obedience to the Law, it is then considered only as a rule of life, but when we meet with such Scriptures as set the Law and Christ, the Law and grace, the Law and promise, the Law and faith, etc. at opposition one against another, than the Law in such places is ever considered as a Covenant of life, from which we are wholly freed, and unto which we should be wholly dead, that we● may be married unto Christ, Rom. 7.4. hence therefore their arguings are feeble and weak, who would prove a Christian to be wholly free from the directive power of the Law, because a Christian is said not to be under the law but under grace, Rom. 6.14. and because the Law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ, john 1.17. and because the inheritance is not by the law, but by promise and by faith, Gal. 3.12.18. for these and such like Scriptures speak of the law as standing in opposition to Christ, and therefore speak of it as of a Covenant of life, by which men seek to be justified: from which (we grant) a Believer is wholly freed, and unto which he is not bound, nay he is bound to renounce it, and cast out this bondwoman, but all this doth not prove that he is free from it as his rule of life. Thesis' 107. The Law and man's sinful heart are quite opposite one to another, Rom. 7.9, 10, 11, 13. but when (through the grace of Christ) the heart is changed, so as there is a new nature or new man in a believer, than there is a sweet agreement between this new nature and the Law, for (saith Paul) I delight in the Law of God in my inner man: it is therefore a most false assertion to say, that the old man of a Believer is to be kept under the law, but the new man or new nature is above all Law, for though the new nature be above it as a legal covenant, yet it never comes to be willingly under it as a rule until now: an imperfect new nature is infinitely glad of the guidance of a holy and most perfect law. Psalm 119.140. Thesis' 108. It is very evident that the children and sons of God under the new Testament are not so under the Law as the children and sons of God were under the old Testament, for the Apostle expressly tells, Gal. 3.23. that before the faith came, we (i. the children of the Old Testament) were shut up and kept under the Law, and were under it as under a Schoolmaster, verse 24. and these of whom the Apostle thus speaks are not only wicked and carnal Jews, but the dear children of God and heirs of eternal life in those times, as is evident from Gal. 4 1, 2, 3. but the Apostle speaking of the sons of God in Gospel-times, since faith is come and revealed, speaks as expressly that we are now no longer under the law as under a Schoolmaster, Gal. 3 25. and that now when the fullness of time is come, God sent his son, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the Adoption of Sons, Gal. 4.3, 4, 5. which though it be true of all men by nature, viz. that they are under the law, yet an impartial clear eye will easily discern that the Apostles dispute is not of our being under the Law by nature merely, but of being under the Law by peculiar dispensation, which was the state not only of the Jewish Church, but of the children of God, heirs of the promise (and consequently such as were believers) in this Church, in those old Testament times; we are not therefore now in these new Testament times under the law as they were, the great difficulty therefore remains to know how we are not under the law as they were. Those who say we are not under the Ceremonial law as they were, do speak truly, but they do not resolve the difficulty in this place; for certainly the Apostle speaks, not only of the Ceremonial law, but also of that law which was given because of transgressions, Gal. 3.19. and which shut up (not only the Jews) but all men under sin, verse 22. which being the power of the moral law chiefly, the Apostle must therefore intend the moral law, under which the old Testament Believers were shut up, and we now are not: The doubt therefore still remains, viz. How are we not now under the moral law? Will any say that we are not now under the malediction and curse and condemnation of it, but the Jews under the old Testament were thus under it, even under the curse of it? This cannot be the meaning, for although the carnal Jews were thus under it, yet the faithful (whom the Apostle calls the heir and Lord of all, Gal. 4.1.) were not thus under it, for Believers than were as much blessed then with faithful Abraham, as Believers now, cap. 3.9. How then are we not now under it as they were? Is it in this, that they were under it as a rule of life to walk by, and so are not we? Thus indeed some strain the place, but this cannot be it; for the Apostle in this very Epistle presseth them to Love one another, upon this ground, because All the Law is fulfilled in love, cap. 5.13, 14. and this walking in love according to the law, is walking in the Spirit, verse 16. and they that thus walk in the spirit, according to the law, are not (saith the Apostle) under the law, which cannot, without flat contradiction, be meant of not being under the rule or directive power of it; and it would be a miserable weak motive to press them to love, because all the law is fulfilled in love, if the law was not to be regarded as any rule of life or of love; for they might upon such a ground easily and justly object, and say, What have we to do with the law? If we therefore as well as they, are thus under the law as a rule of life, how are we not under it as they were? Is it because they were under it as a preparative means for Christ, and not we? They were under the humbling and terrifying preparing work of it, but not we: There are some indeed who think that this use of the law under the Gospel is but a backdoor, or an Indian path, or a crookt-way about, to lead to Jesus Christ; but certainly these men know not what they say, for the text expressly tells us, that the Scripture hath concluded (not only the Jews) but All under sin, that so the promise by faith, might be given to them that believe, Gal. 3.22. So that the law is subservient to faith and to the promise, that so hereby not only the Jews, but all that God saves might hereby feel their need, and fly by faith to the promise made in jesus Christ; and verily if Christ be the end of the law to every one that believes, Rom. 10.4. than the law is the means (not of itself, so much as by the rich grace of God) not only to the jews, but to all others to the end of the world, to lead them to this end Christ jesus: If therefore the faithful under the new Testament, are thus under the preparing work of the law, as well as those under the old, How were they therefore so under the law, as we are not, and we not under it as they were? I confess the place is more full of difficulties than is usually observed by writers upon it, only for the clearing up of this doubt, omitting many things, I answer briefly, That the children of the old Testament were under the law and the pedagogy of it, two ways, after which the children of the new Testament are not under it now, but are redeemed from it. 1. As the moral law was accompanied with a number of burdensome Ceremonies, thus we are not under it, thus they were under it; For we know this law was put into the Ark, and there they were to look upon it in that type, if any man then committed any sin against it, whether through infirmity, ignorance or presumption, they were to have recourse to the Sacrifices and High Priests yearly, and to their blood and oblations: They were to pray (which was a moral duty) but it must be with incense and in such a place: They were to be thankful (another moral duty) but it must be testified by the offering up of many Sacrifices upon the Altar, etc. They were to confess their sins (a moral duty also) but it must be over the head of the Scape-goat, etc. Thus they were under the law, but we are not: And as 'tis usual for the Apostle thus to speak of the law in other places of the Scripture, so surely he speaks of it here, for hence it is that in the beginning of this dispute, cap. 3.19. he speaks of the moral law which was given because of transgressions; and yet in the close of it, Gal. 4.3. he seems to speak only of the ceremonial law, which he calls the elements of the world, under which the children were then in bondage, as under Tutors and Governors; which implies thus much, that the children of the old Testament were indeed under the moral law, but yet withal as thus accompanied with ceremonial rudiments and elements fit to teach children in their minority: But now in this elder age of the Church, although we are under the moral law in other respects, yet we are not under it as thus accompanied. 2. In respect of the manner and measure of dispensation of the moral law, which although it had the revelation of the Gospel conjoined with it (for Moses writ of Christ, john 5.46. and Abraham had the Gospel preached to him, Gal. 3.8. and the unbelieving Jews had the Gospel preached, Heb. 4.2.) yet the law was revealed and pressed more clearly and strongly, with more rigour and terror, and the Gospel was revealed more obscurely and darkly in respect of the manner of external dispensation of them in those times; there were three things in that manner of dispensation, from which (at lest ex parte Dei revelantis) we are now freed. 1. There was then much law urged, externally, clearly, and little Gospel so clearly revealed, indeed Gospel and Christ jesus was the end of the moral law and the substance of all the shadows of the ceremonial law, but the external face of these things was scarce any thing else but Doing and Law, by reason of which there is a veil spread over the hearts of the Iewes in reading the old Testament unto this day, as is evident 2 Cor. 3.13. so that the inside or end of the moral law being Gospel, and the outside and means appointed to this end being law, hence the Gospel was then less clearly, and the law was more clearly revealed in those times; to say that jesus Christ and his benefits, or eternal life were then dispensed under a Covenant of works, or sub conditione perfectae obedientiae (as some eminent Worthies affirm) is such an error which wise and able men might easily fall into by seeing how much law was revealed and urged in those times; for though the law simply considered in itself contained the matter of the Covenant of works, yet considered relatively in respect of the people of God, and as they were under Abraham's Covenant of grace, so it was given to them as a rule of perfect righteousness, by both which they might the better see their own weakness and unrighteousness ●nd fly to Christ; and therefore the Apostle, Gal. 3.17. calls the promise which was made to Abraham, the Covenant, and gives not this title to the Law, but calls it the law which (he saith) could not disannul the Covenant, confirmed in Christ: and although it be propounded to them in way of Covenant, Exod. 19.5. yet this is to be understood (as some think) of Evangelicall keeping Covenant, not of legal; or if of legal, yet than it is not propounded simply as a Covenant of works, to convey Christ to them, but ex hypothesi or upon supposition, that if they did think to be God's people and have him to be their God, by doing (as junius observes the carnal Jews did think and hope so to have him, and as that young man thought, Mat. 19.17.) as Chamier observes) that then they must keep all these Commandments perfectly, and to be accursed if they did not continue therein: I dare not therefore say, that Christ and eternal life were dispensed in a Covenant of works, under which Covenant the jews were shut in old Testament times: but rather this, that the law was more strongly pressed as a yoke upon their shoulders, and that this law which contains the Covenant of works was more plentifully revealed and insisted on, and the Gospel more sparingly and darkly: but now in Gospel times the daystar is risen (though in few men's hearts) yet in the doctrine and clear revelation of it therein, and therefore the Gospel is called the mystery hidden from ages and generations past, but now is made manifest to his Saints, Col. 1. ●6. which cannot be meant as if they had no knowledge of it, for Abraham saw Christ's day, and there is a cloud of witnesses in the Old Testament who died in faith, Heb. 11. but not such clear knowledge of it as now: they were therefore then under the Law as servants (because so much working and doing was urged and chiefly revealed) but indeed were sons and heirs: but we now are not so under it, but are as sons having the Lord jesus and our father's face in him clearly revealed, and faith in him chiefly and most abundantly urged in his blessed Gospel: and thus the Apostle tells us in this Text, Gal. 4.1. with 4.5. that the heirs of the Promise under the Old Testament were as servants, but by Christ● coming we are now as sons; look also as they are said to be under the Law, not as if they had no Gospel revealed or no use of the Gospel, but only because the Gospel was more darkly revealed, and the Law more plentifully urged, so we are said not to be under the Law, not as if there was no Law or no use of the Law belonging to us, but because now the Gospel is more clearly revealed, and the Law not externally so proposed and imposed as it was upon them. 2. The Law was a Schoolmaster, Tutor and Governor to lead them unto Christ to come, for so the Apostle tells us in this place, Gal. 3.23. that before faith came, we were shut up under the Law, unto the faith, which should afterward be revealed: Thus the Ceremonial law pointed to Christ to come, the moral law discovered man's sin and misery, and need of Christ who was to come; nay, all the promises were made with reference to jesus Christ to come: but now the fullness of time being come, that the Son of God is come, now we are no longer under the Law after this manner, neither ceremonial or moral law are of any use to us to lead us unto Christ to come, for Christ is already come: and hence it is that Believers now are said to be rather under the Gospel than under the Law, and Believers under the Old Testament to be rather under the Law than under the Gospel: because although these had the efficacy of Christ's Redemption, yet they were not yet actually redeemed, because the Redeemer was not yet come into the flesh, and in this respect they were under the rigour of the law, and hence it was fit that they should be handled as servants, and the law and curse thereof principally revealed: but now Christ being come, and having actually redeemed us, having been (not only virtually but actually) made righteousness and a curse for us: now therefore is the time that we should see Christ jesus with open face, and hear principally concerning faith and the father's love in him: now Christ is revealed chiefly (being come) the end of the Law, than the Law was revealed chiefly (Christ being not yet come) as the means to this end: look therefore as the promise before Christ, of which the Apostle speaks, Gal. 3.17, 18, 19, 21, 22. was fulfilled in Christ being come (as Divines speak) rather than abolished, and yet abolished as it was a promise of grace to come: so the moral law is rather fulfilled than abolished in Christ being come, and yet as it did lead unto Christ to come, it is abolished to us now under the Gospel. 3. The law being principally revealed, and yet so revealed as to lead unto Christ Jesus to come, hence ariseth a third thing of the law from which we are now delivered, viz. they were therefore under more terror and fear of the Law than we are (on God's part revealing the Gospel more clearly) in these times; and therefore saith the Apostle, Gal. 4.4, 5, 6. that when the fullness of time came, God sent his Son to redeem us from under the Law, that we might receive the adoption of Sons, and thereby the Spirit of Sons crying, Abba, Father: could not they who were Sons under the Law call God Father? yes verily, doubtless thou art our Father say they, Isaiah 63.17. but they having less light they had more fear and less of the Spirit of Adoption, I say still (ex parte Dei revelantis) than we have in these days: We are not therefore so under the law, i. the fear and terror of the law as they were: the sum of all this is, that although we are not so under the law, 1. so accompanied, and 2. so dispensed, as they were under the Old Testament, yet this hinders not but that we are under the directive power of the Law as well as they. Thesis' 109. The Apostle speaks of a law written and engraven on stones, and therefore of the moral Law, which is now abolished by Christ in the Gospel, 2 Cor. 3.6, 7, 11, 13. Is the moral law therefore abolished as a rule of life now? no verily, but the meaning of this place is (as the former, Gal. 3.25.) for the Apostle speaking of the moral Law by a Synecdoche, comprehends the ceremonial law also, both which the false Teachers, in those times urged as necessary to salvation and justification at least together with Christ, against whom the Apostle here disputes: the moral Law therefore is abolished first as thus accompanied with a yoke of Ceremonies, secondly, as it was formerly dispensed, the glorious and greater light of the Gospel now obscuring that lesser light under the Law, and therefore the Apostle, vers. 10. doth not say that there was no glory shining in the Law, but it had no comparative glory in this respect, by reason of the glory which excelleth: and lastly the Apostle may speak of the moral Law considered as a Covenant of life which the false teachers urged, in which respect he calls it the Ministry of death and the letter which killeth, and the ministers of it (who were called Nazarei and Minei as Bullinger thinks) the Ministers of the letter, Bulling. in loc. which although it was virtually abolished to the believing Jews before Gospel times (the virtue of Christ's death extending to all times) yet it was not then abolished actually until Christ came in the flesh, and actually undertook to fulfil this Covenant for us to the utmost farthing of doing and suffering which is exacted, and now it is abolished both virtually and actually, that now we may with open face behold the glory of the Lord as the end of the law for righteousness to every one that doth believe. Thesis' 110. The Gospel under which Believers now are, requires no doing (say some) for doing is proper to the Law; the Law promiseth life, and requires conditions: but the Gospel (say they) promiseth to work the condition, but requires none, and therefore a believer is now wholly free from all Law: but the Gospel and Law are taken two ways. 1. Largely, the Law for the whole doctrine contained in the Old Testament, and the Gospel for the whole doctrine of Christ and the Apostles in the New Testament. 2. Strictly, Chamie● d● oper. Necess. cap. 3. the Law pro lege operum (as Chamier distinguisheth) and the Gospel pro lege fidei, i. for the Law of faith: the Law of works strictly taken is that Law which reveals the favour of God and eternal life upon condition of doing or of perfect obedience: the Law of faith strictly taken is that doctrine which reveals remission of sins, reconciliation with God by Christ's righteousness only apprehended by faith: now the Gospel in this latter sense excludes all works, and requires no doing in point of justification and remission of sins before God, but only believing: but take the Gospel largely for the whole doctrine of God's love and free grace, and so the Gospel requires doing; for as 'tis an act o● God's free grace to justify a man without calling for any works thereunto; so 'tis an act of the same free grace, to require works of a person justified, and that such poor sinners should stand before the Son of God on his throne, to minister unto him, and serve him in righteousness and holiness all the days of our lives, Tit. 2.14. and for any to think that the Gospel requires no conditions, is a sudden dream against hundreds of Scriptures, which contain conditional yet evangelical promises, and against the judgement of the most judicious of our Divines, who in dispute against Popish writers cannot but acknowledge them, only thus, viz. conditions and promises annexed to obedience are one thing (saith learned Perable) and conditions annexed to perfect obedience are another: the first are in the Gospel, the other not: works are necessary to salvation (saith Chamier) necessitate praesentiae not efficientiae; and hence he makes two sorts of conditions, some antecedentes which work or merit salvation, and these are abandoned in the Gospel, other● (he saith) are consequentes which follow the state of a man justified, and these are required of one already justified in the Gospel: there are indeed no conditions required of us in the Gospel, but those only which the Lord himself shall or hath wrought in us, and which by requiring of us he doth work will it therefore follow that no condition is required, in us: but because every condition is promised? no verily, for requiring the condition is the means to work it (as might be plentifully demonstrated) and means and end should not be separated. Faith itself is no antecedent condition to our justification or salvation, take antecedent in the usual sense of some Divines for affecting or meriting condition, which junius calls essentialis conditio: but take antecedent for a means or instrument of justification, and receiving Christ's righteousness, in this sense it is the only antecedent condition which the Gospel requires therein, because it do●h only antecedere or go before our justification (at least in order of nature) not to merit it but to receive it, not to make it but to make it our own, not as the matter of our righteousness or any part of it, but as the only means of apprehending Christ's righteousness, which is the only cause why God the Father justifieth, and therefore as Christ's righteousness must go before, as the matter and moving cause of our justification, or that for which we are justified; so faith must go before this righteousness as an instrument or applying cause of it, by which we are justified, that is, by means of which we apply that righteousness which makes us just. 'Tis true God justifies the ungodly, but how? not immediately without faith, but mediately by faith, as is most evident from that abused text, Rom. 4.5. When works and faith are opposed by the Apostle in point of justification, affirming that we are justified by faith not by works, he doth hereby plainly affirm and give that to faith which he denies to works; look therefore as he denies works to be antecedent conditions of our justification, he affirms the contrary of faith, which goes before our justification, as hath been explained: and therefore as do and live hath been accounted good Law, or the Covenant of works, so believe and live hath been in former times accounted good Gospel, or the Covenant of grace, until now of late this wild age hath found out new Gospels that Paul and the Apostles did never dream of. Thesis' 111. A servant and a son may be set to do the same work, and have the same rule given them to act by; but the motives to this their work, and the stripes and punishments for neglect of their work, may be various and divers; a son may be bound to it, because he is a son and beloved; a servant may be bound to do the same work, because he is hired and shall have wages▪ if the son neglect his work, his punishment is only the chastisement of a father for his good; if a servant be faulty, he is turned quite out of doors: So although Believers in Christ, and those that are out of Christ have divers and various motives to the obedience of the law of God, yet these do not vary the rule; the law of God is the rule to them both, although they that be out of Christ have nothing but fear and hope of wages to urge them, and those that are in Christ should have nothing but the love of a Father, and the heartblood mercy of a tender Saviour and Redeemer to compel them: the one may be bound to do, that so they may live, the other may be bound to do, because they do live; the one may be bound to do, or else they shall be justly plagued, the other may be bound to do the same, or else they shall be mercifully corrected: It is therefore a mere feebleness to think (as some do) that the law or rule is changed, because the motives to the obedience of it, and punishment for the breach of it, are now (unto a believer) changed and altered; for the Commandment urged from Ch●ists love, may bind strongly yea most strongly to do the same thing which the same Commandment propounded and received in way of hi●e, may bind also unto. Thesis' 112. Some think that there is no sin but unbelief (which is a sin against the Gospel only) and therefore there being no sin against any law (Christ having by his death abolished all them) the law cannot be a rule to them. An adulterous and an evil generation made drunk with the cup of the wine of the wrath of God, and strong delusion, do thus argue: Are drunkenness, whoredom, lying, cheating, witchcraft, oppression, theft, buggery, no sins, and consequently not to be repent of, nor watched against, but only unbelief? Is there no day of judgement, wherein the Lord will judge men (not only for unbelief) but the secrets of all hearts, and whatever hath been done in the body, whether good or evil, according to Paul's Gospel? Rom. 2.16. 2 Cor. 5.10. How comes the wrath of God to be revealed from heaven, not only against unbelief, but against all unrighteousness and ungodliness of man? Rom. 1.18 If there was no sin but unbelief, how can all flesh, Jews and Gentiles become guilty before God, that so they may believe in the Gospel (as 'tis, Rom. 3 21, 12, ●3, 24) if they are all guiltless until unbelief comes in? There is no sin indeed which shall condemn a man in case he shall believe; but will it follow from hence that there is no sin in a man but only unbelief? A sick man shall not die in case he receive the Physic which will recover him; but doth it follow from hence that there is no sickness in him, or no such sickness which is able to kill him, but only his wilful refusing of the Physic? surely his refusing of the Physic is not the cause of his sickness which was before, not the natural (for that his sickness is) but only the moral cause of his death. Sin is before unbelief comes, a sick sinner before a healing Saviour can be rejected; sin kills the soul, as it were, naturally, unbelief morally; no sin shall kill or condemn us if we believe; but doth it follow from hence that there is no sin before or after faith, because there is no condemning sin unless we fall by unbelief? No such matter, and yet such is the madness of some prophets in these times, who to abandon, not only the directive use of the law, but also all preparing and humbling work of the law, and to make men's sinning the first foundation and ground of their believing, do therefore either abolish all the being of any sin, beside unbelief, or the condemned estate of a man for sin, yea for any sin, until he refuse Christ by unbelief; for publishing which pernicious doctrines it had been well for them if they had never been born. Thesis' 113. One would wonder how any Christians should fall into this pit of perdition, to deny the directive use of the law to one in Christ, if either they read Ps. 119. with any savour, or the Epistles of john & james with any faith; in which the law is highly commended, and obedience thereto urged as the happiness and chief evidence of the happiness of man; but that certainly the root of this accursed doctrine is either a loose heart, which is grown blind and bold and secretly glad of a liberty, not so much from the law of sin, as from the law God; or if the heart be sincere in the main, yet it slights the holy Scriptures at present, and makes little conscience of judging in the matters of God according unto them; for if it did, it could hardly fall into ●his dirty ditch, out of which the good Lord deliver, and out of which I am persuaded he will deliver in time all those that are his own: for I much question the salvation of that man, who lives and dies with this opinion: and as every error is fruitful, so this is in special; for from this darkening the directive use of the moral law, arise (amidst many others) these ensuing evils, which are almost, if not altogether deadly to the souls men; they are principally these three. Thesis' 114. The first is a shameful neglect (in some affecting foolishly the name of new Testament Ministers) of a wise and powerful preaching of the law, to make way by the humbling work of it, for the glorious Gospel, and the affectionate entertainment thereof: for through the righteous judgement of God, when men once begin to abandon this use of the law as a rule, they abolish much more readily this use of the law to prepare men thereby for the receiving of Christ: I know there are some who acknowledge this use of the law to be our rule, but not to prepare; but how long they may be orthodox in the one▪ who are heterodox in the other, the Lord only knows; for I find that the chief arguments against the one, do strike strongly against the other also: It's an easy thing to cast blocks before the blind, and to cast mists before the face of the clearest truth, and to make many specious shows of new Testament Ministry, freegrace and Covenant, against this supposed legal way and preparing work; but assuredly they that have found and felt the fruit and comfort of this humbling way (for which I doubt not but that thousands and thousands are blessing God in heaven that ever they heard of it) do certainly and assuredly know, that these men (at least doctrines in this point) are not of God: The word in these men's mouths being flat contrary to the merciful, and the for ever to be adored work of God in their hearts: When the Spirit comes, his first work (if Christ may be believed) even when he comes as a Comforter, is, To convince the world of sin, john 16.9.10. which we know is chiefly by the law, Rom. 3.20. and shall the Ministers (not of the letter but of the Spirit) refuse to begin here? Especially in these times of wantonness, contention, confusion, famine, sword and blood, wherein every thing almost cries aloud for sackcloth, and therefore not for tiffany and silken Sermons: As if this corrupt and putrifying age stood only in need of sugar to preserve and keep them sweet from smelling: As if sublime notions about Christ and free grace, Covenant of grace, love of the Father, the kingdom within, and Christian excellencies and privileges, were the only things this age stood in need of, and not in any need of search with candles, terrors, shake, ●ence of sin, or forewarnings of wrath to come: As if this old world did need no Noah to foretell them of floods of fire and wrath to come: Or as if the men of Sodom and Princes of Gomorah, should do well to mock at Lot for bidding him to hasten out of the city, because God would destroy it: As if the spirit of Paul in these times should not know the terror of the Lord, and therefore persuade men, 2 Cor. 5.10.11. but only the love and freegrace of the Lord Jesus, and therefore to exhort men, nay rather therefore to relate to men stories and notions about freegrace, general redemption, the mystery of the Father's love, and the Christ in you and in the spirit (not the person of Christ or Christ in the flesh) the hope of glory: What will the Lord Jesus one day say to these sleepy watchmen, that never tell the secure world of their enemies at the door? I find divers colours and pretences for this course of daubing. 1. Some say this savours of an old Testament spirit, which was w●nt to wound and then to heal, to humble and then to raise, to preach law and then Gospel; but now we are to he Ministers of the new Testament; and let no law be heard of. I confess those that preach the law as the means of our justification, and as the matter of our righteousness without Christ, or together with Christ, as the false teachers did, 2 Cor. 3 6. may well be called (as Paul calls them) Ministers of the letter, not of the Spirit, of the old Testament, not of the New; but to preach Christ plainly and with open face the end of the law, and to preach the law as the means to prepare for, and advance Christ in our hearts, can never be proved to be the old Testament Ministry, or to put a vail upon men's hearts that they cannot see the end of the law (as the old Testament vail did, 2 Cor. 3.14.) but it is to take away the vail of all conceit of man's own strength and righteousness, by seeing his curse, that so he may s●● to the end thereof the Lord Jesus, and embrace him for righteousness: For the Apostle doth not call them Ministers of the letter and of the old Testament, because they did preach the law to humble and lead unto Christ; but because they preached the law for righteousness without Christ, whom he calls the spirit, vers. 17. and therefore calls them the Ministers of the letter, and their Ministry of death and condemnation, there is something in the law which is of perpetual use, and something which is but for a time: the vis coactiva legis (as some call it) i. the force of the law to condemn and curse, to hold a man under the curse, and to hold a man under the power of sin, which the Apostle calls the strength of the Law, 1 Cor. 15.56. is but for a time, and is but accidental to the law, and may be separated from it, and is separated indeed from it as soon as ever the soul is in Christ, Rom. 8.1. he is then free from the obligation of it to perform personal and perfect obedience to it, that so he may be just; also from the malediction and curse of it, if he be not thus just: But that which is of perpetual use in it, is not only the directive power of it, but this preparing and humbling virtue of it; for if all men by nature, Jews and Gentiles are apt to be puffed up with their own righteousness, and to bless themselves in their own righteousness, and so to feel no such need of Christ, than this humbling work of the law to slay men of all their fond conceits and foolish confidences in their own righteousness, and to make men feel the horrible nature of sin, by revealing the curse and malediction due to it, is of moral and perpetual use: And hence it is that though the Gospel strictly taken (as is intimated Thesis' 110.) hath no terror properly in it, because thus it reveals nothing but reconciliation through Christ's righteousness applied by saith; yet the Gospel largely taken, for that doctrine which reveals the glad tidings of Christ already come, so there is terror in it, because in this respect the Gospel makes use of the law and confirms what is moral and perpetual therein: The sin and terror which the Gospel (largely taken) makes use of out of the Law, are but subservient to the Gospel strictly taken, or for that which is principally and most properly Gospel, for thereby the righteousness and freegrace and love of the Lord Jesus, and preciousness and greatness of both are the more clearly illustrated: The law of itself wounds and kills and rather drives from Christ then unto Christ; but in the hand of the Gospel▪ or as Christ handles it, so it drives the soul unto Christ, and (as hath been shown) is the means to that end: and 'tis a most false and nauseous doctrine to affirm that love only draws the soul to Christ, unless it be understood with this caution and notion, viz. love as revealed to a sinner, and condemned for sin; which sin and condemnation as the law makes known, so the Gospel makes use of to drawn unto Christ: If indeed the Gospel did vulnerare ut vulneraret, i. wound that it may wound and terrify only (which the law doth) than it (saith Chamier) was all one with law which Bellarmine pleads for) but when it wounds that it may heal, Cham. de Oper. Necks. cap. 4. this is not contrary but agreeable to the office of a good Physician whose chief work is to heal, and may well suit with the healing Ministry of the Lord Jesus; and hence we see that although Christ was sent to preach the Gospel, yet he came to confirm the law in the Ministry of the Gospel, and therefore shows the spiritual sins against the law more clearly, and the heavy plagues for the breach of it more fully than the Scribes and pharisees: he that is angry with his brother is a murderer, and he that calls him fool is in danger of hell fire, Mat. 5.22. Peter was no Minister of the old Testament, because he first convinced and pricked the jews to the heart for their murder of Christ jesus. Paul was no such Minister, neither (when as he would evince our justification by Christ's righteousness only) in that he begins and spends so much time in proving Gentiles and jews to be under sin and wrath, notwithstanding all the excuses of the one and privileges of the other; as appears in his three first chapters to the Romans: but herein they were Gospel preachers. Nor can it with any colour of reason be thought that the Prophets in the old Testament were herein Ministers of the letter, viz. when they did first wound and then heal, first humble by the law and then revive by the Gospel. Mr. Saltmarsh hath been so blinded with this notion of the old Testament Ministry, that to make this use of the law in preaching the Gospel, or to hold forth the promises of grace to them that are qualified with the grace of the promise (as the old Testament Prophets did) is to give (as he thinks) the wine of the Gospel burning hot, as the covetous gentleman did to his guests, and another (whom I spare to name) professeth, That the old Testament (because it urgeth the law to humble) containeth little good news but much bad news; but ●ow when Christ saith, Go preach the Gospel, thereby he would have them (he saith) Ministers of the new Testament to preach glad tidings (nothing but Gospel) but no had bidings (not a jot of the law) until men positively reject the glad tidings of the Gospel. If these men speak true, then neither Peter in his preaching, nor Paul in his writings, nor Christ himself in his Ministry were Ministers of the new Testament, but did overheat their wine and preach much bad tidings to the people of God: Verily if this stuff be not repent of, the Lord hath a time to visit for these inventions. 2. Some object, Gal. 3.24, 25. That the children of the old Testament were under the law, as their pedagogue to lead them to Christ; but now (the Apostle saith) we are no longer under this Schoolmaster, who are sons of God in the new Testament. Be it so that the sons of God under the new Testament are past the terrouring of this Schoolmasters is it not therefore the work of the new Testament Ministry to preach the law unto servants and slaves to sin and Satan in new Testament times? No (saith the same author) for this is to preach bad news; this is no good news to say Thou art condemned for these things, for the Gospel saith thus, Thou poor drunkard, thou proud woman here is a gracious God that hath loved thee, and sent Christ to die for thee, and Ministers to make it known to thee, and here is everlasting salvation by him only, because thou art a sinner; thou art now free from damnation: fear not that, Christ hath loved thee, therefore obey him; if not, thou shalt not be damned, that is done away already, etc. I would know whether a proud woman, or a poor drunkard, a villain, who never yet believed, are in a state of condemnation, I or no? I have read indeed that There is no condemnation to them that are in Christ, Rom. 8.1. but never of any such freedom to them that are out of Christ, unless it was only in destination and merit; and I have read that we are by nature children of wrath, while dead in sin, Eph. 2 1, 2, 3. but never of this, viz. that we are in favour while we be in our sin, much less that we are to believe this, because we are such: If therefore such persons be in a state of wrath and death and condemnation, is not this like the old false prophets, crying peace, peace and salvation, where there is no peace? There is no peace to the wicked saith my God, Isa. 48. ult. Isa. 57 ult. This is truth before they reject the Gospel, is it not? This the law saith (say some) true, But is not this confirmed by the Ministry of the Gospel also? job. 3. ult. He that believes not, the wrath of God abides upon him, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it was upon him before he did believe, and when he believes not it abides where it did: Must the Ministers of the new Testament therefore preach lies and falsehoods, and tell proud women and poor drunkards and villains before they refuse the Gospel by unbelief, that the Lord jesus loves them, and that they need not fear condemnation, when the Scripture hath shut up all men under it, that the promise by faith might be given to those that believe, and them only? What is this Gospel Ministry but to tell men they are whole, and not sick to death, but healed before they come to the Physician, the Lord jesus? surely that is Gospel Ministry which advanceth Christ not only in word, but in power in the hearts of poor sinners; but doth this Ministry advance the Physician's custom and honour, which where it comes must first tell all the crew of wretched drunkards, proud persons and villains, that they are already well and whole, loved and pardoned, blessed and saved, before ever they come to the Lord Jesus? suppose therefore (as some may say) that servants and slaves to sin may have the Law preached to them, yet the sons and children of God have no use of it in that respect now; 'tis true, I grant, not as the servants have under the new Testament, nor yet as the sons of God had under the old, for the children of God under the old Testament had need of this Schoolmaster to lead them to Christ to come, and ad Christum typecum, i. to Christ typed out in sacrifices and oblations, high Priest and Altar, and so it led them to Christ afar off, and as it were a great way about; but it doth not follow that there is no use of the Law therefore to be a Schoolmaster still to lead unto Christ immediately and already come; those that are servants to sin under the new Testament have need of the law to show them the condemnation and curse under which they lie by nature, and are now actually under: but the sons of God, (for whom Christ is made a curse) are not thus under it, and therefore have not this use of it, but only to show that curse and condemnation which they do of themselves deserve; and therefore the holy Apostle, when he was in Christ, and did live unto God, he shows us how he did live unto God, viz. by dying to the Law, and how he did die to the Law, and that was by the Law, i. as it did show him his condemnation; he did live to God in his justification; as it did show him his sin, and wants, and weakness, it made him die unto it, and expect no life from it, and so live unto God in his sanctification; for so the words are, I through the Law am dead to the Law, that I may live unto God, Gal. 2.19. the issue therefore is this that if the doctrine be taken strictly pro lege fidei (as Chamier calls it) or that doctrine which shows the way of man's righteousness and justification only, there indeed all the works of the law, all terrors and threatenings are to be excluded, and nothing else but peace, pardon, grace, favour, eternal reconciliation to be believed and received; and therefore it's no new Testament Ministry to urge the Law, or to thunder out any terror here, for in this sense it's true (which is commonly received) that in the Law there are terrors, but in the Gospel none; but if the Gospel be taken largely for all that doctrine which brings glad tidings of Christ already come, and shows the love of God in the largest extent of it, and the illustrations and confirmations of it from the law, than such servants of Jesus Christ, who hold forth the law to make way for grace, and to illustrate Ch●ists love, must either be accounted New Testament Ministers, or else (as hath been shown) Christ Jesus and his Apostles were none. Thesis' 115. The second is a professed neglect, and casting off the work of repentance and mourning for sin: nay of ask pardon of sin; for if the Law be no rule to show man his duty, why should any man then trouble himself with sorrow for any sin? for if it be no rule to him, how should any thing be sin to him? and if so, why then should any ask pardon of it, or mourn under it? why should not a man rather harden his heart like an Adamant, and make his forehead brass and iron, even unto the death, against the feeling of any sin? but what doctrine is more cross to the Spirit of grace in Gospel times, than this? which is a Spirit of mourning, Z●c. 12.10, 11. what doctrine more cross to the express command of Christ from heaven then this? who writes from heaven to the Church of Ephesus to remember from whence she is fallen and repent, Rev. 2.5. what doctrine more cross to the example of holy men than this? who after they were converted, then repent and lamented most of all, jer. 31.18.19. 2 Cor. 7.9.10, 11. what doctrine more cross to the salvation of souls, the mercy of God, and forgiveness of sin? for so the promise runs, if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, 1 Joh. 1.9. what doctrine so cross to the Spirit of the love of Christ shed abroad in the heart, that when a man's sins are greatest (which is after conversion, because now against more love and more nearness to Jesus Christ) that now a believers sorrow should be least monkish and macerating? sorrow indeed is loathsome, but godly sorrow is sweet and glorious; doubtless those men's blindness is exceeding great, who know not how to reconcile joy and sorrow in the same subject, who cannot with one eye behold their free justification, and therein daily rejoice, and the weakness and imperfection of their sanctification with another eye, and for that mourn. Thesis' 116. The third thing is, a denying sanctification the honour of a faithful and true witness, or clear evidence of our justification: for if a believer be not bound to look unto the Law as his rule, why should he then have any eye to his sanctification, which is nothing else but our habitual conformity to the Law, as inherent corruption is nothing else but habitual disagreement with it: although sanctification be no part of our righteousness before God, and in this sense is no evidence of our justification, Ps. 119.4, 5 1 joh. 2.3, 4 & 3.14. 2 Thes. 2. 1●, 14. Isa. ●8. 3. 1 Thes. 1.4, 5, 6. yet there is scarce any clearer truth in all the Scrip●u●e than this, viz. that it is an evidence that a man is in a justified estate; and yet this leven which denies the Law to be a Christians rule of life, hath soured some men's spirit● against this way of evidencing. It is a doubtful evidence (saith D● Crisp) an argument, not an evidence, it is a carnal and an inferior evidence, the last and the least, not the first evidence; it is an evidence if justification be first evident (say Den and Saltmarsh) some men may be led to these opinions from other principles than a plain denial of the directive use of the Law, but this I fear lies undermost; however let these two things be examined. 1. Whether sanctification be a doubtful evidence: 2. Whether it be a carnal, inferior, and may not be a first evidence. Thesis' 117. If to be under the power and dominion of sin and Original corruption, be a sure and certain evidence of actual condemnation, so that he that saith he knows Christ and hath fellowship with him, and yet walks in darkness, and keeps not his Commandments, is a liar, 1 joh. 1.6. & 2.4. why may not sanctification then (whereby we are set free from the power of sin) be a sure and certain evidence of our actual justification? for hereby we know that we know him, if we keep his Commandments, 1 Joh. 2 3. whereby it is manifest that the Apostle is not of their minds who think the negative to be true, viz. that they that keep not Christ's commandments are in a state of perdition, but they will not make the affirmative true, viz. that they that keep his Commandments may thereby know that they are in a state of salvation: If Jesus Christ be sent to bless his people in turning them from their iniquities, Act. 3. ult. than they that know they are turned from their iniquities by him, may know certainly that they are blessed in him; and if they be not thus turned they may know certainly that they are yet accursed; If godliness hath the promises of this life, and that which is to come, 1 Tim. 4.8. and if the free grace and actual love of God be revealed clearly to us only by some promise, how then is sanctification (so near akin to godliness) excluded from being any evidence? is there no inherent grace in a believer that no inherent sanctification can be a true evidence? verily thus some do think; but what is this but an open graceless profession, thrr every believer is under the power of inherent sin, if he hath not the being of any inherent grace? or if there be any inherent grace, yet it is (say some) so mixed with corruption, and is such a spotted and blurred evidence, that no man can discern it? I confess such an answer would well become a blind Papist who never knew where grace grew (for so they dispute against certitudo salutis certitudine fidei, when the conclusion of faith ariseth from such a proposition as is the word of God, and the assumption the testimony of God's Spirit to a man's own experience of the work of God in his heart) but it ill beseems a Minister of the Gospel of Christ to plead for such popish ignorance in a Christian as can see no further than his own buttons, and that cannot discern by the Spirit of God the great and wonderful change from darkness to light, from death to life, from Satan to God, the visible work of God, and graces of the Spirit of God, the things (which the Apostle calls love) are freely given to them of God. 1 Cor. 2.12. Peter's was imperfect, blotted and mixed, and yet he could say, Lord, thou knowest I love thee. joh. 21.17, the poor doubting mourning man in the Gospel had some faith, and was able to see it and say certainly, Lord, I believe, help my unbeleef. Could Paul discern (without extraordinary revelation because he speaks as an ordinary Christian) an inner man and a Law in his mind, delighting in the Law of God, yet mixed with a Law in his members, leading him captive into the Law of sin, and cannot we? and yet the Doctor doth cast such stains upon sincerity, universal obedience, love to the brethren, etc. and heaps up the same cavils against the truth of them in the souls of the Saints, as the Devil himself usually doth by sinful suspicions and suggestions, when God lets him lose for a season to buffet his people, that so they may never know (if it were possible) what great things the Lord hath done for their souls: and whoever reads his book shall find that he makes a Believer such a creature as cannot tell certainly whether he be a sincere-hearted man or an errand hypocrite, whether he be under the power of sin and Satan or not: whether one man can be discerned from another to be a Saint or a devil, or whether he hath any charity and goes love to them that are Saints from them that are not: and so abou● to befool and nonplus and puzzle the people of God (as the story relates of the Germane woman desirous to rid the house of her husband) who first making him drunk, and casting him into a sleep did so shave him, and dress him, and cut and clip him, that when he awakened, he knew not what to think of himself, or to say who he was: for by looking upon and in himself, he thought he was the woman's husband, and yet by his new cut and habit, he almost believed that he was a Friar, as his wife affirmed: Sanctification is an evidence always in itself of a justified estate, although it be not always evident unto us, and therefore what though a Christian sees his sanctification and graces to day, and cannot see them, but is doubtful about them, suppose to morrow? shall he therefore reject it as a doubtful evidence; which is ever clear enough in itself, though not always to our discerning? for I would know what evidence can there be of a justified estate, but partly through dimness and weakness of faith (which is but imperfect and therefore mixed with some doubtings all a man's life, sometime or other) and partly through the wise and adored providences of God to exercise our faith, but that some time or other it cannot be discerned? is the immediate testimony of God's Spirit (which some would make the only evidence) always evident, and the shinings, sheddings and actings of it never suspended, but that by some means or other they will be at a loss? why then should sanctification be excluded as a doubtful evidence, because sometime it is, and at other times not discerned? I know there are some who perceiving the conceived uncertainty of all such evidences, have therefore found out a strange catholicon for these sick times, a sure way of evidencing and leading all men's consciences in a way of peace and unshaken assurance of the love of Christ; and therefore they make (which I name with horror) the sight of corruption and sinful pollution, through the promise of the Gospel, the certain and settled evidence of life and salvation, which opinion the least I can say of it, is that which Calvin said in the like case, to be exundantis in mundum suroris Dei slagellum. woe to the dark mountains of Wales, and the fat valleys, towns and cities in England, and sea coasts and Lands in America, if ever this delusion take place: and yet this flame begins to catch, and this infection to spread, and therefore I find M. Saltmarsh and W. C. to speak out, and openly to own that which the Familists in former times have either been ashamed or afraid to acknowledge, and that is this, viz: That the promise of the Gospel do belong to a sinner, quâ sinner, or as a sinner; and that the Law speaks good news to a righteous man, quatenus a righteous man; but the Gospel quite contrary, it is to a man quatenus a sinner, not as a regenerate man, or as an humble man, or as a Saint, or as a believer, but as a sinner; and hence they infer, That a Christian will never have any settled peace, but be off and on, as a bone out of joint, in and out, in and out, a reed tossed with the wind, never knit to Christ, if they lay hold on Christ and God's love under any other consideration then as to sinners ● and therefore though they see no good in themselves, though they be not humbled, brokenhearted sinners (as one Preacher tells them) nor believing sinners (as another Preacher tells them) yet if they see themselves sinners, they must know a sinner is the proper object of the Gospel, and therefore this is ground enough to believe: so that if the devil tell a man that he is no Saint, if the soul can say, I am a sinner, if the devil say thou art an hypocrite, I but an hypocrite is but a sinner still; though I be not a brokenhearted sinner, this will be (they say) a refuge of peace to retreat unto in all temptations; and when men have learned this lesson, their souls will not be in and out any more, but have constant peace: for though they have no interest in Christ as Saints, yet they have real interest in the promises of Christ as sinners: hence also they say, that no Minister is to threaten or declare the curse and wrath of God against drunkards and sinners as such, until first Christ be offered in the Gospel, and they refuse him, and that if any do this, they are Ministers of the Old Testament not of the new. Sic de●init in piscem mulier formosa; let us therefore see what chaff and what corn, what truth and what falsehood there is in this n●w divinity. It is true, 1. That the Gospel reveals the free grace and love of God, the death of Christ and salvation by him for sinners, and that all those that are or shall be saved, are to acknowledge and aggravate God's love toward them, in casting his eye upon them when they were sinners notwithstanding all their si●s; this the Scripture everywhere holds forth, Rom. 5.6, 7. 1 Tim. 1.15.2. 