A Discourse Upon the Sabbath Day

The 7 ^th day Sabbath is not abolished.

THat with the more culler of truth they might abolish the Sabbath day, many have taken in hand (out of a sincere affection to their knowledge, as I verily persuade myself, yielding too much confidence to antiquity, and trust to the labors of our worthy forefathers in this point) to make one of God's ten and moral Commandments, namely the 4 ^th , to be partly Moral, partly Ceremonial; a thing at first hearing very strange, that of 10. only one should so far differ in kind from its fellows, when all were equally and a like delivered by the immediate and audible voice of God, and written all a like together by the finger of God in Tables of stone, which no ceremony was; Nay, which is worce yet, that not one whole commandment is said to be ceremonial, but only one piece of that one commandment is a ceremony: as if one of the links of this chain were partly gold, partly lead, whereas all the rest were pure gold, what were this but to suppose our God to plough in his field with an ox and an asse yoked together; & to sow it with seeds of diverse kinds; which kind of unequal mixtures God would not abide amongst his people, how much less would him self use it? as if God had wrote moralls & ceremonialls both vpō the same Table of stone, and twisted in one Commandment something perpetual, other something temporary; for they make the time in the 4 ^th Com: a ceremony, and Holines, a Moral; yea, the one individual Rest, is partly a moral, and in other parte of it a ceremony, oh monstrous, what a hotch potche have we here! what a mingle mangle, what a confusion & iumbling of things so far distant together, as when moralls and ceremonialls are supposed to be here mingled together: the one to last but for a time, the other to last forever: the one belonging only to the nation of the Jewe: the other belonging to all nations: and both of these though mingled in one single word, in the word Rest: was the like ever heard of? can the like instance be shown in all the 10. Commandments? and yet again contrary wise, what a rending and violent tearing in sunder such things in the Com: which God hath joined together, as to sunder the Sabbath, from the 7 ^th day; when God saith expressly, The 7 ^th day is the Sabbath, Exod. 20.10. and so inviolably linked them together: thus they imagine Moses to iumble things unskillfully together, and then come they and rend and slash them asunder again; if this be lawful, then which of the 10. Comm: may not suffer violence, laying out such parcels of them as disconceit us, and letting stand still what fancy us? and is not this with that wicked man, To change times and the Law, Dan. 7.25.

To come yet nearer, they endeauer to show the 4 ^th Com: is partly ceremonial, and that in two things: the one is as touching the Rest; the other is as touching the particular time of 7 ^th day: now least they should seem to hold only the 7 ^th day, which is the question, to be ceremonial, there is great labor used to find out something else in this Com: ceremonious too, & so the 7 ^th day should not stand nakedly alone for a ceremony, and to this purpose every text that may seem to savor of any exrraordenary strictness about the Jewish Rest, that and those texts are not expounded with a grain of salt, or dram of qualification, but stretched upon the tainterhoockes to the utmost: of these two things we will begin with the Rest, and see how they make it in parte ceremonious: A worthy and late wrighter (whose name I spare for honors sake) makes this rest, ceremonial in three things, the which he terms that rigourous and precise rest, prescribed to the Jews: these three things we will examine one after another, and having dispached these, we will also examine some other like texts, and if upon their examination, it be found, that God never required any such strict rigorousenesse of rest of the Jews, as is supposed, then is it but a forgery to say, the strictness of the Jewish rest was a ceremony, for how can it be a ceremony, which is not?

1. The first is, that the Jew might not on the Sabbath go forth, or take a journey any whither, for any business of his own, Exod. 16.29. this saith he was temporary, and doth not concern these times of the New Testament.

Heretoo I answer, This text forbiddeth only unnecessary iournying on the Sabbath, to provide that thing which God giveth him enough of, the day before, for because God had given them Manna on the 6 ^th day enough for two days, therefore God forbad them to travail for it forth the doors on the 7 ^th day: so here God forbade only needless and idle journeys on the Sabbath: and what rigorouse precise strictness then was here imposed upon the Jewe? is this such a hard intolerable burden as besemes only the showlders of a Jew, and not of a Christian, that a man should not travail vainly, and to no purpose on the Lord's Sabbath? 2. The Text is exceedingly wronged to say, it forbad a man to take a journey for any business of his own; for, it forbad him not to travail a few miles for himself in a case of necessity, since it only forbad him to travail in a case frivolous & idle. 3. If this text and law pertained only to the Jew and left us at liberty, then may we on our Lord's day and Sabbath now, take such frivolous journeys, which yet all sound divines condemn.

2. The 2 ^d thing wherein stood the rigor of the Jewish rest (as saith he) is that they might not kindle a fire on the Sabbath day, Exod. 35.3.

Hereto I answer, this text is set upon the tainters and stretched farther than need is, why should the same men qualify some texts about the rest of the Sabbath, with due limitations, and yet extend other some text about the same rest, beyond all limitation? for instance Exod. 20.10. In it thou shalt not do any work: which though it according to the letter forbiddeth generally any kind of work whatsoever, yet they do well expound it to be understood only of servile works forbidden, not of works of charity and necessity: But in this Text Exod. 35.3. ye shall kindle no fire; this canst needs be understood literally and generally, as if the Jew might in no case kindle any fire, without exception: I pray what differeth the Law Exod. 20.10. Thou shalt not do any work: from the Law here, Exod. 35.3. Thou shalt kindle no fire? is not that the general, and this this the special, is a limitation to be added to the genus, and none to the species? wherefor, by the same authority that they limit the words in 4 ^th Comm: thou shalt not do any work: that is, not any common unnecessary servile work; by the same authority may I limit this Com: Exod. 35.3. Thou shalt kindle no fire; that is, thou shalt kindle no fire to do unnecessary servile works withal, such as is of common brewars and bakers, to got their living by as on the 6. days, and such as was for the building of the Tabernacle, Exod. 35.3.4.5. &c. whereof there was no such necessary hast as that they should kindle fyers to work about it on the Sabbath: But think you that God who allowed the Jew to labor in case of necessity on the Sabbath day, to lead a beast to the water: to pluck and ruble ears of corn: to help a beast out the ditche; was so rigorous to him in another thing of like use, as not permit him to kindle a fire to warm his body, in the depth of winter when tis freezing could, or to dress a bite of warm meat for his dynner on the Sabbath, whereby he may be cheered up the cheerfully to attend upon God in his ordinances, in the after parte of the Sabbath? was God think you so careful for oxen, or was it not rather spoken for men, who are made after the image of God? and for whose sake the Sabbath it self was made, Mark. 2.27? To conclude, did not our blessed Savior in his time approve of fire making on the Sabbath (think you) or at least of as great works, and so of that, by like reason, when he vowchsafed his presence at a feast of the Jews on the Sabbath, Luk. 14.1.2.3.4.5.6.7. &c? where were many guests, now at a feast, and many guests, could not but be a fire to dress meat, or as great labor in dressing meat and tendance of the guests, as is the bare kindling of a fire.

3 The 3d thing is, that the Jew might carry no burdenes on the Sabbath day, Ierem. 17.21. Nehem. 13.15.

I answer 1. If this be a part of the rigorous precise and strict rest required only of the Jewe, why do all divines now a days press this rigorousnes upon Christians, forbidding us now to carry burdnes on the Sabbath day? if this was a ceremony and to ende with Christ, then we Christians may freely bear burdenes vpō backs of men, or beasts, or on cartes, now on our Lord's day, is not this goodly stuff? hereby you may have a taste what it is for worthy divines to captivate their judgments, to yield to much confidence to the labors of our forefathers if of Note, or to take points of divinity by tradition upon trust from others, for had this learned man used his own judgment in these points, he had never ouershot himself so far as to put down such things as these, so undigested. 2. In this text God forbad carrying of burdenes only as an unnecessary servile work, but he forbade not carrying burdnes in case of necessity, as a work of charity, for Christ allowed the sick man, to carry his bed on the Sabbath day, John. 5.8.9.10. now where then was God so rigorous and straight unto the Jewe, since he permitted them burdens bearing if and when necessity so required? and so we have examined these 3. things above mentioned.