'Tis true also, that the Gospel makes an offer of Christ, and salvation and remission of sins to all sinners, where it comes, yea, to all sinners as sinners and as miserable, yea, though they have sinned long by unbeleef, as is evident, Host 14.1. Rev. 3.17. jer. 3 2●. Isa. 55.1. all are invited to come unto these waters freely without money or price: these things no man doubts of that knows the Gospel: but the question is not whether Remission of sins and reconciliation in the Gospel belong to sinners? but whether they belong to sinners immediately as sinners? not whether they are merited by Christ's death, and offered out of his rich grace immediately to sinners? but whether they are actually and immediately their own, so as they may challenge them thus as their own, from this as from a full and sufficient evidence, viz. because they are sinners and because they see themselves sinners? for we grant that Jesus Christ came into the world actually to save sinners, yet mediately by faith, and then they may see salvation: that he justifieth also the ungodly; but how? immediately? no, but mediately by faith, Rom. 3.5. and that where sin abounds, grace abounds; to whom? ●o all sinners? no; but mediately to all those only who by ●aith receive this grace, Rom. 5.17. so that the Gospel reveals no actual love and reconciliation immediately to a sinner as a sinner, but mediately to a sinner as a believing and brokenhearted sinner; and the Scripture is so clear in this point, that whoever doubts of it, must caecutire cum sole, and we may say to them as Paul to the Galathians, O foolish men, who hath bewitched you that you should not see this truth? For though Christ came to ●ave sinners, yet he p●ofesseth that he came not to call the righteous, but the sick sinners, Mat. 9.13. though God justifieth the ungodly, yet 'tis such an ungodly man as believeth in him, whose faith is imputed unto righteousness, Rome 3.5. though grace abounds where sin abounds, yet 'tis not to all sinners (for then all should be saved) but to such as receive abundance of grace by faith, Rom. 5.17. although God holds forth Christ to be a propitiation for sinners, yet it's expressly said to be mediately through faith in his blood, Rom. 3.24.25: although the Scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise might be given, yet it is not said to be immediately given to sinners as sinners, but mediately to all that believe; and in one word, though it be true that Christ died for sinners and enemies, that they might have remission of sins (then procured and merited for them) yet we never actually have, nor receive ●his remission (and consequently cannot see it) as our own, until we do believe; for unto this truth (saith Peter) do all the Prophet's witness that whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins, Act. 10.43. and hence it is that as all the Prophets preached the actual favour of God only to sinners as believers, so the Apostles never preached it in New Testament times otherwise; and hence Peter, Act. 2.38. doth not tell the sorrowful Jews that they were sinners, and that God loved them, and that Christ had died for them, and that their sins were pardoned because they were sinners, but he first exhorts them to repent, that so they might receive remission of sins; nor doth Paul tell any man that salvation belonged to him, because he is a sinner, but if thou believe with all thy heart thou shalt be saved, Rom. 10.5, 6, 7. if the love of God be revealed to a sinner as a sinner, this must be either, 1. by the witness of the Law; but this is impossible, for if the curse of God be herein revealed only to a sinner as a sinner, than the love of God cannot; but the Law curseth every sinner, Gal 3.10. Or 2. by the Light and witness of the Gospel; but this cannot be; for it reveals life and salvation only to a believer, and confirms the sentence of the Law against such a sinner as believes not, joh. 3.17, 36. he that believes not is condemned already, not only for unbeleef (as some say) for this doth but aggravate condemnation) but also for sin, by which man is first condemned before he believes, if the Apostle may be believed, Rom. 3.19. and if a man be not condemned for sin before he believe, than he is not a sinner before he believe, for look as Christ hath taken away any man's condemnation in his death, just so hath he taken away his sin. 3. Or else by the witness and testimony of God's spirit: but this is flat contrary to what the Apostle speaks, Gal. 3.26. with 4 6. ye are all the sons of God by faith in Christ jesus, and because ye are sons (not sinners) he hath sent the spirit of his son crying, Abba, Father, Gal. 4.4, 5, 6, and verily if the love of God belong to sinners as sinners, than all sinners shall certainly be saved (for a quatenus ad omne val●● consequentia) so that by this principle, as sin hath abounded actually to condemn all, so grace hath abounded actually to save all, which is most pernicious: nor do I know what should make men embrace * Viz. that the Gospel belongs to sinners as sinners. this principle, unless that they either secretly think that the straight gate and narrow way to life is now so wide and broad, that all men shall in Gospel times enter in thereat, which is prodigious, or else they must imagine some Arminian universal Redemption and reconciliation, and so put all men in a salvable and reconciled estate (such as it is) before faith, and then the evidence and ground of their assurance must be built on this false and crazy foundation, viz. jesus Christ had died to reconcile (and so hath reconciled) all sinners. But I am a sinner, And therefore I am reconciled: No universal redemption the ground of faith. If this be the bottom of this Gospel-Ministry and preaching free grace (as doubtless 'tis in some) than I would say these things only. 1. That this doctrine under a colour of freegrace doth as much vilify and take off the price of free grace in Christ's death, as any I know, for what can vilify this grace of Christ more, then for Christ so to shed his blood as that Peter and Abraham in heaven shall have no more cause to thank jesus Christ for his love therein, then judas and Cain in hell? it being equally shed for one as much as for the other. 2. That this is a false bottom for faith to rest upon, and gather evidence from: for 1. if Christ hath died for a●l, he will then certainly save all: for so Paul reasons, Rom. 8.32. and 6.10. he hath given his Son to death for us, how shall ●e not but with him give us all other things, and therefore he will give faith, and give repentance, and give perseverance, and give eternal life also; which is most false. 2. If he did not pray for all, than he hath not died for all, joh. 17.9. which Scripture never yet received scarce the show of a rational answer, though some have endeavoured it with all wiliness. 3. That whereas by this doctrine they would clear up the way to a full and settled evidence and Christian assurance, they do hereby utterly subvert the principal foundation of all settledness, and assurance of faith, which is this, viz. that if Jesus Christ be given to death for me, than he will certainly give all other things to me, if we were reconciled to God by the death of his son, much more shall we be saved by his life, if Christ hath died and risen for us, who then shall condemn? who shall then separate us from God's love? Rom. 8.32. Rom. 6.9, 10. But if they hold no such principles, I would then know how any man can have evidence of this, viz. that God loves him, and that Christ hath died for him while he is a sinner, and as he is a sinner? or how any Minister of the New Testament can say to any man (under the power of his sins and the devil) that he is not condemned for his sins, but that God loves him, and that Christ hath died for him, without preaching falsehoods, and lies, and dreams of their own heart? for 1. God hath not loved nor elected all sinners, nor hath Christ died for all sinners. 2. If every man be in a state of condemnation before he believe the Gospel, than no man can be said to be in a state of reconciliation, and that God hath loved him until he refuse the Gospel▪ but every man is in a state of condemnation before he believe, because our Saviour expressly tell us, that by faith we pass from death to life, joh. 5.24. and he that hath not the son, hath not life, 1 joh. 5.12. and therefore if those be Ministers of the new Testament who first preach to all the drunkards and whoremongers and villains in a parish, that God loves them, and that they are reconciled by Christ death, and that they may know it because they are sinners, then let the heavens hear, and the earth know that all such Ministers are false Prophets, and cry Peace, Peace, where God proclaims wrath; and that they acquit them whom God condemns: and if they be Ministers of the Old Testament spirit, who first show men their condemned estate, and then present God as wroth against them, while they be in their sin, that so they may prise and fly to favour and free grace, than such are Ministers of the old Testament and not of the new, because they preach the truth; and if preaching the truth be an old Testament Ministry, no wise man than I hope will desire the new wine, for the old is better: while the Lion sleeps and God is silent, and conscience slumbers, all the beasts and wild sinners of the world (and many preachers too) may think that there is no terror in God, no curse, or wrath upon themselves in the midst of the rage, increase, and power of all their sins; but when this lion roars, and God awakens, and conscience looks above head, they shall then see how miserably they have been deceived, they may slight sin, abolish condemnation, talk of and wonder at freegrace now, and believe easily, because they are sinners, but certainly they shall be otherwise minded then: Some men may have good ends in preaching God's freegrace after this manner in the Gospel, and make the Gospel a revelation of God's actual love to sinners as sinners; and make a Christians evidence of it nothing else but the sight of his sin, and of his being under the power of it, but little do they think what Satan the father of this false doctrine aims at, which are these four things chiefly. 1. That sanctification, faith, etc. might be no evidence at all to a Christian of a good estate, for this they say is a doubtful evidence and an unsettling way of assurance; because they will hereby be as bones out of joint, in and out; humbled to day, and then comforted, but hardhearted to morrow, and then at a loss: whereas to see one's self a sinner, that is a constant evidence, for we are always sinners, and the Gospel proclaims peace to sinners as sinners. 2. That so men may keep their lusts and sins and yet keep their peace too, for if peace be the portion of a man under the power of sin and Satan; look then, as he may have it, why may he not keep it upon the same terms: And therefore W. C. saith, That if conscience object, thou art an hypocrite (perhaps truly) yet a hypocrite is but a sinner, and God's love belongs to sinners as sinners: And if this be thus, what doth this doctrine aim at, but to reconcile God and Belial, Christ and Mammon? not only to open the door to all manner of wickedness, but to comfort men therein, 3. That so he may bring men in time purposely to sin the more freely, that so they may have the clearer evidence of the love of God; for if Gods love be revealed to sinners as sinners▪ then the more sinful the more clear evidence he hath of God's love; and therefore one once entangled with these delusions, was enticed to commit a gross wickedness, that more full assurance might be attained. 4. That so the true preaching and Ministry of the Gospel of God's freegrace might be abolished (at least despised) which is this, viz. Thou poor condemned sinner, here is Christ Jesus, and with him eternal remission of sins and reconciliation, if thou believe and receive this grace offered humbly and thankfully; for this is Gospel, Mat. 28.19. Mark. 16.16. Rom. 10.5, 6, 7, 8. Rom. 3.14, 25. Act. 8.37. And hence Mr. W.C. hath these words. That if the Gospel hold forth Christ and salvation upon believing (as many saith he, preach) it were then little better tidings than the law. Ah wretched & unworthy speech, that when Jesus Christ himself would show the great love of God unto the world, joh. 3.16. he makes it out by two expressions of it, 1. That the father sent his only Son; 2. That whosoever did believe, in him (or if they did believe in him) they should have eternal life; The Lord shows wonderful love, that whoever believe may have Christ and eternal life by believing; but this doctrine breathing ou● God's dearest love, by this man's account is little better than law, which breathes out nothing but wrath: But why doth he speak thus? Because (saith he) it is as easy to keep the ten Commandments as to believe of ones self: Very true, as to believe of ones self, but what is this against the preaching and holding forth Christ and salvation upon condition of believing? For is not this preaching of the Gospel the instrument and means of working that faith in us, which the Lord requires of us in the Gospel? And must not Jesus Christ use the means for the end? Were not those three thousand brought into Christ by faith, by Peter's promise of remission of sins upon their repentance? Were not many filled with the holy Ghost when they heard this Gospel thus preached upon condition of believing? Act. 10.43. Doth not the Apostle say that the Gospel is the power of God to salvation, because therein is Christ's righteousness revealed (not to sinners as sinners) but from faith to faith? The condition of works is impossible to be wrought in us by the Spirit, but the condition of faith (though it be impossible for us to work it in our hearts) yet it is possible, easy and unusual for God to work it by requiring of it, jer. 3.22▪ which is no prejudice to God's freegrace, because faith is purposely required and wrought, because it chiefly honours and advanceth freegrace, Rom. 4, 16. The promise is of faith that it might be by grace: If Mr W.C. will not preach Christ upon believing, how will he or any man else preach it? Will they tell all men that God loves them, and that Christ hath died for them, & that he that gives grace and salvation will work faith in them? Truly thus W.C. seems to affirm; but if they shall preach so to all sinners as sinners, and tell ●hem absolutely God will work faith in them also, I suppose that the Church walls and plentiful and abundant experience would testify against this falsehood; and the Scripture testifies sufficiently, that every man shall not have faith to whom the Gospel is preached: Now I do beseech the God and father of lights to pity his straying servants who are led into these deep and dangerous delusions thorough feeble mistake of the true difference between old and new Testament Ministries, and that he would pity his people for whose sins God hath let lose these blinding anct hardening doctrines, by means of which they are tempted to receive that as the Gospel of truth, which is but a mere lie, and to take that as an evidence of salvation that is in truth the evidence of perdition and condemnation, as hath been shown. Thesis' 118. The second thing remains to be cleared, whether sanctification may not be a first evidence and therefore more than a carnal inferior and last evidence, as Mr Saltmarsh calls it: For if it be (not a doubtful) but a clear and certain evidence in itself (as hath been proved) why may it not be a first evidence? why may not the Spirit of God who works it in a person justified, first reveal it as an evidence that he is justified? What mortal man can limit the Spirit of God, to what evidence he shall first bring in to the conscience of a justified estate? For let sanctification be taken in the largest sense, for any work of saving grace wrought in the Elect (whether in vocation to faith, or in sanctification which (strictly taken) follows our justification by faith) and take evidence not for evidence of the object (for Christ Jesus in his freegrace must be seen first as the ground on which faith rests) but for evidence of testimony to the subject, and then I thus argue, that this first evidence of special actual love in beholding God's freegrace to a sinner, it is either 1. Without the being of faith and other graces. Or 2. Without the seeing of them only, the eye looking up only to Christ and freegrace. But this first evidence is not without the being of faith and holiness; for than it should be to a man actually under the power of sin and his filthy lusts and the devil; which hath been already proved in the former Thesis to be a mere delusion: there being no such word of the Gospel which reveals Gods free love and actual reconciliation to a sinner as a sinner, and as under the power of his sins, but the Gospel rather reveals the quite contrary; and to affirm the witness of the Spirit clears this up, is to pretend a testimony of the Spirit contrary to the testimony of the world; and yet I strongly fear and do fully believe that this is the first evidence which some men plead for, viz. to see God's love toward them, while they neither see grace or any change of heart in them: or have grace, but are still under the dominion of their sin. And on the other side, if any affirm that this evidence is not without the being of grace but only without the seeing of it: so that a Christians first evidence is the seeing of God's free grace out of himself, without seeing any faith or grace in himself, and seeing nothing else but sin in himself, this I confess is nearer the truth, but it is an error which leads a man to a precipice and near unto the pit: for if this be so, than these things will unavoidably follow. 1. That a Christian must see the love of God toward him in Christ, and yet must not see himself to be the person to whom this love only belongs: for (according to this very opinion itself) it belongs only to a believer, and one that hath the being of grace, and not to a sinner as a sinner. 2. Then a Christian must not see the love of Christ and free grace of God by that proposition or testimony of the Spirit which reveals it, and that is this, Tu fidelis, thou Believer called and sanctified, art freely beloved: and thus a man must not see his estate good by the light of the spirit, nay thus a Christian must receive the testimony of the Spirit which assures him that he is loved without understanding the meaning of the Spirit, which is (not thou sinner as such) but thou Believer art beloved: not thou that hast no grace, but thou that hast the being of it, art beloved. 3. Then the first evidence is built upon a mere weakness, nay upon an untruth and falsehood; for it is a mere weakness not to see that which we should see, viz. the being of faith and grace in the heart, in which respect the promise is sealed, and if any man by not seeing it shall think and say there is no grace, no faith, no sanctification, and now he sees God's love to such a one, and he thinks himself to be such a one when he sees God's free grace, and hath this first evidence, it is a falsehood and an untruth, for it is supposed to be there in the being of it all this while; suppose therefore that some Christians at their first return and conversion to God or afterward, have grace and faith, but see it not in their assurance of God's love (the eminency of the object and good of it swallowing up their thoughts and hearts from attending themselves) yet the question is quo jure, they do not see, nay should not see and take notice of the being of them in themselves? Is not this a mere weakness and falsehood which is now made the mystery of this first evidence? and indeed somewhat like Cusanus his summa sapientia, which he makes to be this▪ viz. Attingere illud quod est inattingibile inattingibiliter, That a Christian must see and touch Gods deep love, and yet neither see not touch nor feel any change in himself, or any being of grace, when in truth it is there; in which respect also God's freegrace and love is revealed. 4. If this be the first evidence, than no Minister, no nor any Apostle of Christ Jesus, can give any first evidence of God's love by the ordinary dispensation of the Gospel; for although a Minister may say. Thou art a sinner, therefore the Lord Jesus may save thee, yet he cannot say upon that ground that therefore the Lord Jesus will save him, for then every sinner should be saved: No Minister can say to any unbeliever, Christ hath redeemed thee, therefore believe, or say absolutely Thy sins are pardoned, for than he should preach contrary to the word which expressly tells us, That he that believes not is already condemned. No minister can say God will work faith in all you that are sinners, as hath been shown; but they can say, Thou Believer are pardoned, thou that art sanctified art reconciled, etc. It is therefore an evil speech of one lately in print, who calls That a bastard assurance, arising from a lying spirit, which first proceeds from the sight of any grace, and thence concludes they are justified and shall be saved. For I would thus argue, that this work of grace (suppose love to the Saints, hunger and thirst after righteousness, universal respect to all God's Commandments, etc.) it is either common to hypocrites and unsound, or else it is peculiar to the elect and sincere? If the first, than it cannot be either first or second evidence: it can be no evidence at all either without or with seeing, first, God's free love to sinners as sinners; if the second, than either God's promise (made to such as are hungry and humble, and have a work peculiar to Gods elect in them) must be falls (which is blasphemous to imagine) or else whensoever it is seen, whether first or last, it must needs be a most blessed and sweet, and sure evidence: for when we say that such a work of grace may be a first evidence, we do not mean, as if the work simply considered in itself could give in any evidence, but only as the free promise of grace is made to such as have such a work of grace; this promise we say to such persons, whensoever they see this work, gives in full and clear evidence of their blessed estate: And if the word of grace to a sinner as a sinner, may give in a first evidence (as some imagine) then much more may it give in evidence●, where there is not only the word of grace, but also the spirit of grace, yea the work of grace to assure the conscience: and for any to affirm that faith and sanctification are good evidences, if justification be first evident, is but a quirk of frothy wit; for it may be as safely affirmed on the contrary, that justification is a good evidence, if faith and sanctification he first evident; for 'tis not these simply, but the promise which is our evidence, which is never to a sinner as such: I shall therefore conclude these things with showing the true grounds of effectual evidence of the love of Christ. Thesis' 119. The freegrace of God in Christ (not works) is the only sure foundation of justifying faith, or upon which faith is built, Rom. 3.24, 25. 1 Pet. 2.4, 5, 6. Mat. 16.18. This freegrace therefore must first be revealed by the Spirit of God in the Ministry of the Gospel in order unto faith, Rom. 10.14, 15. Eph. 1.13. which general revelation of freegrace, some make to be the first evidence on which faith rests, and thus far it is true; but now this freegrace is revealed two ways. 1. In the free offer of it to be our own by receiving it, Act. 10.43. Gal. 2.16. 2. In the free promise of it revealing it as our own already, having actually and effectually received it, joh. 1.12. Rom. 5.1, 2. 1 joh. 5.12. The free offer of grace (containing Gods call, commandment and beseechings to believe and be reconciled) gives us right to this possession of Christ or to come and take and so possess Christ Jesus by faith. jerem. 3.22. 1 Cor. 1.9. Rom. 1.5, 6. The free promise of grace (containing revealed immutable purposes and actual assurances of present and future grace) gives us right to the fruition of Christ, or to enjoy Christ as a free gift when 'tis offered; the command and desire of the donor to receive it to be our own, gives us right and powet to possess it: and when it is received, his promise to us assuring us that it is and shall continue our own, gives us right and privilege to enjoy it and make use of it. For by two immutable things (the promise confirmed by oath) we have strong consolation who have fled for refuge to the hope before us, Heb. 6.17, 18, 19 The free offer is the first ground of our faith, why we receive Christ to be our own: but the free promise is the first ground of the assurance of faith, why we are assured and persuaded that he is our own already: for the Gospel containing three things, 1. The revelation of Christ: 2. The offer of Christ. 3. The promise of Christ to all those that receive this offer; Hence faith (which runs parallel with the Gospel, the proper object of it) first sees Christ, secondly receives Christ, thirdly is assured of the love of Christ having received him. The free offer of grace being made to the soul because it is poor and sinful, cursed and miserable, and that therefore it would receive Christ, hence it is that in this respect the soul is not bound first to see some good in itself and so to receive him, but rather is bound (at first breathe of God upon it) rather to see no good, i. nothing but sin and perdition, death and darkness, enmity and weakness, and therefore to receive him, Luk. 14.21. Revel. 3.17, 18. Gal. 3.22. Rom. 11.32. Host 13.3. But the promise of freegrace being actually given to the soul (and not declared only as it is in the free offer, because it hath received Christ already by which he is actually its own) hence it is that in this respect, the soul is bound to see some good or saving work of grace in itself first, and so embrace and receive the promise and Christ Jesus in it: So that although in receiving Christ to be our own, we are to see no good in ourselves wherefore we should receive him or believe in him; yet in receiving him as our own already, we must first see some good (the work of free grace in us) or else we have no just ground thus to receive him: No man can challenge any promise belonging to him without having a part in Christ the foundation of them; no man can have Christ but by receiving of him or believing in him, joh. 1.12. Hence therefore they that say that the first evidence of God's love and free grace or actual favour, i● to a sinner as a sinner, had need consider what they say; for is it to a sinner as possessed with Christ and receiving of him, or as dispossessed of Christ not having of him, but rather refusing and rejecting of him. If they say the first, they then speak the truth, but then they raze down their own pernicious principle, that Christ and God's love belongs to them As sinners: If they affirm the latter, than they do injuriously destroy Gods free grace and the glory of Christ, who think to possess promises without possessing Christ, or to have promises of grace, without having Christ the foundation of them all. For though the common love of God (as the bare offer of grace is) may be manifested without having Christ, yet special actual love cannot be actually our own, without having and first receiving of him: And if the Spirit of God convince the world of sin (and consequently of condemnation) while they do not believe, joh. 16.9. I wonder how it can then convince them of pardon of sin and reconciliation, before they do believe? unless we will imagine it to be a lying spirit, which is blasphemous. These things not considered of, have and do occasion much error at this day in the point of evidencing, and hath been an inlet of deep delusion, and open gaps have been made hereby to the loose ways and depths of Familism and gross Arminianism, and therefore being well considered of, are sufficient to clear up the ways of those faithful servants of the Lord (who dare not sow pillows, nor cry peace to the wicked, much less to sinners as sinners) both from the slanderous imputation of legal ministrations after an old Testament manner, as also of making works the ground of faith, or the causes of assurance of faith; the free offer being the ground of the one, and the free promise the cause and ground of the other: Briefly therefore. 1. The free offer of grace is the first evidence to a poor lost sinner that he may be beloved. 2. The receiving of this offer by faith (relatively considered in respect of Christ's spotless righteousness) is the first evidence showing why he is beloved, or what hath moved God actually to love him. 3. The work of sanctification (which is the fruit of our receiving this offer) is the first evidence showing that he is beloved. If therefore a condemned sinner be asked whether God may love him, and why he thinks so? he may answer, Because Jesus Christ is held forth and offered to such a one: If he be further asked, why or what he thinks should move God to love him? he may answer, Because I have received Christ's righteousness offered, for which righteousness sake only I know I am beloved, now I have received it: If he be asked lastly, how he knows certainly that he is beloved; he may answer safely and confidently, Because I am sanctified: I am poor in spirit, therefore mine is the kingdom of heaven: I do mourn, and therefore I shall be comforted: I do hunger and thirst, and therefore I shall be satisfied, etc. We need in time of distress and temptation all these evidences, and therefore it is greatest wisdom to pray for that spirit, which may clear them all up unto us, rather than to contend which should be the first. And thus we see that the whole moral law is our rule of life, and consequently the law of the Sabbath, which is a branch of this rule: We now proceed to show the third branch, of things generally and primarily moral. Thesis' 120. Thirdly, Not only a day, nor only a rest day, but the rest day or Sabbath day (which is expressed and expressly interpreted in the Commandment to be the seventh day, or a seventh day of Gods determining, and therefore called The Sabbath of the Lord our God) is here also enjoined and commanded, as generally moral. For if a day be moral, what day must it be? If it be said, that any day which humane wisdom shall determine, whether one day in a hundred or a thousand, or one day in many years; if this only be generally moral, than the rule of morality may be broken because the rule of equality may be thus broken by humane determination: For it may be very unequal and unjust to give God one day in a hundred or a thousand for his worship, and to assume so many beside to ourselves for our own use. There is therefore something else more particularly, yet primarily moral in this Command, and that is The Sabbath day, or such a day wherein there appears an equal division, and a fit proportion between time for rest and time for work, a time for God and a time for man, and that is a ●●venth day which God determines: A fit proportion of time for God is moral because equal, man cannot determine nor set out this proportion, God therefore only can and must, A day therefore that he shall determine is moral, and if he declares his determination to a seventh, A seventh day is therefore moral. Gomarus confesseth that by the Analogy of this Commandment, not one day in a thousand, or when man pleaseth, but that one day in seven is moral, at least equal, fit, and congruous to observe the same: and if the Analogy he speaks of ariseth virtute mandati divini, or by virtue of God's Commandment, the cause is in effect yielded; but if this Analogy be made virtute libertatis humanae, so that humane liberty may do well to give God one in seven, because the Jews did so, and why should Christians be more scant? then I see not but humane liberty may assume power to itself to impose monthly and annual holy days as well, because the Jews had their new moons and yearly festivals; and by Analogy thereof, why may not Christians who have more grace poured out upon them, and more love shown unto them under the Gospel, hold some meet proportion with them therein also, as well as in Sabbaths? But it can never be proved that God hath left any humane wisdom at liberty to make holy days, by the rule of Jewish proportions: Beside, if humane wisdom see it meet and congruous to give God at least one day in seven, this wisdom and reason is either regulated by some law, and then 'tis by virtue of the law of God, that he should have one day in seven, or 'tis not regulated by a law, and then we are left to a loose end again, for man to appoint what day he sees meet in a shorter or a longer time, his own reason being his only law; and this neither Gomaras nor the words of the Commandment will allow, which sets and fixeth the day, which we see is one day in seven, which not man but God shall determine and therefore called The Sabbath of the Lord our God. Thesis' 121. The hardest knot herein to unloose, lies in this, to know whether a seventh day in general which God shall determine, or that particular Seventh day from the creation be here only commanded; the first seems (in Mr. Primrose apprehension) to writhe and wrack the words of the Commandment; the second (if granted) abolisheth our Christian Sabbaths. Thesis' 122. For clearing up of this difficulty therefore, and leaving the dispute of the change of the Sabbath to it's p●●per place, it may be made good, that not that seventh day from the creation, so much as a seventh day which God shall determine (and therefore called the seventh day) is primarily moral, and therefore enjoined in this Commandment, for which end let these things be considered and laid together. 1. Because the express words of the Commandment do not run thus, viz. Remember to keep holy That seventh day, but more generally, the Sabbath day; 'tis in the beginning and so 'tis in the end of this Commandment, where it is not said that God blessed That Seventh day, but The Sabbath day, by which expression the wisdom of God, as it points to that particular seventh day that it should be sanctified: so it also opens a door of liberty for change, if God shall see meet, because the substance of the Commandment doth not only contain That seventh day, but The Sabbath day, which may be upon another seventh, as well as upon that which God appointed first: and that the substance of the command is contained in those first words, Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy, may appear from the repetition of the same Commandment, Deut. 5.12. where these words, As the Lord thy God commanded thee, are immediately inserted before the rest of the words of the Commandment be set down, to show thus much: that therein is contained the substance of the fourth command: the words following being added only to press to the duty, and to point out the particular day, which at that time God would have them to observe. 2. Because in the explication of those words [the Sabbath] it is not called That seventh, but The seventh, for so the words run, Six days shalt thou labour, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God, the meaning of which is thus much, to wit, that man taking six days to himself for labour, that he leave the seventh to be the Lords: now unless any can show that no other day but that Seventh could be the seventh for rest, nor no other six days but those six days going before tha● seventh could be the six days for labour, they can never prove that this fourth Commandment hath only a respect to That particular Seventh, and it is no small boldness necessarily to limit where God hath left free: for we know that if God will, man may take other six days for labour, and leave another Seventh for God, than those six days and that Seventh day only. 3. The change of the Sabbath undeniably proves thus much (if it can be proved) that the morality of this command did not lie in that particular day only: for if that only was moral, how could it be changed? and if it did not lie only in that Seventh, wherein then did it more generally lie? was it in a day more largely or in a Seventh day more narrowly? now let any indifferent conscience be herein judge, who they be that come nearest to the truth, whether they that fly so far from the name Seventh, which is expressly mentioned in the Commandment, or they that come as near it as may be? whether they that plead for a Seventh of Gods appointing, or they that plead for a day (but God knows when) of humane institution? and it's worth considering why any should be offended at the placing of the morality of the command in a Seventh, more than at their own placing of it in a day; for in urging the letter of the Commandment to that particular Seventh, to abolish thereby the morality of a Seventh day, they do withal therein utterly abandon the morality of a day; for if That Seventh only be enjoined in the letter of the Commandment▪ and they will thence infer, that a Seventh therefore cannot be required, how can they upon this ground draw out the morality of a day? 4. Because (we know) that ratio legis est anima legis, i. the reason of a law is the soul and life of the law: now let it be considered, why God should appoint the Seventh rather then the ninth or tenth or twentieth-day, for spiritual rest? and the reason will appear not to be Gods absolute will merely, but because divine wisdom having just measures and balances in its hand, in proportioning time between God and man, it saw a seventh part of time (rather than a tenth of twentieth) to be most equal for himself to take, and for man to give: and thus much the words of the Commandment imply, viz. that it is most equal if man hath six, that God should have the seventh: now if this be the reason of the law, this must needs be the soul and substance of the morality of the law, viz. That a Seventh day be given to God, man having six, and therefore it consists not in That Seventh day only: for the primary reason, why God appointed this or that Seventh, was not because it was that seventh, but because a Seventh was now equal in the eye of God for God to take to himself, man having the full and fittest proportion of six days together for himself; and because a seventh was the fittest proportion of time for God, hence this or that individual and particular seventh in the second place fall out to be moral, because they contain the most equal and fittest proportion of a Seventh day in them; there was also another reason why That Seventh was sanctified, viz. God's rest in it, but this reason is not primary as hath been said, and of which now we speak. 5. Because if no other Commandment be in the Decalogue, but it is comprehensive, and looking many ways at once, why should we then pinion and gird up this only to the narrow compass of that Seventh day only? 6. Because our adversaries in this point are forced sometime to acknowledge this morality of a Seventh with us: we have heard the judgement of Gomaras herein, Thesis' 44. and M. Primrose who speaks with most weight and spirit in this controversy, professeth plainly, That if God give us six days for our own affairs, there is then good reason to consecrate a Seventh to his service, and that in this reason there is manifest justice and equity which abideth for ever, to dedicate to God precisely a seventh day after we have bestowed six days upon ourselves: it cannot be denied (saith he) but that it is most just; Now if it be by his confession, 1. just, 2. most just. 3. manifestly just. 4. perpetually just, to give God precisely one day in seven: the cause is then yielded: the only evasion he makes is this, viz. that though it be most just to give God one day in seven, yet it's not more just, then to give God one in six, or five, or four, there being no natural justice in the number of seven more than in the number of six or four: but the answer is easy, that if man may give unto God superstitiously too many, or profanely too few: and if the appointment of God hath declared itself for a seventh, and that the giving of this seventh be most just and equal, then let it be considered, whether it be not most satisfactory to a scrupling conscience, to allow God a seventh day which he hath appointed, which is confessed to be most just and perpetually equal, and consequently moral: and if there be a moral and perpetual equity to give God one day in seven, then 'tis no matter whether there be any more natural equity therein, then in one in five or six: the disputers of this worl● may please themselves with such speculations and shifts, but the wisdom of God, which hath already appointed one day in seven rather then in six or ten, should be adored herein, by humble minds, in cutting out this proportion of time, with far greater equity than man can now readily see. 7. Because deep corruption is the ground of this opinion, the plucking up of God's bounds and landmarks of a seventh, is to put the stakes into the Church's hands, to set them where she pleaseth; or if she set them at a seventh, where God would have them, yet that this may be submitted to, not because God pleaseth, but because the Church so pleaseth; not because of Gods will and determination, but because of the Churches will and determination, that so it being once granted, that the Church hath liberty to determine of such a day, she may not be denied liberty of making any other holidays, or holy things in the worship and service of God; and that this is the main scope and root of this opinion is palpably evident from most of the writings of our English adversaries in this controversy. Thesis' 123. A seventh day therefore is primarily moral, yet (as was formerly said Thesis. 48.) there is something else in this commandment which is secundarily moral, viz. This or that particular seventh day, I will not say that it is accidentally moral (as some do) but rather secundarily, and consequently moral: for it is not moral firstly, because it is this particular seventh, but because it hath a seventh part of time, divinely proportioned and appointed for rest, falling into it, and of which it participates: to give alms to the needy is a moral duty, and primarily moral; but to give this or that quantity may be moral also, but it is secundarily moral, because it flows ex consequenti, only from the first; for if we are to give alms according to our ability and others necessity, than this or that particular quantity thus suiting their necessity must be given: which is also a moral duty, so 'tis in this point of the Sabbath. Thesis' 224. Hence it follows, that this Commandment enjoins two things: 1. More generally a seventh. 2 More particularly this or that seventh, and in special that seventh from the Creation, this or that seventh are to be kept holy, because of a seventh part of time appointed falling into them: A seventh day also is to be kept holy by virtue of the Commandment; yet not in general, but with special eye and respect to that particular seventh, wherein this general is involved and preserved. That seventh from the Creation is commanded, because of a seventh falling into it; and a seventh also is commanded, yet with a special eye to that seventh wherein it is involved: And therefore 'tis a vain objection to affirm, that if a seventh be commanded, that then ●o particular seventh is; or if any particular seventh be so, that then a seventh is not; for the Commandment we see hath respect to both; for what is there more frequent in Scripture then for general duties to be wrapped up and set forth in some particular things, instances and examples, and consequently both commanded together? and after narrow search into this Commandment we shall find both the general and particular seventh, not only inferring one the other, but both of them in a manner expressly mentioned. Thesis' 125. When those that plead for the morality of the fourth Command, in respect of a seventh day, would prove it to be moral, because it is part of the Decalogue and set in the heart of it, with a special note of remembrance affixed to it, etc. Mr. Ironside and others do usually dash all such reasonings out of countenance, with this answer, viz. That by this argument, That particular seventh from the creation is moral, which we see is changed; for (say they) that also is set in the heart of the Decalogue, with a special note of remembrance also. But the reply from what hath been said is easy, viz. That that also is indeed moral; only 'tis secondarily moral, not primarily; and therefore (as we have shown) was mutable and changeable, the primary morality in a seventh immutably remaining; the moral duty of observing a seventh day is not changed, but only the day. If Mr. Primrose could prove that there is nothing else commanded in this fourth command, but only that particular seventh from the creation, he had then enough to show that (this day being justly changed) the Commandment is not moral of perpetual, Prim. part. 2. cap. 6. S. 24. but out or this particular seventh which now is changed; himself acknowledgeth that out of it may be gathered the morality of a day, and why not of a seventh day also as well as of a day? He saith that it is a bold assertion to say that this genus of a seventh is herein commanded: But why is it not as bold to affirm the same of a day? for out of that particular seventh whence he would raise the genus of a day, we may as easily, and far more rationally collect the genus of a seventh day. Thesis' 126. Nor will it follow that because a seventh is moral, that therefore any one of the seven days in a week may be made a Christian Sabbath: For 1. We do not say that it is any seventh, but A seventh determined and appointed of God for holy rest, which is herein commanded. 2. The Lord hath in wisdom appointed such a seventh as that man may have six whole days together to labour in: and hence it follows that divine determination without crossing that wisdom, could not possibly fall upon any other days in the Cycle of seven, but either upon the last of seven which was the Jewish, or the first of seven which now is (as shall be shown) the Christian Sabbath. 3. As God hath appointed one day in seven for man's rest, so in his wisdom he so order it, as that it shall be also a day of God's rest, and that is not to be found in any day of the week, but either in the last of seven, wherein the Father rested, or in the first of seven wherein the Son rested from his work also. Thesis' 127. 'Tis true that the Sabbath day and that seventh day from the creation, are indifferently taken sometimes the one for the other, the one being the exegesis or the explication of the other, as Gen. 2, 2, 3. Exod. 16.29. and elsewhere; but that it should be only so understood in this commandment, Creda● judaeus Apella— non ego, as he said in another case; I see no convicting argument to clip the wings of the Scripture so short, and to make the Sabbath day and that seventh day of equal dimensions: Although it cannot be denied, but that in some sense the Sabbath day is exegetical of the seventh day, because the commandment hath a special eye to that seventh from the creation, which is secundarily moral, yet not excluding that which is more generally contained in that particular, and consequently commanded, viz. a seventh day or The Sabbath day. Thesis' 128. Prim. part. 2. cap. ●. S. 24. M. Primrose would prove the exegesis, That by the Sabbath day is meant that seventh day only from the creation, because God actually blessed and sanctified that Sabbath day, because God cannot actually bless a seventh, being an unlimited, indefinite and uncertain indetermined time: The time (saith he) only wherein he rested, he only actually blessed, which was not in a seventh day indetermined, but in that determined seventh day: But all this may be readily acknowledged and yet the truth remain firm; for that particular seventh being secundarily moral, hence as it was expressly commanded, so it was actually and particularly blessed; but as in this seventh a general of a seventh is included, so a seventh is also generally blessed and sanctified. Otherwise how will M. Primrose maintain the morality of a day of worship out of this commandment? for the same objection may be made against a day, which himself acknowledgeth, as against a seventh day which we maintain; for it may be said, that That day is here only moral wherein God actually rested, but he did not rest in a day indefinitely, and therefore a day is not moral; let him unloose this knot, and his answer in defence of the morality of a day will help him to see the morality of a seventh day also: That particular day indeed wherein God actually and particularly rested, he particularly blessed, but there was a seventh day also more general which he generally blessed also; he generally blest the Sabbath day, he particularly blest that Sabbath day, and in blessing of that he did virtually and by Analogy bless our particular Christian Sabbath also, which was to come: As Moses in his actual blessing of the tribe of Levi, Deut. 23.7, 10. he did virtually and by Analogy bless all the Ministers of the Gospel not then in being: And look as when God commanded them to keep holy the Sabbath in ceremonial duties, he did therein virtually command us to keep it holy in Evangelicall duties; so when he commanded them to observe that day because it was actually appointed and sanctified and blessed of God, he commanded us virtually and analogically therein to observe our seventh day also if ever he should actually appoint and bless this other. Thesis' 129. The distribution of equity and justice consists not always, in puncto indivisibili, i. in an indivisible point, and a set measure; so as that if more or less be done or given in way of justice, that then the rule of justice is thereby broken, ex. gr. it's just to give alms and pay tribute; yet not so just, as that if men give more or less, that then they break a rule of justice; so 'tis in this point of the Sabbath, a seventh part of time is moral, because it is just and equal for all men to give unto God, who have six for one given them to serve their own turn, and do their own work in, yet it is not so just but that if God had required the tribute of a third or fourth part of our time, but it might have been just also to have given him one day in three or two or four, for in this case positive determination doth not so much make as declare only that which is moral: And therefore if Mr Primrose thinks, that a seventh part of time is not moral, upon this ground, viz. because it is as equal and just to dedicate more time to God, and that a third or fourth day is as equal as a seventh, it is doubtless an ungrounded assertion; for so he affirms, That although it be most just to give God one day in seven, Part. 2. cap. 7. S. 4. yet no mo●e just then to dedicated to him one day in three or six: And suppose it be so, yet this doth not prove that a seventh day is not moral, because it is as equal to give six as seven, no more than that it is no moral duty to give an alms, because it may be as equal to give twenty pence as thirty pence to a man in want: If furthermore he think that it is as equal and just to give God more days for his service, as one in seven, out of humane wisdom and by humane consecration, not divine dedication, than it may be doubted whether one day in two or three or six is as equal as one day in seven; for as humane wisdom, if lest to itself, may readily give too few, so it may superstitiously give too many (as hath been said:) But if four or three or six be alike equal in themselves to give to God, as one in seven, then if he thinks it a moral duty to observe any such day in case it should be imposed and consecrated by humane determination, I hope he will not be offended at us if we think it a moral duty also to observe a seventh day, which we are certain divine wisdom hath judged most equal, and which is imposed on us by divine determination: we may be uncertain whether the one is as equal, as we are certain that a seventh day is. Thesis' 130. Actions of worship can no more be imagined to be done without some time, than a body be without some place, and therefore in the three first Commandments, where God's worship is enjoined, some time together with it is necessarily commanded; if therefore any time for worship be required in the fourth command (which none can deny) it must not be such a time as is connatural & which is necessarily tied to the action; but it must be some solemn and special time, which depends upon some special determination, not which nature, but which Counsel determines; Determination therefore by Counsel of that time which is required in this command doth not abolish the morality of it, but rather declares and establisheth it. God therefore who is Lord of time, may justly challenge the determination of this time into his own hand, and not infringe the morality of this command, considering also that he is more able and fit then men or Angels to see, and so cut out the most equal proportion of time between man and himself; God therefore hath sequestered a seventh part of time to be sanctified, rather than a fifth, a fourth, or a ninth, not simply because it was this seventh, or a seventh, but because in his wise determination thereof, he knew it to be the most just and equal division of time between man and himself; and therefore I know no incongruity to affirm, that if God had seen one day in three or four, or nine, to be as equal a proportion of time as one day in seven, that he would then have left it free to man to take and consecrate either the one or the other (the Spirit of God not usually restraining where there is a liberty) and on the other side, if he had seen a third or fifth or ninth or twentieth part of time more equal than a seventh, he would have fixed the bounds of labour and rest out of a seventh; but having now fixed them to a seventh, a seventh day is therefore moral, rather than a fourth or sixth or ninth day, because it is the most equal and fittest proportion of time (all things considered) between God and man; the appointment therefore of a seventh rather then a sixth or fourth▪ is not an act of Gods mere will only (as our adversaries affirm, and therefore they think it not moral) but it was and is an act of his wisdom also according to a moral rule of justice, viz. to give unto God that which is most fit, most just and most equal; and therefore although there is no natural justice (as Mr Primrose calls it) in a seventh simply and abstractly considered, rather than in a sixth or tenth, yet if the most equal proportion of time for God be lotted out in a seventh, there is then something natural and moral in it rather than in any other partition of time, viz. to give God that proportion of time which is most just and most equal; and in this respect a seventh part of time is commanded because it is good (according to the description of a moral law) and not only good because it is commanded. Thesis' 131. 'Tis true, that in private duties of worship, as to read the Scriptures, meditate, pray, etc. the time for these and the like duties is left to the will and determination of man according to general rules of conveniency and seasonableness set down in the word; man's will (in this sense) is the measure of such times of worship, but there is not the like reason here, in determining time for a Sabbath, as if that should be left to man's liberty also; because those private duties are to be done in that time, which is necessarily annexed to the duties themselves, which time is therefore there commanded, where and when the duty is commanded: but the time for a Sabbath is not such a time as naturally will and must attend the action, but it's such a time as Counsel (not nature) sees most meet, and especially That counsel which is most able to make the most equal proportions of time, which we know is not in the liberty or ability of men or Angels, but of God himself, for do but once imagine a time required out of the limits of what naturally attends the action, and it will be found necessarily to be a time determined by counsel: and therefore our adversaries should not think it as free for man to change the Sabbath seasons, from the seventh to the fifth or fourth or tenth day, etc. as to alter and pick our times for private duties. Thesis' 132. There is a double reason of proposing God's example in the fourth Command, as is evident from the Commandment itself: the first was to persuade, the second was to direct. 