4 A 4 ^th Text I may add, which I have often heard alleged for the former purpose, and tis written, Exod. 16.23. Bake that today which ye will bake, and seeth that which ye will seeth, and all that which remaineth, lay it up till the morning for you, &c. where (say they) here the Jews were commanded to dress all their meat on the Friday, the day before their Sabbath day, and by consequence they were forbidden to dress any on the Sabbath.

I answer 1. To this I oppose another Text Exod. 12.16. where the Lord forbade the Israelites to do any work, but with this exception, Save about that which every man must eat, that only may ye do: this text so plainly giving leave to dress such and so much meat on the day as a man should eat upon the day, gives me to think no other text should forbid the same: but hereto it will be said the Text Exod. 16.23. treats of the Moral Sabbath, but your Text Exod. 12.16. treats of the holy days of the passover. I answer, tis true, this text speaks of the first and of the 7 ^th days of the feast of unleavened bread only, but this must also be noted, that these festival days, had their holy convocations and assemblies, and wherein they were forbidden to do any work, as the text shows, just as on the Sabbath days, yea, these festival days were also called Sabbath days; and threatened with death also if they wrought on these days, Levite. 23.30.32. now, if God as strictly bound the Jew to rest on these festival Sabbaths which were annual, as on the moral Sabbath weekly, then look what liberty God gave upon one of these Sabbaths, we are to judge, I suppose that God gave the like liberty on the other Sabbath, the cases being a like, and the ceremonial Sabbath being as strictly to be rested in from all manner of servile works, as was the moral Sabbath.

2. I answer to the text directly: This Text in my thinking is wonderously mis-understood, they suppose that Moses lade the Israelites bake upon Friday both the two Omers gathered on that day, and then by these words, all that remaineth lay up &c. they understand all that remaineth of the 2. omers backed and vneaten, so as that which remained vneaten was backed: But first they err in supposing Moses bad them bake on the day before the Sabbath both these two omers which they had that day gathered, where as Moses left it free to their choice to back (as the text faith) what they would, more or less: Bake that which ye will bake, and seeth that which ye will seeth &c. and so tis most likely they baked that day about one omer of the two they had gathered, just as they did on the other 5. working days, they gathered every day one 〈2 pages missing〉 world, So then the Sabbath if it must last till heaven comes, it must then last to every particular saint, and believer so long as he lives on earth, & abides in the church militant, and it must last to the church generally, to this worlds end: and if so then I trust the Sabbath is no ceremony temporary, and abolished long since.

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

I answer 3. God's rest at the creation is not a type properly, as having relation to Christ incarnate but a similitude only, as shadowing out Heaven, and such similitudes are not ceremonious and temporary, but perpetual and eternal: for instance Heb. 4.10. He that is entered into his rest, hath ceased from his works () as God did from his: if then God's rest, because a similitude to be a ceremony and temporary, then also is the perfection in God a temporary ceremony, for tis made a similitude of our perfection, Mat. 5.48. ye shall therefore be perfect ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) as your heavenly father is perfect: see a like example Joh. 5, 21.

And these are the texts, which are usually brought to make the Rest of the 4 ^th Comm: in parte, eighther too strict and rigorous, or else typical, and so ceremonial; and so the 4 ^th Com: it self to be partly a ceremony; and all to this end, the better to make way for the down fall and utter ruin of God's 7 ^th day Sabbath; the which by God's Mercy they have not yet attained, but you see are frustrate of their purposes, & so I trust shall ever be hereafter: And now I come to the time of the Sabbath the 7 ^th day, which is the main of all, and against which they have bent all their forces: and if it fall so out they have no better success against this 7 ^th day Sabbath, then they have had against the Rest in the Sabbath, all their labor will be lost, as I trust in God it will appear at the last: what they say against the 7 ^th day Sabbath, I reduce to two heads, the former shall consist of texts of Scripture and artificial arguments; the latter of testimonies, and authorities of men: for their Texts of Scripture whereby they would prove the 7 ^th day Sabbath is abolished.

1. The first text shall be that of Isai. 66.23. from month to month, or from new Moon to new Moon, and from Sabbath to Sabbath, shall all flesh come to worship before me &c. whence it is collected by them, that the weekly 7 ^th day Sabbath was a sign, and that of the everlasting Sabbath in Heaven and therefore the ceremonial and temporary.

Hereto I answer 1. that this phrase of speech in this text is obscure and dark some to us, for what shall be meant by these words, from Month to Month: whereof are these a sign? now tis unmeet that so plain a text as is the 4 ^th Com: touching the Sabbath, which is deliured in plain and proper words should be contradicted and blotted out by another text, which is in Metaphoricale phrases, & of a doubtful sense. 2. if this Sabbath was a sign of heaven, it is so far from being a temporary ceremony, as rather it is perpetual Moral, to last till Heaven comes, as hath been said before, for the sign or shadow is to last until the body a substance be comne: or, admit this Sabbath a sign both of the whole time of the Church of the New Testament on earth, and also of the Church triumphant in heaven, as some would, why yet I hope the body of Heaven hath as much force to moralize the Sabbath, as hath the body of the new Church on earth, to ceremonialize and temporize it, yea more, by how much better but it is not worth our labor, to spend more words about this text, it having so little culler to anything in it for their purpose.

2. A 2 ^d text to prove the Sabbath a ceremony and so abolished is Numb. 28.9.10. where it was commanded the Israelites to offer two lambes for for a sacrifice on the Sabbath day.

Hereto I answer 1. why should the sacrificing of two lambes on the Sabbath, make the Sabbath a ceremony and abolished anymore then the sacrificing of one lamb every day for a daily burnt offering Numb. 28.4.6. make the working days of the week ceremonial and abolished. 2. Hath not the Moral works in the Sabbath, as Rest, and Holiness, and remembrance of God's Rest after creation, as much and more power over the time and day wherein they were done to moralize and eternize the Sabbath, as hath the sacrificing two lambes to ceremonize and temporize the Sabbath? or if sacrifices could abolish the time of the Sabbath, which was commanded, why did they not also abolish the duties in the time, as Rest and Holiness? 3. The Sabbath was a Sabbath in nature and institution before there was any sacrifices, for it was in time of Adams innocence before the fall, wherefor as the Apostle Gal. 3.17. reasoneth of the promise and of the Law, that the Law could not disanulle the promise to Abraham, which came 430. years after the promise; so say I Sacrifices cannot disanulle the Sabbath, since the Sabbath was before any Sacrifices; and since Sacrifices came after the Sabbath: as therefore the Sabbath had a being before sacrifices and ceremonies, so may it have its being after all sacrifices and ceremonies be abolished.

3. A 3 ^d Text is in Deuter. 5.15. where the Lord telleth the Israelites, He brought them out of Egypt, and therefore the Lord commanded them to keep the Sabbath: whence they would argue to this effect, since that the Sabbath is an effect of, or hath necessary dependence vpō their deliverance out of Egypt, it followeth if that deliverance out of Egypt be but ceremonial as a thing proper to the Jew; Then so is the Sabbath also.

I answer 1. The Sabbath may be said to be an effect or have dependence of another thing two ways: one, as touching its observation; the other, as touching its institution: now this deliverance out of Egypt, was not cause of the Sabbaths institution, for the Sabbath was before they ever went down into Egypt Genes. 2.3. neither was or could the deliverance out of Egypt be the sole cause, nor the chief cause of the Sabbaths institution, for God's own rest upon that day Genes. 2.3. was the chief cause; and next the Sabbath was made for man Mark. 2.27. that is for the ease and benifite of his body, and for the good and edification of his soul, in duties of holiness. But as touching the Sabbaths observation, the deliverance from Egypt might be a cause, and was and ought to be a motive to obedience in observance & keeping the Sabbath day, and so all blessings whatsoever should be motives to obedience, as Deut. 6.20.21.23.24. Deuter. 28.47.48. but what if these blessings fail, and God give others in room of them, shall our obedience and observance fail and vanishe? what and if we Christians have not that one particular blessing of deliverance from Egypt which the Jewe had, have we no many other blessings and deliverance to move us to obedience, as from that Armade in 88. from the Gunpowder plott, and I know not how many more. I conclude, that since the deliverance out of Egypt, was not the cause of the Sabbaths institution, but only of its after observation, therefore, though that deliverance was ceremonial, yet was not the Sabbath ceremonial. 2. I answer, if this motive of Israelites deliverance from Egypt, because not belonging to us Christians, therefore shows the Sabbath belongs not to us neither; Then may we by as good reason abolish not the Sabbath alone, but the whole moral law also; and then, as we will none of the Jews Sabbath to be ours, no more need we will the Jews God to be ours, commanded in the first Com: for the reason to induce to obedience and having the true God for their God, was this, I 〈2 pages missing〉 Law; as therefore when the Apostle saith Ephes. 2.15. Christ abrogated the Law of Commandments, we understand it only of the ceremonial law of commandments, not of the moral: So where here the Apostle takes away the difference of days, I understand him to abolish only ceremonial days, but not the Moral 7 ^th day Sabbath. I answer 3 ^d . if all difference of all days be abolished, why then keep we the Lord's day now for a Sabbath in a religious manner? if you say you keep it not as a ceremony or type & shadow of Christ to come, which was the reason of the Sabbaths abolition, but in other respects, as in remembrance of Christ already comne: why then by like reason may not the 7 ^th day Sabbath, be now kept by us, so be we lay aside that supposed typical shaddowish respect which it had of Christ to come? and we keeping it in other respects, as in remembrance of God's Rest on the same day after the work of creation, and as it is a day for the benefit of both our bodies for rest, and our souls for holiness?

Thus none of those former texts you see can prove that the 7 ^th day Sabbath was ever ceremonial, or yet abolished, but yet they have two texts more behind, wherein they put great confidence, and especially in the former of the two, and, if they fail in these two as I trust in God they shall, then are they quite gone, and forever to hold their peace, for speaking more against the Lord God's Sabbath.

6. The 6 ^th text is that Colos. 2.16.17. let no man condemn you in meat and drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new Moon, or of the Sabbath days, which are a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ: Loe (say they) here you have Sabbath days forbidden, the very point in question, & they are counted a shaddaw of Christ and therefore abolished.

I answer 1. as there is two Laws; a moral Law consisting of 10. Comm: all written by the finger of God, upon Tables of stone; and a ceremonial Law written by Moses and delivered to the people; so are there Sabbaths moral, that is such as God engraved upon the Tables of stone with other 9. precepts; and there are Sabbaths ceremonial, that is such as you find no mention of in the Decalogue, but such as you find recorded by Moses dispersed here & there in the 5. books of Moses, specially in Levite. 23.4. &c. to the end of the chapter: Now as when you read Heb. 7.12. Ephes. 2.15. If the priesthood be changed, then must there be a change of the law: you will not here permite any man to iumble confusedly together the law moral and Law ceremonial, and say both these laws are here changed, but you will distinguish of Laws, granting them the ceremonial Law to be meant here, but not the moral, so do I in answer to this text Col. 2.16. distinguish of Sabbaths, granting them here is meant only ceremonial Sabbaths, denying that here is meant the Moral Sabbath of 7 ^th day: That this distinction is good, and that by Sabbaths here is meant only ceremonial Sabbaths, do bear witness to me, even worthy divines of their own side, as, Greenham in his work upon the Sabbath day; and Perkins in his cases of conscience book 2. chapt. 16. Sect. 3. and Dod upon the 4 ^th Comm: pag. 133. and Elton upon the Colossians 2.16. and Ames in his Thesis touching the Sabbath. 2. That here is meant only ceremonial Sabbaths is plain by the context, and that by two reasons; the former, in that these Sabbaths are ranked with other things all which be ceremonies, as meats, and drinks, and new Moons, and holy days, so that all other things in this text which the Apostle abolisheth being ceremonies, it gives us cause to think the Sabbaths placed and joined with them be only ceremonial Sabbaths, as M. Dod well observeth upon the 4 ^th Com: the latter reason, is for that this 16 ^th verse is, as you may see by the word of inference Therefore a conclusion, whose premise you have in the 14 ^th verse, and here the Apostles discourse is on this wise: If the hand writing of ordinances (which is the Law, that commanded meats & drinks, and Holy days, new Moons & Sabbath days) be put out, and taken away; Then let no man condemn you in meats and drinks, in Holy days, new Moons or Sabbaths days: But the handwrighting of ordinances, is put out, and taken away: Therefore let no man condemn you in meats and drinks, in Holy days, new Moons, or Sabbath days: The minor you have v. 14. the conclusion in v. 16. Now for as much as it is a rule with Logicians, that there should not be more in the conclusion, then was in the premisses, Hence it followeth that if by the word Sabbaths in v. 16. you will understand the moral Sabbath of the 7 ^th day, then by handwrighting of ordinances in v. 14. you must understand at least that parte of the Moral Law, which is the 4 ^th Com: the which commanded that Sabbath: The which if you do, then you rune upon this absurdity, that you make the Apostle to abolish in this text a branch of moral Law, as the whole or at least a parte of the 4 ^th Com: and so whereas the Lord wrote upon the Table ten commandments Deut. 10.4. you make by this interpretation but nine commandments, or at most but nine and an half, or but nine and three quarters or there abouts; for ten complete, there is not I am sure.

Against my distinction they say, by Sabbaths, in this text of necessity must moral Sabbaths be meant, because under the name of Holy days, is comprised all ceremonial Sabbaths, so that then the word Sabbaths must mean the moral Sabbath: whereto I answer that I will lay you out for every word its proper day it signifies, and yet the moral Sabbath excepted: 1. by new Moons is meant only the first day of month Numb. 28.11. 2. Holy day is in the original, feast day, or a feast; or, in parte of a feast 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : now the Lord had commanded the Jews a feast of 7. days Levite. 23.34.39. of which feast, the first day, and also the last day were Sabbaths; now the days going between the first and last day, these were the parte of a feast, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and these the Apostle aimed at, by holy day: and then 3 ^d . and lastly by Sabbaths are meant those annual Sabbaths, which were on the first and last day of the Feast of 7. days: now least ye think this distinction and application but a conceipte, see Levite. 23.37.38. where the Lord himself distinguisheth twixt Feasts and Sabbaths: when he said, These are the Feasts &c. besides the Sabbaths &c. Or, if by Holy day, or Feast, you will understand all these 7. days, with the first and last days which were Sabbaths; then by the word Sabbaths in Col. 2.16. may be understood these Sabbaths Levite. 23.24.32. which were feasts but of one single day a piece, and eighther of them called Sabbaths, and these were the Sabbaths which Paul abolished: so you see, there is no necessity by Sabbaths, to understand the Moral Sabbath at all.

I answer 2. to the text Col. 2.16. that hereby we ought not to understand the Moral Sabbath, as if that were abolished, for this were to set Paul against Christ, the servant against his Lord; for Christ established the moral Law, and every iott and title of it to the worlds end Math. 5.18. now the 7 ^th day Sabbath was not less than a iott or title of the Law; and did Christ please to ratify it to the worlds end, and shall we make Paul with in a few years after to abolish it? what necessety is there of such large understanding of the word Sabbaths? is there any besides men's pleasures, so to have it, that they might throw down the sacred time of the Lord's Sabbath? Beware ye be not found fighters against God; and to side it with that branded wicked one in Dan. 7.25. who thought he might change times, and the law.