1. To persuade man so to labour six days together, as to give the seventh, or a seventh appointed for holy rest unto God; for so the example speaks, God laboured six days, and rested the seventh, therefore do you do the like. 2. To direct the people of God to That particular Seventh, which for that time when the Law was given God would have them then to observe, and that was that Seventh which did succeed the six day's labour: and therefore for any to make God's example of rest on That Seventh day, an argument that God commanded the observation of that Seventh day only, is a groundless assertion, for there was something more generally aimed at by setting forth this example, viz. to persuade men hereby to labour six days, and give God the seventh, which he should appoint, as well as to direct to that particular day which for that time (it's granted) it also pointed unto; and therefore let the words in the Commandment be observed, and we shall find man's duty 1. More generally set down, viz. to labour six days, and dedicate the seventh unto God, and then follows God's persuasion hereunto from his own example, who when he had a world to make, and work to do, he did labour six days together, and rested the seventh; and thus a man is bound to do still: but it doth not follow, that he must rest that particular seventh only, on which God then rested; or that that seventh (though we grant it was pointed unto) was only aimed at in this example: the binding power of all examples whatsoever (and therefore of this) being ad speciem actus (as they call it) to that kind of act, and not to the individuum actionis only, or to every particular accidental circumstance therein; If indeed man was to labour six days in memorial only of the six days of creation, and to rest a Seventh day in memorial only of God's rest and cessation from creation, it might then carry a fair face, as if this example pointed at the observation of that particular seventh only; but look as our six day's labour is appointed for other and higher ends, then to remember the six day's work of God, it being a moral duty to attend our callings therein; so the Seventh day of rest, is appointed for higher and larger ends (as Didoclavius observes) then only to remember that notable rest of God from all his works, it being a moral duty to rest the Seventh day in all holiness. Thesis' 133. It was but accidental, and not of the essence of the Sabbath day, that that particular Seventh from the creation should be the Sabbath; for the Seventh day Sabbath being to be man's rest day, it was therefore suitable to God's wisdom to give man an example of rest from himself, to encourage him thereunto (for we know how strongly examples persuade) now rest b●ing a cessation from labour, it therefore supposes labour to go before; hence God could not appoint the first day of the creation to be the Sabbath, because he did then but begin his labour; nor could he take any the other days, because in them he had not finished his work, nor rested from his labour, therefore God's rest fell out upon the last of seven succeeding six of labour before; so that if there could have been any other day as fit then for exemplary rest as this; and as afterward it sell out in the finishing of the work of redemption, it might have been as well upon such a day as this, but it was not then so: and hence the rest day fell as it were accidentally upon this: and hence it is that God's example of rest on that particular day doth not necessarily bind us to observe the same seventh day: moral examples not always binding in their accidentals (as the case is here) although it be true that in their essentials they always do. Thesis' 134. There is no strength in that reason, that because one day in seven is to be consecrated unto God, Wal. dis●ert. cap. 1. Jun. Annal. Explic. in Leu. 25. that therefore one year in seven is to be so also, as of old it was among the Jew●● for beside what hath been said formerly, viz. that one year in seven was merely ceremonial, one day in seven is not so (saith Wallaeus) but moral; God gave no example (whose example is only in moral things) of resting one year in seven, but he did of resting one day in seven. I say, beside all this, it is observable what junius notes herein, The Lord (saith he) challengeth one day in seven jure creationis, by right of creation; and hence requires it of all men created: but he challenged one year in seven, jure peculiaris possessionis, i. by right of peculiar possession, the Land of Canaan being the Lord's land in a peculiar manner, even a type of Heaven, which every other Country is not; and therefore there is no reason that all men should give God one seventh year, as they are to give him one seventh day: By the observation of one day in seven (saith he) men profess themselves to be the Lords, and to belong unto him, who created and made them; and this profession all men are bound unto: but by observation of one year in seven, they professed thereby that their Country was the Lords, and themselves the Lords Tenants therein, which all Countries (not being types of Heaven) cannot nor aught to do; and therefore there is not the like reason urged to the observation of a seventh year, as of a seventh day. Thesis' 135. Look therefore as 'tis in the second Commandment, although the particular instituted worship is changed under the Gospel, from what it was under the Law, yet the general duty required therein of observing Gods own instituted worship is moral and unchangeable: so 'tis in the fourth Commandment, where though the particular day be changed, yet the duty remains moral and unchangeable in observing a seventh day; there is therefore no reason to imagine that the general duty contained in this precept is not moral, because the observance of the particular day is mutable; and yet this is the fairest colour, but the strongest refuge of lies which their cause hath, who hold a seventh day to be merely ceremonial. Thesis' 136. If it be a moral duty to observe one day in seven, than the observation of such a day, no more infringeth Christian liberty, than obedience to any other moral Law, one part of our Christian liberty consisting in our conformity to it, as our ●ondage consists in being left to sin against it; and therefore that argument against the morality of one day in seven is very feeble, as if Christian liberty was hereby infringed. Thesis' 137. It was meet that God should have special service from man, and therefore meet for himself to appoint a special time for it: which time though it be a circumstance, yet it's such a circumstance as hath a special influence into any business, not only humane, but also divine, and therefore if it be naturally, it may be also ethically and morally good, contributing much also to what is morally good; and therefore the determination of such a time for length, frequency, and holiness, may be justly taken in among the moral Laws: he that shall doubt of such a powerful influence of special time for the furthering of what is specially good, may look upon the art, skill, trade, learning, nay grace itself perhaps, which he hath got by the help of the improvement of time: a profane, and religious heart, are seen and accounted of according to their improvements of time, more or less, in holy things: Time is not therefore such a circumstance as is good only because commanded (as the place of the Temple was) but it is commanded because it is good, because time, nay much time, reiterated in a weekly seventh part of time, doth much advance and set forward that which is good. Thesis'. 138. That Law which is an homogeneal part of the moral Law, is moral: but the fourth Commandment is such a part of the moral Law, and therefore it is moral; I do not say that that Law which is set and placed among the moral Laws in order of writing (as our adversaries too frequently mistake us in) that it is therefore moral, for than it might be said as well that the Sabbath is ceremonial, because it it is placed in order of writing among things ceremonial, Leu. 23. but if it be one link of the chain, and an essential part of the moral Law, then it's undoubtedly moral; but so it is, for its part of the Decalogue, nine parts whereof all our adversaries we now contend with confess to be moral; and to make this fourth ceremonial, which God hath set in the heart of the Decalogue, and commanded us to remember to keep it above any other Law, seems very unlike to truth, to a serene and sober mind, not disturbed with such mud, which usually lies at the bottom of the heart, and turns light into darkness: and why one ceremonial precept should be shuffled in among the rest which are of another tribe, lineage and language, hath been by many attempted, but never sound cleared unto this day: surely if this Commandment be not moral, then there are but nine Commandments left to us of the moral Law, which is expressly contrary to God's account, Deut. 4. To affirm that all the commands of the Decalogue are moral, yet every one in his proportion and degree, and that this of the Sabbath is thus moral, viz. in respect of the purpose and intent of the Lawgiver, viz. That some time he set apart, but not moral in respect of the letter in which it is expressed: it is in some sense formerly explained, true, but in his sense who endeavours to prove the Sabbath ceremonial, while he saith it is moral, is both dark and false: for if it be said to be moral only in respect of some time to be set apart, and this time an individuum vagum, an indeterminate time, beyond the verges of a seventh part of time; then there is no more morality granted to the fourth Commandment, then to the Commandment of building the temple and observing the new moons, because in God's command to build the Temple: the general purpose and intention of the Lawgiver was that some place be appointed for his public worship, and in commanding to observe New Moons, that some time be set apart for his worship, and so there was no more necessity of putting Remember to keep the Sabbath holy, then to remember to keep holy the new moons: And look as the commandment to observe new moons, cannot in reason be accounted a moral commandment, because there is some general morality in it, viz. for to observe some time of worship, so neither should this of the Sabbath be upon the like ground of some general morality mixed in it; and therefore for M Ironside to say that the law of the Sabbath is set among the rest of the moral precepts, because it is mixedly ceremonial, having in it something which is moral, which other ceremonial commands (he saith) have not, is palpably untrue; for there is no ceremonial law of observing Jewish moons and festivals, but there was something generally moral in them, viz. That (in respect of the purpose and intention of the Lawgiver) some time be set apart for God, just as he makes this of keeping the Sabbath. Thesis' 139. Prim. part. 2. cap. 6. To imagine that there are but nine moral precepts indeed; and that they are called ten in respect of the greater part according to which things are usually denominated, is an invention of M. Primrose, which contains a pernicious and poisonful seed of making way for the razing out of the Decalogue more laws than one: for the same answer will serve the turn for cashiering three or four more, the greater part (suppose six) remaining moral, according to which the denomination ariseth: For although it be true that sometime the denomination is according to the greater part, viz. when there is a necessity of mixing divers things together as in a heap of corn with much chaff, or a Butt of wine where there be many lees, yet there was no necessity of such a mixture and jumbling together of morals and ceremonials here: M. Primrose tells us that he doth not read in Scripture, that all the Commandments are without exception called moral, and therefore why may there not (saith he) be one ceremonial among them? But by this reason he may as well exclude all the other nine from being moral also; for I read not in Scripture that any one of them is styled by that name, Moral: And although it be true which he saith, That covenants among men consist sometime together of divers articles, as also that God's Covenant (taken in some sense) sometimes did so; yet the Covenant of God made with all men (as we shall prove the Decalogue is) ought not to be so mingled, neither could it be so without apparent contradiction, viz. That here should be a covenant which bindeth all men in all things to observe it, and yet some part of it being ceremonial, should not bind all men in all things it commands: nor is there indeed any need of putting in one ceremonial law, considering how easily they are and may be reduced to sundry precepts of the moral law as appendices thereof, without such shuffling as is contended for here. Thesis' 140. If this law be not moral, why is it crowned with the same honour, that the rest of the moral precepts are? if its dignity be not equal with the rest▪ Why hath it been exalted so high in equal glory with them? Were the other nine spoken immediately by the voice of God on mount Sinai with great terror and majesty before all the people? Were they written upon Tables of stone with Gods own finger twice? Were they put into the Ark as most holy and sacred? so was this of the Sabbath also: Why hath it the same honour, if it be not of the same nature with the rest? Thesis' 141. Our adversaries turn every stone to make answer to this known argument, and they tell us that it's disputable and very questionable whether this law was spoken immediately by God and not rather by Angels: But let it be how it will be, yet this law of the Sabbath was spoken and written, and laid up as all the rest were, and therefore had the same honour as all the rest had which we doubt not to be moral; and yet I think it easy to demonstrate that this law was immediately spoken by God, Jun. Paral. and the reasons against it are long since answered by junius, on Heb. 2.2, 3. but its useless here to enter into this controversy. Thesis' 142. Nor do I say that because the law was spoken by God immediately, that therefore it is moral; for he spoke with Abraham, job, Moses in the mount, immediately about other matters then moral laws; but because he thus spoke and in such a manner openly and to all people, young and old, Jews and Proselyte Gentiles then present, with such great glory and terror and majesty. B. Manus●: of Sab. Surely it stands not (saith holy Brigh●man) with the majesty of the universal Lord who is God not only of the Jews but also of the Gentiles, speaking thus openly (not privately) and gloriously and most immediately, to prescribe laws to one people only which were small in number, but wherewith all nations alike should be governed: Mr Ironside indeed thinks that the Lord had gone on to have delivered all the other ceremonials in the like manner of speech from the mount, but that the fear and cry of the people (that he would speak no more to them) stopped him; but the contrary is most evident, viz. that before the people cried out, the Lord made a stop of himself, and therefore is said to add no more, Deut. 5.22, It was a glory of the Gospel above all other messages in that it was immediately spoken by Christ, Heb. 1.2. & 2.3. and so God's immediate publication of the moral law puts a glory and honour upon it above any other laws; and therefore while Mr Ironside goes about to put the same honour upon ceremonial laws, he doth not a little obscure and cast dishonour upon those that are moral, by making this honour to be common with ceremonial and not proper only to moral laws. Thesis' 143. Nor do I say that the writing of the law on stone argues it to be moral (for some laws not moral were mediately writ on stone by joshuah, Josh. 8.32.) but because it was writ immediately by the finger of God on such Tables of stone, and that not once but twice; not on paper or parchment, but on stone, which argues their continuance; and not on stone in open fields, but on such stone as was laid up in the Ark, a place of most safety, being most sacred, and a type of Christ who kept this law, and upon whose heart it was writ, Psal. 40.6, 7. to satisfy justice, and to make just and righteous before God, all that shall be saved, of all whom the righteousness of this Law, according to justice was to be exacted; what do these things argue, but at least thus much, that if any Law was to be perpetuated, this surely ought so to be? Mr. Primrose tells us, that the writing upon stone did not signify continuance of the Law, but the hardness of their stony hearts, which the Law writ upon them was not able to overcome; and 'tis true that the stony Tables did signify stony hearts, but its false that the writing on stone did not signify continuance also, according to Scripture phrase: For all the children of God have stony hearts by nature; now God hath promised to write his Law upon such hearts as are by nature stony, and his writing of them there implies the continuance of them there; so that both these may stand together, and the similitude is fully thus, viz. The whole Law of God was writ on Tables of stone, to continue there: so the whole Law of God is writ on stony hearts by nature to continue thereon. Thesis' 144. Only moral Laws, and all moral Laws, are thus summarily and generally honoured by God; the ten Commandments being Christian pandects and common heads of all moral duties toward God and men: Under which generals, all the particular moral duties in the Commentaries of the Prophets and Apostles, are virtually comprehended and contained; and therefore Mr. Primrose's argument is weak, who thinks that this honour put upon the Decalogue doth not argue it to be moral, Because then many other particular moral Laws set down in Scripture, not in Tables of stone, but in parchments of the Prophets and Apostles, should not be moral: For we do not say that all moral Laws particularly were thus specially honoured, but that all and only moral Laws summarily were thus honoured; in which summaries, all the particulars are contained, and in that respect equally honoured: It may affect one's heart with great mourning, to see the many inventions of men's hearts to blot out this remembrance of the Sabbath day; they first cast it out of Paradise, and shut it out of the world until Moses time; when in Moses time it's published as a Law, and crowned with the same honour as all other moral Laws, yet than they make it to be but a ceremonial Law, continuing only until the coming of Christ; after which time it ceaseth to be any Law at all, unless the Church's constitution shall please to make it so, which is worst of all. Thesis' 145. Every thing indeed which was published by God's immediate voice in promulgating of the Law, is not moral and common to all; but some things so spoken may be peculiar and proper to the Jews, because some things thus spoken were promises or motives only, annexed to the Law to persuade to the obedience thereof; but they were not Laws; for the question is whether all Laws spoken and writ thus immediately were not moral; but the argument which some produce against this is, From the promise annexed to the fifth Command, concerning long life, and from the motive of redemption out of the house of bondage, in the preface to the Commandments, both which (they say) were spoken immediately, but yet were both of them proper unto the jews: But suppose the promise annexed to the fifth Commandment be proper to the Jews, and ceremonial, as Master Primrose pleads (which yet many strong reasons from Eph. 6.2. may induce one to deny) what is this to the question, which is not concerning Promises, but Commandments and Laws: Suppose also that the motive in the Preface of the Commandments literally understood is proper to the Jews; yet this is also evident, that such reasons and motives as are proper to some, and perhaps ceremonial, may be annexed to moral laws which are common to all; nor will it follow, that laws are therefore not common, because the motives thereto are proper: We that dwell in America may be persuaded to love and fear God (which are moral duties) in regard of our redemption and deliverances from out of the vast sea storms we once had, and the tumults in Europe which now are, which motives are proper to ourselves. Promises and motives annexed to the Commandments, come in as means to a higher end, viz. obedience to the Laws themselves; and hence the Laws themselves may be moral, Wal. di●●. de 4. prae●. cap. 3. and these not so, though immediately spoken, because they be not chiefly nor last intended herein. I know Wallaeus makes the preface to the Commandments a part of the first Commandment, and therefore he would hence infer, that some part (at least) of a Commandment is proper to the Jews; but if these words contain a motive pressing to the obedience of the whole, how is it possible that they should be a part of the law or of any one law? For what force of a law can there be in that which only declares unto us who it is that redeemed them out of Egypt's bondage? For it cannot be true (which the same Author affirms) that in these words is set forth only who that God is whom we are to have to be our God in the first Commandment; but they are of larger extent, showing us who that God is whom we are to worship, according to the first Commandment, and that with his own worship according to the second, and that reverently according to the third, and whose day we are to sanctify according to the fourth, and whose will we are to do in all duties of love toward man, according to the several duties of the second Table; and therefore this declaration of God is no more a part of the first then of any other Commandment, and every other Commandment may challenge it as a part of themselves as well as the first. Thesis' 146. It is a truth as immovable as the pillars of Heaven, That God hath given to all men universally a rule of life to conduct them to their end: Now if the whole Decalogue be not it, what shall? The Gospel is the rule of our faith, but not of our spiritual life, which flows from faith, Gal. 2.20. joh. 5.24. The law therefore is the rule of our life; now if nine of these be a complete rule without a tenth, exclude that one, and then who sees not an open gap made for all the rest to go out at also? For where will any man stop, if once this principle be laid, viz. That the whole law is not the rule of life? May not Papists blot out the second also, as some of Cassander's followers have done all but two; and as the Antinomians at this day do all? and have they not a good ground laid for it, who may hence safely say that the Decalogue is not a rule of life for all? Mr. Primrose, that he might keep himself from a broken head here, sends us for salve to the light of nature and the testimony of the Gospel, both which (saith he) maintain and confirm the morality of all the other Commandments, except this one of the Sabbath. But as it shall appear that the Law of the Sabbath hath confirmation from both (if this direction was sufficient and good) so it may be in the mean time considered why the Gentiles who were universal Idolaters, and therefore blotted out the light of nature (as Mr. Primrose confesseth) against the second Commandment, might not as well blot out much of that light of nature about the Sabbath also; and then how shall the light of nature be any sufficient discovery unto us of that which is moral and of that which is not? Thesis' 147. There is a Law made mention of, jam. 2.10. whose parts are so inseparably linked together that whosoever breaks any one is guilty of the breach of all, and consequently whosoever is called to the obedience of one, is called to the obedience of all, and consequently all the particular Jaws which it contains are homogeneal parts of the same Totum or whole law: If it be demanded, What is this Law? the answer is writ with the beams of the Sun, that 'tis the whole moral Law contained in the Decalogue: For 1. The Apostle speaks of such a Law which not only the Jews but all the Gentiles are bound to observe: and for the breach of any one of which, not only the Jews but the Gentiles also were guilty of the breach of all, and therefore it cannot be meant of the ceremonial Law which did neither bind Gentiles or Jews at that time wherein the Apostle writ. 2 He speaks of such a Law as is called a royal Law, and a Law of liberty, vers. 8.12. which cannot be meant of the ceremonial Law in whole or in part, which is called a Law of bondage, not worthy the royal and kingly spirit of a Christian to stoop to, Gal. 4.9. 3. 'Tis that law by the works of which all men are bound to manifest their faith, and by which fa●●h is made perfect, vers. 22. which cannot be the Ceremonial nor Evangelicall, for that is the Law of faith: and therefore it's meant of the Law moral. 4. 'Tis that Law of which, Thou shalt not kill nor commmit adultery are parts, vers. 11. Now these Laws are part of the Decalogue only, and whereof it may be said, he that said Thou shalt not commit adultery, said also, Remember to keep the Sabbath holy: and therefore the whole Decalogue, and not some parts of it only, is the moral Law, from whence it is manifest that the Apostle doth not speak (as M. Primrose would interpret him) of offending against the Word at large, and of which the Ceremonial Laws were a part, Prim. part. 2. cap. 10. S. 15. but of offending against that part of the word, to wit, the moral Law, of which, he that offends against any one is guilty of the breach of all; hence also, his other answer falls to the dust, viz. that the fourth command is no part of the Law, and therefore the not observing of it is no sin under the New Testament, because it was given only to the Jews and not to us: for if it be a part of the Decalogue, of which the Apostle only speaks, then 'tis a mere begging of the question to affirm that it is no part of the Law of Christians: but we see the Apostle here speaks of the Law, and the Royal Law, and the Royal Law of Liberty: his meaning therefore must be of some special Law which he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Law: now if he thus speaks of some special Law, what can it be but the whole Decalogue, and not a part of it only? as when he speaks of the Gospel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he means not some part, but the whole Gospel also: and if every part of the Decalogue is not moral, how should any man know from any Law or rule of God what was moral, and what not; and consequently what is sinful, and what not? if it be said, the light of nature; we have proved that this is a blind and corrupt-Judge, as it exists in corrupt man: if it be said by the light of the Gospel, this was then to set up a light unto Christians to discern it by, but none to the Jews while they wanted the Gospel, as dispensed to us now: many moral Laws also are not mentioned in the Gospel, it being but accidental to it to set forth the Commandments of the Law. Thesis' 148. If Christ came to fulfil and not to destroy the Law, Mat. 5.17. than the Commandment of the Sabbath is not abolished by Christ's coming; if not one jot, prick or tittle of the Law shall perish, much less shall a whole Law perish or be destroyed by the coming of Christ. Thesis' 149. 'Tis true indeed, that by Law and Prophets is sometimes meant their whole doctrine, both ceremonial, and moral, and prophetical, which Christ fulfilled personally, but not so in this place of Matthew; but by Law is meant the moral Law, and by Prophets those prophetical illustrations and interpretations thereof, in which the Prophets do abound▪ for 1. The Lord Christ speaks of that law only, which whosoever should teach men to break and cast off, he should be least in the Kingdom of Heaven, Matth. 5.19. but the Apostles did teach men to cast off the Ceremonial Law, and yet were never a whit less in the Kingdom of Heaven. 2. He speaks of that Law by conformity to which all his true Disciples should exceed the righteousness of Scribes and Pharisees: but that was not by being externally ceremonious or moral, but by internal conformity to the spiritualness of God's Law, which the Pharisees than regarded not. 3. Christ speaks of the least Commandments, and of these least Commandments, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, now what should those least Commandments be, but those which he afterward interprets of rash anger, adulterous eyes, unchaste thoughts, love to enemies? etc. which are called least, in opposition to the Pharisaical Doctor's conceits in those times, who urged the gross duties commanded, and condemned men only for gross sins forbidden; as if therein consisted our complete conformity to the Law of God: and therefore by the least of those Commandments is meant no other than those which he afterward sets down in his spiritual interpretation of the Law, vers. 21. never a one of which Commandments are Ceremonial, but moral Laws; and although Mr. Primrose thinks that there is no connexion between the seventeen, and the other expositors verses of the Law which follow, yet whosoever ponders the Analysis impartially, shall find it otherwise: even from the 17 Verse to the end; the conclusion of which is, to be perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect, who is never made a pattern of perfection to us in ceremonial, but only in moral matters: 'tis true indeed (which some object) that there is mention made of Altar and Sacrifice, vers. 23 which were ceremonials: but there is no Law about them, but only a moral Law of love is thereby pressed with allusion to the ceremonial practice in those times: he speaks also about divorce, but this is but accidentally brought to show the morality of the Law of adultery; the Law of retaliation wants not good witnesses to testify to the morality of it, but I rather think 'tis brought in to set forth a moral Law against private revenge. Our Saviour indeed doth not speak particularly about the law of the Sabbath, as he doth of killing and adultery, etc. but if therefore it be not moral because not spoken of here, than neither the first, second, or fifth command are moral, because they are not expressly opened in this Chapter; for the scope of our Saviour was to speak against the Pharisaical interpretations of the Law, in curtalling of it, in making gross murder to be forbidden, but not anger; adultery to be forbidden, but not lust; which evil they were not so much guilty of in point of the Sabbath: but they rather made the Phylacteries of it too broad by overmuch strictness, which our Saviour therefore elsewhere condemns, but not a word tending to abolish this Law of the Sabbath. Thesis' 150. If therefore the Commandment is to be accounted moral, which the Gospel reinforceth, and commends unto us (according to Mr. Primrose principles) than the fourth Commandment may well come into the account of such as are moral; but the places mentioned and cleared out of the New Testament evince thus much: The Lord Jesus coming not to destroy the Law of the Sabbath, but to establish it: and of the breach of which one Law he that is guilty, is guilty of the breach of all. Thesis' 151. If the observation of the Sabbath had been first imposed upon man since the fall, and in special upon the people of the Jews at mount Sinai, there might be then some colour and reason to clothe the Sabbath with rags, and the worn-out garments of ceremonialnesse: but if it was imposed upon man in innocency not only before all types and ceremonies, but also before all sin: and upon Adam as a common person, as a Commandment not proper to that estate, nor as to a particular person and proper to himself: then the morality of it is most evident; our adversaries therefore lay about them here, that they might drive the Sabbath out of Paradise, and make it a thing altogether unknown to the state of innocency: which if they cannot make good, their whole frame against the morality of the Sabbath, falls flat to the ground; and therefore it is of no small consequence to clear up this truth, viz. That Adam in innocency, and in him all his posterity were commanded to sanctify a weekly Sabbath. Thesis' 152. One would think that the words of the Text, Gen. 2.2, 3. were so plain to prove a Sabbath in that innocent estate, that there could be no evasion made from the evidence of them; for it is expressly said, that the d●y the Lord rested, the same day the Lord blessed and sanctified; but we know he rested the Seventh day immediately after the Creation, and therefore he immediately blessed and sanctified the same day also: for the words run copulatively, he rested the Seventh day, and he blessed and sanctified that day; but its strange to see not only what odd evasions men make from this clear truth, but also what curious Cabilismes and fond interpretations men make of the Hebrew Text, the answer to which learned Rivet hath long since made, which therefore I mention not. Thesis' 153. The words are not thus copulative in order of story, but in order of time; I say not in order of story and discourse; for so things far distant in time, may ●e coupled together by this copulative particle And, as Mr. Primrose truly shows, Exod. 16.32, 33. 1 Sam. 17.54. but they are coupled and knit together in respect of time; for it is the like phrase which Moses immediately after useth, Gen. 5.1, 2. where 'tis said, God created man in his Image, and blessed them, and called their names, etc. which were together in time; so 'tis here, the time God rested, that time God blessed; for the scope of the words, Gen 2.1, 2, 3. is to show what the Lord did that seventh day, after the finishing of the whole creation in six dai●s, and that is, He blessed and sanctified it. For look as the scope of Moses in making mention of the six days orderly, was to show what God did every particular day; so what else should be the scope in making mention of the seventh day, unless it was to show what God did then on that day? and that is, he then rested, and blessed and sanctified it, even then in that state of innocency. Thesis' 154. God is said, Gen. 2.1, 2, 3. to bless the Sabbath as he blessed other creatures, but he blessed the creatures at that time they were made, Gen. 1.22, 28. and therefore he blessed the Sabbath at that time he rested; Shall God's work be presently blessed, and shall his rest be then without any? Was God's rest a cause of sanctifying the day many hundred years after (as our adversaries say) and was the●e not as much cause then when the memory of the creation was most fresh, which was the fittest time to remember God's work in? Prim. part. 2. cap. 1. S. 14. M. Primrose tells us that the creatures were blessed with a present benediction, because they did constantly need it; but there was no necessity (he saith) that man should solemnize the seventh as soon as 'tis made; but as we shall show that man did then need a special day of blessing, so 'tis a sufficient ground of believing that then God blessed the day when there was a full and just, and sufficient cause of blessing, which is Gods resting; it being also such a cause as was not peculiar to the Jews many hundred years after, but common to all mankind. Thesis' 155. The Rest of God (which none question to be in innocency immediately after the creation) was either a natural rest (as I may call it) that is, a bare cessation from labour, or a holy rest, i. a rest set apart in exemplum, or for example, and for holy uses; but it was not a natural rest merely: for than it had been enough to have said, that at the end of the sixth day God rested; but we see God speaks of a day▪ the seventh day. God hath rested with a natural rest or cessation from creation ever since the end of the first sixth day of the world until now; why then is it said that God rested the seventh day? Or why is it not rather said that he began his rest on that day, but that it is limited to a day? Certainly this argues that he speaks not of natural rest merely, or that which ex natura re● follows the finishing of his work, for it's then an unfit and improper speech to limit God's rest within the circled of a day; and therefore he speaks of a holy rest then appointed for holy uses as an example for holy rest; which may well be limited within the compass of a day; and hence it undeniably follows, that if God rested in innocency with such a rest; then the seventh day was then sanctified, it being the day of holy rest. Thesis' 156. It cannot be shown that ever God made himself an example of any act, but that in the present example there was and is a present rule, binding immediately to ●ollow that example: if therefore from the foundation of the world, God made himself an example in six day's labour and in a seventh day's rest, why should not this example then and at that time of innocency be binding? there being no example which God sets before us, but it supposeth a rule binding us immediately thereunto? The great and most high God could have made the world in a moment or in a hundred years, why did he make it then in six days, and rested the seventh day, but that it might be an example to man? It's evident that ever since the world began, man's life was to be spent in labour and action which God could have appointed to contemplation only; nor will any say that his life should be spent only in labour, and never have any special day of rest (unless the Antinomians, who herein sin against the light of nature) if therefore God was exemplary in his six day's labour, why should any think but that he was thus also in his seventh day's rest? Pointing out unto man most visibly (as it were) thereby on what day he should rest: A meet time for labour was a moral duty since man was framed upon earth, God therefore gives man an example of it in making the world in six days: A meet time for holy rest, the end of all holy and honest labour, was much more moral (the end being better than the means) why then was not the example of this also seen in God's rest? M. Ironside indeed is at a stand here, Irons. Q. 1 cap. 4. and confesseth his ignorance In conceiving how Gods working six days should be exemplary to man in innocency, it being not preceptive but permissive only to man in his apostasy. But let a plain analysis be made of the motives used to press obedience to the fourth command and we shall find (according to the consent of all the Orthodox not prejudiced in this controversy, that God's example of working six days in creating the world, is held forth as a motive to press God's people to do all their work within six days also; and the very reason of our labour and rest now, is the example of God's labour and rest then, as may also appear, Ex. 31.17. And to say that those words in the Commandment (viz. Six days thou shalt labour) are no way preceptive but merely promissive, is both cross to the express letter of the text, and contrary to moral equity to allow any part of the six days for sinful idleness or neglect of our weekly work, so far forth as the rest upon the Sabbath be hindered hereby. Thesis' 157. The word Sanctified is variously taken in Scripture, and various things are variously and differently sanctified: yet in this place when God is said to sanctify the Sabbath, Gen. 2.2, 3. it must be one of these two ways: either, 1. By infusion of holiness and sanctification into it, as holy men are said to be sanctified: Or, 2. By separation of it from common use, and dedication of it to holy use, as the Temple and Altar are said to be sanctified. Thesis' 158. God did not sanctify the Sabbath by infusion of any habitual holiness into it, for the circumstance of a seventh day is not capable thereof, whereof only rational creatures, men and Angels are. Thesis' 159. It must therefore be said to be sanctified in respect of its separation from common use, and dedication to holy use, as the Temple and Tabernacle were, which yet had no inherent holiness in them. Thesis' 160. Now if the Sabbath was thus sanctified by dedication; it must be either for the use of God or of man, i. either that God might keep this holy day, or that man might observe it as a holy day to God, but what dishonour is it to God to put him upon the observation of a holy day? and therefore it was dedicated and consecrated for man's sake and use, that so he might observe it as holy unto God. Thesis' 161. This day therefore is said to be sanctified of God that man might sanctify it and dedicate it unto God; and hence it follows, that look as man could never have lawfully dedicated it unto God, without a precedent institution from God, so the institution of God implies a known command given by God unto man thereunto. Thesis' 162. 'Tis therefore evident that when God is said to sanctify the Sabbath, Gen. 2.2, 3. that man is commanded hereby to sanctify it, Jun. in Gen. 2. and dedicate it to the holy use of God: Sanctificare est sanctifica ● mandare, saith junius: And therefore if M Primrose and others desire to know where God commandeth the observation of the Sabbath in Gen. 2.2. they may see it here necessarily implied in the word Sanctify: And therefore if God did sanctify the Sabbath immediately after the creation, he commanded man to sanctify it then; for so the word Sanctified is expressly expounded by the holy Ghost himself, Deut. 5.15. We need not therefore seek for wood among trees, and inquire where and when and upon what ground the Patriarches before Moses observed a Sabbath, when as it was famously dedicated and sanctified, i. commanded to be sanctified from the first foundation of the world. Thesis' 163. Our adversaries therefore dazzled with the clearness of the light shining forth from the text, Gen. 2.2. to wit, that the Sabbath was commanded to be sanctified before the fall, do fly to their shifts and seek for refuge from several answers; sometimes they say 'tis sanctified by way of destination, sometimes they ●ell u● of anticipation, sometime they think the Book of Genesis was writ after Exodus, and many such inventions; which because they cannot possibly stand one with another, are therefore more fit to vex and perplex the mind, then to satisfy conscience; and indeed do argue much uncertainty to be in the minds of those that make these and the like answers, a● not knowing certainly what to say, nor where to stand: yet let us examine them. Thesis' 164. To imagine that the Book of Genesis was writ after Exodus, and yet to affirm that the Sabbath in Genesis is said to be sanctified and blest, only in way of destination, i. because God destinated and ordained that it should be sanctified many years after; seems to be an ill favoured and misshapen answer, and no way fit to serve their turn who invent it: for if it was writ after Exodus; what need was there to say that it was destinated and ordained to be sanctified for time to come? when as upon this supposition the Sabbath was already sanctified for time past, as appears in the story of Exodus 19.20. And therefore M. Primrose translates the words thus, that God rested, and hath blessed and hath sanctified the seventh day, as if Moses writ of it as a thing past already; but what truth is there then to speak of a destination for time to come? I know junius so renders the Hebrew words, as also the word Rested, but we know how many ways some of the Hebrew ●enses look, nor is it any matter now to trouble ourselves about them, this only may be considered; That it is a mere uncertain shift to affirm that Genesis was writ after Exodus; M. Ironside tells us he could give strong reasons for it, but he produceth none; and as for his authorities from humane testimonies, we know it is not fit to weigh out truth by humane suffrages; and yet herein they do not cast the scale for Genesis to be writ after Exodus; for although Beda, Abulensi●, and divers late Jesuits do affirm it; yet Eusebius, Catharinus, Alcuinns, a Lapide, and sundry others, both Popish and Protestant writers, are better judgmented herein; and their reasons for Genesis to be the firstborn as it is first set down, seem to be most strong: The casting of this cause therefore depends not upon such uncertainties; and yet if this disorder were granted, i● will do their cause no good, as, if need were, might be made manifest. Thesis' 165. M. Ironside confesseth, That Gods resting and sanctifying the Sabbath, Irons. Q. 1 cap. 4. are coetaneous, and acknowledgeth the connexion of them together at the same time, by the copulative And, and that as God actually rested, so he actually sanctifed the day: but this sanctification which he means is nothing else but destination, or God's purpose and intention to sanctify ●t afterward: so that in effect this evasion amounts to thus much, viz. that God did actually purpose to sanctify it, about 2500. years after the giving of the Law, but yet did not actually sanctify it, and if this be the meaning, it is all one as if he had said in plain terms, viz. that when God is said to sanctify the Sabbath, he did not indeed sanctify it, only he purposed so to do, and although M. Primrose and himself tells us that the word sanctify signifies in the Original some time to prepare and ordain: so it may be said that the word signifies sometimes to publish and proclaim: if they say that this latter cannot be the meaning, because we read not in Scripture of any such proclamation that this should be the Sabbath, the like may be said (upon the reasons mentioned) concerning their destination of it thereunto: Again, if to sanctify the day be only to purpose and ordain to sanctify it, than the Sabbath was no more sanctified since the Creation, then ab aeterno, and before the world began, for then God did purpose that it should be sanctified: but this sanctification here spoken of seems to follow Gods resting which was in time, and therefore it must be understood of another sanctification then that which seems to be before all time: again as God did not bless the Sabbath in way of destination, so neither did he sanctiffe it in way of destination: but he did not bless it in way of destination, for let them produce but one Scripture where the word blessed is taken in this sense, for a purpose only to bless: indeed they think they have found out this purpose to sanctify in the word sanctified. Isa. 13.3. but where will they find the like for the word blessed also? for as the day was blessed so it was sanctified, and yet I think that the Medes and Persians in Isa. 13.3. are not called Gods sanctified ones, because they were destinated to be sanctified for that work, but because they were so prepared fo● it as that they were actually separated by God's word for the accomplishment of such work: but our adversaries will not say that God did thus sanctify the Sabbath in Paradise by his word: and yet suppose they are called his sanctified ones in way of destination, yet there is not the like reason so to interpret it here, for in Isa. 13.3. God himself is brought in immediately speaking, before whose eternal eyes all things to come are as present, and hence he might call them his sanctified ones, but in this place of Gen. 2.2. Moses (not God immediately) speaks of this sanctifying in way of Historical narration only; this destination which is stood so much upon is but a mere imagination. Thesis' 166. It cannot be denied but that it is a usual thing in Scripture to set down things in way of Prolepsis and Anticipation, as they call it, i. to set down things aforehand in the history, which many years happened and came after in order of time, but there is no such Prolepsis or Anticipation here (as our adversaries dream) so that when God is said to sanctify the Sabbath in Genesis, the meaning should be, that this he did 2500. years after the creation, for this assertion wants all proof, and hath no other prop to bear it up, than some instances of Anticipations in other places of Scripture: the Jesuits from some unwary expressions of some of the Fathers, first started this answer, whom Gomarus followed, and after him sundry others prelatically minded: but Rivet, Ames, and others have scattered this mist long since, and therefore I shall leave but this one consideration against it, viz. That throughout all the Scripture we shall not find one Prolepsis, but that the history is evident and apparently false, unless we do acknowledge a Prolepsis and Anticipation to be in the story: so that necessity of establishing the truth of the history, only can establish the truth of a Prolepsis in the history: I forbear to give a taste thereof by any particular instances, but leave it to trial; bu● in this place alleged of Gen. 2.2. can any say that the story is apparently false, unless we imagine a Prolepsis? and the Sabbath to be first sanctified in mount Sinai, Exod. 20. for might not God sanctify it in Paradise, as soon as God's rest, the cause and foundation of sanctifying of it, was existing? will any say with Gomarus that the Sabbath was first sanctified, Gomar. Inu. Se●●. & Orig. Sab. 126. Exod. 16. because God blessed them so much the day before with Manna, whenas in the Commandment itself, Exod. 20. the reason of it is plainly set down to be Gods resting on the seveth day, and sanctifying of it long before? Thesis' 167. There is not the least colour of Scripture to make this blessing and sanctifying of the day to be nothing else but Gods magnifying, and liking of it in his own mind, rejoicing and as it were glorying in it, Prim. part. 2. cap. 2. S. 1. when he had rested from his works, and yet M. Primrose casts this block in the way for the blind to stumble at, supposing that there should be no such Anticipation as he pleads for: for surely if God blessed and sanctified the day, it was a real and an effectual sanctification and blessing, but this magnifying and glorying in it, in God's mind, is no real thing in the blessed God, he having no such affections in him, but what is said to be in him that way is ever by some special effects: the simple and pure essence of God admitting no affections, per modum affectus sed affectus, as is truly and commonly maintained. Thesis' 168. If God sanctified and commanded Adam to sanctify the Sabbath, it was either that he himself should observe it personally, or successively in his posterity also: now there is no reason to think that this is a command peculiarly binding Adam himself only, there being the same cause for his posterity to observe a Sabbath, as himself had, which was God's example of labour and rest; and if this was given to his posterity also than it was a moral duty, and not a point of mere order proper to Adam to attend unto: yet Mr. Primrose for fear lest he should shoot short in one of his answers, Prim. part. 2. cap. 2. S. 5. wherein he tells us, that it did derogate much from the excellency of Adam's condition to have any one day for God appointed unto him: Prim. part. 2. cap. 2. s. 19 yet here notwithstanding he tells us, that if God had appointed such a day, it was no moral thing, nor yet a ceremony directing to Christ, but only as a point of order, which God was pleased then to subject him unto: and that a man may as well conclude that it was a moral thing to serve God in Eden, because it was a place which God had appointed Adam to serve him in, as the seventh day to be moral because it was the time thereof: but this assertion is but a mere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; for the text tells us expressly, that God did both bless and sanctify the Seventh day in a special manner, as a thing of common concernment, but is never said to bless and sanctify the place of Eden. All men in Adam were made in the image of God, and was there but one thing in innocency wherein God made himself eminently exemplary in labour and rest? & shall we think that that one thing was rather a point of order proper to Adam, than a part of God's image common to all? the appointment of that royal seat of Eden, was an act of heavenly bounty, and therefore might well be proper to him in that estate; but the appointment of the time for God's special honour, was an act of justice, made and built upon a rule of common equity, as may appear out of the second edition of this Law in the fourth Commandment, and therefore might well be morally binding unto all, and not a point of mere order only for Adam to observe. Thesis' 169. If Adam had stood, all mankind might, and perhaps should have observed that particular seventh day for ever on earth: but look as Adam observed it not merely because it was That Seventh (as hath been shown) which was but secundarily and as it were accidentally moral: but because it was the Seventh day appointed of God, which is firstly and primarily moral: so although we now do not observe that Seventh day which Adam did, yet the substance of the morality of this command given unto him is observed still by us, in observing the Seventh day which God hath appointed, to which the equity of this command binds generally all mankind: hence therefore it is of little force which some object, that if the Commandment to man in innocency be moral, that then we are bound to observe the same Seventh day, which Adam in innocency did: this is oft laid in our dish; but the answer is easy from what hath been said. Thesis' 170. If because we read not any express mention that the Patriarches before Moses time did sanctify a Sabbath, that therefore the Sabbath was not sanctified at that time, we may as well argue that it was not observed all the time of the Judges, nor of the books of Samuel, because no express mention is made in those books of any such thing: for if it be said that there is no doubt but that they observed it because it was published on Mount Sinai, the like we may say concerning the patriarchal times, who had such a famous manifestation of God's mind herein, from the known story, Commandment and example of God in the first creation, Gen. 2.2. it is not ●aid expressly that Abram kept the Sabbath, but he is commended for keeping Gods Commandments, Gen. 26.5. and is not the Sabbath one of those Commandments, the breach of which is accounted the breaking of all? Exod. 16.27, 28. and may we lawfully and charitably think that Abram neglected other moral duties because they are not expressly mentioned? again it may be as well doubted of, whether the Patriarches observed any day at all (which our adversaries confess to be moral) because it neither is expressly mentioned●: again it may be said with as good reason, th●● the sacrifices which they offered were without warrant from God, because the Commandment for them is not expressly mentioned: but we know that Abel by faith offered, and faith must arise from a precedent word: so that as the approved practice of holy men doth necessarily imply a command, so the command given (as hath been shown) to Adam, doth as necessarily infer a practice: again if no duties to God were performed by the Patriarches, but such as are expressly mentioned and held forth in their examples, we should then behold a strange face of a Church for many hundred years together, and necessarily condemn the generation of the just▪ for living in gross neglects and impieties, t●ere being many singular and special duties which doubtless were done that were not meet particularly to be mentioned in that short epitome of above 2000 years together, in the book ●f Genesis: and therefore for M. Ironside and Primrose to conclude that the keeping of the Sabbath had certainly been mentioned if it had been observed, is very unsound. M. Primrose thinks that if the Sabbath had been observed, Irons. Q. 1 cap. 2. Prim. par●. 1. cap. 2● S. 4. it had been then mentioned, because lesser things than the Sabbath are made mention of, there being also frequent occasion to speak of the Sabbath, and that Moses and the Prophets would have pressed the observation of it from the Patriarches example if they had so practised. But what is this kind of arguing, but to teach the holy Ghost, what and when and how to speak? for there be many lesser matters expressed in many other historical parts of the Scripture, and good occasion as man may fancy to speak of the Sabbath, and yet we see it is passed by in ●●ence: but it is no wonder if he who questions whether there were any days of fasting and prayer for 2000 years together, because they are not expressly mentioned, if that he doubts also whether there were any Sabbath all that time, upon the same ground: but can any question that considers the sorrows of those times, which all ages have put men to seek God in such duties, but that they had such days of fasting, as well as their betters in Evangelicall times, when the Bridegroom was gone. Thesis' 171. It is not improbable but that the Sacrifices of Cain and Abel, Gen. 4.3. were upon the Sabbath day, the usual stated time then for such services; for that which our Translation renders, In process of time, the Hebrew calls it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. The end of days; and why may not this be the end of the days of the week (a known division of time, and most famous from the beginning of the world, as R●vet demonstrates out of the best Antiquaries) rather then at the end of the months of the year? But 'tis not good to wrestle with probabilities, of which many are given, which do rather darken then clear up this cause: This only may be added, that suppose the Patriarches observed no Sabbath from man's fall to Moses time; yet it will not follow that man in innocency was a stranger to it, because man in his apostasy forgot, or did not regard to keep it. Thesis'. 