It is not to be passed by without observation that the Apostle condemns Sabbaths but indefinitely, he said not all Sabbaths generally, but Sabbaths indefinitely, as of some Sabbaths only: but say now that an indefinite axion may be conserved eighther generally or particularly, a • the matter, and circumstances of the place requireth, why show me now what occasion this context giveth you to understand here Sabbaths, of all Sabbaths moral and ceremonial, or of any but ceremonial: or if you have grownds so to do from some other text, I pray show the text or if from some reasons, I pray show the reasons, and let them be necessarily sound, and demonstratiuly true, for there is great cause it should be so, since by force thereof you will confront one of God's express commandments; you had need look you go on sure grownde when you attempt to altar any branch of those commandments which God himself took care to wright in Tables of stone: for my part, I trust it shall ever be my care to death, to maintain the inviolable and eternal Law of God, those is commandments and every iett and title of them, so as not to depart with any of them, nor suffer a title to be snatched from me by any light distinctions, or human unnecessary enlargement of the sense of words; I trust God will ever give me to make conscience of that Commandment Deut. 12.32. whatsoever I command you, take heed you do it: Thou shalt put nothing there to, nor take ought there from: if I must not take anything from the Law of God, then resolve I, not to consent to, or yield that the Lord's Sabbath should be rente from God's Law, upon every or any light conjecture, and probable argument.

I answer 3 ^d . if by Sabbaths here must be meant all Sabbaths, as well the Moral as the Ceremonial Sabbaths, then by like reason may I gather an abolition not only of the ceremonial Law, but also of the moral Law, for Ephes. 2.15. tis said, Christ hath abrogated the law of commandments: and Heb. 7.12. of necessety there must be a change of the Law: now why may not I by the word Law understand both moral and Ceremonial Law: as well as you by the word Sabbaths to understand the Moral and ceremonial Sabbaths? see therefore what absurdetyes would follow if it were lawful thus to extend words: but happily some think it no absurdity to say that Christ by his death abolished both Laws, the ceremonial and the moral: but if such thoughts and sayings be not blasphemous against the Law of God, I know not what are; if such collections be not of most perniciouse & dangerouse consequence in God's Church, I cannot tell what be: did not the same Christ whom they would make to abolish the moral Law, renounce this fact, and also contrariwise establish this moral Law Mat. 5.17.18. saying, I came not to destroy the Law &c. and then, until heaven and earth perish one iotte or title of this Law shall not pass? but they will say, it was reestablished again after by the in the 4 ^th Comm: and then you give liberty for men to exercise themselves in servile labors, at home in their families, and a part a broad in the fields in ploughing, dikeing, carteing, and the like; now these exercises do utterly abolish Holines. I do not say Holines absolutely, for a man may be holy in a calling, but I say it abolisheth a Sabbaths Holiness, which is, to be exercised in holy performances without labor, and a whole day, and in holy assemblies: but how can they be in the congregation, in the assembly together, who be every man at his own house severally, or in the field scatteredly at their labors? the same whereof is, that take away Sabbaths; and you take away Rest, which is signified by the word Sabbath: again, take away Rest, and you necessarily take away Holiness, that other duty also. And again, if you by this text of Col. 2.16. do abolish the very duties of the Sabbath, Rest, and Holines, as you do, have you not made fair work think you, by abolishing that which you call the morality of the Sabbath, ever Rest, and Holiness.

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

I answer 1. The Lord God doth not say expressly in this text, you shall not hereafter, as namely after the death of Christ, keep the Sabbath day anymore, because I have made it a sign now: no, but thus much is collected by human reason, because God made the Sabbath a sign: now I can but wonder how mortal man dareth by bare force of his blind & feeble reason thus to confront his God: God said in his 4 ^th Comm: (which he wrote above all Scripture by his own finger) Remember the Sabbath day, to sanctify it: The 7 ^th day is the Sabbath, in it thou shalt not work: Now the quite contrary to God, men now a days blush not by bare force of reason to anowche: Namly that the Sabbath day is abolished, and therefore not to be remembered anymore, nor to refrain servile work in it: yea, they contradict their Savior too, who said of the Moral Law, one iott or title of it should not pass to the worlds end Mat. 5.18. but they say yis, that one iott to wit the 7 ^th day Sabbath may pass &c. now choose you whither it be safer to leave the weight of your souls upon God's and Christ's express words, or upon men's force of reason by way of collections and consequentes: we have formerly shown how blind a thing man's reason is in matter of religion, and especially in the duties of the first Table which conserueth God, and that therefore Divines in other 〈2 pages missing〉 are signs, and yet in use still.

I answer 5. by distinguishing of signs, and that two ways: first there be signs of things present, as is the Sabbath Exod. 31.13. it is a sign &c. that I the Lord do sanctify you, here the sign & the thing signified are together in time: and there be signs of things to come, and such was the sign of circumcision, Genes. 17.11. which aimed at Christ to come: now though I grant that signs of things to come be abrogate, yet I deny that signs of things present be abrogate, & such are the Sabbaths mentioned, Exod. 31.13. a difference must be put twixt the signs of things present, and future, since that when a sign and thing signified futurly, do mete together in time, then the sign vanisheth; as when circumcision and Christ's death came together then the sign circumcision vanished; but tis other wise with a sign and the thing signified which ever were together, as was the Sabbath keeping, and God's sanctifying them; for, if presence of a sign, and thing signified then together had caused an abolition of the sign, why then the Sabbath day (because a sign of God's present sanctifications) had been abolished even then when Moses wrote these words Exod. 31.13. & if presence of the thing signified could not then abolish the Sabbath, why should it now, since God is ever the same to them that keep his Sabbaths then or now? he sanctified them, then he sanctifieth us now: there is no reason therefore that such as are signs of things present, as is the Sabbath Exod. 31.13. should be abolished. My 2 ^d distinction of signs is, that there be signs of things future as hath been shown Genes. 17.11. and signs of things past, as the Sabbath is made a sign of the creation and of God's Rest at the beginning of the world, which is a thing past, Exo. 31.16.17. keep the Sabbath &c. it is a sign between me and the children of Israel; for or that in 6. days the Lord made heaven &c. in the 7 ^th day he rested. The word (for) is and may be translated (that) as Deuter. 29.6. now though signs of things future vanish when the thing signed comes in place, yet is there no cause why we should think a sign should vanish, as the Sabbath day, whose thing signified is long since past, as God's Rest at the creation: why may not, the Sabbath day signify and commemorate God's Rest and Sabbath day at the creation, even to the worlds end, as well as in Moses his time? and why should we think the coming of Christ in the flesh should have more force to abolish the Sabbath day, if it had been a sign of Christ to come, then the work of creation, which is eternally to be remembered, hath force to perpetuate and eternalize the Sabbath, since that the Sabbath was a sign of its remembrance?

I confess, I hear them produce one Text to prove that all signs be abolished, and that is written in Colos. 2.16.17. where the Apostle seems to give a reason why meats and drinks, and Holy days, & Sabbath days are abolished, namely because they were shadows of things to come; whence they collect that all shadows be abolished; and all signs be shadows; ergo all signs be abolished. Here unto I answer 1. tis true that it is commonly taken that these things being shadows, were therefore abolished; but whither this be a necessary, or but a contingent truth, I will not now question. 2. Whereas they suppose all signs to be shadows, this is false: for, the word shadow, being but thrice (as I take it) used in the New Testament, as in this Text Col. 2.17. and Heb. 8.5. and Heb. 10.1. with reference to Christ; it ever signifieth a shadow of things to come: now a sign is used to signify, and sign out some time a thing past, as Rom. 4.11. some time a thing present, as Exod. 31.13. some time a thing future, as Genes. 17.8.11. now all signs then be not shadows, since some signify things past, some typify things present. 2. Shadows, still hane reference to Christ, Col. 2.17. which are a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ, so a shadow aims at Christ: but a sign often hath reference to God to Jehouah, as in Exod. 31.13. Isa. 38.7. Thus as a shadow and a sign differ in words, so you see they differ in use and application, & therefore they be not both one, as they would.