172. If therefore it was a duty which Adam and his posterity were bound to keep by a Law given them in innocency: Then it undeniably follows, that the observance of a Sabbath doth not depend upon great numbers of people to sanctify it; for at first creation the number was but two, and yet they both were bound to observe it then: nor yet is it to be cast aside through any man's freedom from worldly imcumbrances, whereby he hath liberty to serve God more frequently every day; for thus it was also in the state of innocency, and yet the Sabbath to be observed then: It is therefore unsound which M. Primrose affirms herein, viz. That the consecration of a certain day for God's service is not necessary, but then only, when many troop together and make up the body of a great Assembly; and that therefore it may be doubted whether the Patriarches having but small families and little cumber, observed any Sabbath, but rather served God alike every day with great ease and assiduity; and that therefore there was no need nor cause of a Sabbath till they became a numerous people at mount Sinai. But beside what hath been said, how will it appear that the posterity of Seth called the sons of God, Gen. 6.1, 2. were not a numerous people? Or that Abraham's family was so small? out of which he could gather three hundred fight men to pursue five mighty Princes in battle? But suppose they were few, yet have not small companies, and particular persons as much need of the blessing of a Sabbath? and special communion with God therein, as great numbers and troops of people? Is not the observation of the Sabbath built upon better and surer grounds mentioned in Scripture, than bigness of number, and freedom from cumbers, not mentioned at all? Thesis' 173. If Adam's fall was before the Sabbath (as Mr. Broad and some others otherwise orthodox in this point of the Sabbath, conceive, by too much inconsiderate wresting of Psal. 49.12. john 8.44.) yet it will not hence follow that he had no such command in innocency to observe the Sabbath before his fall: For whether man had fallen or no, yet the thing itself speaks that God was determined to work six days in making the world, and to rest and so to sanctify the seventh, that he might therein be exemplary to man; and consequently God would have given this law, and it should have been a rule to him whether he fell or no; and indeed the seventh day's rest depends no more upon man's fall, than the six day's work of creation, which we see were all finished before the fall; the seventh day's holiness being more suitable to that state than the six day's labour, to which we see he was appointed, if God's example had any force to direct and lead him thereunto. Again, if the law of labour was writ upon his heart before he was actually called forth to labour, viz. To dress and keep the garden, Gen. 2.15. why might not also the law of holy rest be revealed unto him by God, and so answerably writ upon his heart before he fell, or came actually to rest upon the Sabbath? Little of Adam's universal obedience to the Law of works, was as yet actual while he remained innocent; and yet all his obedience in time to come was writ upon his heart the first moment of his creation in the Image of God, as it were aforehand, and why might not thi● Law of the Sabbath be writ so aforehand? Broad. Tract. c. 1. And therefore M. Broad need not trouble himself or others in enquiring whether God sanctified the Sabbath before or after the first seventh day wherein God rested; and if before it, how Adam could know of the Sabbath before God's complete rest upon the first seventh day, the cause of it? for God was as well able to make Adam privy to his counsel aforehand concerning that day, before God's rest on it, which was a motive to the observance of it, as he was to acquaint his people with his purpose for a holy Passeover before the occasion of it fell out: Ibid. Mr. Broad indeed tells us that its most probable that God did not bless and sanctify the first Sabbath or seventh day of rest, because it is not said that God blessed the Sabbath because he would, but because he had rested in it; but by his leave it is most proper to say that God at the end of the six day's work had then rested from all his works; and thence God is said to sanctify and rest the seventh day; his cessation from work which is the natural rest being the cause of resting the seventh day with a holy rest (as we have shown) and therefore there is no reason to stay till the seventh day was past and then to sanctify it against the next seventh day; the first seventh day, upon the ground mentioned, being first sanctified, and which Adam might be well enough acquainted with aforehand, as hath been shown. Thesis' 174. If the Scriptures may be judge of the time of man's fall (which yet is not momentous to cast the balance either way in this controversy) it will be found that neither Angels nor men did fall the sixth day before the Sabbath; for then God looked upon all his works, and they were very good, Gen. 1.31. and therefore could not as yet be bad and evil by any sin or fall; and now because it's more than probable that if Adam had completely sanctified and stood one Sabbath, he had stood immutably, as I think might be demonstrated; he therefore not standing a whole seventh day, for than he could not have fallen, and yet not being fallen the sixth day, he therefore fell upon the Sabbath day, that as the breach of every other command was wrapped up in that first sin, so this of the Sabbath. The objections against this from john 8.44. that Satan was a murderer from the beginning, and from Psal. 49.12. that man in honour did not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or abide one night in that estate, with some other conjectural reasons taken from some of the Schoolmens Obs and Sols are easily answered by a serious and sober mind, and therefore I leave them. Thesis' 175. Adam's soul (say some) did not need a Sabbath, because every day was a Sabbath to him; Greg. Val. Tom. 5. disp. 7. Q. 4. nor did his body need it, because it was impassable, say some, nor subject to weariness in its work, say others truly: Alex. Ales. part. 2 Q. 86. Ri●et. in Com. 4. to what purpose then should any Sabbath be appointed unto him in that estate? But we must know, that the Hebrew word for Sabbath, signifies holy rest, and therefore as Rivet well shows, it's called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Menuchah, which signifies common rest from weariness; hence it follows that the Sabbath being originally sanctified for holy rest, not for common rest or rest from natural weariness in labour; Adam might therefore stand in need of a Sabbath, though his body was not subject to any weariness in or after his labour. Hence also although he was to live holily every day, yet this hinders not but that his soul might then have need of the holy rest of a Sabbath: For 1. Adam was to serve God in a particular calling then, as is manifest from, Gen▪ 2.15. for he was then to keep and dress the garden, and to act with and under God in the government of many inferior creatures, Gen. 1.26. And thus his time being filled in serving God with all holiness in his calling, he might need a Sabbath; nor was it lawful for him to turn days of work in his calling into days of rest, and so to keep a Sabbath every day, no not in that innocent and happy estate: for if it was contrary to Adam's holy estate to work six days, how could it be agreeable or suitable to the holiness of God to work six days? If God did labour six days and rested a seventh without any need of a rest in respect of any weariness in his work, why might not, nay why should not man imitate and be like to his God in labour and rest, although he was not subject to any weariness in his holy work? 2. Though every day was to be spent in holiness mediately, both in seeing God in the creatures and meeting with God in his labour and calling: yet it was not unsuitable, nay it was very needful in that estate to have one day in the week for more immediate and special converse with God, and for God more immediately and specially to converse with him. Nor indeed was it suitable to God's wisdom to confine man's holiness either then or now, either to holy labour only, or to holy rest only, for than he should not have been so like unto God who was exemplary holy unto man in both. Special time for action wherein he closed with God more mediately throughout the six day's labour, might well stand with special time for contemplation of God upon the Sabbath, wherein he was to enjoy God more immediately. Adam did not need a Sabbath upon the same ground of weakness that we do, viz. because we cannot be earnest enough (as M. Primrose objects) in holy services to God upon the week days, but we see it did not suit God's wisdom nor man's holy estate, then to be intent and earnest only in the enjoyment of his rest, to which his intention on his calling and labour then, could not be any hindrance when the Sabbath came; being free from such clogs of sin then, as we are now pressed down withal: and therefore it is an unworthy expression, but oft used by the same author and others: viz. That it did derogate from the excellency of Adam's condition to observe a seventh day's Sabbath, Ibid. s 19 and that the determination of a time then, did argue Adam's inability, or want of inclination and affection to serve God ordinarily, and that the observance of a Sabbath is a mark of a servile condition, as of other holy days under the law; and that if Adam was able to serve God continually, that it was then needless to limit him to a particular day; and that if a day were needful God would have left the choice thereof to his own freedom, considering the wisdom and godliness wherewith God had endowed him: These and such like expressions are but hay and stubble, which the light of the truth delivered may easily consume. Thesis' 176. 'Tis true the Saints and Angels in heaven have no set Sabbath; but doth it therefore follow that the state of innocency on earth, should have been in all things like (and particularly in this) to the sta●e of glory in heaven? No such matter; For should there have been no marriage, no dressing of the garden, no day nor night, etc. in Paradise? because there is no marriage nor dressing of gardens, nor weeks, nor reckonings of day and night in heaven? If God hath work for Adam to do, not only upon the Sabbath, but upon the week days also, why might he not be said to glorify God without stint or ceasing, as the Angels do in heaven, unless M. Primrose will say that Adam's marriage and dressing the garden, was a stinting and ceasing from glorifying God; which either he must affirm, or else his argument falls flat upon all four, who thinks that Adam could not have any set day for a Sabbath, because than he should not be like the Saints and Angels in heaven, Ibid. s. 18. who glorify God continually without stint or ceasing. Thesis' 177. They that think that the Sabbath was not given to Adam, because it was given as a peculiar prerogative and privilege to the Jews: Irons. Q. 1 cap. 2. and they that think that it was the Jews prerogative and privilege because of such Scriptures as affirm that God gave unto them his Sabbaths, Exod. 16.29. Nehem. 9.14. Ezek. 20.12. and such like; they may as well imagine that neither the whole Decalogue or any part of it did belong to Adam, because the very same thing is affirmed of it, viz. That he gave his laws to jacob, his statutes and judgements to Israel, Psal. 147.19. to them also it's said were committed the Oracles of God, Rom. 3.2. The Sabbath therefore is not said to be given to them as a peculiar propriety to the Jews no more than other parts of the Decalogue, but as a special mercy, yea as a sweeter mercy in some respect then the giving of any other laws, it being the sweetest mercy upon earth to rest in the bosom of God (which the law of the Sabbath calls to) and to know that it is our heavenly Father's mind that we should do so upon every Sabbath day in a special manner, without the knowledge of which law we have less light of nature to hold the candle to us to the observance of it, then from any other laws to direct us to the obedience of them. Thesis' 178. It is affirmed (but unwarily) by some, that the tree of life in Paradise was a type of Christ, and thence some would infer, that it was not unsuitable to Adam's estate and condition in innocency, to be taught by types, and that the Sabbath might therefore be ceremonial, supposing that it was observed by Adam in his innocent estate: but although the tree of life and sundry other things in Paradise, are made Similitudes to set forth Christ Jesus in his Church by the holy Ghost, Rev. 22. yet it's a gross mistake and most absurd to make every metaphor or similitude and allusion, to be a type: for the husbandman sowing of the seed is a similitede of preaching of the word, Mat. 13. and yet it's no type of it, an effectionate lover and husband is in sundry Scriptures a similitude and resemblance of Christ's affection and love to his Church and spouse, the head and members of man's body are similitudes of Christ the head and the Church his members; but will any affirm that these are also types of Christ? and just thus was Paradise and the Tree of life in it, they were similitudes to which the holy Ghost alludes in making mention of Christ and his Church, but they were no types of them: there was typus fictus in them or arbitrarius (which is all one with a similitude) but there was no Typus destinatus therein, being never purposely ordained to shadow out Christ: for the Covenant of works by which Adam was to live, is directly contrary to the Covenant of grace by faith in Christ, Rom. 11.6. by which we are to live, Christ is revealed only in the Covenant of grace, and therefore could not be so revealed in the Covenant of works directly contrary thereunto. Adam therefore was not capable of any types then to reveal Christ to him: of whom the first Covenant cannot speak, and of whom Adam stood in no need, no not so much as to confirm him in that estate, for (with leave) I think that look as Adam breaking the first Covenant by sin, he is become immutably evil and miserable in himself, according to the rule of justice in that Covenant; so suppose him to have kept that Covenant, all his posterity had been immutably happy and holy, (not merely by grace) but by the same equity and justice of that first Covenant, and hence it follows that he stood in no need of Christ or any Revelation of him by types, no not to confirm him in that Covenant: I know in some sense whatever God communicates to his creature in way of justice, may be saîd to be conveyed in a way of grace, if grace be taken largely for that which is conveyed out of God's free will and good pleasure, as all things in the world are, even to the acceptance of that wherein there is most merit, and that is Christ's death and satisfaction for sin: but this is but to play with words; for it's clear enough by the Apostles verdict that grace strictly taken, is opposite to works, Rom. 11.6. the law of works which only reveals doing and life, to the law of faith which only reveals Christ and life; under which Covenant of grace Adam was not, and therefore had no types then to shadow out Christ: to say that Paradise and the Tree of life were types by way of anticipation (as some lately affirm) is as much as to say that they were not types then: and therefore neither these nor the Sabbath were Ceremonial then, and that is sufficient for what we aim at; only 'tis observable that this unsound expression leads into more palpable errors; for as they make the Tree of life Typical by Anticipation, so they make the marriage of Adam and Eve, and consequently the marriage of all mankind typical, and then why should not all marriages cease, when Christ the Antitype is come? nay they make the rivers and precious stones and gold in Paradise thus Typical of Christ and his Church, Rev. 21. and then why may they not make the Angels in heaven Typical, because men on earth who pour out the Vials are resembled to them? and why may not men riding upon white Horses be typical, because Christ is so resembled? Rev. 19.11. Pererius who collects out of Hugo de vict. a type of the whole new Creation, in all the works of six days first Creation, may please himself (as other Popish Proctors do) with such like shady speculations and Phantasms, and so bring in the Seventh day for company to be Typical also; but a good and healthful stomach should be exceeding fearful of a little feeding on such windy meat: nor do I think that Hugoes new creation is any more antitypical to the first six day's Creation, than Damascenes types in the fourth Commandment, Damas. ●4 ●id. Orth. cap. 24. who makes, Thou, thy son, thy daughter, thy servant, the stranger, to be types of our sinful affections of spirit, and the ox and the ass figures of the flesh and sensual part● both which he saith must rest upon the Sabbath day. Thesis' 179. If therefore the Sabbath was given to Adam in innocency before all types, nay before the least promise of Christ, whom such types must shadow forth, than it cannot be in its first and native institution typical and ceremonial, but moral: and therefore in its first and original institution, of which we speak, it did not typify either our rest in Christ from sin in this life, or our rest with God in heaven in another life, or any other imagined rest, which man's wit can easily invent and invest the Sabbath with: but look as our Saviour in reforming the abuses in marriage c●ls us to the first institution; so to know what is perpetual in the Sabbath, it's most safe to have recourse hither; which when it was first observed we see was no way typical, but moral; and if man no way clogged with sin and earth had then need of a Sabbath, have not we much more? Thesis' 180. As before the Fall, the Sabbath was originally and essentially moral, so after the fall it became accidentally typical, i. it had a type affixed to it, though of its own nature it neither was nor is any type at all: God affixed a farther end unto it after the Fall, to be of farther use, to type out somewhat to God's people, while in the substance of it it remaineth moral, and hence it is that a Seventh day remains moral and to be observed, but not that Seventh day which was formerly kept; nor have we that end of resting which was under the Law, but this end only, that we might more immediately and specially converse with God, which was the main end of the Sabbaths rest before man's fall; for if the Sabbath had been essentially typical, than it should be abolished, wholly, and no more remembrance of it then of new moons and Jubilees, but because it was for substance moral, being extant before the fall, and yet had a type affixed to it after the fall, hence a Seventh day is still preserved, but that Seventh day is now abolished: and hence new moons and other Jewish Festivals as they are wholly Ceremonial in their birth, so they are wholly abolished (without any change of them into other days as this of the Sabbath is) in their very being. Thesis' 181. There are sundry Scriptures alleged to prove the Sabbath to be typical and ceremonial, out of the old and new Testament, as Isa. 66.23. Gal, 4.10. Rom. 14.4, 5. Col. 2.16. but if we suppose that these places be meant of the weekly Sabbath (which some deny) and rigidly urge them, we may quickly press blood instead of milk out of them, and wholly abolish (as Wallaeus well observes) the observation of any Christian Sabbath: but this one consideration of a type affixed to it to make it so far forth ceremonial, and therefore alterable, which for substance is moral, may be as a right th●ed to lead us into a way of truth in this great controversy, and to untie many knots, which I see not how possibly they can be otherwise unloosed, and therefore we may safely say, that that Seventh day is abolished, because it hath a type affixed to it; but that a Seventh day's Sabbath is still continued wherein there is no type at all. Thesis' 182. If any say, why was now the ceremony affixed, washed off and removed after Christ's coming, and so that Seventh day still continued: as we see public prayer is still used, but the type of incense removed, and the firstborn still retain that which is moral, the type affixed to them being now abolished? The reason of this is, because there is a necessity of the being of both, both prayer and firstborn; for public prayer must be, and firstborn must be, and they cannot be changed into any other; but there was no necessity of the continuance of that first Seventh day to be the Sabbath▪ nay there was some cause to change it, and another day might be our Sabbath as well as that first: look therefore as the Lord could have kept the Temple at jerusalem, merely as a place of worship, which at this day in the general is necessary, and have washed and wiped off the typical use of it in respect of Christ; yet the wisdom of the Lord abolished the very being of the Temple, because that place might be as well changed into another; and least through the typicalness of it man's corrupt heart should abuse it, so I may say concerning the Sabbath, it did not suit with the wisdom of God to wipe off the ceremony affixed to that Seventh day, when it might well be changed, and so keep that day, considering how apt men's ceremonious and superstitious hearts are to abuse such times or places, unless the very types be abolished with the things themselves. Thesis' 183. 'Tis true, the Sabbath is called a sign between God and us, Exod. 31.13. Ezek. 20.20. but it doth not follow that therefore it is originally significative and typical; for it may be only accidental ●o, by reason of a type and sign affixed; yet upon narrow search of this place so much stood upon, no type at all can hence be proved, because a sign is mentioned: for it is not necessary to think that that it is a typical and sacramental sign, as circumcision and the Passeover were; for it might be only an indicant sign and declarative, as Num. 16.38. & 17.10. and as the fruits of Gods regenerating Spirit are signs of our translation from death to life, 1 joh. 3, 14. which signs still continue: and if it be such a sign, it is rather a strong argument for the continuance of the Sabbath, then for any abolition or change thereof. Thesis' 184. The Sabbath being no visible sign of invisible grace, it cannot therefore be any Sacramental sign or typical, 'tis therefore an indicant and declarative sign of our communion with God, and God with us, of our interest in him, and of his in us: and therefore in those places, Exod. 13.31. and Ezek. 20.20. where 'tis called a sign, it is not made a sign simply and nakedly considered in itself (as all Sacramental and typical signs be) but it is so called in respect of our keeping of it, or as it is observed and kept; and therefore it runs in way of promise, Ezek. 20.20. If ye hollow my Sabbaths they shall then be a sign between me and you, and you shall know (hereby) that I am the Lord your God; and although the Sabbath itself be called a sign, Exod 31. yet it is explained vers. 13. to be such a sign as to know hereby that the Lord our God sanctifies us; and in Ezek. 20.20. that we may know hereby that he is the Lord our God: for we know he is the Lord our God if he sanctifies us; and that we are his people, if we sanctify, or be sanctified of him; and in this respect it becomes not only a sign, but a mutual sign between God and us, and in no other respect (as Wallaeus would stretch it) and hence it is that whoever makes a conscience of sanctifying the Sabbath aright, shall not long want assurance of God's love, by this blessed sign. Thesis' 185. What type should be affixed to the Sabbath, and of what it is thus typical and significative, is not a little difficult to find out, and being found out to prove it so to be; in handling the Change of the Sabbath I shall positively set down what I apprehend; only at the present it 〈◊〉 not be amiss to cast in a few negatives of what it is not; for men's wits in imagining types and allegories are very sinfully luxurant, unless God check them in such kind of divinity. Thesis' 186. The type lies not in the day of worship; for the greatest adversaries of the Sabbath place a morality therein; nor doth it lie in a seventh day; for though seven be made a number of perfection; yet what sober mind ever made a type of seven, more than of six or ten? Some have made the week a short summary and epitome and resemblance of that old prophecy of the world's continuance for 6000. years (a thousand years being with God but as one day) and the seventh thousand the great day of rest and peace to the weary world; but this is a doubtful assertion at best, or if true, yet it is not therefore properly a type, or if it be, yet not such a type as was to cease at the coming of Christ (as our adversaries would have the Sabbath) but when the Antitype is come of that seven thousand years: If therefore it lies any where, it is in it as in a rest day, or a day of rest. Thesis' 187. Some make the rest of the Sabbath, a type of Christ's rest in the grave, and if it could be proved, I durst not oppose it; but it is but gratis dictum, affirmed by some godly learned, who herein symbolise with Popish postillers, who please themselves much in this and such like allegorical significations of the Sabbaths rest: For if Christ did neither enter into the state of rest till his resurrection, nor into the place of rest until his ascension, how then could the rest of the Sabbath type out his rest in the grave, which was part of his most heavy labour of humiliation, Act. 2.24. and no part of his rest, unless it was in respect of cessation therein from actions of natural life? but the rest of one day is very unfit to resemble and type out the rest of three days in the grave; and why may not Christ's rest from labour in his sleep be as well the antitype, as Christ's rest from the actions of this life in his grave? Thesis' 188. Why may not our labour in the six days be made a type of our labouring in sin, as well as the Sabbath a type of our sanctification and rest from sin? as some would have it; Why may not our Libertines make abstinence from adultery forbidden in the seventh Command, a type of our spiritual chastity (as the Gnostics did of old) as well as the rest from labour on the Sabbath a type of our rest from sin? And by this liberty how easy is it for frothy allegorising wits, which my heart abhors, to typify (as it were) and allegorise all the commandments out of the world. The●●● 189. The rest on the Sabbath may be considered either in respect of God's example in himself, or his command to man out of himself: Now the rest of the Sabbath as it is exemplary in God cannot be a type of any thing, because God never made himself an example of any ceremonial thing; Gods own immediate acts cannot without much injury to God be made types and ceremonies; if therefore there be any thing of the rest of the Sabbath typical, it is so in respect of man's rest on it commanded unto him of God: but whether and what it doth typify, we shall speak to in its * Change of Sabbath proper place. Thesis' 190. There wants not sufficient proof that the Gentiles generally practised and approved a seventh day's Sabbath, and that it was highly honoured among them as very sacred: This truth both Tertullian, Eusebius, josephus and Philo have formerly affirmed; Aretus also, especially learned Rivet, have lately vindicated and made good against all the exceptions of Gomarus and others; Aret. loc. Com. de Sab. Rivet. in Com. 4 & dissert. de orig. Sab. Prim. part. 1. cap. 3. s. 9 insomuch as that the last refuge both of Gomarus and Primrose is this, viz. That all those Heathens who writ about the Sabbath and in honour of it, received not their light from nature, but from the writings of the jewish Commonwealth, all those heathenish testimonies about the Sabbath, being published and writ long after the delivering of the law upon mount Sinai: And therefore they think this no argument to prove that this law was practised ever since the world began, or that it was known by the light of nature, by which it might be evinced to be moral: but by this answer we shall scarce know any thing to be according to the light of nature by the writings of the Heathens, for all their writings are since Moses time, if they be of any credit; but suppose they did not know it by the working power of the light of nature, yet if they approved of, and honoured this day when it was made known by other means, so that they knew it by the approving light of nature, as the authors alleged make good, it's then sufficient to prove the seventh day moral, even by the light of nature: And although Seneca and some others scoffed at the Jewish Sabbaths, as if they lost the seventh part of their time thereby; yet we know that men's lusts will give them leave to scoff at that which yet their consciences chastise them for; beside I think those scoffs were not so much at the seventh day as at their ●●ict and ceremonious observance thereof, as also of their seventh years, wherein it's no wonder if that the light of nature should not so clearly see. Thesis' 191. The light of nature in the Gentiles, especially in matters of the first Table, was very imperfect, dim, and corrupt; Hence it is that we cannot expect to ●inde any perfect light of nature in matters of the Sabbath; some glimmerings and dark practices herein are sufficient to prove that this Law is natural, although the exact proportion of time for rest should not or could not by any reasoning of corrupt nature be perfectly found out; their observation of holy days and festivals did argue some imperfect light of nature left, concerning the Sabbath, which once nature had more perfectly, as old walls and rubbish do argue old and great buildings in former times; but suppose they could not find out exactly the seventh part of time, and so dedicate it to God for his Sabbath; yet the want of such light argues only the want of perfection of the light of nature, which we should not expect to find in the present light of nature in matters of the first Table, and in this of the Sabbath; and therefore 'tis no argument to prove the Sabbath not to be of the Law of nature, because the perfect knowled of the exact time thereof is not left in corrupt nature now. Thesis' 192. Suppose the Gentiles did neither know, nor were ever reproved particularly by any of the Prophets for breaking the Sabbath; yet this doth not argue that they were not bound to sanctify a Sabbath, and that it was no sin for them to neglect the Sabbath: for it was a privilege of the Jews to have God's Oracles revealed to them, and especially this of the Sabbath, Nehem. 9.14. Rom. 3.2. so it was a curse upon the Gentiles to live without Christ, and so also without Sabbaths, Ephes. 2.12. The times of which ignorance God is said to wink at, Acts 17.30. not by excusing them for the breach of Sabbath or other sins, but by not reproving them for it, as neither he did for many other moral transgressions, which notwithstanding were sins. The Patriarches were not condemned expressly till Moses time (by Mr. Primrose account) for their Polygamy, that we read of, and yet it was a sin all that time against the very first institution of marriage; and why might not the breach of the Sabbath be a sin much more longer among the Gentiles, and yet none of the Prophets reprove them particularly for the same? And therefore M. Primrose hath no cause to mark this argument with chalk, and with all attention, as he calls it; viz. That the breach of the Sabbath among the Gentiles was no sin, because it was not any where particularly reproved by the Prophets of God: for we see by what hath been said upon what weak crutches it stands. Thesis' 193. The Gentiles shall not be condemned only for what they did actually know, and did not practice; but also for what they did not actually know, yet might and should have known: The Gentiles did know that that some days were to be kept holy to God (saith M. Primrose) and they should have known the fittest proportion and most suitable frequency of such days, which the same author acknowledgeth to be moral; therefore they should have known the seventh day's Sabbath, and possibly might have known it if they had not held truth in righteousness, but made improvement thereof; for in this sense habenti dabitur, to him that hath shall be given, to wit, more of the same kind of l●ght, whether natural, moral, or Evangelicall; if common light in all these, more common light; if special light in them, they shall then have more special and saving light. Thesis' 194. As it is no argument that that Law is according to the light of nature, which the Gentiles generally practised (for then Polytheisme and Sacrificing of beasts, yea will-worship should be according to the light of nature, because these sins were generally practised) so it is no argument that that Law is not according to the light of nature which they generally neglected; and therefore suppose the Gentiles never observed a Sabbath, yet this is no argument that it is therefore no moral Law. Prim part. 1. cap. 3. S. 3. I know M. Primrose thinks that the Sacrifices were by an instinct of nature, Because it dictates that all sins whereof mortal men are guilty, are to be expiated by Sacrifice and Offerings to God offended: Which assertion hath some truth in it, if those words By Sacrifices and Offerings be left out; for what light of nature could make men think that an infinite Deity offended could be pacified by such carnal observances as the Sacrifices of brute beasts, and their blood, which never offended? This custom the Gentiles might retain as a Relic of former instruction and institution, by their first Fathers after the flood: which being matters merely ceremonious, might be retained more firmly than other moral duties of great consequence; however we see that the practice of the Gentiles is no fit guide to direct that which is according to the law and light of nature. Thesis' 195. If more narrow enquiry be made, what the Law of nature is? these distinctions must be observed. 1. The Law of nature is either of pure, or corrupt nature. The Law of pure nature was the Law of God writ on Adam's heart in innocency, which was nothing else but that holy bent and inclination of the heart within, to act according to the holy Law of God revealed, or Covenant made with him without, Aqu● 1●, 2●. Q. 91. art. 1. and thus Aquinas places the law of nature in this inclination. The Law of corrupt nature is that dim light left in the mind, and moral inclination left in the will in respect of some things contained in the Law of God, which the Apostle calls Conscience, Rom. 2.15. which natural conscience is nothing but the remnants and general principles of the law of pure nature, left in all men since the fall, which may be increased by more knowledge of the Law of God, or more diminished and defaced by the wickedness of man, Titus 1.15. 2. The Law of corrupt nature is taken either more largely, or strictly. As it is taken more largely, so it comprehends all that which is agreeable and suitable to natural reason, and that from a natural innate equity in the thing, when it is made known, either by divine instruction or humane wisdom, although it be not immediately known by the light of nature, and thus many judicial laws are natural and moral (though positive) and of binding nature unto this day. As it is taken strictly, so it comprehends no more but what nature immediately knows, or may know without external instruction, as parents to be honoured, man's life to be preserved. 3. The Law of nature strictly taken, are either principles of nature, or conclusions from such principles. The principles of the law of nature are in some respect many, yet may be reduced to this one head, viz. That good is to be followed, evil to be avoided. Conclusions are deductions from those principles, like several streams from the same spring, which though less evident than the principles, yet may be readily found out by discourse and sad search. 4. Conclusions arising from these principles, are more immediate, or mediate. Immediate are made (by Aquinas) to be two. 1. Love God with all thy heart. 2. Love thy neighbour as thyself. Mediate are such as arise from the former principles, by means of those two more immediate conclusions: and of this kind are some (as he thinks▪) yea, all the laws of the Decalogue, if right reason may be judge. Now to apply these. Thesis' 196. If the question be whether the Sabbath be known by the light of pure nature? the answer is, yea; for Adam's mind knew of it, and his heart was inclined and bend to the keeping of it, although it be true that now this light in corrupt nature (as in many other moral duties) is almost wholly extinct and worn out, as hath been formerly shown; And to speak plainly, this great and first impression left on man's heart in pure nature, is the first rule according to which we are now to judge of what is the law of nature, and it serves to dash to pieces and grind to powder and dust most effectually and strongly, the dreams and devices of such as would make the Sabbath not moral, because not natural, or not easily known by the present light of corrupt nature, when as corrupt nature is no perfect copy, but a blotted discovery of some part of the light of nature, which was fully imprinted at large in pure nature: and therefore it is no wonder, if our adversaries so much oppose the Commandment of the Sabbath in the state of innocency: such therefore as are otherwise Orthodox in this point, and yet make this description of the Law of nature (viz. which was written on man's heart in his first first Creation) to be both uncertain and impertinent, do unwarily pull down one of the strongest bulwarks, and the first that ever God made to defend the morality of the Sabbath: there is indeed no express Scripture which makes this description of the Law of nature (as they object) and so it is of many other things which are virtually and for substance contained in the Scripture, although there be no formal description set down of the same, and the like I say of this description here. Thesis' 197. If we speak of the Law of nature strictly taken, for that which is immediately and readily known by the common light of nature in all men, than it may be safely affirmed, that although the Sabbath should not be in this sense natural, yet it will not follow that it is not therefore moral: for the moral law once writ on man's heart in pure nature is almost blotted out; only some rudera and old rubbish is left of it in a perverse mind and a corrupt heart, Eph. 4.18. we see the wisest of the heathens making those things to be moral virtues (junius instanceth in the Law of private revenge, and we know they magnified will-worship) which the Scripture condemns as moral vices and sins: God would have commonwealths preserved in all places of the world, from the inundation and deluge of man's wickedness, and therefore he hath generally printed the notions of the second Table upon men's hearts to set bounds (as by sea-banks) unto the overflowings thereof, and hence it is that they are generally known: but he would not have Churches every where, and therefore there is but little known concerning matters of the first Table, and consequently about this Law of the Sabbath, which notwithstanding may be moral although it be not so immediately known. Thesis' 198. If we speak of the law of corrupt nature largely taken, for that law which when 'tis made known by divine determination and declaration is both suitable and congruous to natural reason and equity, we may then say that the Law of the Sabbath is according to the light of nature, even of corrupt nature itself: for do but suppose that God is to be worshipped, and then these three things appear to be most equal. 1. That he is not only to have a time, but a special time and a fit proportion of time for worship. 2. That it's most meet that he should make this proportion. 3. The Lord having given man six days and taken a Seventh to himself, man's reason cannot but confess that it is most just to dedicate that time to God: and for my own part I think that in this respect the law of the Sabbath was as fairly writ on man's hea●● in innocency as many other moral laws, which none question the morality of at this day: but disputes about this are herein perhaps useless. Thesis' 199. The Sacrament of the Lords Supper may be administered (meet circumstances concurring) every Lord's day, nay upon the week days often, as they did in the primitive persecutions: and hence our Saviour limits no time for it, in the first institution thereof, as he did for the Passeover of old, but only this, As oft as you do it, do it in remembrance of me: Prim. part. 1. cap. 6. Hence it will follow, that now under the Gospel there is no set Sabbath (as M. Primrose would) because our Saviour at the first institution of the Lords Supper limits no particular day for the celebration thereof, as once he did for the Passeover; for though there is an appointed special time (as shall hereafter appear) for the public exercise of all holy duties not being limited to those times, but enlarged to other times also; hence there is no reason why our Saviour should institute a set Sabbath, when he instituted the Lords Supper, as the proper time of the celebration thereof, as it was in case of the Passeover. Thesis' 200. Prim. part. 2. cap. 2. Wal. diss. de 4. prae. cap. 2. It is no argument to prove the Sabbath to be ceremonial, because it is reckoned among ceremonials, viz. shewbread and sacrifices, as M. Primrose and Wallaeus urge it out of Mat. 12.1, 2, 3. for 1. upon the same ground fornication and eating of idolothytes are ceremonial, because they are ranked among ceremonials, viz. blood and things strangled, Act. 15.29.2. upon this ground the Sabbath hath no morality at all in it, no more than shewbread and sacrifices which were wholly ceremonial. 3. The Sabbath is in the same place reckoned among things which are moral, as pulling a sheep out of a pit upon the Sabbath day, an act of humanity; why may it not then be as well accounted moral? 4. One may as well argue that the not keeping company with Publicans and sinners was a ceremonial thing, because the Lord Jesus useth the same Proverbial speech, I will have mercy not sacrifice, Mat. 9.13. upon which he defends the lawfulness of pulling the ears of corn upon the Sabbath day, in this Mat. 12.15. the scope therefore of this place is not to show the nature of the Sabbath day, whether it be ceremonial or moral, but the lawfulness and morality of his act in eating the ears of corn upon this day; and thus the arguments of our Saviour are very strong and convicting to prove the morality of such an act, but no way to prove the ceremoniality of the Sabbath: for that is the scope of our Saviour, that mercy to the hungry is to be preferred before the Sacrifice of bodily resting upon the Sabbath. M. Primrose indeed replies hereto and tells us, that mercy is to be preferred before sacrifice or ceremonial duties, but not before moral duties, Prim. part. 1. cap. 7. s. 3. and therefore Christ preferring it before the rest on the Sabbath, the Sabbath could not be moral: but we know that mercy in the second table is sometimes to be preferred before moral duties in the first table: a man is bound to neglect solemn prayer sometime to attend upon the sick; it's a moral duty to sanctify some day for a Sabbath (saith M. Primrose) and yet suppose a fire be kindled in a town upon that day, or any sick to be helped, must not mercy be preferred before hearing the word? which himself will acknowledge to be then a moral duty. Thesis' 201. When Christ is said to be Lord of the Sabbath, Mat. 12.8 the meaning is not as if he was such a Lord as had power to break it, but rather such a Lord as had power to appoint it, and consequently to order the work of it for his own service. M. Primrose thinks That he is said to be Lord of it, because he had power to dispense with the keeping of it, by whom & when he would: and that Christ did choose to do such works upon the Sabbath day, which were neither works of mercy or necessity, nay, which were servile, which the Law forbade: for Christ (saith he) as mediator had no power to dispense with things moral, but he might with matters ceremonial, and therefore with the Sabbath. How far Christ Jesus might and may dispense with moral laws, I dispute not now, I think Biell comes nearest the truth in this controversy; only this is considerable, suppose the Sabbath was ceremonial, yet it's doubtful whether Christ Jesus who came in the days of his flesh to fulfil all righteousness, could abolish or break the law ceremonial until his death was past, by which this hand-writing of Ordinances was blotted out, Colos. 2.14. and this middle wall of partition was broken down, Ephes. 2.14, 15, 16. But let it be yielded that Christ had power to break ceremonial laws then before his death, yet in this place there is no such matter; for the words contain a clear proof for the right observance of the Sabbath against the overrigid conceptions of the superstitious and proud Pharisees, who as they thought it unlawful for Christ to heal the sick upon the Sabbath, so to rub out, and eat a few corn ears upon it, although hunger and want (and perhaps more than ordinary in the Disciples here) should force men hereunto, which was no servile work (as Mr Primrose would) but a work of necessity and mercy in this case; and our Saviour proves the morality of it, from the example of David eating the Shewbread, and those that were with him, preferring that act of mercy before sacrifice and abstinence from Shewbread; and hence our Saviour argues, That if they attending upon David might eat the Shewbread, much more his hungry Disciples might eat the corn while they attended upon him that day, who was Lord of the Sabbath, and that they might be the better strengthened hereby to do him service: These things being thus; where now is there to be found any real breach of the Sabbath, or doing of any servile work, or maintenance of any unnecessary work, which the fame learned and acute writer imputes to our Saviour? which I had almost said is almost blasphemous. Thesis' 202. It's no argument that the Sabbath is not moral, because it's said, Mark 2.27. that man is not made for it, but it for man; for saith Mr Ironside, man is made for moral duties, not they for man: For let the Sabbath be taken for the bare rest of the Sabbath, as the Pharisees did, who placed so much Religion in the bare rest, as that they thought it unlawful to heal the sick on that day, or feed the hungry; so man is not made as lastly for the b●re rest, but rather it for man and for his good; but if by Sabbath be meant the Sanctification of that rest, so man is made for it, by Mr Primrose own confession: Nor our Saviour speaks of the Sabbath in the first respect; for the rest of it is but a means to a further and a better end, viz. The true sanctification of it which the Pharisees little looked unto, and therefore he might well say that the Sabbath was made for man, the rest of it being no further good then as it was helpful to man in duties of piety or mercy required of man, in the sanctification thereof: M. Primrose confessing that man is made for the sanctification of the Sabbath, would therefore wind out from this, by making this sanctification on the Sabbath to be no more than what is equally required of man all the week beside: but he is herein also much mistaken; for though works of piety and mercy are required every day, yet they are required with a certain eminency and specialty upon the Sabbath day, and thence 'tis that God calls mens to rest from all worldly occasions (which he doth not on the week days) that they might honour God in special upon the Sabbath, as shall hereafter appear. Thesis' 203. It's a monkish speculation of M. Broad to distinguish so of the Sabbath in sensu mystico, and sensu literali, as that the mystical sense like the lean and ill-favoured kine in Pharoah's dream shall eat up the literal sense, and devour Gods blessed and sweet Sabbath; for the Lord never meant by the Sabbath such a mystical thing as the resting from the works of the old man only every day, no more than when he commands us to labour six days, he permits us to labour in the works of the old man all the six days. Thesis' 204. For though it be true that we are to rest every day from sin, yet it will not hence follow, that every day is to be a Christians Sabbath, and that no one day in seven is to be set apart for it: For 1. Upon the same ground Adam should have had no Sabbath, because he was to rest from sin every day. 2. The Jews also before Christ, should have rejected all Sabbaths, because they were then bound to rest from sin as well as Christians now. 3. Upon the same ground there must be no days of fasting or feasting under the Gospel, because we are to fast from sin every day, and to be joyful and thankful every day. I know some Libertines of late say so; but upon the same ground there should have been none under the law neither, for they were then bound as well as we to fast from sin. 4. Hence neither should any man pay his debts, because he is bound to be paying his debt of love to God and all men every day. 5. Hence also no man should pray at any time in his family, nor alone by himself solemnly, because a Christian is bound to pray continually: And indeed I did not think that any forehead could be so bold and brazen as to make such a conclusion; but while I was writing this, came to my hearing concerning a seaman who came to these coasts from London, miserably deluded with principles of Familisme, who when an honest New-English man his Cabbin-mate invited him to go along and pray together, considering their necessities, he would professedly refuse to do it upon this ground, viz. Dost not pray continually? Why then should we pray together now? 6. The Commandment of the Sabbath doth not therefore press us to rest only from such works as are in themselves evil, which God allows at no ti●●▪ but from the works of our callings and weekly employments which are in themselves lawful and of necessity to be attended on at some time. It is therefore a loose and groundless assertion to make every day under the Gospel to be a Christians Sabbath day. Thesis' 205. To think that the Sabbath was proper to the Jews, because they only were able to keep and exactly observe the time of it, being shut up (as M. Primrose saith) within a little corner of the earth, and that the Gentiles therefore are not bound to it, because they cannot exactly observe the time of it, in several quarters of the earth so far distant, is a very feeble argument: For why might not all nations exactly observe the rising and the setting of the sun according to several climates by which the natural day and so this of a Sabbath is exactly measured? and which God hath appointed (without limitation to any hour) to be the bounds of the Sabbath as it sooner or later rises or sets? were not the mariners of the men of judah bound to observe the Seventh day in all the several coasts where they made their voyages? did God limit them to the rising or setting sun of judaea only? what colour is there to think thus of them? indeed it's true that in some habitable Northern coasts, the Sun is not out of sight some months together, but yet this is certain, if they know how the year spends into months, they can exactly reckon the weeks of those months, and therefore can exactly tell you the days of which those weeks consist, and therefore they have their exact rules and measures to know East and West, the place of the sunrising and sunset, and consequently to know the Sabbath days; and yet if they should not exactly know it, their will to do it is herein (as in other things) accepted of God. Thesis' 206. If this truth concerning the morality of the Sabbath did depend upon the testimony of ancient writers, it were easy to bring them up here in the rear, notwithstanding the flourishes of the great Historian; but this hath been done sufficiently by others, nor doth it suit our scope who aim at only the clearing up of the meaning of the fourth command, which must stand firm; the heaven and earth shall fall asunder, the Lord will rather waste kingdoms and the whole Christian world with fire and sword, then let one tittle of his Law perish; the land must rest when God's Sabbaths cannot, Leu. 26.34. and although I wish the Ministry of Christ Jesus a comely and comfortable maintenance, as may richly testify his people's abundant thankfulness, for the feet of those his messengers as preach peace, yet me thinks it argues great blindness in those men who plead for a morality in a tenth pig or sheaf of corn, and yet will acknowledge no morality in a Seventh day. Thesis' 207. I shall therefore conclude and shut up these things with answer to M. Carpenters and Heylins 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an argument against the Sabbath, which they have gone compassing the whole earth and heavens about to find out, never heard of till their days, and now it's brought to light. I would not make mirth with it (as some have done and left the scruple untouched) but in words of sobriety, and seriousness and plainness. If the Sabbath or Lords day (say they) be moral, than the moral Law is subject to manifold mutation, because the nations issuing out of Noah's ark spread themelves from thence over the face of the whole earth, some farther, some at a shorter distance, whereby changing the longitude with their habitation, they must of necessity alter the differences of times, neither can any exactly and precisely observe any one day, either as it was appointed by Moses, or as it was instituted by Christ's Apostles afterwards, by reason of the manifold transportation of Colonies, and transmigration of nations, from one region into another, whereby the times must necessarily be supposed to vary. The answer is ready and easy, viz. Although the nations issued out of Noah's ark, and spread themselves over the face of the whole earth, some farther, some at a shorter distance, and thereby changing their longitude altered the differences of time, some beginning the day sooner, some later, yet they might observe the same day; for the day is regulated and measured by the Sun, and the Sun comes to one meridian sooner or later then to another, and hence the day begins in one place sooner or later then in another, and so the beginning of the day is (respectively) varied, but yet the day itself remains unchangeably the same: what though our countrymen in old England begin their Sabbath above 4. hours before us in new, they beginning at their evening, we at our evening, yet both may and do observe the same day: all nations are bound to keep holy a Seventh part of time; but that time must be regulated by the Sun, neither is it necessary that the same individual 24. hours should be observed by all, but the same day as it is measured by the Sun in this or that place, which may begin in places more easterly many hours sooner than in other places more westerly; a day is not properly time but a measure of time, and therefore the manifold transportation of Colonies, and transmigration of nations from one region unto another, hinder not at all, but that they may exactly and precisely observe the same day, which was instituted and appointed: for although the time of the beginning of the day be varied, yet the day itself is not, cannot be varied or changed. Now whereas they say, that if any man should travel the world about, a whole day must needs be varied, and if two men from the same place travel, the one Eastward, the other Westward, round about the earth, and meet in the same place again, they shall find that he who hath gone Eastward hath gotten, and the other going Westward hath lost a day in their account; yea, the Hollanders after their discovery of Fretum de Mayre, coming home to their country, found by comparing their accounts with thtir countrymen at home, that they had lost a day, having gone Westward, and so compassed the earth round. I answet, what though a traveller varying perpetually the quantity of the day, by reason of his continual moving with or against the Sun's motion, in time get or lose a day in his account, is the day therefore of its own nature variable or changeable? God hath placed the Sun in the Firmament, and appointed it for times and seasons, and in special for the regulating of the day; and as the motion of the Sun is constant, so there is an ordinary and constant succession of days without variation; for unless the Sun's course be changed, the day which is regulated by it, is not changed, Now if any shall travel round about the world, and so anticipate or second the diurnal motion of the Sun, and thereby varying continually the quantity of the day, at length gain or lose a day, according to their reckoning, they may and ought then to correct their accounts: Gregory the 13. having found the Julian year to be too great for the Motion of the Sun, cut off ten days by which the AEquinoxes and Solstices had anticipated their proper places, that so the year might be kept at its right periods: and is it not as good reason that a traveller who opposing the Sun's diurnal course continually shortens somewhat of his day, till at last in compassing the earth round he gains a whole day, should cut off in his accounts that day which he hath gained by anticipating the Sun's course, and so rectify his account of the day? For in every region and country whatsoever and howsoever situate, as men are to begin the day at that time when the day naturally begins in that place, so likewise they are to reckon and count the days as they are there regulated and ordered by the Sun, and that should be the first or second day of the week to them, which is naturally the first or second day of the week to that place where they are: and thus their doubts are easily satisfied when they return to the place from whence they first came. But if any shall say it's very difficult for men thus to rectify their accounts, and to observe that time in every place which was at first instituted, and it's probable that the nations in their several transmigrations and transportations never used any such course. The answer is obvious; mens weakness, or neglect and carelessness to do what they ought, is not a sufficient argument to prove that not to be their duty; besides 'tis not probable that any nations were thus put to it to travel round about the whole earth (although some particular persons in this later age have sailed round about it) and therefore could not vary a whole day possibly, but going some Eastward, some Westward, some Southward, some Northward, they spread themselves over the face of the whole earth, some at a shorter, some at a farther distance, and so some began the day sooner, some later, and yet all (as hath been shown) might observe the same day: the morality of the Sabhath is not built upon Astronomical or Geometrical principles, and therefore it cannot fall by any shady speculations so far fetched. Here ends the Morality of the fourth Commandment: The Change of the Sabbath follows. THE CHANGE OF THE SABBATH. Wherein the true Grounds of the Change of the Day are plainly opened. Sundry Scriptures also (usually alleged) for this Change are more fully cleared and vindicated from what Mr. Brabourne and Mr. Primrose have alleged against the same. The second Part. LONDON, Printed for john Rothwell. 