But when they see this proof thus will not hold, then they fetch about the bushe another way, laboring to make the word sign in Exod. 31.13. to be a sign of a thing future, and that of Christ too; and then they think this done, the word sign in this text, and the word shadow in Col. 2.17. will be both one, and so their propose become good again: To this end, they add these words, (By and through Christ) to the Text Exod. 31.13. and understand the text as if thus read, The Sabbath is a sign &c. that I the Lord do sanctify you; by and through Christ: and the reason of this addition, they say is because God doth all that he doth to his Church, by and through Christ, as in Eph. 1.3. Blessed be God, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in Christ.

Hereto I answer 1. admit that God did sanctify, by and through Christ: how will it follow and be soundly proved, that because God and Christ do sanctify man together, that therefore also what God made to be a sign of his work of sanctification, the same also must necessarily be a sign of Christ's work of sanctification? prove I say that it was God's pleasure to make the Sabbath here a sign of Christ, as well as a sign of himself: for though it was a sign by Christ, yet was it a sign of Christ: we must know signs are not applied to God or Christ naturally, but voluntarily, even according as it pleased the Author of those signs to appointe them, to one or more persons, to himself or to other.

I answer 2. if Christ's coworking with God, causeth that which is a sign of Christ; Then it follows too, that the Ministers of the Gospel, coeworking with God and Christ in the work of sanctification, that therefore if the Sabbath be a sign that God sanctifieth his people, the Sabbath must be a sign also, that we of the Ministry do sanctify God's people, and such an use of the Sabbath was never heard of before.

I answer 3. if they will conjoin any of the persons in the Trinity, with the work of God the Father in sanctifying us, it were most proper to join the Holy Ghost (and so Piscator upon Ezek. 20.12.20. applieth it) and say, God sanctifieth us by the Holy Ghost, rather than by Christ since sanctification is more properly attributed to the Holy Ghost than to Christ: for the Father createth, the Son redemeth, the Holy Ghost sanctifieth: But I will not stand upon this.

I come to the Text Eph. 1.3. God hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in Christ: if you understand these words so, as if whatsoever blessing the Church enjoyeth, Christ doth equally equally and a like with the Father dispense effectual and bestow it on the church, you misvnderstand them, doth not Piscator upon this text, that the word all must have a limitation? Justification is an act solely of God the Father, not of God the Redeemer, absolving and acquitting a penitent believing sinner: likewise Election is an act of God the Father, not of Christ the Re-Redeemer: Also the donation of the elect unto Christ Joh. 6.37. is of like nature: can it be said here, God the Father gave the elect unto Christ, in Christ, by Christ, or through Christ? whereby you see Christ is so far from effecting equally and a like all works with the Father, that some works he hath no hand or stroke in; and yet if they will have this text to make for them, they must prove by it, that not only Christ doth effect all works the which his Father effecteth, but also that Christ doth them, every way equally and a like as God the Father doth them; for, else how will it follow by like reason, that the Sabbath being a sign of God's sanctification, it must also be a sign of Christ's sanctification too, unless it be from this ground, that God his sanctification, and Christ his sanctification be both performed equally, and a like in all respects? but since the former cannot be proved, the latter can much less be proved: But there unto it may be said, though the general cannot be proved, yet the particular in question may, Heb. 10.10. where tis said, we be sanctified by the offering up of Jesus Christ &c. so that Christ doth sanctify as well as God the Father: Herevnto I answer, whither sanctification here importeth anymore then a washing us from the guiltiness of our sines, or not, I will not dispute: but let it go for granted that by sanctification here is meant that inherent new quality of Holines; yet it will not follow, that because Christ sanctifieth us, as well as God the Father sanctifieth us, therefore whatsoever is made a sign of God the Fathers sanctifying us, is necessarily must be a sign of Christ his sanctifying us to, so as if God made the Sabbath a sign of his sanctification, he must also make the Sabbath a sign of Christ's sanctification; how by force of our feeble reason we dare put such a necessity upon God, I cannot see: nay rather the contrary appears to me, that for so much as God's sanctifying us, and Christ's sanctifying us be far unlike each other, therefore they should not by force of reason obtain a like preuiledges and relations: to this purpose see how they differ, 1. God sanctifieth by virtue of his Godhead and Divinity; Christ sanctifieth by the offering of his body Heb. 10.10. now great is the difference twixt the Deity and the Humanity. 2. God the Father sanctifieth us of himself, & by himself originally; but Christ his death and sufferings, or Christ his body offered up, sanctifieth not of and by it self, but of; from, and by God, and by his blessing upon it: so you see there is not so strong reason that Christ should have the Sabbath made a sign of his work, as there is that God should have it made a sign of his: and so much of his answer, wherein you see they put me to much nedlesse business, by showing themselves too to busy with human reason, for as by bare force of reason without any precept they will erect and uphold new Sabbaths, as the Lord's day; so by mere force of their reason they will make new signs, or else will make those signs, to appertain to such persons (as to Christ) newly, the which God's word is deeply silent in, I can but wonder that discreet men who wool know the defects in our reason, dare there withal wade into the deeps of God, thus far: yea, I wonder the more, when I consider the ende thereof, which is to defeat God of his chosen sacred time for his worship, and to thwarte a moral precept.

I answer 5. admit that God doth all by Christ, and so ever did, and also admit the Sabbath was a sign of Christ's sanctification, no less then of God's, yet though I may truly and soundly distinguish of Christ's works and sanctification: some are ever present with the sign, some are future, whose sign goeth long before the thing signified: of Christ's present sanctification was the Sabbath a present sign, Exod. 3.13. keep ye my Sabbath for it is a sign &c. That I the Lord do sanctify you: where the sign and the thing signified are together: of Christ's future sanctification, you have the Sacraments of the old Testament circumcision and the Passover and also as they would those meats & drinks, and Holy days, and Sabbath days, which are a shadow or sign of things to come, Col. 2.16.17. where the signs and things signified are far distāt in time, & tone long before the other: Note farther, Christ may be said to sanctify virtually, or really; as I may say virtually, and as thus he is the lamb slain from the beginning of the world, the virtue of whose death did save the Patriarchs, so the virtue of Christ's incarnate may be said ever to sanctifye, as in days of Moses Exod. 31.13. and thus although I grant Christ did sanctify with God Exod. 31.13. and that (perhaps) also the Sabbath was a sign that Christ did then sanctify the people, yet this sign being present with the thing signified, could not be abolished by the presence of the body or thing signified, for if it could then had the Sabbath been abolished even in Moses days when he wrote thos words, Exod. 31.13. since the Sabbath which was the sign and sanctification, which was the the thing signified, were then both together present. 2. Christ may be said to sanctify really, and that is whilst he was God man, Incarnate, & thus he is considered of only as to come afterwards, as Col. 2.27. which are a shadow of things to come, that is of Christ to come then; and here I deny not but signs of things to come may be abrogate, but, yet here I deny that the Sabbath Exod. 31.13. was made any sign of anything to come afterwards; So then until they prove the Sabbath Exod. 31.13. was accounted and called by God a sign to come, of Christ's sanctification, they cannot prove it abolished: The Text saith not, The Sabbath shall be a sign &c. that I the Lord will hereafter sanctify thee: but it saith, The Sabbath is a sign &c. that I the Lord do sanctify thee: now we must not confound times, the present tense with the future tense, and so overthrow Grammar.