1650. The general Contents about the change of the Sabbath. 1. SVfficient Light in the Scriptures for the change of the Sabbath. Thes. 1. 2. Apostolical unwritten-traditions no ground for the change of it. Thes. 2. 3. Neither Churches custom, or any Imperial Law ground of the change of it. Thes. 3. 4. How the observation of the Christian Sabbath ariseth from the fourth Commandment. Thes. 4. 5. How 〈◊〉 day in the week may be called the seventh day. Thes. 7, 8. 6. The will of God the Efficient cause, the Resurrection of Christ the moral cause of the change of the Sabbath. Thes. 10. 7. The Ascension no ground of the change of the Sabbath. Thes. 13. 8. The 〈…〉 spoilt in his first Creation by the sin of man, hence the Day of Rest may be well changed. Thes. 16. 9 Neither the three days resting of Christ in the grave nor the 33. years of Christ's labour, the ground of our labour and rest now. Thes, 18. 10. Not only Christ's Resurrection, but an affixed Type to the first Sabbath, is the ground of the abrogation of it. Thes. 20. 11. What the affixed Type to the Sabbath is. Thes. 21. 12. The mere exercises of holy duties upon a day are not any true ground to make such a day the Christian Sabbath. Thes. 25. 13. How holy duties on a day may evince a Sabbath day. Thes. 26. 14. The first day of the week honoured by the Primitive Churches from the Commandment of the Lord jesus. Thes. 27. 15. The Apostles preaching on the jewish Sabbath, doth not argue it to be the Christian Sabbath. Thes. 30. 16. The first day of the week proved to be the Christian Sabbath by Divine Institution. Thes. 34. 17. The first place alleged for the Christian Sabbath, Acts 20.7. cleared by nine considerations. Thes. 35. 18. The second place from 1 Cor. 16.1, 2. cleared from seven considerations. Thes. 36. 19 The third Scripture. Rev. 1.10. cleared by two 〈◊〉 branches. Thes. 37. 20. How the Christian Sabbath ariseth from the fourth Commandment, although it be not particularly named in it. Thes. 40. 21. The error of those, especially in the Eastern Churches, who observed two Sabbaths. Thes. 41. 22. How the work of Redemption may be a ground for all men to observe the Sabbath. Thes. 42. 23. How far the judgement of God upon prophaners of the Lords Day is of force to evince the holiness of the Sabbath. Thes. 44. The Change of the Sabbath. THESIS' 1. THe change of this day from the last to the first of the week, although it be confirmed by an ancient custom, yet the true reason and grounds of so great a change are not so fully known: Sacred writings not so expressly setting down (as it doth in some things of less concernment) the causes hereof. Vide Spri●● on Sabb. Ironsides answer to 30 Argum. Qu. 5. c. 17. And many of the Arguments heaped up, and multiplied by some for the change of it, which may seem of great weight, while they want an adversary at the other end of the Scale to balance them: Yet upon sad examination and search into them they prove too light, and consequently occasion the temptation of scrupling the truth and validity of others more clear. We are therefore with more wariness and humility of mind to search into this Controversy, and with much thankfulness and modesty to accept that little light which God gives us in greater, as well as of much light which he is pleased to lend us in smaller matters. Austin. Pascimur apertis, exercemur obscuris, was his speech long since concerning the Scriptures. There is no truth so clear, but man's loose wit can invent and mint many pernicious Cavils against it; and therefore in those things which shine forth with less evidence, it is no wonder if it casts such blots and stains upon them as that they can fear 〈…〉 discerned, Nil magis inimicum veritati, acumine 〈…〉 therefore be wise with sobriety, & remember that in this and such like Controversies, the Scriptures were not written to answer all the scruples and objections of Cavillers, but to satisfy and establish the consciences of poor believers. And verily when I meet with such like speeches and objections as these, viz. Where is it expressly said that the old Sabbath is abrogated? and what one Scripture is there in the N. Testament declaring expressly that the Lords day is substituted and put in its room? I cannot from such expressions but think and fear that the ignorance of this change in some doth not spring so much from deficiency and want of light on God's part, but rather from perverseness on man's part, which will not see nor own the truth, because it is not revealed and dispensed after that manner and fashion of expression as man's wit and fantasy would have it: Like Naaman, who, because the Prophet went not about the cure of his Leprosy in that way and fashion which he would have him, did not therefore (for a time) see that way of cure which God had revealed to him. For the Holy Ghost is not bound to write all the principles of Religion under Common-place heads, nor to say expressly, In this place of Scripture you may see the old Sabbath abrogated, and the new instituted; for we find no such kind of expressions concerning Paul's Epistles and many books of Scripture, that this or that Epistle or book is Canonical; which yet we know to be so by other evidences. We know also that the Holy Ghost by brief hints of Truth, gives occasion of large Comments; and by writing about other matters tanquam aliud agens, it brings forth to light by the By revelations of great concernment, which it saw meet purposely in that manner to make known. And as in many other things it hath thus done, so especially in this of the Sabbath. So that if our hearts like Locks were fitted to God's Key, they would be soon opened to see through the difficulties of this point; which I confess of all practical points hath been most fu●l of knots and difficulties to my own weakness. Thesis' 2. To make Apostolical unwritten inspirations notified and made known in their days to the Churches, to be the cause of the change of the Day, is to plough with a Popish Heifer, and to cast that Anchor on which deceivers rely, and by which they hope to save themselves when they know not how otherwise to defend their falsehoods. Thesis' 3. To make Ecclesiastical Custom, established 〈◊〉 by the Imperial Law of Constantine, to be the 〈◊〉 of the change, Prim. part- cap. ●. hay. lin. Hist. l. 2. is to make a prop for Prelacy, and a step to Popery, and to open a gap to all humane inventions. For if it be in the Church's power to appoint the greatest Holy day; why may not any other Rite and Ceremony be imposed also? and if it be free to observe this day or not in respect of itself, because it wants a divine institution, and yet necessary to observe it in respect of the Church's Custom and constitution (as some pretend) why may not the Church's Commandment be a rule of obedience in a thousand things else as well as in this? and so introduce Will-Worship, and to serve God after the tradition of men which God abhors? Thesis' 4. The observation of the first day of the week for the Christian Sabbath ariseth from the force of the fourth Commandment, as strongly as the observation of the media cultus, or means of worship now under the New Testament, doth from the force of the second Commandment; only let this be supposed, that the day is now changed (as we shall hereafter prove) as also that the worship itself is changed by divine institution; for Gospel-institutions when they be appointed by divine and sovereign Authority, yet they may then be observed and practised by virtue of some moral Law. The Gospel appointed new Sacraments, but we are to use them by virtue of the second Commandment: so here the Gospel appoints a new seventh day for the Sabbath, but it stands by virtue of the fourth Commandment: and therefore the observation of it is not an Act of Christian Liberty, but of Christian duty imposed by divine Authority and by virtue of the moral Law. Thesis' 5. For the morality of the fourth Commandment (as hath been proved) being preserved in observing not that Sabbath only, nor yet a Sabbath merely when man sees meet: but in observing the Sabbath, i. e. such a Sabbath as is determined and appointed of God, (which may therefore be either the first or last of the seven days) Hence it is that the first of the seven, if it be determined and instituted of God under the New Testament, ariseth equally from the fourth Commandment, as the last seventh day did under the old Testament; and therefore it is no such piaculum nor delusion of the common People, as Mr. Brabourne would make it, to put the Title of the Lords Sabbath upon the Lord's day, and to call it the Sabbath day; for if it be borne out of the same womb the first seventh was, if it arise (I mean) from the same Commandment, Remember to keep holy the Sabbath day; why may it not bear the name of the Sabbath n●w, as the firstborn did in former times? Thesis' 6. If the Lord would have man to work six days together, according to his own example, and the morality of the fourth Commandment, that so a seventh day determined by himself might be observed; Hence it is that neither two Sabbaths in a week can stand with the morality of the fourth Commandment, nor yet could the former Sabbath be justly changed into any other day then into the first day of the week; the first day could not belong to the week before; for then there should be eight days in a week; and if it did belong to the week following, then (if we suppose that the second day had been the Sabbath) there must be one working day, viz. the first day to go before it, and five working days after it, and so there should not nor could not be six working days continued together, that the seventh might be the Lords according to the morality of the fourth Commandment. And hence it is that no Humane or Ecclesiastical power can change the Sabbath to what day of the week they please, from the first, which now is. Thesis' 7. It should not seem an uncouth Phrase, or a hard saying, to call the first day of the week a seventh or the seventh day: for though it be the first absolutely in order of existence from the Creation, yet relatively in way of relation, and in respect of the number of seven in a week, it may be invested with the name and title of a seventh, even of such a seventh as may lawfully be crowned and anointed to be the Sabbath day; for look as Noah, though he was the first in order of years and dignity of entrance into the Ark, yet he is called the eight, 2 Pet. 2.5. in that he was one of them (as the learned observe) qui octonarium numerum perficiebant, or who made up the number of eight: so it is in respect of the first day, which in divers respects may be called the first, and yet the seventh also. Mr. Brabournes Argument therefore is of no solidity, who goes about to prove the Christian Sabbath to be no Sabbath▪ Because, That Sabbath which the fourth Commandment enjoins is called the seventh day; but all the Evangelists call the Lords day the first day of the week, not the seventh day. For he should remember that the same day in divers respects may be called the first day, and yet the seventh day; for in respect of its natural existence and being, it may be and is called the first day, and yet in respect of divine use and application, it may be and is called the seventh day, even by virtue of the fourth Commandment, which is the Lords day, which is confessed to be the first day. Thesis' 8. For although in numero numerante (as they call it,) i. e. in number numbering there can be but one seventh, which immediately follows the number six: yet in numero numerato. i e. in number numbered, or things which are numbered, (as are the days of the week) any of the seven may be so in way of relation and proportion. As suppose seven men stand together, take the last man in order from the other six, who stand about him, and he is the seventh: so again take the first in order, and set him apart from the six who stand below him, and if the number of them who are taken from him make up the number of six, he then may and must necessarily be called the seventh. Just thus it is in the days of the week; the first Sabbath from the Creation might be called the seventh day in respect of the six days before it; and this first day of the week may be called the seventh day also, in respect of the six working days together after it. That may be called the last seventh; this the first seventh, without any absurdity of account which some would imagine: and if this first day of the week is called the eight day according to Ezekiels Prophesy of Evangelicall times, and his reckoning onward from the Creation, Ezek. 43.27. why may it not then in other respects put on the name of a seventh day also? Thesis' 9 The reason why the Lord should depose the last seventh, and exalt and crown the first of seven to be the day of the Christian Sabbath, is not so well considered, and therefore to be here narrowly examined. For as for those Eastern Christians, who in the primitive times observed two Sabbaths in a week, the Jewish and the Christian, doubtless their milk sod over, and their zeal went beyond the Rule. The number of Jews who were believers, and yet too too zealous of their old customs, we know, did fill those places in their dispersion and before more than the Western and more remote parts, and therefore they might more powerfully infect those in the East; and they to gain or keep them, might more readily comply with them. Let us therefore see into the reason's of this change from one seventh unto another. Thesis' 10. The good will of him who is Lord of the Sabbath, is the first efficient and primary cause of the institution of a new Sabbath; but the Resurrection of Christ being upon the first day of the week, Mark 16.9. is the secondary, moral or moving cause hereof: the day of Christ's resurrection being Christ's joyful day for his People's deliverance, and the world's restitution and new Creation, it is no wonder if the Lord Christ appoint it, and the Apostles preach and publish it, and the primitive Christians observe it as their holy and joyful day of rest and consolation. For some notable work of God upon a day, being ever the moral cause of sanctifying the day: hence the work of redemption being finished upon the day of Christ's Resurrection, and it being the most glorious work that ever was, and wherein Christ was fi●st most gloriously manifested to have rested from it, Rom. 1.4, hence th● Lord Christ might have good cause to honour this day above all others: and what other cause there should be of the public solemn Assemblies in the primitive Churches, up●n the first day of the week, than this glorious work of Christ's Resurrection, upon the same day which began their great joy for the rising of the Sun of righteousness, is scarce imaginable. Thesis' 11. No action of Christ doth of itself sanctify any time; for if it did, why should we not then keep as many Holy days every year as we find holy actions of Christ recorded in Scripture, as the superstitious Crew of blind Papists do at this day? But if God who is the Lord of time shall sanctify any such day or time wherein any such action is done, such a day than is to be kept holy; and therefore if the will of God hath sanctified the day of Christ's Resurrection, we may lawfully sanctify the same day; and therefore Mr. Brabourne doth us wrong, as if we made the Resurrection of Christ, merely to be the cause of the change of this day. Thesis' 12. Why the Will of God should honour the day of Christ's Resurrection as holy, rather than any other day of his Incarnation, Birth, Passion, Ascension: It is this; because Christ's rising day was his resting or Sabbath day, wherein he first entered into his rest, and whereon his rest began. For the Sabbath or Rest-day of the Lord our God, only can be our Rest-day according to the fourth Commandment. Hence the day of God's rest from the work of Gods Rest from the work of Creation, and the day of Christ's Rest from the work of Redemption, are only fit and capable of being our Sabbaths. Now the Lord Christ in the day of his incarnation and birth did not enter into his rest, but rather made entrance into his labour and sorrow, who then began the wo●k of Humiliation, Gal. 4.4, 5. and in the day of his passion, he was then under the so●est part and feeling of his labour, ●n bitter Agonies upon the Cross and in the Garden. And hence it is that none of those days were consecrated to be ou● Sabbath or rest-dayes, which were days of Christ's labour and sorrow; nor could the day of his Ascension be fit to be made out Sabbath, because although Christ then and thereby entered into his place of Rest (the third Heavens) yet he did not then make his first entrance into his estate of rest, which was in the day of his Resurrection; the wisdom and will of God did therefore choose this day above any other to be the Sabbath day. Thesis' 13. Those that go about (as some of late have done) to make Christ's Ascension-day the ground of our Sabbath-day, had need be fearful left they lose the truth and go beyond it, while they affect some new discoveries of it, which seems to be the case here. For through Christ at his Ascension entered into his place of Rest, yet the place is but an Accidental thing to Christ's Rest itself, the State of which was begun in the day of his Resurrection; and therefore there is no reason to prefer that which is but accidental above that which is most substantial; or the day of entrance into the place of his Rest in his Ascension, before the day of Rest in his Resurrection: beside, it's very uncertain whether Christ ascended upon the first day of the week; we are certain that he arose then; and why we should build such a vast change upon an uncertainty, I know not. And yet suppose that by deduction and strength of wit ●t might be found out, yet we see not the Holy Ghost expressly setting it down, viz. That Christ ascended upon the first day of the week, which if he had intended to have made the ground of our Christian Sabbath, he would surely have done: the first day in the week being ever accounted the Lords day in Holy Scriptures; and no other first day do we find mentioned on which he ascended, but only on that day wherein he arose from the dead. Thesis' 14. And look as Christ was a Lamb slain from the foundation of the World meritoriously, but not actually: So he was also risen again in the like manner from the foundation of the world meritoriously, but not actually. Hence it is that look as God the father actually instituted no Sabbath day, until he had actually finished his work of Creation, so neither was it meet that this day should be changed, until Christ Jesus had actually finished (and not meritoriously only) the work of Redemption or Restoration: And hence it is that the Church before Christ's coming might have good reason to sanctify that day, which was instituted upon the actual finishing of the work of Creation, and yet might have no reason to observe our Christian Sabbath; the work of Restoration and new Creation, and rest from it, not being then so much as actually begun. Thesis' 15. Whether our Saviour appointed that first individual day of his resurrection to be the first Christian Sabbath, is somewhat difficult to determine; and I would not tie knots and leave them for others to unloose; This only I aim at, that although the first individual day of Christ's Resurrection should not possibly be the first individual Sabbath, yet still the Resurrection of Christ is the ground of the institution of the Sabbath, which one consideration dasheth all those devices of some men's Heads, who puzzle their Readers with many intricacies and difficulties, in showing that the first day of Christ's Resurrection could not be the first Sabbath, and thence would infer that the day of his Resurrection, was not the ground of the institution of the Sabbath, which inference is most false; for it was easy with Christ to make that great work on this day to be the ground of the institution of it, some time after that work was Past. Thesis' 16. The sin and fall of man having defaced and spoilt (de jure though not de facto) the whole work of Creation, as that learned * Lake Theses. Bishop well observes; It was not so meet therefore that the Sabbath should be ever kept in respect of that work, but rather in respect of this new Creation or Restoration of all things by Christ, after the actual Accomplishment thereof in the day of his Resurrection. But look as God the father having created the world in six days, he rested therefore and sanctified the seventh: So this work being spoiled and marred by man's sin, and the new Creation being finished and ended, the Lord therefore rested the first day of the week, and therefore sanctified it. Thesis' 17. The fourth commandment gives in the reason why God sanctified the seventh day from the Creation, viz. because God rested on that day, and as it is in Exod. 31.17. was refreshed in it, that is, took a complacency and delight in his 〈◊〉 so done and so finished. But the sin of man in falling from his first Creation, made God repent that ever he made man, Gen. 6. and consequently the world for man, and therefore it took off that complacency or rest and refreshing in this his work; if therefore the Lord betake himself to work a new work, new Creation or Renovation of all things in and by his Son, in which he will for ever Rest, may not the day of his rest be then justly changed into the first of seven, on which day his rest in his new work began, whereof he will never repent? If the Lord vary his rest, may not be vary the time and day of it,? nay must not the time and day of our rest be varied, because the ground of God's rest in a new work is changed? Thesis' 18. As it was no necessary duty therefore, perpetually to observe that seventh day wherein God first rested, because his rest on that day is now changed; so also it is not necessary orderly to observe those six days of labour, wherein He first laboured and built the world, of which for the sin of man he is said to have repent; yet notwithstanding, though it be no necessary duty to observe those particular six days of labour, and that seventh of Rest, yet it is a moral duty (as hath been proved) to observe six days for labour, and a seventh for Rest; and hence it follows that although the Lord Christ's Rest on the Day of his Resurrection (the first day of the week) might and may justly be taken as a ground of our rest on the same day; yet his labour in the work of Redemption three and thirty years and upward, all the days of his life and humiliation, could not nor cannot justly be made the ground or example of our labour, so as we must labour and work thirty three years together before we keep a Sabbath the Day of Christ's Rest. Because although God could alter and change the Day of Rest without infringement of the Morality of the fourth Commandment; Yet he could not make the example of Christ's labour thirty three years together, the ground or example of our continuance in our work, without manifest breach of that Moral Rule, viz. That man shall have six days together for labour, & the seventh for Rest. For man may rest the first day of the week, and withal observe six days for labour, and so keep the fourth Commandment; but he cannot labour 33. years together, and then keep a Sabbath without apparent breach of the same Commandment: and therefore that Argument of Master Brabourne against 〈◊〉 Christian Sabbath melt● into Vanity, wherein he urgeth an equity of the Change of the Days of our 〈◊〉, either three Days only together (as Christ did lie in the grave) or 33. years together (as he did all the days of his Humiliation) in case we will make a Change of the Sabbath, from the Change of the Day of Christ's Rest. And yet I confess ingenuously with him, that if the Lord had not instituted the first Day of the week to be our Christian Sabbath, all these, and such like arguings and reasonings were invalid to prove a Change; for man's reason hath nothing to do to Change days without Divine appointment and institution: these things only I mention why the wisdom of God might well alter the Day. The proofs that he hath changed it, shall follow in due place. Thesis' 19 The Resurrection of Christ may therefore be one ground, not only of the Sanctification of the Christian Sabbath, but also a sufficient ground of the abrogation of the Jewish Sabbath. For, first, the greater light may darken the less, and a greater work (as the Restoration of the World above the Creation of it) may overshadow the less, jerem 23.7, 8. Exod. 12.2. Secondly, Man's sin spoilt the first Rest, and therefore the day of it might be justly abrogated. For the horrible wrath of God had been immediately poured out upon man (as might be proved, and as it was upon the lapsed Angels) and consequently upon all Creatures for man's sake, if Christ had not given the Father Rest, for whose sake the world was made, Revel. 4.11. and by whose means and mediation the World continues as now it doth, joh. 5.22. Thesis' 20. Yet although Christ's Resurrection be one ground not only of the Institution of the new Sabbath, but also of the abrogation of the Old, yet it is not the only ground why the Old was abrogated; For, (as hath been shown) there was some type affixed to the Jewish Sabbath, by reason of which there was just cause to abrogate, or rather (as Calvin calls it) to translate the Sabbath to another Day. And therefore this dasheth another of Mr. Brabournes dreams, who argues the continuance of the Jewish Sabbath, because there is a possibility for all Nations still to observe it. For (saith he) cannot we in England as well as they at Jerusalem remember that Sabbath? Secondly rest in it. Thirdly, Keep it holy. Fourthly, keep the whole day holy. Fifthly, the last of seven. Sixthly, and all this in imitation of God. Could no Nation (saith he) besides the jews observe these six things? Yes verily that they could in respect of natural ability; but the question is not what men may or might do, but what they ought to do, and should do. For besides the change of Gods Rest through the work of the Son, there was a Type affixed to that Jewish Sabbath, for which cause it may justly vanish at Christ's death, as well as other types, in respect of the affixed Type, which was but accidental; and yet be continued and preserved in another Day, being originally, and essentially Moral: A Sabbath was instituted in Paradise, equally honoured by God in the Decalogue with all other Moral Laws, foretold to continue in the days of the Gospel by Ezekiel and Isaiah, Ezek. 43. ult. Isa. 56.4.6. and commended by Christ, who bids his people pray, that their flight may not be in the winter or Sabbath-day, as it were easy to open these places against all Cavils; and therefore it is for substance Moral. Yet the word Sabbatisme, Heb. 4.9. and the Apostles gradation from yearly Holidays to monthly new-moons, and from them to weekly Sabbaths, which are called shadows of things to come, Colos. 2.16. seems strongly to argue some type affixed to those individual Sabbaths, or Jewish seventh days; and hence it is perhaps that the Sabbath is set among Moral Laws in the Decalogue, being originally and essentially Moral, and yet is set among ceremonial feast-days, Levit. 23.2, 3. because it is accidentally typical. And therefore Mr. Brabourne need not raise such a dust, and cry out, Oh monstrous! very strange! what a mingle-mangle! what a hotchpotch have we here! what a confusion and jumbling of things so far distant, as when Morals and Ceremonials are here mingled together! No verily, we do not make the fourth Commandment essentially Ceremonial; but being acidentally so, why may it notwithstanding this be mingled among the rest of the Morals? Let one solid reason be given, but away with words. Thesis' 21. If the question be, what Type is affixed and annexed to the Sabbath? I think it difficult to find out, although man's wanton wit can easily allegorise and readily frame imaginations enough in this point. Some thing it typified Christ's Rest in the grave; but I fear this will not hold, no more than many other Popish conjectures, wherein their allegorising Postillers abound. Bullinger and some others think that it was Typical in respect of the peculiar Sacrifices annexed to it, which Sacrifices were Types of Christ, Numb, 28.9. And although much might be said for this against that which Mr. Brabourne replies, yet I see nothing cogent in this; for the multiplying of Sacrifice (which were 〈…〉) on this Day proves rather a specialty of worshipping God more abundantly on this Day, than any Ceremonialnesse in it; for if the offering of Sacrifices merely, should make a day Ceremonial, why did it not make every Day Ceremonial in respect of every days offering of the Morning and Evening Sacrifice? Some think that our Rest upon the Sabbath (not God the Father's Rest, as Mr. Brabourne turns it) was made not only a resemblance, but also a Type of our Rest in Christ, of which the Apostle speaks, Heb. 4.3. which is therefore called a Sabbatisme, v●r. 9 or a keeping of a Sabbath at the word signifies. What others would infer from this place to make the Sabbath to be merely Cermonial: and what Mr. Brabourne would answer from hence, that it is not at all Ceremonial, may both of them be easily answered here again as already they have been in some of the former Theses. Some scruples I see not yet through about this text, enforce me herein to be silent, and therefore to leave it to such as think they may defend it, as one ground of some affixed Type unto the Jewish Sabbath. Thesis' 22. Learned junius goes before us herein, and points out the Type affixed to that Sabbath; For, besides the first institution of it in Paradise, he makes two other causes which he calls Accessary, or affixed and added to it. 1. One was Civil or Civil; Jun. Ann. in Gen. 2.3. that men and beasts might rest from their toilsome labour every week. 2. Ceremonial or Ceremonial; for their solemn Commemoration of their deliverance out of Egypt, which we know typified our deliverance by Christ, Deut. 5.15. Some think indeed that their deliverance out of Egypt was upon the Sabbath day; but this I do not urge; because though it be very probable, yet it is not certain; only this is certain, that they were to Sanctify this Day because of this their Deliverance; and 'tis certain this Deliverance was Typical of our deliverance by Christ: and hence 'tis certain that there was a Type affixed to this Sabbath; and because the Scripture is so plain and express in it, I 〈◊〉 inclined to think the same which junius doth, that this is the Type rather than any other I have yet heard of: against which I know many things may be objected; only it may be sufficient to clear up the place against that which Mr. Brabourne answers to it. Thesis' 23. The Deliverance 〈◊〉 of Egypt, saith he, is not 〈…〉 as the ground of the Institution of the Sabbath, but only as a motive to the observation thereof; as it was more general in the Preface to the Decalogue to the obedience of every other command which notwithstanding are not Ceremonial; for God saith, I am the Lord who brought thee out of Egypt, therefore keep thou the first, the second, the third, the fifth, the sixth, as well as the fourth Commandment; and therefore (saith he) we may make every Commandment Ceremonial as well as the Sabbath, if the motive of deliverance out of Egypt makes the Sabbath to be so. This is the substance and sinews of his discourse herein; and I confess its true, their Deliverance out of Egypt was not the first ground of the institution of it, but Gods Rest after his six day's labour; yet it was such a ground as we contend for, viz. a secondary and an annexed or affixed ground. And that it was not a Motive only to observe that day (as it is in the Preface to the Decalogue) but a superadded ground of it, may appear from this one consideration, viz. because that very ground on which the Lord urgeth the observation of the Sabbath in Exod. 20.11, it is wholly left out in the repetition of the Law, Deut. 5.15. and their deliverance out of Egypt put into the room thereof: for the ground in Exod. 20.11. is this, Six days God made Heaven and Earth, and rested the seventh day and sanctified it; but instead of these words, and of this ground, we find other words put into their room, Deut. 5.15. Remember thou wast a servant in the Land of Egypt, and that the Lord brought thee out thence with a mighty hand, therefore the Lord thy God commandeth thee to Keep the Sabbath. Which seems to argue strongly that these words are not a mere Motive but another ground of the observation of the Sabbath. And why might not the general Motive in the Preface of the Decalogue, serve as a sufficient Motive to the obedience of this Commandment, if there was no more but a Motive in these words of Deutr. and therefore I suppose this was also the ground and affixed Type unto the Jewish Sabbath. Thesis' 24. But still the difficulty remains; for Master Brabourne will say that those were but humane reasons; but what ground is there from Scripture for the institution of another Sabbath, as well as of the abrogation of the old? which if it be not cleared. I confess this cause sinks; here therefore let it be again observed, that we are not to expect such evidence from Scripture concerning this Change, (as fond and humorous wit sometimes pleads for) In this controversy, namely, That Christ should 〈◊〉 with 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉, as it were upon Mount Zion, and proclaim by word or writing in so many express words, That the jewish Sabbath is abrogated, and the first day of the week instituted in its room to be observed of all Christians to the end of the world. For 'tis not the Lord's manner so to speak in many other things which concern his Kingdom, but as it were occasionally, or in way of History, or Epistle to some particular Church or people; and thus he doth concerning the Sabbath: and yet Wisdoms mind is plain enough to them that understand. Nor do I doubt but that those Scriptures which are sometimes alleged for the Change of the Sabbath, although at first blush they may not seem to hear up the weight of this cause, yet being throughly considered, they are not only sufficient to establish modest minds, but are also such as may 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or stop the mouths even of wranglers themselves. Thesis' 25. I do not think that the exercise of holy duties on a Day argues that such a Day is the Christian Sabbath Day; for the Apostles preached commonly upon the Jewish Sabbath, sometime upon the first day of the week also: and therefore the bare exercise of holy duties on a day is no sufficient Argument that either the one or the other is the Christian Sabbath; for then there might be two Sabbaths, yea many Sabbaths in a week, because there may be many holy duties in several days of the week, which we know is against the Morality of the fourth Commandment. Thesis' 26. Yet notwithstanding although holy duties on a Day do not argue such a Day to be our Sabbath▪ yet that Day which is set apart for Sabbath services rather than any other Day, and is honoured above any other Day for that end, surely such a day is the Christian Sabbath. Now, if it may appear that the first Day of the week was thus honoured, then certainly it is to be accounted the Christian Sabbath. Thesis' 27. The Primitive pattern Churches thus honoured the fi●st Day of the week; and what they practised without reproof, that the Apostles (who planted those Churches) enjoined and preached unto them so to do; at least in such weighty matters as the Change of Days, of preferring one before that other which the Lord had honoured before; and what the Apostles preached, that the Lord Jesus commanded Matth. 28.20. Go teach all Nations that which I Command you: unless any shall think that the Apostles sometime went beyond their Commission to teach that to others which Christ never commanded, which is blasphemous to imagine; for though they might err in practice as men, and as Peter did at Antioch, and Paul and Barnabas in their contention; yet in in their public ministry they were infallibly and extraordinarily assisted, especially in such things which they hold forth as patterns for after times: if therefore the Primitive Churches thus honoured the first day of the week above any other day for Sabbath services, then certainly they were instituted and taught thus to do by the Apostles approving of them herein; and what the Apostles taught the Churches, that, the Lord jesus commanded to the Apostles. So that the approved practice of the churches herein shows what was the Doctrine of the Apostles; and the Doctrine of the Apostles shows what was the command of Christ: so that the sanctification of this Fi●st Day of the week is no humane tradition but a Divine institution from Christ himself. Thesis' 28. That the Churches honoured this Day above any other, shall appear in its place, as also that the Apostles commanded them so to do. Yet Mr. Primrose saith that this latter is doubtful: and Mr. Ironside (not questioning the matter) falls off with another evasion, viz. That they acted herein not as Apostles, but as ordinary Pastors, and consequently as fallible men, Iron. Qu. 5. cap. 89. not only in commanding this Change of the Sabba●h, but in all other matters of Church government (among which he reckons this of the Sabbath to be one) which he thinks were imposed according to their private wisdom as most fit for those times, but not by any Apostolical Commission as concerning all times. But to imagine that matters of Church-government in the Apostles days weet coats for the Moon in respect of aftertimes, and that the form of it is mutable (as he would have it) I suppose will be digested by few honest and sober minds in these times, unless they be biased for a season by politic ends, and therefore herein I will not now contend; one●y it may be considered whether any private spirit could abolish that Day, which from the beginning of the world God so highly honoured, and then honour and advance another Day above it, and sanctify it too (as shall be proved) for religious services. Could any do this justly but by immediate dispensation from the Lord Christ Jesus? and if the Apostles did thus receive it immediately from Christ, and so teach the observation of it, they could not then teach it as fallible men, and as private Pastors, as he would have it; a pernicious conceit, enough to undermine the faith of Gods elect in many matters more weighty than this of the Sabbath. Thesis' 29. To know when and where the Lord Christ instructed his Desciples concerning this Change, is needless to inquire. It is sufficient to believe this, that what the Primitive Churches exemplarily practised, that was taught them by the Apostles who planted them; and that whatsoever the Apostles preached, the Lord Christ commanded, as hath been shown. Yet▪ if the Change of the Sabbath be a matter appertaining to the Kingdom of God, why should we doubt but that within the space of his forty day's abode with them after his Resurrection, he then taught it them, for 'tis expressly said that He then taught them such things, Acts 13. Thesis' 30. When the Apostles came among the Jews, they preached usually upon the Jewish Sabbaths, but this was not because they did think or appoint it herein to be the Christian Sabbath, but that they might take the fittest opportunity and season of meeting with, and so of preaching the Gospel to the Jews in those times. For, what power had they to call them together when they saw meet? or if they had, yet was it meet for them thus to do, before they were sufficiently instructed about God's mind for setting apart some other time? and how could they be sufficiently and seasonably instructed herein without watching the advantage of those times which the Jews yet thought were the only Sabbaths? The days of Pentecost, Passeover and hours of prayer in the Temple, are to be observed still as well as the jewish Sabbath, if the Apostles preaching on their Sabbaths argues the continuance of them, as Mr. Brabourne argues, for we know that they preached also and went up purposely to jerusalem at such times to preach among them as well as upon the Sabbath days: look therefore as they laid hold upon the days of Pentecost and Passeover as the fittest seasons to preach to the Jews, but not thinking that such Feasts should still be continued, so it is in their preaching upon the Jewish Sabbaths. Thesis' 31. Nor did the Apostles sinfully judaize by preaching to the jews upon their Sabbaths (as Mr. Brabourne would infer); supposing that their Sabbaths should not be still observed, they should then judaiz and after Ceremonies, saith he, and so build up those things which they laboured to destroy: For, suppose they did observe such Days and Sabbaths as were Ceremonial for a time, yet it being done not in conscience of the Day, but in conscience of taking so fit a season to preach the Gospel in, it could not nor cannot be any sinful judaizing, especially while then, the jews were not sufficiently instructed about the abolishing of those things. For Mr. Brabourne could not but know that all the jewish Ceremonies being once the appointment of God, were to have an honourable burial, and that therefore they might be lawfully observed for a time among the jews, until they were more fully instructed about them; and hence Paul Circumcised Timothy because of the jews, Acts. 16.3. and did otherwise conform to them, that so he might win and gain the more upon them: and if Paul observed purposely a jewish Ceremony of Circumcision, which was not necessary, nay which was not lawful to be observed among the Gentiles, Galat. 5.2. and yet he observed it to gain the jews: why might not Paul much more preach the Gospel, which is in itself a necessary Duty, upon a jewish Sabbath which fell out occasionally to him, and therefore might lawfully be observed for such an end among the jews, which among the Gentiles might be unlawful? Suppose therefore that the Apostles might have taught the jews from house to house (as Mr. Brabourne argues against the necessity put upon the Apostles to preach upon the jewish Sabbath) yet what Reason or Conscience was there to lose the opportunity of public preaching for the more plentiful gathering in of souls, when many are met together, and which may lawfully be done, and be contented only to seek their good in such private ways? and what although Paul did assemble the chief of the jews together at Rome when he was a prisoner, to acquaint them with Civil matters about his imprisonment, Acts. 28.17. yet had he power to do thus in all places where he came? or was it meet for him so to do? Did not he submit the appointment of a sacred Assembly to hear the word rather unto them, then assume it to himself, Acts 28 23. It is therefore false and unsound which Master Brabourne affirms, viz. That Paul did preach on the jewish Sabbath in conscience of the Day, not merely with respect of the opportunity he then took from their own public meetings then to preach to them; For (saith he) Paul had power to assemble them together upon other days: This, I say, is both false: for he that was so much spoken against among them, might not in all places be able to put forth such a power; as also 'tis unsound; for, suppose he had such a power, yet whether it was so mee● for him to pu●●t forth in appointing other times, may be easily judged of by what hath been said. Thesis' 32. Nor is there a foundation here laid of making all other actions of the Apostles unwarrantable or unimitable (as Mr. Brabourne saith) because we are not to imitate the Apostles herein in preaching upon the jewish Sabbaths. For no actions either of Christ or the Apostles which were done merely in respect of some special occasion, or special reason, are, eatenus, or in that respect binding to others: For, the example of Christ eating the Lord's supper only with men, not women, in an upper chamber, and towards the dark evening, doth not bind us to exclude women, or not to celebrate it in other places and times; because we know that these actions were merely occasioned in respect of special reasons (as the eating of the Passeover with ones own family, Christ's family not consisting of women) so it is here in respect of the Sabbath; The Apostles preaching upon the jewish Sabbaths was merely occasional, by occasion of the public meetings (their fittest time to do good in) which were upon this and any other day. Thesis' 33. Now although the jews observing this day, the Apostles observed it among the jews by preaching among them; yet we shall find that among the Christian Gentile Churches and believers (where no judaism was to be so much as tolerated for a time) not any such day was thus observed, nay another day, the first day in the week is honoured and preferred by the Apostles above any other day in the week for religious and Sabbath services. For, although Holy duties do not argue always a Holy day; yet when we shall find the Holy Ghost single out and nominate one particular day to be observed and honoured rather than any other day, and rather than the jewish seventh day itself for Sabbath services and Holy duties: this undeniably proves that day to be the Christian Sabbath: and this we shall make evident to be the first day of the week. Which one thing seriously minded (if proved) doth utterly subvert the whole frame and force of Master Brabournes shady Discourse for the observation of the Jewish Sabbath, and most effectually establisheth the Christian Sabbath. Master Braburne therefore herein bestirs his wits, and tells us on the contrary that Paul preached not only to the jews, but even unto the Gentiles upon this jewish Sabbath rather then any other day; and for this end brings double proofs; one is Acts 13.42, 44. where the Gentiles are said to desire Paul to preach to them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. the week between, or any Day between till the next Sabbath (as some translate it) or (if Master Brabourne will) the next Sabbath, or jewish Sabbath, when almost all the City came out to hear Paul, who were most of them Gentiles, not jews. Be it so, they were Gentiles indeed; but as yet no Church or Christian Church of Gentiles actually under Christ's Government and Ordinances, among whom (I say) the first day of the week was so much honoured above any other day for sacred Assemblies. For, 'tis no wonder if the Apostles yield to their desires in preaching any time of the week, which they thought the best time, even upon the jewish Sabbath; among whom the jews being mingled, they might have the fitter opportunity to preach to them also, and so become all things to all men to gain some. His second proof is, Acts 16 12, 13. and here he tells us that Paul and Timothy preached not to the jews, but to the Gentiles, upon the Sabbath day. I confess they are not called jews no more then 'tis said that they were Gentiles; but why might not Lydia and her company be jews or jewish Proselytes, who we know did observe the jewish Sabbath strictly till they were better instructed, as they did all other Jewish ceremonies also? For Lydia is expressly said to be one who worshipped God before Paul came. Master Brabourne tells us, they were no jewish Proselytes, because they had no jewish Synagogue, and therefore they were fain to go out of the City into the Fields, beside a River, to pray. I confess the Text saith that they went out to a River side where prayer was wont to be made; but that this was the open Fields, and that there was no Oratory, house, or place of shelter to meet and pray in, this is not in the Text, but its Master Brabournes comment and gloss on it. But suppose it was in the open Fields, and that they had no Synagogue: yet will it follow that these were not jews? might not the jews be in a Gentile City for a time without any Synagogue? especially if their number be but small, and this small number consist chiefly of women, as it seems this did, whose hearts God touched, leaving their husbands to their own ways? If they were not jews or rather jewish Proselytes, why did they choose the Sabbath day (which the jews so much set by) rather then any other, to pray and worship God together in? But verily such answers as these wherewith the poor man abounds in his Treatise, make me extremely fear that he rather stretched his Conscience, than was acted by a plain deluded Conscience in this point of the Sabbath. Thesis'. 34. It remains therefore to prove that the first Day of the week is the Christian Sabbath by Divine institution; and this may appear from those three texts of Scripture ordinarily alleged for this end. I. Acts 20.7. II. 1 Cor. 16.2. III. Revel. 1.10. Which being taken jointly together, hold these three things: 1. That the first Day of the week was honoured above any other day for Sabbath services in the Primitive Churches practise, as is evident, Acts 20.7. 2. That the Apostles commanded the observation of this Day rather than any other for Sabbath-services, as is evident, 1 Cor. 16.1, 2. 3. That this day is holy and sanctified to be holy to the Lord above any other day, and therefore it hath the Lord's name upon it (an usual sign of things Holy to him) and therefore called the Lords Day, as is evident, Revel 1.10. but these things need more particular explication. Thesis' 35. In the first of these places, Acts 10.7. these particulars are manifest. 1. That the Church of Troas (called Disciples) publicly and generally now met together, so that it was no private Church-meeting (as some say) but general and open, according as those times would give leave. 2, That this meeting was upon the first day of the week, called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: which phrase although Gomarus, Primrose, Heylin, and many others go about to translate thus, viz. upon one of the days of the week. Yet this is sufficient to dash that Dream (besides what else might be said) viz That this phrase is expounded in other Scriptures to be the first day of the week, Luke 24, 1. john 20, 1. but never to be found throughout all the Scriptures expounded of one day in the week. Gomarus indeed tells us of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luke 5.17. & 8.22. & 20.1. which is translated quodam die, Gomar. Invest. Sent. & orig. Sab. cap. 9 or a certain day; but this will not help him, for this is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as 'tis in this place. 3. That the end of this meeting was Holy Duties, viz. to break bread, or to receive the Lords Supper, as the phrase is expounded, Acts 2.43. which was therefore accompanied with preaching the word and prayer, Holy preparation and serious meditation about those great mysteries. Nor can this breaking of Bread be interpreted of their Love-feasts or common Suppers, as Gomarus suspects. For their Love-feasts and common Suppers were not of the whole Church together (as this was) but in several houses, as Mr. Cartwright proves from Acts 2.46. And although the Corinthians used their Love-Feasts in public, yet they are sadly reproved for it by the Apostle, 1 Cor. 11.12. and therefore he would not allow it here. 4. 'Tis not said that Paul called them together, because he was to depart the next day, or that they purposely declined the Lords Supper till that day, because than Paul was to depart (as Master Primrose urgeth) but the text speaks of it as of a time and Day usually observed of them before, and therefore it is said that when they came together to break bread; Primr. par. 3. cap. 5. and Paul therefore took his opportunity of preaching to them, and seems to stay purposely, and wait seven days among them, that he might communicate with them, and preach unto them in this ordinary time of public meeting, and therefore though he might privately instruct and preach to them the other seven days, yet his preaching now is mentioned in regard of some special solemnity of meeting on this Day. 5. The first Day was honoured above any other Day for these Holy Duties; or else why did they not meet upon the last Day of the week, the jewish Sabbath for these ends? For if the Christian Churches were bound to observe the jewish Sabbath, why did they not meet then and honour the seventh Day above the first day? considering that it was but the day before, and therefore might easily have done it, more fitly too, had that seventh day been the Christian Sabbath. 6. Why is the first Day of the week mentioned which is attributed only in the New Testament to the Day of Christ's resurrection, unless this day was then usually honoured and sanctified for Holy Duties called here breaking of bread by a Synecdoche of a part for the whole, and therefore comprehends all other Sabbath Duties? For there is no more reason to exclude prayer, preaching, singing of Psalms, etc. because these are not mentioned, then to exclude drinking of Wine in the Sacrament, (as the blind Papists do) because this neither is here made mention of. Master Primrose indeed tells us that it may be, the first Day of the week is named in respect of the Miracle done in it upon Eu●ichus: But the Text it plain, the time of the meeting is mentioned, Primr. par. ● cap. 5. and the end of it to break Bread, and the Miracle is but brought in as a particularly event which happened on this day, which was set apart first for higher ends. 7. Nor is it said in the Text that the Church of Troas me● every day together to receive the Sacrament (as Master Pr●mrose suggests) and that therefore this action of breaking Bread was done without respect to any particular or special Day, Ibid. it being performed every Day. For, I do not find that the Primitive Church received the Lords Supper every day: for though it be said, Acts. ●2. That the Church continued in the Apostles Fellowship and breaking of Bread; yet it is not said that they broke Bread every day: they are indeed said to be daily in the Temple, verse 46. but not that they broke Bread every day in the Temple, or from house to house; or if they should, yet the b●eaking of Bread in this verse is meant of Common not Sacred Bread, as it is verse 42. where I think the Bread was no more Common, than their continuance in the Apostles Droctrine and Fellowship was Common; and therefore in this 46. verse, the phrase is altered, and the * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Original word properly signifies ordinary Bread for common nourishment, And yet suppose they did receive the Sacrament every day, yet here the breaking of Bread is made mention of as the opus diei, or the special business of the day; and the day is mentioned as the special time for such a purpose; and hence no other day (if they break Bread in it) is mentioned, and therefore it's called in effect the day of meeting to break bread: Nor do I find in all the Scripture a day distinctly mentioned for holy duties (as this first day of the week is) wherein a whole people or Church meet together for such ends; but that day was Holy: the naming of the particular day for such ends, implies the Holiness of it, and the time is purposely mentioned, that others in after times might purposely and specially observe that Day. 8, Nor is it said that the Disciples met together, the night after the first day; but it's expressly said to be upon the first day of the week: and suppose (as Mr. Brabourne saith) that their meeting was no● together in the morning, but only in the evening time to celebrate the Lords Supper, a little before the shutting in of the day: yet it's a sufficient ground for conscience to observe this day above any other for holy services, although every part of the day be not filled up with public & Church duties; for suppose the Levites on the Jewish sabbath should do no holy public duty on their own Sabbath until the day was far ●pent; will Mr. Brabourne argue from thence, that the Jewish Sabbath was not wholly holy unto God? But again, suppose the latter part of the day was spent in breaking of Bread, yet will it follow that no other part of the day was spent before, either in any private or public holy duties? possibly they might receive the Lords Supper in the evening of this Sabbath (for the time of this action is in the general indifferent) yet might they not spend the rest of the morning in public Duties, as we know some do now in some Churches, who are said to meet together to break Bread the latter part of this day, and yet sanctify the Sabbath the whole day before. Suppose it be not expressly said that they did shut up shopwindwes at Troas and forsake the Plough and the Wheel, and abstain from all servile work; yet if he believes that no more was done this day but what is expressly set down, Mr. Brabourne must needs see a pitiful face of Christ in the Lord's Supper, and people coming ●ushing upon it without any serious examination or preparation or singing of Psalms, because no such Duties as these are mentioned to be upon this Day. 9 Lastly, Master Primrose like a staggering man knows not what to fasten on in answer to this place, & therefore tells us that suppose it was a Sabbath, yet that it might be taken up from the Church's Liberty and Custom, rather than from any Divine institution: But besides that which hath been said to dashed his Dream, Thes. 27. the falseness of this common and bold assertion will appear more fully in the explication of the second text, 1 Cor. 16.1, 2. which now follows, wherein it will appear to be an Apostolical (and therefore a Divine) Institution from Jesus Christ. Thesis' 36. In the second of the places therefore alleged, 1 Cor. 16.1, 2. These things are considerable to prove the first day in the week to be the Christian Sabbath, and that not so much by the Church's practice, as by the Apostles precept; For, 1. Although it be true, that in some cases Collections may be made any day for the poor Saints; yet why doth the Apostle here limit them to this day for the performance of this Duty? they that translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 upon one day of the week, do miserably mistake the phrase, which in Scripture phrase only signifies the first day of it, and beat their foreheads against the main Scope of the Apostle, viz. to fix a certain day for such a Duty as required such a certain time: For, they might (by this translation) Collect their Benevolences one day in four or ten years, for than it should be done one day in a week. 2: The Apostle doth not only limit them to this time, but also all the Churches of Galatia, verse. 1. and consequently all other Churches if that be true, 2 Cor. 8.13, 14. wherein the Apostle professeth he presseth not one Church, that he may ease another Church, but that there be an equality: and although I see no ground from this Text, that the maintenance of the Ministry should be raised every Sabbath day (for Christ would not have them reckoned among the poor, being labourers worthy of their Hire) and although this Collection was for the poor Saints of other Churches, yet the proportion strongly holds, that if there be ordinary cause of such Collections in every particular Church, these Collections should be made the first day of the week, much more carefully and religiously for the poor of one's own Church; and that in all the Churches of Christ Jesus to the end of the world. 3. The Apostle doth not limit them thus with wishes and counsels only to do it, if they thought most meet, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, verse 1. as I have ordained, or instituted; and therefore binds their consciences to it; and if Paul ordained it, certainly he had it from Christ Jesus who first commanded him so to appoint it; who professeth, that what he had received of the Lord, that only he commanded unto them to do, 1. Cor. 11.23. 4. If this day had not been more holy and more fit for this work of Love then any other day, he durst not have limited them to this Day, nor durst he have honoured this Day above any other in the week, yea above the jewish seventh Day. For we see the very Apostle tender always of Christian Liberty, and not to bind were the Lord leaves his people free: for thus doing he should rather make snares than Laws for Churches, 1 Cor. 7.27.35. and go expressly against his own Doctrine, Galat. 5.1. who bids them stand fast in their Liberty, and that in this very point of the observation of days, Galat. 4.10. But what fitness was there on this Day for such a service? Consider therefore. 5. That the Apostle doth not in this place immediately appoint and institute the Sabbath, but supposeth it to be so already (as Mr. Primrose is forced to acknowledge) and we know Duties of Mercy and Charity, Primr. par. 3. c. 6. as well as of necessity and piety, are Sabbath Duties; for which end this Day (which Beza finds in an ancient Manuscript to be called the Lords Day) was more fit for those Collections than any other day; partly because they usually met together publicly on this day, and so their Collections might be in greater readiness against Paul's coming: partly also that they might give more liberally, at least freely, it being supposed that upon this Day, men's hearts are more weaned from the world, and are warmed by the word and other Ordinances, with more lively faith and hope of better things to come, and therefore having received spiritual things from the Lord more plentifully on this Day, every man will be more free to impart of his temporal good things therein for refreshing of the poor Saints, and the very bowels of Christ jesus. And what other reason can be given of Limiting this Collection to this Day? I confess I cannot honestly (though I could wickedly) imagine. And certainly if this was the end, and withal the jewish Day was the Christian Sabbath, the Apostle would never have thus limited them to this Day, nor honoured and exalted this first D●y before that jewish seventh; which if it had been the Christian Sabbath, had been more fit for such a work as this, than the first Day (if a working day) could be. 6. Suppose therefore that this Apostolical and Divine Institution is to give their Collections, but not to institute the Day (as Master Primrose pleads) suppose also that they were not every Lord's Day or first Day, but sometime upon the first day: Suppose also that they were extraordinary, and for the poor of other Churches, and to continue for that time only of their need: Suppose also that no man is enjoined to bring into the public Treasury of the Church, but (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) privately to lay it by on this Day by himself (as Mr. Brabourne urgeth against this Text) yet still the question remains unanswered, viz. Why should the Apostle limit them to this Day, either for extraordinary or private Collections, and such special acts of Mercy, unless the Lord had honoured this day for acts of mercy (and much more of Piety) above any other ordinary and common day? What then could this Day be but the Christian Sabbath imposed by the Apostles; and magnified and honoured by all the Churches in those days? I know there are some other Replies made to this Scripture by Master Brabourne▪ but they are wind-egges (as Plutarch calls That Philosopher's notions) and have but little in them, and therefore I pass them by as I do many other things in that book as not worth the time to name them. 7. This Lastly I add, this first Day was thus honoured either by Divine or Humane Institution: If by Divine, we have what we plead for; If by Humane custom and tradition, than the Apostle assuredly would never have commended the observation of this Day, who elsewhere condemns the observation of days, though the days were formerly by Divine Institution. Ye observe (saith he) Days and Times: and would he then have commended the observation of these days above any other which are only by humane, but never by Divine Institution? It's, strange that the Churches of Galatia are forbidden the observation of days, Galat. 4.10. and yet commanded, 1 Cor. 16.1.2. a more sacred and solemn observation of the first Day of the week rather than any other! Surly this could not be, unless we conclude a Divine Institution hereof. For we know how Zealous the holy Apostle is every where to strike at Humane customs, and therefore could not lay a stumbling block (to occasion the grievous fall of Churches) to allow and command them to observe a Humane Tradition, and to honour this above the seventh Day for such holy services are are here made mention of. But whether this Day was solemnly sanctified as the Sabbath of the Lord our God, we come now to inquire. Thesis' 37. In the third Text, Revel. 1.10. Mention is made of the Lords Day, which was ever accounted the first day of the week: It seems therefore to be the Lords Day, and consequently the Sabbath of the Lord our God. Two things are needful here to be considered and cleared. 1. That this Day being called the Lords Day, it is therefore set apart and sanctified by the Lord Christ as holy. 2. That this Day thus sanctified is the first day of the week, and therefore that first Day is our Holy or Sabbath Day. Thesis' 38. The first Difficulty here to prove and clear up, is, that, This Day which is here called the Lords Day, is a day instituted and sanctified for the Lords honour and service above any other Day. For, as the Sacrament of Bread and Wine is called the Lords Supper, and the Lords Table, for no other reason but because they were instituted by Christ, and sanctified for him and his honour; so what other reason can be given by any Scripture-light why this is called the Lords Day, but because ●t was in the like manner instituted and sanctified as they were? Master Brabourne here shifts away from the light of this Text, by affirming that it might be called the Lords Day in respect of God the Creator, not Christ the Redeemer, and therefore may be meant of the jewish Sabbath which is called the Lords holy Day, Isaiah 58 3. But why might he not as well say that its called the Lord's Supper & Table in respect of God the Creator, considering that in the New Testament since Christ is actually exalted to be Lord of all, this phrase is only applied to the Lord Christ as Redeemer? Look therefore as the Jewish Sabbath being called the Lords Sabbath, or the Sabbath of jehovah, is by that title and note certainly known to be a Day sanctified by jehovah, as Creator; so this Day being called the Lords Day, is by this note as certainly known to be a Day sanctified by our Lord Jesus as Redeemer. Nor do I find any one distinct thing in all the Scripture which hath the Lord's superscription or name upon it (as the Lord's Temple, the Lords Offerings, the Lords people, the Lords Priests &c.) but it is sanctified of God and holy to him: why is not this Day then Holy to the Lord, if it equally bears the Lords name? Master Primrose indeed puts us off with another shift, Primr. par. 3. cap. 7. viz. That this Day being called so by the Church's customs; John therefore calls it so in respect of that custom which the church then used, without Divine institution. But why may he not as well say that he calls it the Lords Table in respect of the Church's Custom also? the Designation of a Day, and of the first time in the Day for Holy public services is indeed in the power of each particular Church (Suppose it be a Lecture, and the hours of Sabbath-meetings) but the Sanctification of a Day, if it be Divine worship, to observe it if God command and appoint it; then surely it is will-worship for any Humane Custom to institute it. Now, the Lords name being stamped upon this Day and so set apart for the honour of Christ, it cannot be that so it should be called in respect of the Church's customs; for surely than they should have been condemned for will-worship by some of the Apostles; and therefore it is in respect of the Lords institution hereof. Thesis' 39 The second Difficulty now lies in clearing up this particular, viz. That this Day thus sanctified was the first Day of the week, which is therefore the Holy Day of the Lord our God, and consequently, the Christian Sabbath: for this purpose let these ensuing particulars be laid together. 1. That this Day of which john speaks, is a known Day, and was generally known in those days by this glorious name of the Lords Day, and therefore the Apostle gives no other title to it but the Lord's Day, as a known day in those times; for the Scope of john in this Vision is as in all other Prophetical Visions when they set down the day and time of it, to gain the more credit to the certain●y of it, when every one sees the truth circumstantiated, and they hear of the particular time; and it may seem most absurd to set down the day and time for such an end, and yet the day is not particularly known. 2. If it was a known Day, what Day can it be either by evidence of Scripture or any Antiquity but the first Day of the week? For, 1. There is no other Day on which mention is made of any other work or action of Christ which might occasion a Holy Day, but only this of the Resurrection, which is exactly noted of all the Evangelists to be upon the first Day of the week, and by which work he is expressly said to have all power given him in heaven and earth, Matt. 28.18. and to be actually Lord of dead and living, Rom. 14.9. and therefore why should any other Lords Day be dreamt of? why should Master Brabourne imagine that this day might be some superstitious Easter Day, which happens once a year? the Holy Ghost on the contrary, not setting down the month or day of the year, but of the week wherein Christ arose, and therefore it must be meant of a weekly Holy Day here called the Lords Day. 2. We do not read of any other Day (besides this first Day of the week) which was observed for Holy Sabbath Duties and honoured above any other day for breaking of Bread, for preaching the Word (which were acts of piety) nor for Collections for the poor (the most eminent act of mercy) why then should any imagine any other day to be the Lords day, but that first day? 3. There seems to be much in that which Beza observes out of an ancient Greek Manuscript wherein that first Day of the week, 1 Cor. 16.2. is expressly called the Lords Day, and the Syriack Translation saith that their meeting together to receive the Sacrament, 1 Cor. 11.20. was upon the Lord's Day; nor is there any antiquity but expounds this Lord's Day of the first Day of the week, as learned Rivet makes good against Gomarus, Rivet Dissert. De orig. Sab. cap. 10. professing, that Quotquot Interpretes hactenus fuerunt, haec verba de die Resurrectionis Domini intellexerunt; solus quod quidem sciam, Cl. D. Gomarus contradixit. 4. Look as jehovahs, or the Lords Holy Day, Isaiah 58.13. was the seventh Day in the week then in use in the Old Testament, so why should not this Lord's Day be meant of some seventh Day (the first of seven in the week which the Lord appointed, and the Church observed under the New Testament, and therefore called (as that was) the Lord's Day? 5. There can be no other Day imagined but this to be the Lords Day; indeed Gomarus affirms that it's called the Lords Day, because of the Lord Jesus apparition in Vision to john, and therefore he tell us that in Scripture phrase, the Day of the Lord is such a Day wherein the Lord manifests himself either in wrath or in favour, as here to john. But there's a great difference between those phrases, The Lord's Day, and the Day of the Lord, which it is not called here. For such an interpretation of the Lords Day, as if it was an uncertain time, is directly cross to the Scope of john in setting down this Vision, who to beget more credit to it, tells us, First, of the person that saw it, I john ver. 10. Secondly, the particular place, in Paimo. Thirdly, the particular time, the Lords Day. These considerations do utterly subvert Mr. Brabournes discourse to prove the Jewish Sabbath to be the Lords Day, which we are still to observe, and may be sufficient to answer the scruples of modest and humble minds; for if we ask the Time of it? It is on the first Day of the week. Would we know whether this time was spent in holy Duties and Sabbath services? this also hath been proved. Would we know whether it was sanctified for that end? Yes verily, because it's called the Lord's Day, and consequently all servile work was and is to be laid aside in it. Would we know whether 'tis the Christian Sabbath Day? Verily if it be the Day of the Lord our God (the Lord's Day) why is it not the Sabbath of the Lord our God? If it be exalted and honoured by the Apostles of Christ above the Jewish Sabbath for Sabbath duties, why should we not believe but that it was our Sabbath Day? And although the word Sabbath Day, or seventh day be not expressly mentioned, yet if they be for substance in this Day, and by just consequence deduced from Scripture, it is all one as if the Lord had expressly called them so. Thesis' 40. Hence therefore it follows, that although this particular seventh day, which is the first of seven, be not particularly made mention of in the fourth Commandment; yet the last of seven being abrogated, and this being instituted in its room, it is therefore to be perpetuated and observed in its room. For though it be true (as Mr. Brabourne urgeth) That New Institutions cannot be founded, no not by Analogy of proportion, merely upon Old Institutions; as because children were Circumcised, it will not follow that they are therefore to be baptised: and so because the jews kept that seventh day, that we may therefore keep the first day. Yet this is certain, that when New things are instituted not by humane Analogy, but by Divine appointment, the Application of these may stand by virtue of old precepts and general Rules, from whence the Application even of old Institutions formerly arose. For we know that the Cultus institutu● in the New Testament in Ministry and Sacraments, stands at this day by virtue of the second Commandment, as well as the instituted worship under the Old. And though Baptism stands not by virtue of the institution of Circumcision, yet it being De novo instituted by Christ as the Seal of Initiation into Christ's mystical Body, 1 Cor. 12.12. it now stands by virtue of that general Rule by which Circumcision itself was administered, viz That the Seal of initiation into Christ's Body be applied to all the visible members of that Body: and hence children are to be now Baptised, as once they were Circumcised, being members of Christ's Body. So the first day of the week being instituted to be the Lords Day or Lords Sabbath, hence it follows that if the first seventh which is now abrogated, was once observed, because it was the Lord's Sabbath or the Sabbath Day which God appointed; by the very same Rule, and on the very same ground we also are bound to keep this first day being also the Sabbath of the Lord our God, which he hath now appointed anew under the New Testament. Thesis' 41. It is true, that some of the Primitive Churches in the Eastern parts, did for some hundred of years observe both Sabbaths, both jewish and Christian. But they did this without warrant from God (who allows but one Sabbath in a week) and also against the Rule of the apostles; for I think that Paul foreseeing this observation of days and jewish Sabbaths to be stirring and ready to creep into the Church, that he did therefore condemn the same in his Epistles to the Galatians and Colosians; and that therefore Christian Emperors and Counsels in aftertimes did well and wisely both to condemn the observations of the one and withal honour the other. Thesis' 42. Although the work of redemption be applied unto few in respect of the special benefits of it; yet Christ by his death is made Heir and Lord of all things, bring now set down at the right hand of God, and there is some benefit which befalls all the world by Christ's Redemption; and the Government of all things is not now in the hand of God as Creator, but in the hand of a Mediator, Heb. 1.1, 2. Heb. 2.8.9. john. 5.22. Colos. 1.16.17. 1 Tim. 4.10. john. 3.35. and hence it is no wonder if all men as well as a few elected, selected and called, be commanded to sanctify the Lords Day, as once they were the Jewish seventh day; the work of Christ being in some respect of as great extent through all the work of Creation as the work of the Father. And therefore it is a great feebleness in Master Brabourne to go about to vilify the work of Redemption, and extol that of Creation above it; and that therefore the Sabbath ought still to be kept in reference to the work of Creation which concerns all men, rather than in respect of Redemption, which he imagines concerneth only some few. Thesis' 43. The Lord Christ rested from the work of redemption by price, upon the day of his Resurrection; but he is not yet at rest from the work of Redemption by power, until the day of our Resurrection and Glory be perfected. But it doth not hence fellow (as Master Primrose imagines) that there is no Lords day Instituted in respect of Christ's Resurrection because he hath not, nor did not then ●est from Redemption by power; for look as the Father having rested from the works of Creation might therefore appoint a Day of Rest, although he did not, nor doth not yet rest from Providence, John 5.17. So the Lord Christ having finished the great work of Redemption, he might justly appoint a day of Rest, although his redeeming workly by power was yet behind. Thesis' 44. The heavy and visible judgements of God revealed from heaven against prophaners of this our Lords day Sabbath will one day be a convincing Argument of the Holiness of this Day, when the Lord himself shall have the immediate handling and pressing of it. Mean while I confess my weakness to convince an adversary by it; nor will I contend with any other Arguments from Antiquity for the observation of this Day; but these may suffice, which are alleged from the Holy Word. THE BEGINNING OF THE SABBATH Wherein five several Opinions about the beginning of the Sabbath are set down; the Arguments commonly used for the four first of them are answered; and the truth of the fifth, for its beginning in the Evening, confirmed. BY THOMAS SHEPARD, Pastor of the Church of Christ at Cambridge in New-England. The third Part. LONDON, Printed for john Rothwell. 1650. The general Contents concerning the Beginning of the Sabbath. 1. FIve several Opinions concerning the beginning of the Sabbath, Thesis' 2. 2. The time for beginning of the Sabbath not according to the various customs of divers Nations, Thesis' 3. 3. The time of the Artificial day not the beginning and end of the Sabbath as it begins and ends, Thesis' 13. 4. The beginning of the Sabbath not midnight, Thesis' 28. 5. The morning doth not begin the Sabbath, Thesis' 48. 6. That place of Mat. 28.1. usually alleged for the beginning of it in the morning, cleared, Thesis' 50. 7. The Resurrection of Christ not aimed at by the Evangelists to be made the beginning of the day, although it be of the change of it, Thesis' 58. 8. John 20 19 cleared, Thesis' 59 9 Paul's preaching till midnight no argument of the beginning of the Sabbath in the morning, Thesis' 64. 10. The various acception of the word Day and Morrow, to answer many proofs alleged for beginning the Sabbath in the morning, Thesis' 68 11. Some that hold in the beginning of the Sabbath was from Even to Even until Christ's Resurrection, and then the time was changed, confuted, Thesis' 69, 70. 12. There is not the like reason for the Sabbath to begin at the first moment of Christ's entrance into his rest, as for the first Sabbath at the beginning of Father's rest, Thesis' 71. 13 The reasons for the Change of the day are not the same for the change of the beginning of the day, Thesis' 73. 14. The conceived fitness for the beginning of the Sabbath in the morning rather than in the evening is a vanity, Thesis' 75. 15. The Evening begins the Christian Sabbath, Thesis' 76. 16. The place Gen. 1.2 cleared, Thesis' 78. 17. The Darkness mentioned Gen. 1.2. was not punctum temporis, Thesis' 81 81. 18. The separation of Light and darkness, Gen. 1, 2. cleared Thesis 86.87. 19 Levit. 23.32. proves the beginning of the Sabbath at Evening Thesis' 90. 20. Nehemiah an exemplary pattern beginning the Sabbath at Evening, Thesis' 94. 21. Those that prepared for the burial of Chri●t began their Sabbath in the Evening, Thesis' 97.98. 22. Christ's lying three days in the grave, Thesis' 100 23. Those Northern Countries who have the Sun in view divers weeks together in a year yet know when to begin the day, Thesis' 101. The Beginning of the SABBATH. THESIS' 1. IT's a holy labour (saith one) to inquire after the Beginning of holy Rest. The Sabbath cannot be so sweetly sanctified unless we know the time when to begin and end it the different apprehensions of such as have inquired after the Truth in this particular, have mad way for the more clear and distinct knowledge of it; it being the privilege of truth to be more purified and shine the brighter by passing through the heats and fires of men's contentions and disputations. Thesis' 2. There being therefore Five several opinions concerning this particular, it may not be unuseful to bring them all to the Balance and Touchstone, that so by snuffing the Candle, and rejecting that which is false, the light of truth may shine the brighter at last. Thesis' 3. Some there be who make the Time mutable and various; affirming, Opin. 1. that God hath not fixed any set time, or that he stands upon, or would have his people troubled with such Niceties; so long as the day be observed (say they) it is no matter when it be begun: nor do they make this variation to be according to that which God allows (suppose from Sun to Sun, sooner or later as the time of the year is) but according to the civil customs of several Nations, as they variously begin or end their days among whom they live; as suppose they live among Romans, (they think) they may begin it at midnight; if with Babylonians, at Sunrising; if among Grecians, at Sunset; if among Umbrians and Arabians, at midday. Thesis' 4. If the Scripture had left us such a liberty as this, viz to measure the beginning of the day according to humane custom; a scrupulous conscience (I think) might have a most and ready quieting answer here: but it will be found too true, that though Civil and common Time may admit of such variations as may best suit with their manner and occasions, yet sacred and holy time is not dependent upon humane customs, but upon divine institutions: for which purpose God hath made the lights of Heaven to be for seasons, Gen. 1.14. to be guides and helps to begin and end the seasons and days which he shall appoint. Thesis' 5. 'tis true, that it suits not with God's wisdom to determine all particular circumstances of things (which are almost innumerable and infinite) by the express letter of the Scripture; and therefore he hath left us a few general Rules to direct us therein; yet for the Lord to leave the determination of some circumstances to humane liberty, would be very perilous. The Temple was but a circumstance of place, and King Vzziah in in offering Incense, varied only in a circumstance of person, yet we know that the ten Tribes were carried away captive for not sacrificing at the Temple, and Vzziah smitten with Leprosy till his death: so the Lord having determined the Seventh day to be his, what now should hinder but that he should determine the Beginning also thereof? Thesis' 6. If God hath been accurately careful to fix the beginning of other Feasts and Holy days, far inferior unto this, as appear Levit. 23.23. Exod. 12.6. why should we think that the Lord is less careful about the beginning of his Sabbath? Thesis' 7. If the Lord hath not left it to humane wisdom to set down the bounds, and limits of holy places (as appears in the Temple, Tabernacle, and all their appurtenances) why should we think that he hath left it to man's wisdom to limit and determine holy Time? Thesis' 8. If the Lord will have a special Time of worship once within the circle of Seven days, and not appoint the Time for the beginning and end of it, might he not lose much of the beauty of the holiness of the day, every thing being beautiful in its season? may not man begin the day at such a season as may not be beautiful? Thesis' 9 The Deputation of Time for holy uses upon occasion is allowed to man; yet sanctification of Time, and to set the bounds and limits of it, is left to no man: Sanctification not only positive, but relative (as here in the Sabbath) being as proper to the Holy Ghost, as Creation to the Father, and Redemption to the Son. Thesis' 10. Application of holy Time to the performance of holy duties on the Sabbath, (as to fix what hours to meet in upon that day) is left to humane prudence from general rules of Conveniency, Order, Comeliness: but Consecration of constant and fixed Time is the Lords propriety, not only of the middle, but of the beginning and end thereof. Thesis' 11. The Scriptures have left the determination of the Beginning of the Sabbath no more to civil Nations and their customs, then to particular Churches, and each particular person; for they may all equally plead against the the Lord● strictness to any exact beginning of time▪ but if such a loose liberty were granted, a world of confusion, scandal, and division would soon appear; for some persons might then begin it at midnight, some at midday; some might measure the beginning of the Sabbath according to their sleeping sooner or latter on the Sabbath day morning; some might be Ploughing or dancing and drinking, when others are praying and hearing of the word; and who could restrain them herein? for they might plead the Sabbath is not yet begun to them. Thesis' 12. If therefore God hath sanctified a set Time, he hath set and sanctified the bounds and limits of that Time: and to begin the time when we lift, it may sometime arise from weakness, but usually 'tis a fruit of looseness of heart, which secretly loves to live as it lists, which would not conform to God's rule, and therefore will crook and bend the rule to its humour; which will not come up to God's time, and therefore make God to come down to theirs. Thesis' 13. O here there be who give god the honour of determining the beginning and end of the day, but they cut him short of one half of it, in that they make the Artificial day, or the Daylight, Opin. 2. T. Brabourne. I.N. from Sunrising to Sunsetting, to be the day of his Sabbath. Thus some affirm downright. Others more modestly say, h●t man's conscience ought not to be scrupulous nor trouble itself, if conscientiously give God the honour of the Sabbath daylight, having some general preparations for it the night before, and good affections the night after. Thesis' 14. But if the Daylight be the measure of the Sabbath, those that live in some pa●ts of the Russia and East-land must have once a year a very long Sabbath: for there are some times of the yee●e wherein they have daylight a month together. Thesis' 15. If God give us six natural days to labour in, is it not fit that the seventh day should bear an equal proportion with every working day? and therefore it is not an Artificial, but a Natural day, consisting of twenty four hours, which we must in conscience allow unto God to be the Sabbath day. Thesis' 16. It is true that the night is given to man to rest in, it being most fit for that end; but it is not necessary that all the weekly nights be spent in sleep, for we then do labour, and God's providence puts men generally upon it to labour in their callings early and la●e those nights, and the Lord allows it; nay it would be sin and idleness in many not to do it; besides, that sleep and rest which is to be taken in the night, it is in ordine▪ or in re●erence to Day-labour, and is as a whet thereunto and in this respect the whole weekly night as well as the day is for labour; as the sleep we take on Sabbath night is in ordine, or with respect to spiritual rest, and so that whole natural day is a day of spiritual rest. It is therefore a vain thing for any to make the nights of the six working days to be no part of the six working days, because (they say) they are given to man to rest and sleep in; for upon the same ground they may make the Artificial days no days of labour neither, because there must be ordinarily some time taken out of them to eat, drink, and refresh our weak bodies in. Thesis' 17. If Nehemiah shut the gates of the City when it began to be dark lest that night time should be profaned by bearing burdens in it, Nehem, 13.19. then certainly the time of night was sanctified of God as well as the day; to say that this act was but a just preparation for the Sabbath, is said without proof: for, if God allows men six days and nights to labour in, what equity can there be in forbidding all servile work a whole night together which God hath allowed man for labour? and although we ought to make preparation for the Sabbath, yet the time and measure of it is left to each man's Christian liberty; but for a civil Magistrate to impose twelve hours' preparation for the Sabbath, is surely both against Christian liberty, and God's allowance also: Again, Nehemiah did this, lest the men of Tyre should occasion the Jews to break the Sabbath day by bringing in wares upon that night; so as if that night therefore had not been part of the Sabbath, they could not ther●●y provoke the Jews to profane the Sabbath day, by which Nehemiah tells them they had provoked the wrath of God. Thesis' 18. A whole natural day is called a day though it take in the night also, because the daylight is the chiefest and best part of the day, and we know that the denomination of things is usually according to the better part; but for Mr. Brabourne to affirm, that the word Day, in Scripture, is never taken but for the Artificial day or time of Light, is utterly ●alse, as might appear from sundry instances; it may suffice to ●ee a cluster of of seven days which comprehended their nights also, Exod. 12.15, 18, 19.41, 42. Thesis' 19 To affirm that the Sabbath day only comprehends the Daylight, because the fi●st Day in Gen. 1 began with morning light: is not only a bad consequence (supposing the ground of it to be true) but the ground and foundation of it is as certainly false, as to say that Darkness is Light; for its evident that the first day in Genesis began with that darkness which God calls Night, Psal. 4.5. and to affirm that the first Day in Genesis 1. begins with morning Light, is as grossly false, as it is apparently true that within six Days the Lord made Heaven and Earth, Ex. 20 11. for before the creating of that Light which God calls Day, the Heavens and with them the Angels, and the Earth or fi●st matter called the Deep, which was overspread with Darkness, were created: either therefore the Lord did not create the World in six Days, or 'tis untrue that the first day in Genesis began with morning Light: and I wonder upon what grounds this notion should enter into any man's head: for though God calls the light Day and the darkness Night, (as we shall do when speak of the artificial Day) yet withal he called the Evening of the morning the first day; and what was this Evening and Morning? Surely it's all that space of time wherein the Lord did his first day's work; now it's evident that part of the first Days work was before God created the light: and what though evening be oftentimes taken for the latter part of the Daylight? yet it's too well known to those who have waded the deep in this controversy, that it is oftentimes taken not only for the bound between light and Darkness, 1. e. the end of light and beginning of darkness, jos. 10.26, 27. Psal. 104.23. but also for the whole time of darkness, as 'tis here in this first of Genesis, and as we shall prove in due place; and therefore to affirm that the Hebrew word used by Moses for evening, not to be naturally appliable to the Night, because it signifies a mixture of light and darkness in the Notion of it, is a gross mistake; for the Hebrew word Gnereb, doth not signify a mixture of light and darkness, but only a mixture, because it is the beginning of darkness wherein all things seem to be mixed and compounded together, and cannot be clearly and distinctly discerned in their kinds and colours, if Buxtorfius may be believed; as is also evident, Is. 29.15. and to affirm that the Day is before the Night; even in this first of Genesis, because Mose● sometimes sets the Day before the Night; it may seem 〈…〉 an Argument as to say that the Evening is before the Morning, because Moses here sets the Evening before the Morning; but this will not seem rational to them who make the Evening to comprehend the latter part of the Daylight, and the Morning the first part of it: Lastly, to make the Light to begin the day, because the time of light is a certain principle of computation (the space of darkness before that light was created being unknown) is all one, as if one should affirm that the time of Daylight was not the beginning of the Day, because the space of that is also as much unknown. For if we know that darkness was before light, though we may not know how long it continued, yet we do know certainly that the first Day began with darkness, and that this darkness and light made up the space of 24 hours, or of a natural day (as in all other day's works of creation) and which is sufficient to break down this principle, viz. that the first Day in Genesis began with Morning Light. Thesis' 20. Some say the Sabbath is significative of Heaven, and therefore it only comprehends the day light which is fit to signify the lightsome Day of Heaven, which darkness is not: but why may not Nighttime signify Heaven as well as Daytime? for Heaven is a place of rest, and the night is the fittest time for rest, after our weary labours in the day. Who teacheth men thus to allegorise? how easily a thing is it thus to abuse all the Scripture? and yet suppose it should signify Heaven, yet why may not the Sabbath continue the space of a natural as well as of an artificial Day, considering that the natural Day of the World or of both Hemispheres consists only of light, which these men say is significative of Heaven? Thesis' 21. We may and do sanctify time by sleeping on the Sabbath night, as well as by showing works of mercy, and doing works of necessity upon the Sabbath Day, or as we may do by eating and drinking; for to take moderate sleep is a work not only of necessity but also of mercy to ourselves; and therefore to abolish the Sabbath Night from being any part of the Sabbath, because we cannot (as some think) sanctify time by sleeping no more than by working, is very unsound. Thesis' 22. Moses indeed tells the people, Ex. 16.23. that to morrow is the Lords Sabbath, but he doth not say that the day time only was the only time of the Sabbath, or that the Day light begins and ends the Sabbath; but he mentions that time, because on that Daylight of the seventh Day they were apt and inclined to go out (as in other days,) to gather manna, and so to break the Sabbath; and it is as if we should say to one who was ready to ride out on the Sabbath morning about worldly occasions, Do not stir out, for to morrow is the Sabbath; that so we may hereby prevent the breach of the Sabbath in that thing, especially at that time wherein one is most inclined so to do. Thesis' 23. To imagine that the Sabbath must be contained within the bounds of Daylight, because Christ jesus arose at break of day, Mat. 28.1. is of no more force then as if one should conclude the containment of it within the bounds of some darkness, and twilight; for its evident that he arose about that time. Thesis', 24. There is no more necessity of sanctifying a day and a half by beginning the day at Evening, then by beginning it at Morning light (for thus some argue) for what is said of the Evening of both Hemisphers, that the second Evening would begin 12 hours after the first, if the Sabbath was sanctified to begin at the Evening of both Hemispheres, and so there would be a day and half sanctified; the like (I say) may be averred of the morning, supposing that both Hemispheres should begin their Sabbath at the Morning of both Hemispheres; but we know, that the Sabbath Day is sanctified to begin and end according to the setting and rising Sun in each Hemisphere and Longitude of places respectively. Thesis' 25. If Evening, Morning, light and night, made up every day the Creation, why shall we think but that the Sabbath day also consisted of the same parts? and if the whole world was made in six Days, and these Days be only such as consist of Daylight, when then was the third Heaven and Chaos made which did exist before light? those Fathers and Schoolmen who set such narrow bounds to the Day, had need consider of it, lest their answer be like his who hearing a simple Preacher desiring the continuance of the life of the King so long as Sun and Moon endured? and being asked, if that should be so when should his son reign? he replied, it may be the Preacher thought that he might rule by Candle-light. Thesis' 26. Suppose therefore that there was no public worship in the Temple (as one objecteth) among the jews in the Nighttime, yet it will not follow from hence that the Sabbath was to continue no longer than Daylight; for the Sabbath might be sanctified privately in the Night, as well as more publicly in the Day; and thus the jews were wont to sanctify their Sabbaths. and so should we, Is. 30.29. Psal. 63.7. Psal. 92.2.3. Thesis' 27. 'tis true that its very good to prepare for, and end the Sabbath with holy affections; yet if a seventh part of weekly time be due to God, as six parts of it are due to us, thorough the goodness of God; then let God be glorified as God, and the whole day allowed him as his Day; let Caesar have his due, and God his. Thesis' 28. Others allow the Lord his whole time, but they think that he hath fixed the beginning of it at the gates of midnight, Opin. 3. which Midnight they call morning or Morning Midnight, or midnight Morning, and therefore they imagine out of Gen. 1. that the Morning was half Night wherein time began, and half, Day; six hours Night from midnight to six, and six hours' day from six to midday: and by the same proportion, the Evening to begin at midday, and so to continue six hours' Day from 12 to six, and six hours' Night from six to midnight, and therefore they say that God is said to stretch the North upon the empty, job. 26.7. because first beginning of the notion of time began from the North point, when darkness was first upon the face of the deep, and from this North point in the Revolution of the Heavens we do account it midnight, as being opposite to the South which in the course of the Sun is at midday: and therefore also (they say) that Evening is never taken in all the Scripture for the whole Night: but as Evening begins at Midday so Morning begins at Midnight. Thesis' 29. But if the first day and consequently the Sabbath day should begin at midnight, it were meet to give a demonstration that this first darkness should continue just six hours, or half the time of such a night when the Sun is in the Equinoctial; but although it be certain that the first time began in darkness, yet it's wholly uncertain whether this darkness continued but six hours. Zanchius and many others have very good cards to show that this first darkness continued a complete night of 12 hours; others on the other hand make it far less; certain it is, it continued some considerable space of time, in that it hath the name of Night put upon it; but that it should be just six hours, neither can man's reason demonstrate it, nor hath God in any Scripture revealed it, but it is a mere uncertainty, and therefore an ill foundation for settling the beginning of the Sabbath upon. Thesis' 30. Some would prove the Sabbath to begin at Midnight because Christ arose at Midnight, and he arose at Midnight because Samson a Type of Christ carried away the gates of Gaza at midnight, judg. 16, 3. but such allegorical reasonings were fit tools for blind Monks in former times to delude the simple people with; I suppose men are wiser now then to be fed with wind and chaff, and to build their faith upon cozening allegories of humane wit, by which as the blind Monks of old did feed the people, so the Familists now deceive the world: both which are the fruits of Gods heavy curse upon their hearts, who because they did not love the truth to seed upon it, are therefore fed with vanity of mind. Thesis' 31. 'tis true Paul Preached till midnight, Acts 20.7. but doth it hence follow that the Sabbath was to end at midnight? no verily, for the beginning and end of the Sabbath is not measured by man's Preaching a longer or a shorter time; Paul might have continued Preaching longer than the Sabbath or midnight, the case being extraordinary in respect of his departure the next day never to see their faces more. And he might have continued a shorter time than the Sabbath continued, as our Saviour himself did before Sunset, Mark 1.22.32. for the bounds of of continuance of the Sabbath are not set according to the beginning and end of any man's Preaching, which is so exceeding uncertain: Paul's long Sermon was not continued and ended at Midnight purposely, and because so long the Sabbath continued; but occasionally, in regard of his final departure from them the next day; and hence in respect of this extraordinary cause he continued so long at it, which in ordinary course had been very unseasonable. Thesis' 32. It is not said in the first of Genesis that the Morning and the Evening were the first day, as if the day should begin at Morning Midnight: but the Evening and the Morning were the first Day; and therefore its strange that any should derive the beginning of the Sabbath from Morning Midnight out of this Text: The Grecians because they begin the day at the Evening of Sunset. did therefore orderly call their natural day * 2 Cor. 11.25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and is it probable that Moses would speak disorderly, & ordine retrogrado here? and not rather according to the interpretation of Daniel, who calls 2300 days by name of Ghne●eb Boker, which signifies Evenings Mornings, because the Evening, not the morning, much less Midnight-Morning is to begin the day, Dan. 14.26. Thesis' 33. It is true that sometimes those things which are first in order of t●me, are spoken of last in order of story; and therefore it's no solid Argument to prove that the Evening is before the Morning, merely because the Evening is set down first before the Morning, unless it can be proved that the story sets down such things (and so this in particular) orderly; which I suppose is evident. 1 Because the first darkness is called Night, and also comprehends the whole Time of night, as light comhends the whole Time of the Day, Gen. 1.4, 5. Now I do not find in all the Scripture, nor is any man I thinkable to show that the whole Night is taken for the Morning, and therefore the first darkness could not possibly begin at the Morning or Midnight Morning, 2. Because the Scope of Moses in this Chapter is to set down not only the work of Creation, but the exact order of it, and consequently of the order of Time, which was consecrated with the World; first the beginning of it, than the succession and vicissitude of it, first in the dark night, then in the light day, and (which is all one) first in the Evening, then in the Morning, 3. Because the Evening may be the end of the Artificial day; but I know no proof from any instance in Scripture to make it the end of the Natural day, of which Moses here speaks; and therefore as Evening cannot end the day, so Midnight Morning cannot be●in it. Thesis' 34. To affirm that the Evening is never taken in Scripture for the whole Night, and that therefore by the Evening we are to understand six hours' Day, and six hours' Night, as the consequence is most weak, so the assertion is most false, as may appear to any who seriously ponders these and such like Scriptures, Hab. 1.8. Ps. 92.2. job. 7.4. Deut. 28.66, 67. Zach 14.7. Isa. 21.12. Thesis' 35. Nor can it be proved that the Evening begins at midday, which is their principal Argument to prove that the Morning begins at midnight. Thesis' 36. For though it be said, Ex. 29.38, 39 Ex. 12.6. That the Lamb was to be slain between the two Evenings (as 'tis in the Hebrew) yet neither these, or any such Scriptures are able to prove that one of those Evenings must necessarily begin at midday; but only this that some part of the afternoon when the Sun was in his declining, was one of these Evenings; and some of the jewish Rabbins, begin it at noon, yet it is without warrant from Scripture, and they are overwhelmed with cross Testimonies from most of their fellows, who begin it some about one, some about two of the Clock in the afternoon, and josephus (who knew best his Countrymen's manners) and who is one of most credit in his writings, tells us that they began their first Evening about three of the Clock in the afternoon. Thesis' 37. We read indeed of the shadows of the Evening, jer. 6.4. but it doth not hence follow that the Evening begins at midday, but rather some time after it, the shadows of the Evening being the shadows of the day declining, which therefore grow long; but midday is no time of declining shadows. Thesis' 38. Although the Evening may be called by humane custom all that part of the day wherein we wish men good. Even from noon till Sunset, yet it's then called the Evening in respect of the Artificial not Natural day, of which Moses speaks when he divides the day into Morning and Evening, part of which afternoon is also called Evening by the Holy Ghost in Scripture; because it is either approaching or hastening toward the Evening of the natural day, or contiguous to it: even as part of the dark Night is sometime called Morning, because it is either contiguous or not far from the Morning light, and men are then usually up, and preparing for it. Thesis' 39 And as no Text can be produced to prove that the Evening begins at midday; so neither can any be alleged to prove the Morning to begin at midnight. The Scripture (speaking properly) putting an express difference between Midnight, Cock-crowing, and Morning, Mark 13.35. Thesis' 40. And therefore to Translate the words in Gen. 1: so was the Evening, so was the Morning the first day; and then and this gloss and interpretation, viz. That out of the premises of Night and Day, so was the Evening mixed of them both; so was the morning also compounded of both, to wit of Night and Light: this I say is but words; here is no proof for such an interpretation. junius Translation is best and most clear, and rational, viz. So was the Evening and the Morning of the first day: for as hath been said the whole time of Night is never called by the name of Morning; let any man show the left Tittle in any Scripture it, and I will yield to them in this cause. Thesis' 41. To affirm that the division of the natural day, Gen. 1. into Day and Night, was for civil use, and into Evening and Morning for Religious use, in respect of the Evening and Morning sacrifice along time after, is just such a device as his who would needs think that the first day of the we●ke was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because God foresaw and ordained the change of the Sabbath unto that first Day; for we know, God speaks of t●hings as they were then in their nature when they did first exist, before Sacrifices were thought of; Adam called the names of things according to their natures and special use, and is it credible that before his fall where there was no use of Sacrifices, that he should know of Morning and Evening Sacrifices in which respect it was called Evening morning; and yet suppose it was in respect of Religious use that these names are given to each day, yet why must not the Evening begin the day rather than the Morning? it being as hath been proved, fi●st in being as it is fi●st in naming. Thesis' 42. 'Tis true, the time before day, Mark 1.35. is called early Morning, and we read of the Morning watch before day light, Ex. 14.24, yet these places no way prove that which they are produced for, viz. That Morning begins at midnight: that Christ went to prayer at midnight, because he went to it in the early Morning, or that the Morning watch began at midnight; for we know it was some time after it; these places indeed show thus much, That sometime before Daylight is sometime called Morning, which is readily acknowledged in the respects forementioned. Thesis' 43. The Angels indeed were created together with the third Heaven, Gen. 1.1. in the beginning of Time; for being incorruptible (as the third Heaven is) they could not be afterward created out of the first matter, as all this visible and corruptible World was; therefore the Earth is said to be dark and void (i. e. of all Inhabitants and beautiful forms) in opposition to the third Heaven which was made with it, which was lightsome and full of Inhabitants, viz. the Angels; and if it was a Kingdom prepared from the foundation of the World, surely this Kingdom had a King then, and this King had his subjects; who could they then be but Angels? but to infer from hence that this Time of darkness wherein the Angels were created, should be morning, and that therefore they are called by job the Morning stars, job. 38.6, 7. as some imagine, will follow no more then as if one should affirm that the King of Babel (called Lucifer) was certainly born in the Morning, because he also is called a Morning star, Isa. 14 13. for who sees not but that the speech is metaphorical in both? glorious excellency above others being bestowed on them, as special brightness and lustre is given to the Morning star. Thesis' 44. Belshazar is said to be slain in the night, Dan. 5.30. which the Prophet Isaiah has foretold should be in the Morning, Isa. 47.11. but will it follow hence that this Morning is the time of midnight? might it not be after midnight as well? for the Text is silent; and yet I do not think that the word Morning in Isay is meant of midnight nor any part of any night, but by a metaphor the apparent time of the beginning of his misery (the light of the Morning manifesting all things apparently) the Lord also alluding to the manner of humane Judicatures; who were wont to pass the sentence and inflict it in the Morning as the Scripture frequently holds forth. Thesis' 45. Though also it be true that the Lord smote the Egyptians at midnight, and that the Israelites were prohibited from stirring out of doors till Morning, Exod. 12.22, 29, 30. and yet that they did stir up one another to depart before morning-light; yet it will not hence follow (as some would infer) that midnight was the beginning of their Morning: for then, 1. They might have risen at midnight just then when God was destroying the Egyptians first born, for that was part of the Morning by this account. 2. They are prohibited from stirring out of doors till Morning as of themselves: yet if God and Pharaoh and Moses will force them out, there is no rule broken by stirring out in such a case before day light morning. 3, 'Tis more than probable that there was some good space after midnight before they stirred out, which is said to be in the Morning watch; for the Death's stroke was at midnight after which Pharaoh and his council must fit and consult, and conclude what to do, and send for Moses; after which there must be some time for Moses to acquaint the Israelites to make them fit and ready to depart their departure; therefore in the Morning was not at midnight which began this Morning, 4. Pharaoh sends for Moses after midnight, yet this Time is called Night Psal. 30.31. and not Morning; and indeed properly it was not so, only called so by an improper speech. Thesis' 46. When job saith that God stretched out the North upon the empty, job 26.7. ●tis not spoken of the empty Chaos, for job hath no occasion to speak thereof, nor is it his scope; but of the places near the North Pole which are void and empty of Inhabitants, none being able now to dwell in that frigid Zone. Thesis' 47. If God hath set any time to begin the Sabbath, surely 'tis such a time as may be ordinarily and readily known, that so here (as well as in all other Ordinances) the Sabbath may be begun with prayer, and ended with praise: but if it should begin at midnight, what man of a thousand can readily tell the certain time when it begins, that so they may in a holy manner begin the Sabbath with God? all men have not the midnight Clocks and Bells to awaken them, nor can the crowing of Cocks herein give a certain sound; a poor Christian man had need be a good and watchful Mathematician that holds this opinion, or else I see not how he will know when midnight is come; and if he cannot, then it's very considerable and to me unquestionable, that that cannot be the beginning of holy Time which cannot be begun in a holy manner: there was never any Ordinance of God but it was so ordered as that it might ordinarily be begun and ended with God; which makes me question that the beginning of it at Morning midnight cannot be of God. Thesis' 48. Others there be who do not begin the Sabbath at Morning midnight, Opin. 4. but begin and end it at Morning light, at the rising of the Sun and the light of it: who indeed are assisted with better proofs and stronger arguments than any of the rest, and therefore need trial, and we have need to know what weight they are of. As also to be accurately wary lest the rule of love be broken towards such gracious and learned servants of God● considering how much they have to say in this point, in which case, much love, respect and indulgence hath been ever accounted necessary by men of moderate and sober minds. Thesis' 49. The six working days being considered absolutely in themselves, in this respect it is no matter whether they begin at Eving or Morning, or Midnight, or Midday, nor is it in this respect a sin to begin and end the days according to the custom of the civil Nation where we live; but because these days are to be considered relatively in respect of the seventh Day, hence the week days are so to be begun, as that their relation to the seventh be not disturbed, so as that the bounds and limits of the Sabbath be not impaired or transgressed: for there is no religious necessity to begin and end civil time with sacred: nor is it so uncomely as it may seem at first blush to give God and Caesar their due: civil accounts to the one, and sacred to the other; for when the jews were subdued by the Romans, they might and did begin their reckonings of civil Time as the Romans did, and yet reserve the bounds of sacred Time wholly unto God. They did the like in England many years since, saith Mr. Fox, and that their civil days began in the Morning, and Religious days in the Evening; And when they did thus variously begin their days, there was no such undecent disproportion of Times as Reverend Mr. Cleaver imagines, in the like case, if holy Time should not begin with Morning which he pleads for. Thesis' 50. The principal foundation of this Opinion, are the words of the four Evangelists, Mat. 28.1. Mark 1●. 