I answer 6. and lastly, I have cause to reject that which is their sum and scope out of this text Exod. 31.13. namely to prove this conclusion and assertion, That the Sabbath day is not abolished: it being brought in direct opposition to God's commandment Exod. 35.2. The 7 ^th day shall be unto you the Holy Sabbath &c. God said, the 7 ^th day shall be your Sabbath: and they say, The 7 ^th day shall not be your Sabbath: now I reject this, because these two are not of equal authorities: tone is an express plain infallible word of God; tother is but a collection by man liable to error in his collections; now if Paul so sleited men's contrary judgments of him; I pass not to be judged of man's judgment 1. Cor. 4.3. may not I sleite men's contrary judgments of God's Law? saying, I pass not what censure and collections men bring against God's Law? shall man's collections & conclusions bear equal authority with an express Commandment of a God? or countermaunde it? Never with me, I trust to God.

Finally, to give one answer that may serve for both those texts, the 6 ^th and the 7 ^th , where to I have last answered, that is to the text Colos. 2.16.17. and to the Text Exod. 31.13. say, I should grant them out of these two Texts even all which they desire to have, as namely that by Sabbaths in Colos. 2.16. is meant the Moral Sabbath of the 4 ^rd Com: and that it was reckoned for a shadow of Christ to come too: yea, let it be granted them that the Sabbaths Exod. 31.13. were signs & shadows of Christ to come, why yet it will not follow that these Moral Sabbaths of the 7 ^th day be abolished absolutely and altogether.

To this purpose note with me, The 7 ^th day Sabbath may be considered absolutely, or relatiuely and significatiuely; for instance, John the Baptist, was a man, there is his absolute nature; again he was the fore runner of Christ, there is his office and relative nature, where by he pointed out Christ for to come after him: now when Christ was already comne in Johns presence, so as John pointed to him, saying: Behold the Lamb of God, now forth with John lost, his relative nature, of being any longer Christ's forerunner, and to preach of Christ as to come, because Christ was already comne. Nevertheless John lost not but still retained his absolute nature of being a man, for he was a man still after Christ comne as well as before: An other instance, an Iuye bushe hung up at a vinteners house, it is an Iuy bushe: and also it is a sign of wyne to sell in that house; now take down the bushe, or pull down the house where the wyne was, and then the bushe ceaseth to be a sign any longer yet it remains to be an Iuy bushe still: Just so the Sabbath, it hath an absolute nature, as it is a Sabbath? and it hath a relative and significative nature as it is a sign of Christ, as they say: now be it at Christ's coming, the body & thing signified being comne and in presence, the sign or shadow then is to vanish, why be it so, let the relative and significative nature or quality of the Sabbath vanish as it was a sign of Christ, why yet it followeth not therefore the Sabbath as a Sabbath, in its absolute nature should also vanish: but you will 〈2 pages missing〉 diverse respects, if they kept it significatiuely, & we morally: Also Paul might abolish theirs as significative by Col. 2.16.17. and yet not medle with ours, no more then he abolished fasting by this text. We may not make an Image to worship, yet may we make an Image for ornament, and not violate the 2d Com: so you see respects do alter things not a litlle.

2. The Rock, was made a sign of Christ 1. Corin. 10.4. They drancke of the Rock that followed them, which rock was Christ: now when the Rock ceased to be a sign of Christ, yet it ceased not to be a Rock still, it lost but its significative nature only by the coming of Christ, and so the Sabbath lost but its significative nature neither: but your arguing is as if once a thing be abrogate in its significative nature, why so it must be also in its absolute nature, which you see is false.

3. Holy days, had a significative nature, being shadows of Christ to come, Col. 2.16.17. now at Christ's coming, in this respect they were abolished; and yet to this day in other respects we retain Holy days, for we keep Pentecost or whitsuntide now still to this day: if therefore we may retain a Jewish Feast day as Pentecost, notwithstanding it had a significative nature, and notwithstanding that Paul expressly forbad it Col. 2.16.17. why may we not by like reason retain the Jewish 7 ^th day Sabbath, though it had been significative, and though Paul in that respect had forbad it Col. 2.16.17. if we yield not this, our own practice in still keeping Pentecost day will condemn us: Moreover, you know all difference of days was taken away, Rom. 14.5. and Gal. 4.10. namely, as shadows of Christ, or as Heathenishe superstition; Nevertheless to this day we observe difference of days in other respects; in a moral regard, for we keep fast days solemnly; and we keep the Lord's day every Sunday, so as our own practice telleth us a day abolish in someone regard is not forth with therefore abolished in all respects absolutely, by those texts which speak against them.

4. David, a sign, shadow, or type of Christ to come Ps. 2. Ps. 118.22.24. he had a relative or significative nature as he was a King, so as his Kingly office was a type of Christ's Kingly office; why yet when Christ the body came, all Kingly offices did not cease, for we retain them to this day: The High Priest, he was a type of Christ, now that very High Priest who lived before and after, and at Christ's passion, so soon as Christ had finished all upon the cross, that High Priest lost his typical nature, he was no longer High Priest or type of Christ, yet he ceased not to be a man still, or a Servant of God and the like.

5. Circumcision it was a sign Genes. 17.11, Rom. 4.11. now those infants that were borne, and circumcised a little before Christ's passion, the cutting of their foreskine was a sign of Christ to come, until Christ had suffered upon the cross, and no sooner had Christ suffered but their circumcision ceased to be any sign of Christ to come, and yet for all that their circumcision ceased not then also, for they remained ever after with the foreskine cut of: yea, and it is not to be passed by without observation, that though there was a means by the art of chirurgry to draw on the foreskine again, and so to nullify and vncircumcise themselves, yet Paul would not have them take away their circumcision, see 1. Cor. 7.18. if then it had been necessary that at Christ's passion, all things that had formerly been made signs, should then have been abolished amongst Christians, why then would not Paul have given way to these Christians newly called, to have gathered their uncircumcision, or undone their circumcision, and taken away the scar? so you see the incision or scar might and and did remain, though the sign annexed to it was abolished: By all which examples it is more then manifest that though they could prove the Sabbath day a sign, or a shadow, yet it cannot follow that therefore it must be utterly and absolutely abolished in all respects, by those two texts Col. 2.16.17. Exod. 31.13. nor will it follow necessarily, that ought in a Sabbath is abolished, save its typicalnesse and significative nature only.

Thus you see all their texts fully as I trust answered, so as they have no ground in God's Book for abolishing of God's Sabbath; and to conclude, I can but wonder what should set wise and religious men on work, thus to sharpen their wits against the Lord's Sabbath, it being a branch of that inviolable & eternal Law of God, wrote in Tables of stone, to notify its perpetuity: they having no plain and direct Text of Scripture necessarily abolishing it, it can be nothing then, but their bare willes and pleasures to have it abolished, and this grounded upon the custom of the church, because she hath abolished it, now a long time.

They have not thus done with it though for they have also certain reasons & arguments more, which we now come to my mind against the time and day; where by they would prove the Sabbath day abolished.

The first is taken from Christ himself: Say some men, why Christ himself abolished the Sabbath day, and that even in his own time whilst he was upon the earth, for, He gave leave to work upon the Sabbath; as to lead beasts to water, to toile about lifting a beast out of a ditche; yea himself made clay on the Sabbath, to open the eyes of the blind man, in so much as the Pharisees taxed him for a breaker of the Sabbath, and for a godless man for it, saying, This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the Sabbath day John. 9.16.14.