1, 2. Luke 24.1. john 20.1. Among all which that of Mat. 18.1. hath most weight, wherein 'tis said, In the end of the Sabbath as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, etc. from whence it seems to follow that if the Sabbath Day did end at the dawning of the first day of the week, that then the dawning of the daylight of the first day, must be the beginning of the Sabbath Day, or of the Christian Sabbath. Thesis' 51. The consideration of this Scripture hath caused some, very judicious, (viz. Beza, junius and others) who conceive the Sabbath to begin at even, to affirm upon very probable grounds, that there was among the jews, at this time under their Roman bondage a double account, and reckoning of the days of the week. 1. Civil. 2. Sacred account. According to sacred account (they say) the Church of God began their Sabbath at Evening, not Morning, which they demonstrate from sundry pregnant Texts in the old and new Testament; but according to the civil account of the Romans who gave the precedency to the Morning before the Evening, they begun it therefore in the Morning, and according to this latter account they suppose the Evangelists to speak. Thesis' 52. But if the several Texts be duly examined, rightly compared and sincerely interpreted, there will not appear a necessity of such an account from this place, but rather that these Texts which are ordinarily produced to evince the beginning of the Sabbath at Morning, will bring in strong evidence to demonstrate its beginning rather on the Evening before. Thesis' 53. For this dawning toward the first day of the week is meant of the Artificial Day, or the Light of the first Day of the week, as the word dawning implies, and the evidence of their fact in coming to the Sepulchre demonstrates as much; for it is not the scope of the Evangelist to set down when the first day of the week began, but at what time of the first day of the week such and such actions ●ell out: any thing done in any Time of the day, whether at six, or nine, or two of the Clock may be said to be done that day; but it will not follow that they are therefore done in the beginning of that Day: I meet with two Exceptions here. 1. Some say that it might be meant of the Artificial day if the words had run thus, viz. at the Dawning of the day; or the first Day of the week about the dawning of the day; but the dawning toward the first day, This phrase (they say) seems to describe beginning of such a day a● stands in Relation to the whole week, and all the other days of the week, which are to be taken for natural days: But, 1. There is I hope a first Artificial day of the week as well as a Natural. 2. This Artificial day doth not in this account exclude the Night before as part of this first Day, and consequently the Natural Day consisting of Night and light; therefore it may well stand in relation to the other days of the Week which were natural; for although the Evangelist sets down particularly when these things about the Resurrection of Christ happened to be, viz. at the dawning towards the first day of the Week, yet we that begin the Sabbath at Evening may and do use the same phrase, and yet so speak of the Artificial day upon which some event begins, as not to exclude the Night before upon which the Natural Day begins. 3. Compare the Evangelists; and the dawning in Matthew towards the first day, will be found to be all one with this phrase, viz. The first day about or at the dawning of it: for that which Matthew calls dawning to the first day, Mark calls early in the Morning, the first day of the Week at the rising of the Sun; and Luke calls upon the first day of the Week very early in the Morning: whence it is evident that Matthews drawning to the first day is all one with about the rising of the Sun upon the first day: so that this difference between dawning toward the first day, and dawning upon the first day seems to be an English Cabalism, and a mere curiosity exhaled and extracted out of the words, rather than any solid Truth which the Text holds forth or the Spirit of God aimed at. 2. A second exception is; that though the word Day in Scripture be taken for the Artificial day, yet never when the word first, second, or third Day, etc. are joined together; and they point us to the first of Genesis, where when the first or second day is mentioned, it's constantly meant of a Natural and not an Artificial Day. But 1. This is a great mistake; for the Day for the Levites Travel (which was not in the Night but upon the Artificial day) is called the fourth Day, judg. 19.5. And the 5th day, verse 8. 2. This Artificial day may be called the first day as that it may involve the Night before, (where we make the Sabbath to begin) as well as the Night after, on which they make the Sabbath to end; and thus the Natural day may be here comprehended also (which they plead for) the same day which Artificially begins at daylight, may naturally begin the night before. Thesis' 54. If we should suppose that this Day is meant of the Artificial Day, yet there is a harder knot to be unloosed in the words of Matthew, who affirms that this Daylight or Day-dawn was the End of the Sabbath. Whereby it seems that the Sabbath began at the dawning of the day before, and therefore it ends at the dawning of the first day following: and hence they infer that the daylight of this first day cannot belong to the night of the Jewish Sabbath, which immediately went before. And I confess the argument is strong and undeniable, as the words lie under the gloss. We must therefore inquire more narrowly into the true translation of the words, and their meaning. Thesis' 55. That therefore which we translate the end of the Sabbath, is in the Original 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Which words are variously translated; we shall only observe that the Gr. word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath a double signification, in frequent use among Greek writers. 1. Somewhile it signifies Late Time, or the extreme and last time of the continuance of any thing: as, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. the late time, or latter time of the Day. 2. Sometime it signifies a long Time after: as, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. a long time after the Trojan war: Now in this place it is to be translated and in this latter sense, thus, A long time, or a good while after the Sabbath was ended, as it began to dawn to ●h● first day of the week, etc. which interpretation if it be made good will clear up this difficulty, viz. that the Jewish Sabbath did not end at the dawning of the First day of the week, but long before: nor indeed durst I incline to this interpretation, if I did not see the Evangelists (the best interpreters one of another) making the same to my hand. Thesis' 56. For first, Mark, who writ after Matthew, and is best able to interpret his words, expressly saith, that the Sabbath was past when the women came to the Sepulchre; his words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The Sabbath being past, Mar. 16. 1. Hence therefore, if Matthews words should be translated, Late on the Sabbath, or towards the end of the Sabbath, than the Sabbath was not already past (as Mark affirms) but drawing toward an end. Mark therefore telling us, that the Sabbath was ended, and yet not telling us when it ended, why should we not Harmonise the Evangelists by Mathews words, which tells us that it was long before? 2. The time of the coming of some of the women to the Sepulchre, as it was upon the first day of the week, so it was some time within the night: and hence Mark tells us it was very early, Mark 16.2. which cannot be at the rising of the Sun only when 'tis said also that they came to the Sepulchre; for that is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, valde mane, or very early. Again, Luke tells us that it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, very early or in the depth of the night; for so the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 frequently signifies the time of the night when Cocks crow. I forbear to instance in Greek Writers, because the Evangelist john clears up this most fully, who expressly saith, that it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it being yet dark: and though it be said Mark 16.2. that the women came to the Sepulchre about rising of the Sun; yet Piscator and others interpret that of their last actual coming to it; their preparation for it being very early, while it was yet dark night; and it seems there was two come by several of them to the Sepulchre: for its evident that Mary (who had most affection) came to the Sepulchre while it was yet dark, the rest of them possibly preparing thereunto. However the Evangelists be reconciled, this is evident, that the first stirring of the women about that work from which they abstained upon the Sabbath day, was very early in the depth of the morning Darkness, before the Daylight, when some would begin the Christian Sabbath: and from hence it follows, 1. That if the Sabbath was not passed even before this dark time of the night began, but rather ended when the first day of the week began to dawn: than it will follow, that these holy women did not rest the Sabbath according to the Commandment; for we see they are this night busy about those things which they did forbear to do because of the Sabbath, Luke 23.52. 2. Hence it will also follow, that if the Sabbath was not ended before this dark time of the night, but only at the dawning of the Daylight, than our Saviour could not arise from the dead the First day of the week, but within the dark night of the Jewish Sabbath: for Mary came when it was dark, and the Lord Christ was risen before she came, and how long before no man can tell; but its evident that Christ arose the first day of the week, Mark 16.9. and therefore the Sabbath was ended long before. 3. If therefore the Sabbath was passed at the dark time of the night, how then can the Sabbath begin at morning Light; and if it was past when it was thus dark, when then could the Sabbath end, but when this night did first begin? and if this was so, it was then truly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a good while after the Sabbath was ended when this dawning toward the first day began, according to the interpretation given. Thesis' 57 It is true indeed that this time of darkness is called morning; and hence some would infer that the Sabbath begins in the morning: but suppose it be so called, yet it is not called morning Light, at which time they plead the Sabbath should begin; and it is improperly called Morning, because (as hath been formerly shown) it is preparatively so, men usually preparing them for the work of the Daylight following. Morning is also frequently taken in Scripture for any early time, Eph. 3.5. and so this night of the first day of the week, wherein the women arose to their work, was an early time, and therefore called morning. Again, suppose a double morning be acknowledged (as there was a double evening) yet it will not follow that this morning belongs only to the day following, for it may belong to the night before; for as where there are two evenings spoken of, the former belongs to the day, the latter to the night: so if we grant two mornings, the latter morning may belong to the day ensuing, and the former to the Night preceding; if therefore any plead for the beginning of the Sabbath at the morning light, these places of the Evangelist will not bear them out in it, it being dark morning when Christ arose; if they say it begins in the dark morning, then let them set exactly the time of that dark morning wherein Christ arose, and when they would begin it; but no wit of man I fear is able to demonstrate this. Thesis' 58. And surely its of deep consideration to all those who would have the beginning of the Sabbath to be just at the time of the Resurrection of Christ, on the morning, That not any one of the Evangelists do set forth, or aim to set forth the exact time of Christ's Resurrection: they tell us indeed the exact time of the women's preparation, and coming to the Sepulchre, and of the Earthquake and fear of the Soldiers, and that these things were done in the morning; but none of them points out the time of Christ's rising; nor is it their scope to show exactly when he rose, but only to show that he was risen and that he appeared to many being risen, who came to seek for him. Now assuredly, if it had been the mind of God that his people should begin the Sabbath when Christ began his resurrection, he would have pointed out the exact time when he did arise, that so they might exactly begin the Sabbath; but none of the Evangelists point out the time, nor is it their scope exactly so to do; nay, they do exactly point out when other matters happened about the women's coming to the Sepulchre, but this is not made mention of; only we may gather by laying many things together about what time it should be, & therefore I marvel at them who would prove the beginning of the Sabbath at the time of Christ's Resurrection from the four Evangelists speaking exactly to the time of the women's rising in the morning to visit Christ's Sepulchre, but not a word of the main thing this drives at, which is the exact time of Christ's rising. Thesis' 59 Those that would have the Sabbath begin at morning, allege john. 20.19. where 'tis said, That the same day at even, which was the First day of the week, jesus came among his Disciples, when the doors were shut, which (say they) was within night; and therefore the night following belongs to the day before, which was the Christian Sabbath: which place compared with Luke 24.33. does further clear up (as they say) this truth; for the two Disciples who went to Emaus and met Christ, are said to return to the Disciples when they are thus met together; which evening cannot (say they) be possibly meant of the First evening before Sun-light was set, because the day being far spent, ver. 29. and they constrained him to abide with them (which argues that it was late) and the distance of Emaus from jerusalem being sixty furlongs, or eight miles excepting a half; so that it was impossible for them to travel so long a journey in so short a time, within the compass of the first Evening; Hence therefore it's meant of the second evening, which was within night, which yet we see belongs to the day before. But there are many things considerable to evacuate the strength of these reasonings. Thesis' 60. For first, this invitation our Saviour had to stay by the two Disciples, was probably to some repast, some time after high noon; possibly to a late Dinner rather than a late Supper toward the latter evening; and if so, than the Disciples might easily come from Emaus to jerusalem before Sunset within the former evening; for the word toward evening, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be as well understood of the first evening toward two or three of the clock, as of the second; and if it be objected, that before the first evening the day could not be said to be Far spent; yet if the words be well observed, no such translation can be forced from them, for the words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. i. the day hath declined; which is truly said of any time after high-noon, and therefore might be a fit season to press our Saviour to eat; as may appear by comparing this with a parallel Scripture. judges 19.8, 9 which is almost word for word with this place of Luke: for the Levites father invites him to eat something after his early rising, vers. 8. which was too soon for supper, and therefore seems to be rather to a Dinner which they tarried for until after high-noon, or as 'tis in the Original, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. until the day declined, (just as it is here in Luke;) and then when dinner was ended he persuades him to stay still, because the day was weak, and (as we translate it) toward evening; (as here the Disciples tell our Saviour) and yet after these persuasions to tarry, as late as it was he departed and came to jerusalem before night, and from thence to Gibeah (without any Miracle too) before Sun was set, or the latter evening; and verily if we may give credit to Topographers, Gibeah was almost as far from Bethlem (from whence the Levite came) as jerusalem was from Emaus: and therefore if the Levite came with his cumber and concubine so many miles before the second evening, notwithstanding all the Arguments used from the day declining, and that it was toward evening; why may we not imagine the like of these Disciples at Emaus much more? who had no cumber, and whose joy could not but add wings to a very swift return to the eleven before the second Evening, notwithstanding the like arguments here used in Luke, 24.29. And yet secondly suppose that they invited our Saviour to Supper, yet the former Evening beginning about two or three of the Clock in the after noon, our Saviour might stay some time to eat with them, and yet they be timely enough at jerusalem before the second Evening: for suppose our Saviour stayed an hour with them or more, after two or three of the Clock, yet if a strong man may walk ordinarily three mile an hour, why might not the tidings of this joyful news make them double their pace, whether on foot or horseback, no mention is made of either, and so be there within an hour and half or thereabout before the second Evening could come? Thesis' 61. And although our Saviour appeared to them when the doors were shut, yet it is not said that the doors were shut because it was Night, but for fear of the jews and their Pursuivants; that they might not rush in suddenly upon them, which they might do in the Day as well as in the Night: and though this was a poor safeguard from their enemies yet it was some, and the best which they had, or at least could think of at such a time; and if our Saviour came to them when they were at Supper, Mark. 16.14. and if the ordinary time of the jews supper was a little after or about Sunset (as might be demonstrated) then the second Evening was not as yet begun, no not when Christ came, much less before the other two came, who were there from Emaus before. Thesis' 62. It is said by some that if it was not very late, than the Arguments of the Disciples to persuade Christ to stay were weak; but it seems (say they) they were strong because it's said they constrained him] but we know that much affection will some time urge a weak argument very far, for stay of some special friend; and when arguments will not prevail, it will hold them and constrain them by force; and thus it seems the Disciples dealt with our Saviour; their constraining him was not so much by force of Argument as violence and force of love, for so the words in the Original (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) properly signifies: and hence it seems that there was day enough above head to travail farther in; otherwise what need such violent persuasions to stay with them? and for any to say, that the Parallel of the Levites Father's persuasions to stay, upon weak grounds, is not the same with this, because his Arguments might sure well not to begin a long journey when it was past noon, which was the case there; but it's a reason of no force to persuade to go farther when a man is in a journey already: which is the case here, I say this answer is against the Practice of love in common experience; men weary in their journey may stand in more need of persuasions to stay than they that have not begun to travail at all, nor was the Levites journey long from Bethlem to Gibeah. Thesis' 63. Nor is it an Argument of any weight from john 39.1. because the two Disciples are said to abide with Christ that Day, that therefore the night following did belong to that day (they staying as it is supposed all night) and consequently that the Day begins in the Morning; for these Disciples coming to Christ at the tenth hour or four of the Clock in the afternoon, there were then two hours remaining until Night (the jews artificial Day continuing from six to six) within which time our Saviour (who can do much work in a small time) might sufficiently instruct them (for that time) within the space of two hours; and why might they not depart before the night came, and so stay with him only so short a time? And yet if they did stay that Night, they might notwithstanding be said to stay that artificial day only, without reference to any Night before or after, or to any part of the Morning following that Night, when 'tis probable they departed if they did stay with him all that Night. Thesis' 64. Those who think that Paul would never have Preached till midnight Acts 20.7. if that night had not been part of the Sabbath which began the Morning before, much less would he after this long Sermon have communicated with them in the Sacrament, ver. 11. unless it had been the Sabbath Day, may do well to consider these things. 1. That the cause of taking in so much of the Night following for Preaching till midnight was extraordinary, viz. Paul's early departure never to see their faces more; and to say that if this Night was no part of the Sabbath, it was then unreasonable to hold them so long at it, is an assertion which wants reason, if we do but consider the shortness of his time, the largeness of Paul's heart, speaking now for his last, and the sweetness of their affections as might easily enable them to continue till midnight and upward, with cheerfulness, and without thinking the duty tedious, and unreasonable long. Paul therefore might begin his Sermon some part of the Daylight, which was part of the Sabbath Day, and continue it till midnight following, and yet this night be no part of the Christian Sabbath, because it was an extraordinary cause which pressed him hereunto. 2. That there is nothing in the Words which will evince the Sabbath to continue so long as Paul's Sermon did; for suppose those who begin the Sabbath at Evening, that it should be said of such, that being met together the first day of the Week to break Bread, their Teacher being to depart on the morrow, Preached▪ unto them and continued his speech till midnight, will this argue a continuance of the same day? No verily, and the like reason is here. 3. That the Lords Supper might be and was administered before Paul's Sermon; for there is a double breaking of bread in the Text: the one is of common bread, Verse 11. after Paul had Preached; the other is of holy bread in the Eucharist, verse 7. for the Syriak calls Tha● breaking of the bread which is mentioned verse 7. the Eucharist or Lords Supper; but that which is mentioned, verse 11. Common bread; and the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, implies as much, and hence also it's spoken of one man principally, viz. That when he had broken bread and eaten, and talked a long time till break of the day, he then departed, it being some ordinary repast for Paul after his long Preaching and before his long journey, and is not therefore any Sacramental eating; the manner of which is wont to be expressed in other words then as they are here set down; if therefore Paul's eating verse▪ 11. was common Bread, it cannot be then affirmed that the Eucharist was then administered after Sermon at midnight, and yet they partaking of the Sacrament this day, verse 7. it seems therefore that it was administered some time before this extraordinary course of Preaching began. Thesis' 65. Nor will it follow that the Sabbath begins in the Morning, because the Morning is set before the Night in the Psalm for the Sabbath, Psal. 92.1, 2. for 1. The scope of the Psalmist is not to set forth when the Sabbath begins: but how it is to be sanctified, and that is, not only by showing forth the loving kindness of God every Morning or day time (for that perhaps, many will readily do) but also in the Night, when men may think it too unseasonable or too late: and therefore in a holy gradation from the less to the greater, he first makes mention of the Morning. 2. The Hebrew word for every Night, is, in the Nights; and therefore (suppose that this Psalm is specially appliable to the Sabbath, which we know some question) yet this place will as soon evince the Sabbath to begin in the Night before the Morning, and to be continued in sweet affections the night after, as that it should begin in the Morning and be continued the night after; so that this place will not clear this cause, nor is there any weight in such kind of reasoning●. Thesis' 66. Nor will it follow from Levit. 7.15. with 22.29, 30. and Ex. 12▪ 10. that because the ●●esh of the peace Offerings was to be eaten the same day, and nothing to be left until the Morning (something like this being spoken also of the Passeover) that the day therefore begun in the Morning: for in Leviticus there is a double Commandment, 1. To eat the flesh of their peace offerings the same day; but yet because when they have eaten, some bones and o●fals might remain, hence, 2. They are commanded to leave nothing till the Morning, which doth not argue that they had liberty to eat it as long as they might keep it, but that as they had liberty no longer than the same day to eat it, so nor liberty any longer than the next Morning so much as to keep any of the relics of it: And as for the Passeover (a place much urged by some) they were to kill it on the fourteenth day, Exod. 12.6. which they might eat the night following, verse 8. yet so as to leave nothing of it till the Morning, verse 10. This night following i● not therefore any part of the fourteenth, but of the 15th. day: for at midnight there was a cry verse 30, 31. and this night they went from 〈◊〉 to Succoth, verse 37. with 46. and this time is expressly called the morrow after the Passeover, Numb. 33.3. nor is there any inconvenience or rule broken to kill the Passeover upon one day and continue eating of it some part of another, the Passeover being a Feast of more days than one. Thesis' 67. Nor doth it follow that because our Saviour tells Peter, Mark 14.30. Luke 22.34. that this Day, even this Night (viz. of the Passeover) he should deny him, that this Night therefore was any part of the precedent day; for it may be as fairly interpreted to belong to the day following that Night. Nor is it necessary to determine this word Day always to a determinate time of 24 hours, of which the Night was a part, but only of a special season of time: for so 'tis frequently figuratively taken without any respect to a day of 24 or 12 hours, viz, for a special season of Time wherein some special providence of God doth appear and is put into execution, as Isay 29.18. and 25.9. and 27▪ 1. Exod. 14.13. 1 Sam. 4.7, 8. 2 Sam. 4.5, 7, 8. Thesis' 68 It answers many objections produced against the beginning of the day in the Evening, for the Morning, to consider, that the word Day is frequently taken in Scripture for an artificial day, and that the word Morrow frequently signifies a new artificial Day, which in respect of, and reference unto, the artificial day going before or following after, is no part thereof; but as the Proverb is, to morrow is a new day: and thus 'tis taken, john 12.12. john 6.22. Act. 21.7, 8. 1 Sam. 14.24. Acts 23.31.32. 2 Sam. 11.12, 13. Exod. 10.4.13. Deut. 21.22, 23. josh. 8.29. and 10.26. Exod. 7.4.11, 12, 17. with 8 6. to 13. Exod. 14, ult. with 34.2, 4, 28. Deut. 9.9.11. Whence only let this be noted that to argue from hence, that to morrow Morning or to morrow day light is the beginning of the natural day, because it's called a new or another Day, is not solid: nor also that although the Night following the artificial day, be not so frequently called to morrow, yet sometime it is so called, 1 Sam. 30.17. where the evening of their morrow stopped David, i. that night. Thesis' 69. There are some who confess that the Jewish Sabbath began at the evening ever since the Creation unto the time of Christ's resurrection▪ but now they tell us that it begins in the morning, because of Christ's Resurrection (the cause of it) which began then; so that as this makes the change of the day, so it makes a change of the beginning of the day from evening till morning when the Resurrection of Christ began: but the feebleness of this opinion will appear from these ensuing considerations. Thesis' 70. 1. Consid. That the foundation of this opinion is exceeding rotten, viz. That the day must not begin, until that work which occasions the change doth actually exist. But we know that the Passeover began before the work which did occasion it, did actually exist, viz. the Angels passing over the Israelites at midnight, Exod. 12.29. with 12, 13, 14. and 6.8. indeed the Christian Sabbath day is not before the day of Christ Resurrection; yet the beginning of this day may be before the beginning of the Resurrection, as it was in the Passeover. 2. Consid. That if any of the Evangelists had intended a new beginning of the Sabbath at morning, that they would then have set down the exact time of the Lords Resurrection; but none of them do this; they set down the time of other things to prove that Christ was risen, but not the exact time of the Resurrection, for its wholly uncertain; certain it is, that it was before Daylight began; for Mary came and found him risen while it was yet dark, john 20.1. and how long he was risen before, who can determine? 3. Consid. That if Christ's Resurrection began the Sabbath, so that in that moment and point of time wherein Christ arose the Christian Sabbath began, than Christ could not lie three days in the grave; for either he lay three days according to the Jewish account, beginning the day at evening; and then the third day on which Christ arose (which also was the first day) must begin at evening as we plead for; or else he must lie three days according to the new account, which begins the third day in the morning, leaving out the night before as not appertaining to any part of the week before or after; but according to this reckoning its impossible that Christ should lie three days in the grave, he may be then indeed said to arise the third day, but not to lie any part of the third day, because lying in the grave implies some time of continuance therein upon the third day; but how could this be, when they say that the moment of Christ's Resurrection began the day of our Christian Sabbath? 4. Consi. If the Jewish Sabbath was the last day of the week, and began and ended at evening, than the Christian Sabbath must either begin at evening when the Jewish Sabbath ended, or the first day of the week cannot be the Christian Sabbath, but only a part of the first day, and part of the second day; for the night which goes before the Christian Sabbath, either 1. they must make it to belong to the Jewish Sabbath, and then that Sabbath must be sanctified 36. hours, and so it must be more than a day which is sanctified, which is absurd; or 2. they must make it belong to the Christian Sabbath, and then they cannot make it begin in the morning; or ●. they must leave it out from all weekly account, and so take in the night following (which is part of the second day) as part of the Sabbath. 5. Consid. That the seventh part of time cannot be orderly given to God, but it must be either the first or last seventh (as hath been shown) and the morality of the fourth commandment cannot be observed without giving to God either of these; if therefore the Jewish Sabbath ended at Even, the Christian Sabbath must immediately succeed it, and begin it then, or else a moral rule is broken. 6. If the Jewish Sabbath began and ended at Even, and the Christian Sabbath bega● at morning, what must become of that night which is between them both, and to what day of the week must it belong? If any say, that 'tis no matter whether it belong to any or no, so long as time runs on; this answer will not suffice; for though time runs on, yet what orderly time is there here which is running on? Time consists of years, and years of months, and months of weeks, and weeks of days; to what day or what week then must this night belong? they that maintain this opinion do roundly affirm, that it's no absurdity to leave that one Night out from weekly, nor as pertaining to any week before or after, but say it was lost: alas poor forlorn Night that art thus strangely forsaken; what a strange kind of night is this which belongs to no day? what a misshapen lump of time art thou, and yet how canst thou be part of time, that art part of no day, but only (as they say) of Time flowing and running on, without head or foot, week or day? Thesis' 71. They tell us, That in Joshua's time, when the Sun stood still, and in Hezekiah's time, when the Sun went back, that there was as great a perverting of the order of Time as this comes to; and that there is as good reason to alter the time upon such a special and wonderful occasion as Christ's Resurrection, as there was to disorder the course of time then: but the weakness of this answer may appear from these things. 1. That in the days of joshuah and Hezekiah, there was no such monstrous misshapen piece of time cut out, as here is imagined; for though the Sun stood still, suppose about twelve hours in joshuas time, and so made a day of 36 hours; ye● these twelve hours were part of that day, and of that which ordinarily makes the day, viz. the motion of the Sun above the Earth, which is ordinarily once in 24 hours, only the Lord stopped it a while, and so made it a longer day, and yet measured by the ordinary measure of a day, viz. the Sun compassing the earth; which this night is not. 2. Though some part of the weekly time was changed in some respect; yet no part of sacred and Sabbath time was perverted by either the Suns standing still, or its going back, because though these things were longer than ordinary, yet they were but ordinary days in this sense, viz. because there was no more to either day then that which ordinarily makes a day, to wit, that space of time wherein the Sun circularly compasseth the whole earth. For though a seventh part of time be morally due to God, man having six days for himself; yet this is to be understood, as each day is measured by, and made up of the whole complete motion of the Sun circling the earth; now though these days were longer than usual in those famous times, yet they were only such days as were made by this motion; and hence there was no change or perverting of the time of the Sabbath, but God hath his due then orderly. But here we must make a new and strange beginning of time, by leaving out a whole night, and denying God a seventh day according to ordinary account and reckoning, and must fall to a disorderly beginning, upon pretence of a more than ordinary occasion; which yet we see was not so in those extraordinary times of Hezekiah and josuah. 3. In the days of josuah and Hezekiah there was some necessity of prolonging those days and that in a course of providence, supposing that God would work wonders by his providence; but what necessity is there to begin the day when Christ did first arise? for this action falling out upon the first day, might sanctify the whole day which in ordinary course should have begun at Evening: we see the whole fifth of November is sanctified, upon an occasion, which happened about nine or ten of the Clock: and the Evening of the Passeover was sanctified before the Angel passed over the Israelites at midnight, which was the occasion of the sanctification of that day: what need or necessity was there to leave a whole night out of weekly account, and lose such a part of precious Treasure? 4. It was for the manifestation of the marvellous glory of God in the eyes of all the World, good and bad; to make that violation (as it were) of the course of Time in 〈…〉 of josuah and Hezekiah; but what glory doth Christ ga●● in the eyes of others, by making the Day to begin at the Time of his Resurrection by the loss of the whole Evening before, out of the account of weekly Time? or what glory doth Christ lose if he should begin the day at Evening when the jewish Sabbath ended, when as the whole day thu● i● celebrated and sanctified for his glory in respect of his Resurrection upon this Day? and therefore 'tis a great mistake, to imagine as much reason for the violation of the course of Time in respect of Christ Resurrection) which makes so little for the glory of Christ) as there was for the variation of Time in the days of josuah and Hezekiah, which made so apparently and evidently and exceedingly for the glory of God and the honour of those who were Types of Christ? Thesis' 72. To say that there is a necessity of beginning the Christian Sabbath, when Christ first entered into his Rest (the first moment of his Resurrection) because the Father began the Jewish Sabbath the first moment of his Rest after his six day's Labour, is not solid nor sound: For there was a necessity for God the Father to begin his Rest at the end of his work●: otherwise a moral rule had not been observed, viz. That a seventh p●●t of Time be sanctified; for six days being finished in creating the World, there was now a necessity of sanctifying the seventh Day wherein his rest began, lest a moral rule should be exemplarily broken; but there was no such necessity here; for the whole Evening of the first day may be sanctified upon occasion of Christ's Rest on some part of that day, and no moral rule broken hereby: nay there had been a moral rule broken if the Christian Sabbath had not begun upon this Evening; because hereby God should have lost a Sabbath Day within the compass of seven days as they are measured by the Sun; and this is directly cross to the morality of the fourth command; for if a whole night be lost (as these men reckon) only Time flows on (they say) than it must be full seven days and a half before God have a Sabbath to begin: and this absurdity in the course of Time, I believe will not be found, in josuahs' time nor in altering the beginning of the year in Moses time Exod. 12. for ●o moral rule was 〈◊〉 upon by these and such like alterations. Thesis' 73. It is an ungrounded assertion to say that the Reasons of the change of the Day are the same for the change of the beginning of the Day▪ 〈◊〉. There was a Type affixed (as hath been shown) to that It 〈◊〉 Sabbath▪ but I never yet heard of any Type in respect of the beginning of the Sabbath. 2. Divine will and 〈◊〉 on changed 〈…〉 viz. That God hath one day in seven given him: but God could not begin the Sabbath with excluding the Evening before Christ arose without breach of this Rule, as hath been shewen● the day might be kept and changed without breach of that rule, but the beginning could not be changed but there would necessarily follow some breach thereof. Thesis' 74. To think that the Sabbath must needs begin in the Morning, because we read not expressly after Christ's Resurrection, that the Night should belong to the day following, nor is there any instance thereof as in the Old Testament and before Christ's Resurrection it may be (they confess) undeniably so found] I say, to think the Sabbath must begin in the Morning upon this ground, is somewhat like to his conceit who finding in the Old Testament that the seventh day is to be sanctified; but not finding this expression, after Christ's Resurrection, hence he thought there was now no seventh Day to be sanctified. Those who can answer this Objection, may know how to answer thereby their own argument for the beginning of it at Morning, which is just like unto it: if indeed there were clear Scriptures for the beginning of it at Morning in the new Testament, and none to show the beginning of it at Evening, the Argument had much weight; but this hath not yet appeared: old Testament evidences are not Apocrypha proofs in moral matters, in these men's consciences, who thus argue for the Morning. Thesis' 75. To argue the beginning of the Sabbath at Morning, from the congruity and fitness of the season for holy Time rather than Evening, is no way fair nor rational: for 1. There may be as much said (perhaps more) for the fitness and congruity of the Evening, if this arguing were evicting; but we know the ground of all superstition hath been humane wisdom, which puts out the Eagles eyes when it goes about to mend them; and when it would better God's worship by ●oodly seeming● and trappings, it than destroys it, at least corrupts it; this only may be said that just as we lie down with our hearts over night, so we find them commonly in the Morning; the beginning of the Sabbath at Evening will force us in conscience ●o lie down over nigh with Sabbath hearts, which marvellously prepares for the receiving of Sabbath blessings the day ensuing. Thesis' 76. If therefore the Sabbath doth not begin, neither according to the custom of civil nations, nor at midnight, nor Morning, what Time then must it begin at (from any colour of Scripture,) but only in the Evening? at Evening therefore after the setting of the Light of the body of the Sun, wherein darkness begins to be predominant over the Light the Sabbath begins now, as the jewish Sabbath began in former Times, and here let me say that old Testament proofs may be in this as in many other things, New Testament rules. Thesis' 77. If the Jewish Sabbath did begin and end at Evening, which was the last day of the Week, than the Christian Sabbath the First day of the week which immediately succeeds the last, is to begin at Evening also; ●f the Sabbath in the fi●st Institution began at Evening, why should not the Christian Sabbath be conformed as near as may be to the first institution? but we see out of Gen. 1. That as all other days began at the Evening or dark night, so it was not orderly or possible according to the moral rule God acted by, that the Sabbath should begin upon any other Time then the Evening, nor is it improbable but that Ezekiel foretells this that in the Christian Church, as the Gate for the Sabbath should not be shut until the Evening, Ezek. 46.1, 2. so by just proportion the time for opening of it, was the Evening before, when the Sabbath began. Thesis' 78. Now although some deny the beginning of the Sabbath in Gen. 1. to be in the Evening (deceiving themselves and their readers with the ambiguity and various acceptation of the words Evening and Morning) yet this is most evident, That the First day began with Night or darkness which is called Night, Gen. 1.4, 5. and consequently ended with daylight; let Evening and Morning therefore be taken how they will, yet its sufficient to prove that which we aim at, viz. that as the first day began with Night, and ended at the end of Day light, so by just consequence every other day did, even the Sabbath itself, which still begins the beginning of Night, which is all that which we mean by Evening, when we say that it begins then; which also the holy Ghost calls darkness, which darkness, Gen. 1.2. he calls Night, vers. 5. and which Night is all one with Evening. Thesis' 79. And if the Natural (which some call civil, others the compound) day began first in the Evening, then surely it continued so; or if not, than this disorderly practice should have been regulated again, according to the first pattern, as the abuses crept into the Lord's Supper were by Paul. 1 Cor. 11.23. and as errors about Marriage whereby our Saviour, telling them that a● initio non suit sic. Thesis' 80. Nor should it be a wonder why the wise Creator should begin Time with darkness, or the less noble part of the Day, no more than why the Lord should begin the World with a rude and confused Chaos before a glorious World; the progress of his wisdom in making the whole World being for the most part from more imperfect things to perfect, from the Chaos to beauty; from the servants, and furniture, to man the Lord and Master of this great house; and so here, from darkness to light; the Sabbath also being a day of Rest, was it not most proper to begin it then when man begins his rest which is the Night? when also God began Rest from his work in the first Creation. Thesis' 81. Some convinced by the evidence of the Text, that darkness was before light, Weemes on the fourth Command. yet wrestle with their wits to make it neither part of the night nor part of time, but only punctum temporis, and by this shift would make the first day to begin in the morning-light, Thesis' 82. But was ever any punctum temporis (which is thought to be no part of time) called by the name of Night as this darkness is? Gen. 1.4, 5. with 2. Was the World made in six days and is there a Heaven and Earth made within the time of this darkness, and yet this time of darkness to be no part of time, but only a Mathematical point, but no real part of succeeding Time? Zanchy long since hath largely confuted and crushed this Eggshell, where the Reader may look; there was not indeed any Celestial motion of the Heavens to measure this Time by, (for Master Weemes objects tempus est mensura motus) but by this Argument there was no Time till the fourth day, when the Sun and Starrs were created, nor is Time properly mensura mo●us, but as Eternity is the indeterminate duration of a thing together, so Time is the determinate duration of things by succession: which was evidently since Time began on the first moment of creation. Thesis' 83. Others who acknowledge this first darkness to be part of Time, yet will not have it to be part of the Nighttime; because light (the habit) they say must go before Darkness (the privation) because also this first darkness is not so called Night, but the separated darkness, Gen. 1.3. when God separated the light into one Hemisphere, and darkness into another. Thesis' 84. But this arguing is almost against the express Letter of the Text, Gen. 1. wherein it is most evident that light was created, after darkness had been some time upon the face of the deep; which darkness cannot be part of the Daylight, no more than blindness is a part of sight and therefore is a part of the Night, before this conceived separated darkness could exist. Beside the separation of darkness from light doth not make any new darkness which is a new denominated darkness, but is the same darkness which was at first, only the separation is a new placing of it, but it gives no new being to it. Thesis' 85. Suppose also that light and darkness are contraria privantia, yet 'tis not true either in Philosophy or Divinity, that the habit must always actually go before the privation in the same subject; for the privation may be first if it be in subjecto capaci; i. e. In a subject capable of the habit; for silence may be before speech in a man, and blindness and deafness in a man who never saw nor heard a word, because man is a subject capable of both, and so here darkness might be before light, because this subject of the first matter was capable of both. Thesis' 86. Nor is it true in Divinity that the darkness and light were at first separated into two Hemispheres; or if they were, yet what orthodox Writer affirms that the supposed separated darkness only is called Night? Thesis' 87. For look as the darkness did overspread the whole Chaos▪ and all the dimensions of it at the same time; why might not the light the habit be extended as far as was the privation before, and that at the same time? there being no globe or dense body of earth and waters (existing as now they do) at that time created, and consequently no opake and solid body to divide between light and darkness and so to seprate them into two Hemispheres, as by this means it is at this day, unless we imagine miracles without necessity; and that God then miraculously did it when there was no necessity of it. For the Element of fire being figuratively called light, it being (as junius shows) proprietas essentialls ignis; being also created in the superior part of the vast Chaos; might therefore be cast down by a mighty hand of God (there being no ordinary means of Sun or Stars yet created to do it) into all the inferior Chaos, and so make day. And the ascending of this light upwards again might make it to be Night: and therefore although God separated between light and darkness, yet this separation semmes to be rather in respect of time, then in respect of place, or two Hemispheres: for the light when it was east down, separated and scattered the darkness, and so excluded it, so that when there was light, there was no darkness; when darkness, there was no light; and thus they succeeding and excluding one another, the Lord is said to separate them one from another, but not into two imagined Hemispheres, by which imagination of two Hemispheres it will be also very difficult to set down when it was day and when it was night, at this time of the Creation; because in respect of one part of the Chaos it might be called day, in respect of the other Hemisphere of the Chaos it might be called night: and therefore it seems more suitable to the truth, that the descending of the Light, made day throughout the whole Chaos remaining, and the ascending of it to its proper place successively made night; which as it answers many curious questions about the nature and motion of this light, so it yield a more than probable argument, that if the daylight continued twelve hours (which none question) why should not each night continue as long, and therefore that the first darkness did continue such a time before the creation of the Light? Thesis' 88 But suppose this local separation into two Hemispheres was granted, yet it will not follow from hence that this separated darkness only is called night, and that the darkness before was no part of it: for if the day and night began at the imagined division of light and darkness, than (this division being in an instant of time) neither could the day be before the night, nor the night before the day, but both exist and begin together; and than it will follow that the beginning of the first day was neither in the morning nor evening, in darkness nor light, in night nor day; but that it began in the morning and evening, daylight and dark night, together; which is too gross for any wise man to affirm, nor would the God of Order do it. Again, if the first darkness which was preaexistent to this Hemisphericall light and darkness was no part of the night, then much less was it any part of the first daylight; and so no part of the natural day; which if any should affirm, they must deny the creation of the world in six days; for its evident that the Heavens and Earth were made in the time of the first darkness. Thesis' 89. To say that this first darkness was part of the morning, and did belong to the morning-light, as now some time of darkness in the the morning is called morning, and therefore is called the womb of the morning, Psal. 110.2. is a mere shift to prove the beginning of time to be in the morning, and an evasion from the evidence of truth. For 1. This first darkness must either be the whole night, consisting as the light did of about twelve hours; and than it cannot possibly be called morning or belong thereunto; or it must be part of the night, and that which came after the light another part of it, and then we may see a monstrous day which hath part of its night before it, and part after it; beside its contrary to the Text, which makes the whole morning together, and the whole evening together, the whole daylight together, and so the whole night together. 2. That darkness which by an improper speech we make to belong to the morning, in our ordinary account, is the latter part of the night or of the darkness; but we read not in all the Scripture, nor is it suitable to any solid reason, to make the first beginning of Night or darkness as part of the morning: Now this first darkness (which is the beginning of darkness) is called night, at least is the beginning of night; and therefore cannot be called morning, but evening rather, as we usually call the first beginning of darkness after day light. Thesis' 90. That express Commandment Leu. 23 32. to celebrate the Ceremonial Sabbath from Even to Even doth strongly prove the beginning of the moral Sabbath at the same time; for why else is it called a Sabbath of rest, but because it is to be spent in duties of humiliation, as the other Sabbath in duties suitable to the nature of it? and hence the Lords care is greatly exact herein, 1. That no servile work be done, because it is a Sabbath. verse 31, 32. 2. That it be spent and sanctified from Even to Even, (meaning) like as you do your weekly Sabbaths. And hence the Lord saith not, You shall celebrate your day of Atonement from even to even, but (the Lord usually wrapping up arguments in his words) Your Sabbath: as if he should say, You would account it a profane thing not to celebrate your ordinary weekly Sabbath from even to even, or to do any servile work on that day: this day is a Sabbath, and therefore you must sanctify it from even to even, and therefore do no servile work herein. Thesis' 91. To imagine (as some do) That the ordinary Sabbath began at another time, because here God makes a new command, that it be from even to even, in opposition to the other Sabbaths beginning; and that otherwise it had been enough to say, You shall celebrate this day as a Sabbath: one may from the same ground imagine, that in other Sabbaths they might do any servile work, because here also 〈◊〉 are forbidden it; for it may be as well said, that other 〈◊〉 had been enough to say, You shall sanctify this day as you do other Sabbaths: here therefore is no new institution of time from the beginning of the Sabbath, but of a new Ordinance, together with the application of time according to common and ordinary account: and the Lord expresseth from even to even (which makes up a natural day) left man's heart (which is soon weary of duties of Humiliation) should interpret it of an artificial day; to prevent which mistake the Lord had good reason to set the distinct bounds of it from even to even. Thesis' 92. Nor can this Evening, be fairly interpreted of the former even before Sun set, as taking in that also; for this evening is to begin at the evening of the ninth day, verse 32. which evening of the ninth day is not the evening of that day about two or three of the clock, (for the tenth day only is called the day of Atonement, verse 27. and therefore part of the ninth day is no part of the Atonement day) but as junius well expounds it, at the evening of the ninth day, Vid. jun. in loc. puta qua nonus dies definite, at that nick of time, which is the communis terminus of the end of the ninth day and beginning of the tenth, you shall then celebrate your Sabbath: which curious exactness of the Lord, is partly to express his zeal for the full and plenary observation of the day, that he may not lose a moment's time of honour, as also to show what care they should have of holding out from the first point to the last period of that Sabbath. Thesis' 93. And therefore it is a groundless deduction from the Text, to make this day to be of extraordinary length, and so an unfit measure for our ordinary Sabbath. And to say that there was a ceremony in beginning this day at even, is but gratis dictum, and can never be made good, unless it be by such fetches of wit which can mould the plainest History into the Image of a goodly Allegory, August. ep. 48. a most impudent course of arguing in Augustine's judgement, and in his time. Thesis' 94. If the Sabbath do not begin at evening, why did Nehemiah (an exemplary Magistrate) command the Gates to be shut, when the Gates of jerusalem began to be dark before the Sabbath? Nehem. 