Hereto I answer 1. what matters it, what those superstitious Pharisees censured of Christ, who were the blind leaders of the blind, and of envy could not endure Christ should do anything but they would carpe and cavil at it if possibly they could: though here they would not endure Christ so much as to cure a blind man on the Sabbath, yet it appeareth it was but envy & but superstition in them, for Christ approved his own fact of healing on the Sabbath day, by a common practice among the Jews themselves at that day, of the like saying: what man among you, if his sheep fall on the Sabbath, into a pit, doth not take it, and lift it out? Mat. 12.10.11. yea it appeareth the Pharisees and Doctoures of the Law, even under the Law, allowed other men (though not Christ, nor his Disciples) to do works of charity and necessity on the Sabbath, as to lift a sheep out of the ditch: and for the Priest to kill the Sacrifices on the Sabbath, Matt. 12.5.11. I answer 2. let not us attend to the Scribes and Pharisees censures, but hearken we to Christ the true expounder & observer of the Law, now he allowed works of mercy and works of necessity to be done on the Sabbath day, as those instances afore mentioned do prove: but for any to suppose Christ meant hereby to abolish the Sabbath, is a simple conceipte, for Christ saith of the Moral Law, whereof the Sabbath day is a branch, He came not to destroy the Law but to fulfill it, Mat. 5.17. But suppose the Sabbath had been a branch of the ceremonial Law, why yet tis absurd to think that Christ would abrogate anything of it so long as he lived, for the ceremonial Law was equally in force with the Moral Law until Christ's death: So then these things did not argue any abolition of the Sabbath day then, but rather gives us to understand how we Christians are to keep the Lord's Sabbath to the worlds end, not in any superstitious strictness as if we might not on that day do works of mercy and necessity, but the contrary; for if Christ allowed it to the Jews, even before his death whilst no man doubts but all Laws moral & ceremonial were in force; why should we think but that he allowed as much liberty to Christians to the worlds end?

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

I answer first to the former; Say I should grant that Christ the Lord of the Sabbath may or might change the Sabbath, whats that to our question? we dispute not of what Christ may or might do, but what Christ did do? I answer to the latter; that neither the context, nor yet the phrase, of Christ being Lord of the Sabbath; will afford any such matter: see the absurdity of such collections from a like phrase, Rom. 14.9. Christ died, and rose again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living: can any hence collect, that because Christ is called Lord of the living? that therefore Christ might or did abolish or destroy the living? 2. to suppose Christ here did abolish the Sabbath day as a ceremony, is altogether growndlesse, for both at this time when Christ spake these words, all ceremonies were in full force; and also so they remained ever after, until the day of his death and passion; for not until then was the handwriting of ordinances taken out of the way Col. 2.14. nor until his death, did Christ ever abolish any ordinance formerly in use in the Jewish church: To conclude, no more can be gathered out of this text Mat, 12.8. but the right use of the Sabbath; Christ freeing it from the superstitions of the Pharisees, who held that no work might be done in no case upon the Sabbath day, but Christ shown that in a case of necessity his Disciples might pluck and rubb a few ears of corn, to satisfy present hunger; & Christ did bear them out in it, allowing a dispensation in such a ease; for, as he was Lord of all the commandments, as touching his Godhead; so of the Sabbath day also, and therefore he might dispense with that law, and that day; or rather, he might therefore be betrusted to have given the true sense and exposition of the commandment, and to have shown them the right use of a Sabbath day: as if he had thus said, since I am Lord of the Sabbath, do not you Pharisees think that I will give way no not to my Disciples to do any unlawful fact on this day, nor suffer them to profane this sacred time, for it is mine, I am Lord of it, if therefore their plucking ears of corn had been blame worthy, you should have found me so far from defending them, as I would have been the first that would have rebuked them for it; but herein I see they have done no more then I do allow them to do: the Lord of a corn field will allow his servants, to make a footpath through his corn, in case of a necessity.

3. A 3 ^d reason is, because all things are become new, now in the Kingdom of Christ 2. Cor. 5.17. and therefore the old Sabbath is abolished, say they.

Where unto I answer 1. if all things be become new, now in Christ's Kingdom, I pray show me then where you have a new commandment for the 8 ^th day, or first day of the week, or for the Lord's day, in stead of the old 4 ^th commandment for the 7 ^th day, or Sabbath day: and where the Israelites were commanded in the first comm: to serve the true God only; show me where now we are commanded to serve any new God. 2. If all things be now become new, why then did S. John say, that he wrote not a new commandment to the elect Lady, but that which they had from the beginning, 2. John. 5. to conclude, the Text 2. Corin. 5.17. is ignorantly wrested to a sense it never meant; fought the Apostle treats not of new laws and ordinances, but of new obedience, and of regeneration; that a man in Christ is not an old man, but a new man in conversation: therefore saith the Apostle, if any be in Christ, he is a new creature &c.

4. A 4 ^th reason is to this effect: That which is changed is abolished; but the 7 ^th day Sabbath is changed, wherefor the 4 ^th day Sabbath is abolished: That the 7 ^th day Sabbath is changed: they prove by the standing still of the Sun in Jos huahs time, Josh. 10.13. where tis said, the Sun abode in the midst of Heaven, and went not down of a whole day; whence they gather, that here time was changed, and if time was changed, then so was the 7 ^th day changed which was a parte of time.

I answer 1. A man may judge of the soundness of this argument, by a like absurdity that will by as good reason be thence concluded, for if the standing still of the Sun in Joshua's time, could make, that time was changed and the Sabbath day, then the same standing still of the Sun then did make that time was changed, and the Sabbath day too, even then at that present in Joshua's time, when the Sun stood still; and if then changed, so then abolished; and so there was no Sabbath in God's church never after Joshua's days: yea, if times formerly appointed in the Law were now changed by standing still of the Sun, how did the Jews ever after to know which was the 14 ^th day of the month for the Passover? and the 50 ^th day for Pentecoste?

I answer 2. that it doth not follow that the Sun standing still, time is changed; but admit it were, and that the time being changed, the 7 ^th day Sabbath is changed, as a parte of time, yet is it not changed in such respect as God commanded it, and as I urge it: Note therefore a day may be considered as a certain duration and space of time, consisting of so many hours: or, and that more properly for the Light, as Genes. 1.5. God called the Light, Day: Now be it the 7 ^th day Sabbath was changed, considered as a parte of time, yet was it not changed by the standing still of the Sun, as a Light; for though standing still of the Sun made that day a longer day (as in Summer you have a longer day then in Winter) yet not another day: there was no change of light or day: & for all the standing still of the Sun, made one day a longer day, yet did it not make the 3 ^d day or the 7 ^th day and light, to be the 4 ^th day or the 8 ^th day & light: nor did it transplace the 7 ^th day or light, so out of its order, as that no man could ever after know which was the 6 ^th , which was the 7 ^th , or which was the 8 ^th day or light that the Sun made to the world. Now this is the day which God commandeth in 4 ^th Comm: and which I urge here, namely the time of Light; as for a day in respect of so many hours, God in wisdom hath said nothing of that, least his 4 ^th Comm: should not be general and extend to all nations who everyone have their day & light, but no certain number of hours, such a day is ever, and in all countries variable, some where consisting of more, some where of fewer hours.

5. A 5 ^th reason, may fetch its ground from my answer to the reason last above, where by Day I understood only the time of Light, and not a certain space and duration of hours, whence they may and commonly do reason against the Jews Sabbath by an absurdity thus; if all nations be bound to the Jews Sabbath day (which you say is all the time of light) then in some partes of the world where is half a year light together, there they must keep half a year Sabbath, & then also more inconvenience, for that they are to have a Sabbath, but once in the space of 3. years and an half, that is every 7 ^th half year, now in so long space for people to want God's ordinance of preaching, many a soul may perish for want of God's Word in the mean time.