13.19. was it not left the Sabbath should be profaned that night, by bringing in of wares and burdens thorough the Gates, as well as in the ensuing day? is it not expressly said, that he set his servants at these Gates that there might be no burden brought in upon the Sabbath day? is it not expressly said that he set the Levites to keep the Gates to sanctify the Sabbath day? verse 19, 22. Now if this 〈◊〉 was no part of the Sabbath, how could they then be said to sanctify the Sabbath thereby? Thesis' 95. To imagine that Nehemiah did this to prevent the profaning of the Sabbath day after, is as if a man should shut his doors at noon against such Thiefs as he knows will not come to hurt him until midnight be past. It would be weakness in a Magistrate to take away any considerable part of the week which God allows for labour to prevent that evil on the Sabbath which he knows he is sufficiently able to prevent at the approach of the day itself: for Nehemiah might easily have shut the Gates in the morning, if the Sabbath had not begun before; and might have better done it, then to cut so large a Thong out of the week time to prevent such defilement of the Sabbath day. Thesis' 96. When therefore the Gates of jerusalem began to be dark, or as junius renders the words, quum abumbrarentur portae, i. when they were shadowed by the descent of the Sun behind the mountains which compassed jerusalem, and so did cast a shadow of darkness upon the Gates of the City, somewhat sooner than in other places less mountainous; this shadow, being no part of the dark night, is truly said to be before, or (as the Hebrew is) before the face or looking out of the Sabbath; for although the Sabbath be said to begin at Sunset, yet 'tis to be understood not of the setting of the body of the Sun visibly, but of the light of the Sun when darkness begins to be predominant over the light, and men are forced to forsake their work; now just before this Nehemiah shut the gates, at the common term and end of the six day's labour, and the Seventh day's rest; and therefore 'tis a weak objection which some make, to say that this evening was not part of the Sabbath, because the Gates are said to be shut before the Sabbath. Thesis' 97. It's said the women who prepared spices for our Saviour's body, that they rested the Sabbath, which is evident to be in the evening; and this they did not superstitiously (as some say) but according to the Commandment, Luk. 23.53, 54, 55, 56. if therefore these women began to rest according to the commandment of God upon the evening, than the evening by the same Commandment is the beginning of the holy Rest of the Sabbath. It is not only the commandment of God, that one day in Seven be sanctified, but also that it be sanctified from even to even. Thesis' 98. Now that they began to rest in the evening is evident from these considerations: 1. That our saviour died the Ninth hour. Luke 23.44, 46. which was about three of the clock in the afternoon. A little after, this joseph begs his body and takes it down because it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or preparation for the Sabbath Mark 15.42. in which preparation it's said that the Sabbath did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, draw on, shine forth Luke 23.54. now this shining or breaking forth of the Sabbath cannot be meant of the day light morning shining forth; for its a mere dream to think, that joseph should be so long a time in doing so little work, from Saturday in the afternoon until the next morning light, only in taking of Christ from the Cross, wrapping him in Linen, and laying him in his own Sepulchre, which was not far off, but near at hand also. john 19.42. The shining forth of the Sabbath also stop● the women from proceeding to anoint Christ's Body, after they had brought their Spices; and therefore if the shining forth of the Sabbath had been the morning after, they might certainly have had sufficient time to do that work in; the shining forth therefore of this Sabbath was in the latter evening in which the Sabbath began; and it's said to shine forth by a metaphor, because it did then first appear, or draw on; or, as Piscator and sundry others think, because about that time the stars in Heaven, and the Lamps and Candles in houses began to shine forth; which is just then when darkness is predominant, which is the beginning of the Sabbath at evening time. 2. If that evening had not begun the Sabbath, why did not the women (who wanted neither conscience nor affection, nor opportunity) anoint his body that evening, but defer it until the night after? what could stop them herein, but only the conscience of the Commandment, which began the Sabbath that evening? 3. Either the Sabbath must begin this evening, or they did not rest the Sabbath according to the Commandment; for if they began to keep the Sabbath at morning light, then if they rested according to the Commandment, they must keep it until the next morning light after; but its manifest that they were stirring, and in preparing their Ointments long before that, even in the dark night before the light did appear, as hath been formerly shown. Thesis' 99 Why the women did not go about to embalm Christ's body the beginning of the dark evening after the Sabbath was past, but stayed so long a time after till the dark morning, cannot be certainly determined; perhaps they thought it not suitable to a rule of God and prudence, to take some rest and sleep first, before they went about that sad work; and might think ●he morning more fit for it then the dark evening before, when their sorrowful hearts and spent spirits might need mercy to be shown them, by taking their rest awhile first. They might also possibly think it offensive to others presently to run to the embalming of the dead, as soon as ever the Sabbath was ended, and therefore stayed till the dark morning, when usually every one was preparing and stirring toward their weekly work. Thesis' 100 The Lord Christ could not lie three days in the grave, if the Sabbath did not begin at evening; and for any to affirm, that the dark morning wherein he arose was part of this first day and did belong thereunto, is not only to overthrow their own principles, who begin the Sabbath at the beginning of day light morning, but they also make the beginning of the Sabbath to be wholly uncertain; for who can tell at what time of this dark morning our Saviour arose? Thesis' 101. 'tis true, there are some parts of the habitable world, in Russia, and those Northern Countries, wherein for about a month's time the Sun is never out of sight; now although they have no dark evening at this time, yet doubtless they know how to measure their natural days by the motion of the Sun; if therefore they observe that time which is equivalent to our dark evenings, and sanctify to God the space of a day, as 'tis measured by the circling Sun round about them, they may then be said to sanctify the Sabbath from even to even, if they do that which is equivalent thereunto; they that know the East, West, South, North points, do certainly know when that which is equivalent to evening begins, which if they could not do, yet doubtless God would accept their will for the deed in such a case. Thesis' 102. If therefore the Sabbath began at evening from Adam's time in innocency till Nehemiahs' time, and from Nehemiahs' time till Christ's time, why should any think but that where the Jewish Sabbath the last day of the week doth end, there the Christian Sabbath the first day of the week begins? unless any can imagine some Type in the beginning of the Sabbath at evening; which must change the beginning of the day, as the Type affixed did change the day: or can give demonstrative reasons that the time of Christ's Resurrection must of necessity begin the Christian Sabbath, which for aught I see cannot be done. And therefore it is a groundless assertion, that the reasons of the change of the day are the same for the change of the beginning of it; and that the chief of the reasons for the evening, may be as well applied against the change of the day itself, as of the time of it: But sufficient hath been said of this. I shall only add this, that there is no truth of Christ's, but upon narrow search into it, hath some secret knots and difficulties, and so hath this about the beginning of the Sabbath; 'tis therefore humility and self-denial to follow our clearest light in the simplicity of our hearts, and to wait upon the Throne of grace with many tears for more clear discoveries until all knots be unloosed. FINIS. THE SANCTIFICATION OF THE SABBATH. WHEREIN The true Rest of the Day, together with the right manner of Sanctifying of the Day, are briefly opened. BY THOMAS SHEPARD, Pastor of the Church of Christ at Cambridge in New-England. The fourth Part. LONDON, Printed for john Rothwell. 1650. The general Contents upon the Sanctification of the Sabbath. 1. THe word Sabbath what it signifies, Thesis' 1. 2. All weekly labour for the Rest of the Sabbath, Thesis' 2. 3. The Rest of the Sabbath, the means for a higher end, Thesis' 3. 4. As strict a Rest now required as was formerly among the jews, and those places cleared which seem contrary, Thesis' 4, 5. 5. What work forbidden on the Sabbath Day, Thesis' 10. 6. Servile work forbidden, and what is a servile work, Thesis. 11, 12. 7. The holiness required upon the Sabbath in five things, Thesis' 14. 8. A lamentation for profanation of the Sabbath. The Sanctification of the Sabbath. Thesis' 1. THe word Sabbath properly signifies, not common, but sacred or holy Rest. The Lord therefore enjoins this Rest from labour upon this day, not so much for the Rest sake, but because it is a Medium or means of that holiness which the Lord requires upon this day; otherwise the Sabbath is a day of idleness, not of holiness; our cattle can rest but a common rest from labour as well as we; and therefore its man's sin and shame, if he improve the day no better than the beasts that perish. Thesis' 2. And as the rest of the Day is for the holiness of it, so is all the labour of the Week for this holy rest; that as the end of all the labour of our lives is for our rest with Christ in Heaven, so also of the six days of every week for the holy Rest of the Sabbath, the twilight and dawning of Heaven. For the eighth Commandment which would not have us steal, commands us therefore to labour for our Families and comforts in all the seasons of labour. This fourth command therefore which not only permits but commands us to labour six days, must have another respect in commanding us to labour, and a higher end, which cannot be any thing else but with respect to the Sabbath; that as we are to watch unto prayer, so we are to work unto the Sabbath, or so work all the Week day that we may meet with God, and sanctify the Sabbath day. Thesis' 3. As therefore the holiness of the Sabbath is moral, because it is the end of the day; so is the Rest of the Sabbath (the immediate means to that end) moral also. Look therefore what ever holy duties the Lord required of the jews, which were not ceremonial, the same duties he requires of us upon this day; so what every Rest he required of them for this end, he exacts of all Christians also. Thesis' 4. Those that make the Sabbath ceremonial, imagine a stricter Rest imposed upon the jews than Christians are now bound unto; because they place the ceremonialnesse of the Sabbath in the strict Rest of it; but we are bound to the same Rest for substance of it; and the ground for a stricter rest than we are bound unto, will be found too light if well pondered. Thesis' 5. For though it be said that the jews might not bake, nor seeth meat upon this day, Exod. 16.23. no nor make a fire upon it, Ex. 35.3. no nor gather sticks upon it without Death. Numb. 6.15.30. (all which things Christians now, may lawfully do) yet none of these places will evince that for which they are alleged. Thesis' 6. For first it is not said, Exod. 16.23. bake and seethe that to day which may serve you next day: but, that which remains (viz. which is not sod nor baked) lay it up until the Morning, and consequently for the morrow of the next day, which being thus laid up, I do not find that they are forbidden to bake, or seeth that which remains upon the next day; but rather if they must use it the next day, they might then bake it or seeth it that day also, as they did that of the sixth day, and without which they could not have the comfortable use of it upon the Sabbath day: indeed it was as unlawful to grind and beat the Manna in Mills and Mortars, mentioned Numb. 11: 8. upon this day, as now to thrash and grind Corn this day; the meal therefore which did remain, is not forbidden to be baked or sod upon this day; nor would Gods special and miraculous providence appear in preserving it from worms and stinking, if there had been any b●king of it the day before, and not rather upon the Sabbath Day. Thesis' 7. Although also they were forbidden to kindle fire upon this lay, Exod. 35.3. in respect of some use, yet they are not forbidden so to do in respect of any use whatsoever. For there was fire kindled for the Sabbath sacrifices, and it would have been a breach of the rule of mercy, not to kindle a fire for the sick and weak in the wilderness. Nehemiah also a man most strict and zealous for the Sabbath, yet had such provision made every day as could not be dressed nor eaten without some fire upon the Sabbath day, Neh. 5.18. and the Sabbath not being a fast but a feast in those times as well as those, hence it's not unsuitable to the time to have comfortable provisions made ready, provided that the dressing of mea● be not an ordinary hindrance to public or private duties of holiness upon this day, Exod. 12.16. this kindling of the fire here forbidden must therefore be understood in respect of the scope of the place, viz. not to kindle a fire for any servile work, no not in respect of this particular use of it, viz. to further the building of the Sanctuary and Tabernacle, made mention of in this Chapter: for it's said whosoever shall do any work therein, (1. any servile work which is more proper for the week time) shall be put to death, verse 2. there is therefore either no dependence of these words in the third verse with those in the second, or else we must understand it of kindling fires restrictively, for any servile work which is there forbidden not only the jews but us Christians also: Thesis 8. The man that gathered sticks on the Sabbath, Numb. 15.30. was put to death; what for gathering of sticks only? why then did not the just God put them to death who were the first offenders (and therefore most fit to be made examples) who went out to gather Manna upon this day? Exod. 1●. This gathering of sticks therefore, though little in itself, yet seems to be aggravated by presumption; and that the man did presumptuously break the Sabbath, and therefore it's generally observed that this very example follows the Law of punishing a presumptuous transgressor with death in this very Chapter: and though it be said that they found a man gathering sticks, as if it were done secretly, and not presumptuously, yet we know that presumptuous sins may be committed secretly as well as openly, though they are not in so high a degree presumptuous as when they are done more openly: the fear of the Law against Sabbath breakers, might restrain the man from doing that openly, which before God was done proudly, and presumptuously; and though Moses doubted what to do with the man, who had that capital Law given him before against Sabbath breakers, yet they might be ignorant for a time of the full and true meaning of it, which the Lord here seems to expound, viz. that a Sabbath breaker sinning presumptuously is to be put to death: and although it be doubted whether such a Law is not too rigorous in these Times, yet we do see that where the Magistrate neglects to restrain from this sin, the Lord takes the Magistrates work into his own hand, and many times cuts them off suddenly who profane his Sabbath presumptuously: and 'tis worth enquiring into whether presumptuous Sabbath breakers are not still to be put to Death: which I doubt not but that the Lord will either one day clear up, or else discover some specialty in the application of this judicial Law to that Polity of the jews, as most fit for them, and not so universally fit for all others in Christian Commonwealths: but this latter I yet see no proof for: nor do I expect the clearing up of the other while the temper of the Times is loose and lukewarm. Thesis' 9 Considering therefore that some work may be done upon the Sabbath, and some not, and that man's heart is apt to run to extremes, either to gross profaneness or Pharisaical strictness; we are therefore to inquire, what works we must rest from, and what not from, upon the Sabbath Day. Thesis' 10. If the Scriptures may be judge herein, we shall find that when they forbid all manner of work, they interpret this of Servile Worke. The work forbidden in the annual Sabbaths, (which did but shadow out the rest on this Sabbath) it is servile work, Levit. 23.7, 8. and hence the rest on the Sabbath (in this fourth command) is opposed to the labour on the week days which is properly servile, lawful to be done then, but unlawful upon the Sabbath Day. Thesis' 11. The Schoolmen, and some of their late Idolisers (like the pharisees of old) over blind in interpreting the spiritualness of the Law of God, describe a servile work in that manner, so as that the grinding of water-mills and windmills, as also the counsels of Lawyers to their Clients, the Herring Trade of Fishermen, are with them no servile works on this day; and indeed they scarce make any work servile, but what is slavish and external bondage and burden. Thesis' 12. But if we consult with Scriptures and the very words of this fourth Commandment, we shall find two things concurring to make up a servile work. 1. If any work be done for any worldly gain profit, or livelihood to acquire and purchase the things of this life by; (which is the principal end of week day labour, Eph. 4.28. 1 Thes. 4.12.) this is a servile work, all one with what the Commandment calls Thy work: Hence buying, selling, sowing, reaping, which are done for worldly gain, are unlawful on this day, being therefore servile works: hence also worldly sports and pastimes (which are ordained of God to whet on worldly labour, not necessary every day but only at some seasons) are therefore most proper appurtenances unto days of labour, and are therefore unlawful upon this day: holy Times are no more to be sported on, then holy places; hence also on the other side, to rub the ears of Corn, to dress meat for comfortable nourishment of man, because they respect not worldly gain, are no servile works nor yet unlawful, but may be more lawfully done for the comfort of man then to lead his horse to the water this day, Luke 6.2. & 13.15 & 14.5. hence also such works as are done only for the preservation of the Creatures, as to pull a sheep out of a ditch, to quench fire in a Town, to save Corn and Hay from the sudden inundation of Water, to keep Fire in the Iron mills, to sit at stern and guide the ship, and a thousand such like actions (being not done properly for worldly gain) are not unlawful; God himself not ceasing from works of preservation, when he did from those of creation: hence also such works as are not works of immediate worship, but only required necessarily thereto, as killing the Sacrifices in the Temple, travelling a Sabbath day's journey to the public assemblies, being no servile works for outward gain, are not unlawful upon this day. 2. Such worldly works, which though they be not done for worldly gain or profit, yet if by a provident care and foresight they might be done as well the week before, or may as well be done a week after the Sabbath, these also are servile works: for thus the Commandment expresseth it, Six days thou mayst do all thy work, (meaning which can be done as well the week before) and if all cannot be done, it may therefore be as well done the week after. Hence the building of the Tabernacle (which was not so much for man's profit as God's honour) because it might be done upon the six days seasonably enough▪ hence it is prohibited upon the Sabbath day, Exod. 31. If a man hath Corn in the field, though he may pretend that the weather is uncertain, and it is ready to be brought into the Barn, yet he is not to fetch it in upon the Sabbath day, because there is no eminent danger of spoil the Monday after, and then he may fetch it in as well as upon that day: the like may be said concerning Sea mens setting sail upon the Sabbath day, though they be uncertain of a fair gale upon the day after. Yet we must trust God's providence, who almost in all such matters keeps us at uncertainties: hence also the sweeping of the house ought not to be done now, if it may as well be done the day before: so also to buy any things at shops, or to wash clothes; if they may be done the week before or after, they must not be done upon this day: hence on the other side works of necessity, which cannot be so conveniently don● the day before or after, are not unlawful upon this day, as to fly in persecution, to watch the City, to fight with the Enemy, Math. 24.24. 2 Kings 1.2. Hence also works of necessity, not only for preservation of life, but also for comfort and comeliness of life, are not unlawful: for 'tis a gross mistake to think that works only of absolute necessity are allowed only upon this day: for to lead an Ox to water, which in the strictest times was not disallowed of, is not of absolute necessity; for it may live more than a day without it; only its necessary for the comfort of the life of the beast: how much more is allowed to the comfort of the life of man? the Disciples possibly might have lived longer than the Sabbath without rubbing Corn ears, and men may live on Sabbath days generally without warm meat, yea ●hey may fast perhaps all that day; yet it is not unlawful to eat such meat, because its necessary for the comfort of life. Hence also to put on comely garments, to wash hands and face, and many such things as are necessary for the comeliness as well as the comfort of life, are not unlawful now: there is sometime an inevitable necessity by God's providence, and sometime a contracted necessity through want of care and foresight; in this case the work may sometime be done, provided that our neglect beforehand be repent of: in a word, he that shall conscientiously endeavour that no more work be done on the Sabbath then what must be done for the ends mentioned, that so he may have nothing else to do but to be with God that day, shall have much peace to his own conscience herein, against Satan's clamours: hence lastly, not only outward servile work, but servile thoughts, affections, and cares, are to be cast off this day from the sight of God, as others are from the eyes of men; servile thoughts and affections being as much against the fourth Commandment as unchaste and filthy thoughts against the seventh. Thesis' 13. That we are to abstain from all servile work, not so much in regard of the bare abstinence from work, but that having no work of our own to mind or do, we might be wholly taken up with God's work, being wholly taken off from our own, that he may speak with us, and reveal himself more fully and familiarly to us (as friends do when they get alone) having called and carried us out of the noise and crowd of all worldly occasions and things. Thesis' 14. Holy rest therefore being for holy work, it may not be amiss to inquire what this work is, and wherein it consists: for which end I shall not instance in any the particular several duties in public and private, of holiness and mercy, because this is to be found in all who write upon this subject: I shall only speak of that kind of holiness which the Lord requires in all public and private duties, and is to run thorough them, and as it were animate them; and in truth to find out this, and observe this, is one of the greatest difficulties (but yet the greatest excellency) of a Christian life. It consists therefore in these five things, Thesis' 15. The first; The Holiness upon this day ought to be immediate: I do not mean, without the use of public or private means, but in respect of worldly things: for we are commanded to be holy in all manner of conversation all the week in our worldly affairs, 1 Pet. 1.17. Holiness is to be writ upon our cups and pots, and hors-bridles, and ploughs, and sickles, Zach. 14.20.21. but this holiness is more immediate; we enjoy God by and in the creature, and in our weekly occasions and providences: but do we think that there is no more holiness required upon the Sabbath? verily every day than should be our Christian Sabbath, which is most false; and therefore some more immediate holiness is required now on this day which is not then, nor required of us every week day; and what can this be but drawing near to God this day more immediately, and as near as mortal man can do, and casting aside the world and getting out of it, and so to be near God in Prayer, in hearing the Word, in Meditation, & c? Psal. 95.5.6. if it were possible to be with and enjoy Christ in Heaven where there are no means we should this day long for it, and prise it; but because this cannot yet be, and that the Lord comes down from Heaven to us in his ordinances, and thereby makes himself as near to us as he can in this frail life; hence we are not only to draw near to Ordinances, but to God and Christ in them, upon this day, and so be as near them with greatest immediateness that we can, Psalm. 42.1, 2. Psalm. 63.1, 2, 3. Adam did enjoy God in his calling the week day, but this was not so immediate as he was to have upon the Sabbath day. Thesis' 16. The second is this holiness ought not only to be immediate, but also special, and in our endeavours after the highest degree, and with the greatest intention of holiness: for we are bound every day to be holy in more immediate and near approaches to God some time or other of the day; but now we are called to be more specially holy, because both the day and ourselves are now set apart for it in a more special manner: we are to love, fear, delight in God, and pray to him, and muse on him every day, but now in a more special manner all these are to be done; the Sabbath is not only called holy, but holiness to the Lord, Exod. 31.15. which shows that the day is exceeding holy, and suitably our affections and hearts ought therefore so to be: the Sacrifice on this day was to be doubled, Numb. 28.9. the Lord would have double honour from us this day: that as in the week time we are sinfully drowned in the cares of this world and affections thereto: so upon every Sabbath we should be in a holy manner drowned in the cares and thoughts and affections of the things of God; and hence we are commanded to call the Sabbath our delight, and not to think our own thoughts, or do our own works this day, Esay 58.13. David said Psalm 43.4. that he would go to the Altar of God (the place of public worship) to God his joy, yea his exceeding joy: so are we not only to draw near to Altar, Word, Sacraments, Prayer, but to God in them; nay to God in them as our exceeding joy, our exceeding love, our exceeding fear, etc. especially upon this day; there is scarce any week but we contract soil from our worldly occasions, and by touching worldly things; and we suffer many decays and lose much ground by temptations herein; now the Lord pitying us, and giving us a Sabbath of Recovery, what should we do now but return, recover, and renew our strength, and like the Eagle cast our bills, and stand before our God and King this day of State and Royal Majesty, when all his Saints compass● his Throne and presence, with our most beautiful Garments, mourning, especially that we fall so far short of Sabbath acts and services? we should not content ourselves with working-day holiness, joys, fears, hopes, prayers, praises: but Sabbath joys, fears, praises, must be now our ornaments, and all within us must be raised up to a higher strain: that as God gives us this day, special grace, means of grace, seasons of grace, special occasions of grace, by reviewing all our experiences the week past, so there is good reason that the Lord should be honoured with special holiness this day. Thesis' 17. The third is; This holiness ought to be not only immediate and special, but constant and continued, the whole day together. For upon every day of the week we are to take some time for converse with God; but our worldly occasion soon call us off, and that lawfully; but Sabbath holiness must be constant and continued all the day; if the Lord was so strict that he would not lose a moment's honour in a ceremonial day of rest, Leutt. 23. 3●. what shall we think the Lord expects upon this day which is moral? the Lord would not be honoured this day only by fits and flashes, and sudden pangs, which pass away as the early dew; but as 'tis in the Psalm for the Sabbath, It's good to sing of his loving kindness in the morning, and of his faithfulness every night, Psal. 92.1, 2. and though this be a wearisome thing to the flesh to be so long penned in, and although we cannot perfectly do it, yet it's a most sweet and glorious work in itself, to think that the infinite glorious God should call a poor sinful creature to be with him and attend upon him all the day long; to be ever with the Lord is best of all, but next to that to be with him a whole day together: they that see how fit they are to be for ever banished from the presence of the most High, and how exceeding unworthy to come into it, cannot but infinitely and excessively prise that love of Jesus Christ, this day to come and enter into his rest, and lie in his very bosom, all the day long, and as a most loving friend loath to part with them, till needs must, and that the day is done. Thesis' 18. The fourth is, This holiness ought not only to be immediate, special and constant, but all these holy duties are thus to be performed of us as that hereby we may enter into Rest; so as that our souls may find and feel the sweet of the true Rest of the Sabbath; and therefore it must be a sweet and quieting holiness also: for the Sabbath is not only called a Sabbath of Rest in respect of our exemption from bodily labour, but because it is so to be sanctified as that on this day we enter into Rest, or such a fruition of God as gives rest to our souls; otherwise we never sanctify a Sabbath aright, because we then fall short of this which is the main end thereof, until we come so to seek God as that we find him, and so find him as that we feel Rest in him, in drawing near to him and standing before him: that as God after his six day's labour did Rest and was refreshed in the fruition of himself, so should we after our six day's labour also, be refreshed in the presence of the Lord; That in case we want means upon the Sabbath, yet he may be in lieu of them unto us; and in case we have them and find but little by them conveyed to us, yet that by that little we may be carried on the wings of faith beyond all means unto that Rest which upon this day we may find in his bosom: that as Christ after his labours entered into his Rest, Heb 4. so we ought to labour after the same Sabbatisme begun here on earth, but perfected in Heaven; that after all the weary steps we tread, and sins and sorrows we find all the week, yet when the Sabbath comes we may say return unto thy Rest oh my soul. The end of all labour is rest; so the end of all our bodily and spiritual labour, whether on the weekdays of Sabbath day, it should be this Rest: and we should never think that we have reached the end of the day until we Taste the Rest of the Day: nor is this Rest a Meteor in the Air and a thing only to be wished for, but can never be found; but assuredly those who are wearied with their sins in the week and wants on the Sabbath, and feel a need of rest and refreshing, shall certainly have the blessing, viz. the Rest of these seasons of refreshing and rest, and the comforts of the Holy Ghost filling their hearts this day. Isa. 10.2, 3, 4. Isa. 56.5, 6, 7, 8. Isa. 58.13, 14. Psal. 36.7, 8. Not because of our holiness which is spotted at the best, but because of our great high Priests holiness, who hath it written upon his forehead to take away the iniquity of all our holy Offerings: Ex. 28.36.38. and who hath garments of grace, and blood to cover us and to present us spotless, before the face of that God whom we seek and serve with much weakness, and whom at last we shall find, when our short days work here is done, and our long looked for Sabbath of glory shall begin to dawn. Thesis' 19 Now when the Lord hath inclined us thus to Rest and sanctify his Sabbath, what should the last act of our holiness be but diffusive and communicative, viz. in doing our utmost that others under us or that have relation to us, that they sanctify the Sabbath also, according to the Lords express particular charge in the Commandment; Thou, thy Son, thy Daughter, thy Servants, the Stranger within thy Gates; the excellency of Christ's holiness consists in making us like himself in holiness; the excellency and glory of a Christians holiness is to endeavour to be like to the Lord Christ therein: our Children, Servants Strangers who are within our Gates, are apt to profane the Sabbath; we are therefore to improve our power over them for God, in restraining them from sin, and in constraining them (as far as we can) to the holy observance of the Rest of the Sabbath; lest God impute their sins to us who had power (as Eli in the like case) to restrain them and did not; and so our Families and Consciences be stained with their guilt and blood. Thesis' 20. And if superiors in Families are to see their Gates preserved unspotted from such provoking evils, can any think but that the same bond lies upon Superiors in Common Wealths, who are the Fathers of those great Families, whose subjects also are within their Gates and the power of their Jurisdictions? the Civil Magistrate though he hath no power to impose new Laws upon the Consciences of his subjects, yet he is bound to see that the Laws of God be kept by all his Subjects; provided always that herein he walk according to the Law and Rule of God, viz. that. 1. Ignorant Consciences in clear and momentous matters be first instructed. 2. Doubting Consciences have sufficient means of being resolved. 3. Bold and audacious Consciences be first forewarned: hence it is that though he hath no power to make Holy days and to impose the observation of them upon the Consciences of his subjects, (because these are his own Laws) yet he may and should see that the Sabbath Day (the Lords holy Day) that this he observed, because he doth but see to the execution of God's Commandment herein. By what Rule did Nehemiah not only forbid the breach of the Sabbath, but did also threaten bodily punishment upon the men of Tyre? (although they were Heathens, yet were they at this time within the Gates and compass of his Jurisdiction: Nehem. 13.21.) certainly he thought himself bound in conscience to see that the Sabbath should not be profaned by any that were within his Gates, according to this fourth Commandment. If Kings and Princes and civil Magistrates have nothing to do in matters of the first Table (and consequently must give any man liberty to Profane the Sabbath that pretends Conscience,) why then doth jeremy call upon Princes to see that it be not profaned, with promise of having their Crowns and Kingdoms preserved from wrath if thus they do, and with threatening the burning up and consuming of City and Kingdom if this they do not jeremy? 17.19.25.27. If civil Magistrates have nothing to do herein, they then have nothing to do to preserve their Crowns, Kingdoms, Sceptets, Subjects from fire and Blood and utter ruin: Nehemiah was no Type of Christ, nor were the Kings of Israel bound to see the Sabbath kept as Types of Christ, but as nursing Fathers of the Commonwealth, and because their own subjects were within their Gates and under their power; and therefore according to this moral Rule of the Commandment, they were bound not only to keep it themselves, but to see that all others did so also. 'Tis true, civil Magistrates may abuse their power, judge, amiss, and think that to be the command of God, which is not; but we must not therefore take away their power from them, because they may pervert it and abuse it; we must not deny that power they have for God, because they may pervert it and turn the edge of it against God: for if upon this ground the Magistrate hath no power over his Subjects in matters of the first Table, he may have also all his feathers pulled from him, and all his power taken from him in matters of the second Table; for we know that he may work strange changes there and pervert Justice, and Judgement exceedingly: we must not deny their power because they may turn it awry and hurt God's Church and people by it, but (as the Apostle exhorts, 1 Tim●. 1.2.) to pray for them the more, that under them we may live a peaceable life in all Godliness and Honesty: it's a thousand times better to suffer persecution for Righteousness sake and for a good Conscience, then to desire and plead for toleration of all Consciences, that so (by this cowardly device and lukewarm principle) our own may be untouched: it was never heard of until now of late that any of God's Prophets, Apostles, Martyrs, faithful Witnesses, etc. that they ever pleaded for liberty in error, but only for the Truth, which they preached and prayed for, and suffered for unto the death; and their sufferings for the truth with Zeal, Patience, Faith, Constancy, have done more good, than the way of universal toleration is like to do, which is purposely invented to avoid trouble. Truth hath ever spread by opposition and persecution; but error being a Child of Satan hath fled▪ by a zealous resisting of it. Sick and weak men are to be tendered much, but Lunatic and Frantic men are in best case when they are well fettered and bound: a weak Conscience is to be tendered, an humble Conscience tolerated; errors of weakness not wickedness are with all gentleness to be handled; the liberty given in the reign of Episcopacy for Sports and Pastimes, and May-games upon the Lord's Day, was once loathsome to all honest minds; bat now to allow a greater Liberty, to Buy, Sell, Blow, Cart, Thrash, Sport, upon the Sabbath day, to all those who pretend Conscience, or rather, that they have no Conscience of one day more than another, is to build up jericho, and Babel again, and to lay foundations of wrath to the Land, for God will certainly revenge the pollutions of his Sabbaths: if God be troubled in his Rest, no wonder if he disturbs our peace: some of the Ancients think that the Lord brought the flood of Waters upon the Sabbath day as they gather from Gen. 7.10. because they were grown to be great profaneness of the Sabbath; and we know that Prague was taken upon this day. The day of their sin, began all their sorrows which are continued to this day to the amazement of the World: when the time comes that the Lords precious Sabbaths are the days of God's Churches Rest, then shall come in the Church's peace, Psal. 102.13.14. The free grace of Christ must first begin herein with us, that we may find at last that Rest which this evil World is not yet like to see, unless it speedily love his Law more, and his Sabbaths better. I could therefore desire to conclude this doctrine of the Sabbath with tears, and I wish it might be matter of bitter lamentation to the mourners in Zion, everywhere to behold the universal profanation of these precious times and seasons of refreshing, toward which, through the abounding of iniquity, the love of many who once seemed zealous for them, is now grown cold: the Lord might have suffered poor, worthless, sorrowful man to have worn and wasted out all his days in this life in weariness, grief, and labour, and to have filled his days with nothing else but work, and minding of his own things, and bearing his own necessary cumbers and burdens here, and never have allowed him a day of rest until he came up to heaven at the end of his life; and thus to have done would have been infinite mercy and love, though he had made him grind the Mill only of his own occasions, & feel the whip and the lash only of his daily griefs and labours, until dark night came; but such is the overflowing and abundant love of a blessed God, that it cannot contain itself (as it were) so long a time from special fellowship with his people here in a strange land, and in an evil world, and therefore will have some special times of special fellowship and sweetest mutual embrace; and this time must not be a moment, an hour. a little, and then away again; but a whole day, that there may be time enough to have their fill of love in each others bosom before they part; this day must not be merely occasional at humane liberty and now and then, lest it be too seldom, and so strangeness grow between them; but the Lord (who exceeds and excels poor man in love) therefore to make all sure he sets and flxeth the day, and appoints the time, and how to meet, merely out of love, that weary man may enjoy his rest, his God, his love, his Heaven, as much and as often as may be here, in this life, until he come up to glory, to rest with God; and that because man cannot here enjoy his days of glory, he might therefore foretaste them in days of grace; and is this the requital, and all the thanks he hath for his heart-breaking love? to turn back sweet presence and fellowship, and love of God in them, to dispute away these days with scorn and contempt, to smoke them away with profaneness, and mad mirth, to Dream them away with Vanity, to Drink, to Swear, to Riot, to Whore, to Sport, to Play, to Card, to Dice, to put on their best Apparel that they may dishonour God with greater pomp and bravery, to talk of the World, to be later up that d●y than any other day of the Week, when their own Irons are in the fire, and yet to sleep Sermon, or scorn the Ministry, if it comes home to their Consciences; to tell Tales, and break Jests at home, or (at best) to talk of Foreign or Domestical news only to pass away the time, rather than to see God in his Works and warm their hearts thereby: to think God hath good measure given him, if they attend on him in the Foore●oone, although the Afternoon be given to the Devil, or sleep, or vanity, or foolish pastimes; to draw near to God in their bodies, when their Thoughts, and Hearts and Affections are gone a Hunting or Ravening after the World the Lord knows where, but far enough off from him: do you thus requite the Lord for this great love, oh foolish people and unwise? do you thus make the days of your rest and joy, the days of the Lords sorrow and trouble? do you thus weary the Lord when he gives rest unto you? was there ever such mercy shown, or can there be any greater love upon Earth, then for the Lord to call to a wicked sinful Creature, which deserves to be banished for ever out of his Presence, to come unto him, enter into his Rest, take his fill of love, and refresh itself in his Bosom in a special manner all this day? And therefore can there be a greater sin above ground committed out of Hell then thus to sin against this love? I do not think that the single breach of the Sabbath (as to sport or feast inordinately) is as great a sin as to murder a man (which some have cast out to the reproach of some zealous for the observation of the Sabbath day, truly the Lord knows) for I believe their milk sod over, if thus they said; but I speak of the Sabbath under this notion and respect, and as herein Gods great love appears to weary, sinful, restless man, as a day wherein all the treasures of his most rich and precious Love are set open; and in this respect let any man tell me what greater sin he can imagine, than sins against the greatest Love? The same sins which are committed upon other days in the Week are then provoking sins; but to commit these sins upon the Sabbath Day, is to double the evil of them: Drinking and Swearing, and Rioting, and vain Talking, etc. are sins on the weeke-day, but they are now but single sins; but these are such like sins on the Sabbath Day are double sins, because they are now not only sins against God's command, but also against God's Sabbaths too, which much aggravates them; and yet men mourn not for these sins; had the Lord never made known his Sabbaths to his Churches and People in these days, they might then have had some excuse for their sin; but now to profane them since God hath made them known to us; especially the English Nation and People to do it, upon whom the Lord hath shined out of Heaven with greater light and glory in this point of the Sabbath, above any other places and Churches in the World, what will they have to say for themselves, with what Fig-leaves will they hide this nakedness before the Tribunal of God? The Lord might have hid his Sabbaths from us and gone to another People, that would have been more thankful for them, and glad of them then we have been; and yet he hath been loath to leave us; and do we thus require the Lord? surely he hath no need of the best of us, or of our attendance upon him upon these days; it's only his pity, which seeing us wearied with sorrows and wearying ourselves in our sins, makes him call us back to a Weekly rest in his Bosom, who might have let us alone and tired out our hearts in our own folly and madness all our days; and do we thus requite the Lord? Certainly the time will come wherein we shall think (as once jerusalem did in the days of her affliction) of all our pleasant things we once had in the days of our prosperity; certainly men shall one day mourn for the loss of all their precious time, who misspend it now, and (above all times) for the loss of their precious pleasant Sabbath seasons of refreshing, which once they had given them to find rest and peace in; when ●he smoke of their tormenting everlasting burning shall ascend for ever and ever, wherein they shall have no rest day nor night; you shall remember and think then with tears trickling down your dry che●ks, of the Sabbaths▪ the pleasant Sabbaths that once you had, and shall never see one of those days of the Son of man more: you shall mourn then to see Abraham's bosom a far off, and thousand thousands at rest in it, where you also might have been as well as they if you had not despised the rest of God here in the bosom of his Sabbaths. You shall then mourn and wring your hands, and tear your hair, and stamp and grow mad, and yet weep to think that if you had had a heart to have spent that very time of the Sabbath in seeking God, in drawing near to God, in resting in God, which you dispend in idle Talk, and Idleness, in Rioting and Wantonness, in Sports and Foolishness upon this day, you had then been in Gods Eternal Rest in Heaven, and for ever blessed in God. It's said jerusalem remembered in the day of her affliction all her pleasant things, when the Enemy did mock at her Sabbaths; and so will you remember with sad hearts the loose of all your precious seasons of grace, especially then, when the Devils and Heathens and damned Out●asts, who never had the mercy to enjoy them, shall mo●k at thee for the loss of thy Sabbaths. Verily I cannot think that any men that ever tasted any sweetness in Christ or his Sabbath, and felt the unknown refresh of this sweet Rest, but that they will mourn for their cold affections to them and unfruitful spending of them before they die; otherwise never go about to blear men's eyes with Discourses and Invectives and Disputes against them, or with carnal Excuses for your licentious spending of them; for doubtless you taste not, and therefore know not what they are; and you will one day be found to be such as speak evil of the things you know not. Hear ye despisers and wonder, and perish; is the infinite Majesty and glory of God so vile in your eyes that you do not think him worthy of special attendance one day in a Week? doth he call you now to Rest in his Bosom, and will you now kick his Bowels, despise this Love, and spit in his Face? doth he call upon you to spend this day in holiness, and will you spend it in Mirth, and Sports and Pastimes and in all manner of licentiousness? Hast thou wearied God with thine iniquities, and thyself in thine iniquities all the week long (for which God might justly cut thee off from seeing any more Sabbath) and doth the Lord Jesus (instead of recompensing thee thus) call you back again to your resting place? and will you now weary the Lord again, that he cannot have rest or quiet for you one day in a Week? Oh that we could mourn for these things: And yet walk abroad the face of the whole earth at this day, and then say where shall you find almost God's Sabbaths exactly kept? viz. with meet preparation for them, delight in them, with wonderment and thankfulness to God after the enjoyment of them? all the world knows to whom the barbarous Turks do dedicate their fridays, the Jews also how they sanctify their saturdays, to the Lord jehovah indeed, but not unto the Lord their God. What account the Papists put upon the Sabbath's not only their writings (which levelly it with all other Holidays) but also their loose practice in sports and revel upon this day bear sufficient witness: and oh that we had no cause to wash off this spot with our tears from the beautiful and pleasant face of the glorious grace and peace, which once shined in the Germane Churches, by whose Graves we may stand weeping and say, this is your misery for this your provoking sin: Scotland knows best her own integrity, whose lights have been burning and shining long in their clearness in this particular. But England hath had the name, and worn this Garland of glory, wherewith the Lord hath crowned it above all other Churches. But how hath that little flock of slaughter, which hath wept for it, and preached, and printed, and done and suffered for it, been hated and persecuted? who have been the scorn and shame, and reproach of men, but a company of poor weaklings, for going out a few miles to hear a faithful, painful Preacher, from those idle Shepherds, who either could not feed them with knowledge and understanding at home or else would not do it through gross profaneness, or extreme idleness? And now, since God hath broken the yoke of their oppressors, and set his people at liberty to return to Zion and her solemn assemblies as in days of old, and hath given to them the desires of their hearts, that they may now be as holy on the Sabbath as they will, without any to reproach them, at least to countenance such reproaches of them: now I say when one would think the precious Sabbaths (which so many of God's servants in former time have brought down to this generation, swimming in their tears and prayers, and which many in these days have so much looked and longed for) that every eye should be looking up to Heaven with thankfulness for these, and that every heart should embrace God's Sabbaths with tears of joyfulness, and bid this dear and precious friend welcome, and lie and rest in their bosom; and so I doubt not but that England hath yet may a corner full of such precious Jewels, to whom God's Sabbaths are yet most precious and glorious, and who cannot easily forget such blessed seasons and means in them, whereby (if ever the Lord did good unto them) they have been so oft refreshed, and wherein they have so oft seen God, wherein they have so oft met with him, and he with them; but whose heart will it not make to relent and sigh, to hear of late a company (not of ignorant debauched persons, malignants, prelatical, and corrupt and carnal men) but of such who have many of them in former times given great hopes of some fear of God, and much love to God's Ordinances and Sabbaths; and now (what hurt the Sabbaths Ordinances of the Lord Jesus therein have done them, I know not, but) it would break one's heart to see what little care there is to sanctify the Sabbath, even by them who think in their judgements that the day is of God. What poor preparation for it, either in themselves or families! what little care to profit by it, or to instruct and catehize their families, and to bring them also it love with it! what, secret weariness and dead-heartedness (almost wholly unlamented) remains upon them! what earthly thoughts, what liberty in speech about any worldly matter, presently after the most warning Sermon is done! that the Lord Jesus hath scarce good carcases and outsides brought him which cannot but threaten more crows to pick them unless they repent: and yet this is not so sad as to see the looseness of men's judgements in this point of the Sabbath, whereby some think a Sabbath lawful, but not necessary (in respect of any command of God;) nay some think it superstition to observe a weekly Sabbath, which should be every day (as they imagine,) they have allegorized God's Sabbaths, and almost all God's Ordinances out of the world, and cast such pretended Antichristian filth and pollution upon them, that spiritual men must not now meddle with them; nay verily, all duties of the moral Law, and fruitful obedience and holy walking, and sanctification, graces, and humiliation, and such like, are the secret contempt of many, and the base drudgery for a ●ll-horse and legal Christian, rather than for one that is of an Evangelical frame; and herein Satan now appears with the ball at his foot, and seems to threaten in time to carry all before him, and to kick and carry Gods precious Sabbaths out of the world with him, and then farewell dear Lord Jesus with all thy sweet love and life, if Sabbaths be once taken from us by the blind and bold dispute of wretched men; authority as yet upholds them (which is no small mercy) and the savour of Christ's sweetness in them, and the external brightness of the beauty of them, do still remain on many with that strength and glory, that it is not good policy for the prince of darkness now to employ all his forces against the gates of the Sabbath: but the time hastens wherein the assault will be great and fierce, and I much fear that for the secret contempt of these things, the Lord in dreadful justice will strengthen delusions about this day to break forth and prosper; and then pray you poor Saints of God and hidden ones, that your flight may not be in the Winter, nor on the Sabbath day: but woe then to them that give su●k, woe then to the high Ministry that should have kept these gates, woe then to that loose and wanton generation rising up, who think such outward forms and observation of days to be too course and too low and mean a work for their ennobled spirits which are now raised higher and nearer God then to look much after Sabbaths or Ordinances, graces or duties, or any such outward forms; for I doubt not but if after all the light and glory shining in England concerning Gods Sabbaths, if yet they are not thereby become precious, but that the Lord will make them so by his plagues, if this sin once get head, God will burn up the whole world, and make himself-dreadful to all flesh, until he hath made unto himself a holy people, and a humble people, that shall love the dust, and take pleasure in the very stones of his house, and love the place where his Honour dwells, and long for the time wherein his presence and blessing shall appear and be poured out upon the Sabbath day. It's matter of the greatest mourning, that they above all other should trouble God's rest, wherein perhaps their souls have found so much rest, or might have done; that in these times, wherein the Lord Jesus was coming out to give unto his house his Ordinances, and unto his people his Sabbaths and days of rest every way, that now they above all others should offer to pull them out of his hand, tread them under foot, and hereby teach all the profane rout in the world to do the like with a quiet conscience, and without any check by their reasonings; that now when God is wasting the Land, and burning down its glory, for the sins against his Sabbaths, that just at this time, more than ever, they should rise up to pollute and profane this day. The Lord grant his poor people to see cause at last to mourn for this sin, that the rest of the Sabbath may be rest to their souls, especially in this weary hour of Temptation, which is shaking all things, and threatens yet greater troubles unto all flesh. The Lord Jesus certainly hath great blessings in his hand to pour out upon his people in giving them better days, and brighter and more beautiful Sabbaths, and glorious appearances; but I fear, and therefore I desire that this unwise and unthankful generation may not stand in their own way, lest the Lord make quick work, and give those things to a remnant to enjoy, which others had no hearts to prise. FINIS.