I answer 1. to this latter inconvenience, what though they had no Sabbath for 3. years and an half together, no soul needs perish for lack of God's Word preached, for they may have sermons in mean space as many as they please; since there is a Comm: To preach the word in season and out of season, at all times and occasions: I answer 2. to the former absurdity, of keeping a Sabbath half a year together; I marvel why it should be thought more absurd for those nations to keep one in 3. years and an half, half a year for a Sabbath, then it was for the Jews once in 7. years (by God's express commandment) to keep an whole year for a Sabbath, Levite. 25.4. I answer 3. suppose it were absurd for those nations to keep half a year for a Sabbath, and the Church of God did judge it so, & that present necessity did call for a more frequent Sabbath, as once in 7. twenty four hours, in such a case of necessity, it being foud there is a true necessity upon sound judgment, and upon weighty consultation and deliberation, then I doubt not but God would dispense; and we have some examples to countenance the matter, as Circumcision though commanded, yet omitted during the time of Israelites travailing through the wilderness, Josh. 5.5. and the Passover commanded to be eaten on the 14 ^th day of the first Month, yet in case of necessity, a man being on a far journey he might eat it on the 14 ^th day of the second Month, Numb. 9.1.3.10.11. thus in cases of urgent necessity, God hath dispensed, and I doubt not but in like cases God would do the like again. But whats this to us in our countries where we have intercourse of day and night much what as had the Jews? say it were absurd or impossible to thes countries, so as the 4 ^th Com: cannot properly be extended to those so, but they must have a dispensation touching the word day, to take it in an improper sense, would this free us from obedience to the 4 ^th Com: in its proper sense, who have no need at all to depart from it, or to seek for any dispensation? what though David in his hunger and necessity did eat the shewbreade, Mat. 12.3. was it therefore lawful for all Israelites upon that to eat the shewbreade, who were not in like need or hunger? and what though the 5 ^th Com: of honor thy Father, doth not bind a King whose parents be dead, doth it not therefore bind a subject whose Father is still living? and so what if 4 ^th Comm: did not bind that country, where they have not night a day so successively and commodiously in short time following eache other, to a day light; doth it not therefore bind us, who have not the like case?

And thus you have seen their artificial reasons, against the time and day of the Sabbath answered, now it remaineth that we answer to their inartificiall reasons and testimonies; the which are fetched from the Primitive Churchs.

1. The first Testimony and Authority they produce against the 7 ^th day Sabbath, is that of Ignatius in his Epistle to the Magnesianes, saith he: Let not us keep Sabbath, in a Jewish sort, rejoicing in idleness, for who so doth not work, let not him eat, as saith the Scripture: where Ignatius would have them not Sabbatize, but work rather on that day.

I answer, let the words be well weighed, and they make nothing at all against the Sabbath; to this end note, a little before he had dehorted the Magnesians that they would not suffer themselves to be seduced or deceived with other doctrines, nor with fables, nor with genealogies, nor with Jewish smoke: thus in general: next, he descends to particulares, & first he inueighes against the Judicial Law, and Circumcision &c. and this done, next he brings in the words citod above, Let not us keep Sabbath &c. now it is to be noted unto which of those generalles above said, from which Ignatius dehorted the Magnesians, these words have relation: for my part I must think, they have reference to those words (fables, and Jewish smoke:) as if he had joined them thus; Suffer not yourselves to be seduced with fables, nor Jewish smoke, or vanity, but cleave unto Christ, and let not us keep Sabbath as do the Jews &c. thus he counted their Sabbatizing, such as it was there, no cleaning to Christ, but a vain Judicial vanity: now that this relation must stand thus I prove. 1. Because he spake of other doctrines, and of fables: now its fitest to refer Circumcision to Doctrines, because it was a Drctrine once; and to refer those things he dehortes from on the Sabbath, as idleness, and daunceinges, to the words fables, and Jewish smoke. 2. Because he dehorted them from observance of the Judaical Law; now those fables & Jewish vanities of idleness and daunceinges on the Sabbath, were never any ceremonial Law, and therefore cannot be referred to that, forespoken of the Law. Now if Ignatius in this passage did not dehorte from anything written in the Law, touching the Sabbath, but from other fables and traditions of their own, then Ignatius did not dissuade from keeping the Sabbath, as it is commanded in the Law of 4 ^th Com: but from keeping of it according to their fabulouse and vain manner: let these two things therefore be noted: 1. that Ignatius did dehorte from things never commanded the Jews in the Moral Law: 2. That the things he did dissuade from they were fabulouse and vain things: as from eating meats dressed the day before; and from drinking lukewarm drinks, (what he means by lukewarm drinks 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 I cannot imagine, I never read of any such drinks forbidden in the Law) and from rejoicing in dauncinges, and uncivil howtings or clapping of hands in the Sabbath day, and other like he dissuades from; which things are merely Jewish fables and never found in God's Law, wherefor I conclude, that Ignatius did not forbid an holy keeping of the Sabbath day, such as stood with the Law of God, but he only forbad that carnal and superstitious keeping of it fore mentioned, such as was never commanded by any law. That this is so, yet more plainly appears, in that 1. in this very place and text, He doth exhort the Magnesians to keep the Sabbath Spiritually, in meditation of God's Law, and in admiration of the works of God. 2. In that Iguatius doth not dissuade from keeping the Sabbath simply, but after a sort and in some manner: He saith not, Let not us keep Sabbath: but thus, Let not us keep Sabbath, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 after a Jewish sort, and fashion, as rejoicing in idleness 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : so you see it is a carnal sensual rest from labors, that this good man inuaigheth against.

Only one thing in his disuasion would be cleared, which is that he addeth these words; Who so doth not labor, let not him eat &c. these words are not to be taken simply, as if he would they should work in their ordenary callings on the Sabbath day, for so we make him contrary to himself, who exhorted them to keep the Sabbath day Spiritually, by meditation of God's Law, and God's works: now to work, and to rest from work (which the word Sabbatizing signifieth) are contraries: besides, how can a man so meditate on God's Law, and the works of God, as in a Sabbath one should, whilst the boby is in unquiet labor? yea, in many callings, men's works are such as they cannot at all both do their works, and also meditate God's Law, as in the trades of grocers, and other retailing shopkeepers who sell by little parcelles, and are ever in bargayning: so scriueners who are ever writing; and the like trades which occupy the mind; specially if they kept market on Sabbath day as we do, how could their minds in the market be occupied about God's Laws? and it is to be noted Ignatius did not oppose Spiritual Sabbatizing, or Resting to Sabbatizing or Resting simply, but thus he opposed Spiritual Sabbatizing, to Judicial Sabbatizing fabulously, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : wherefor to salve all seeming contradiction a fit sense may be givē of the words, taking them to be comparatively spoken, as that they should rather work on the Sabbath in an honest calling then so fabulously, carnally, and irreligiously, to spend the Sabbath in daunceing, and vnciuile showting, and the like; and here it seems to me he alludeth to the like manner of speech in Isa. 1.13. I cannot suffer (saith the Lord) your new Moons, nor Sabbaths, my soul hateth your appointed Feasts &c. now here God did not simply forbid Sabbaths, but that irreligiouse, profane, judicial keeping of Sabbaths. Thus you see Ignatius his words, makes nothing against the Sabbath, being well considered of, but rather 〈2 pages missing〉 nesse of the abolishing of this Sabbath, because these had their hands in it, then I should have done, if I never had heard that they had any hand in it.

Thus you see, neither their texts alleged out of Scripture, nor yet their reasons, nor their testimonies can prove the Rest in the Lord's Sabbath day, to be partly ceremonial; nor yet the time and 7 ^th day to be abrogated: So then in the last place I address myself to give some possitiue reasons to show that the 7 ^th day Sabbath is still in force, even to this day, and so consequently must be to the worlds end.

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

IN the first place I would free the Sabbath day from a prejudicate opinion, arising in minds of men from calling it, the Jews Sabbath day: Touching which name, were it used in a good or in an indifference sense I should say nothing, but since I find it so termed in a reproachful sense, to rescue it herefro, I would fain know a reason why the Sabbath day, commanded in the 4 ^th Com: should rather be called the Jews Sabbath day, then the Lord our God, whom we are commanded to worship in the first Com: should be called, the Jews Lord God? I can see no reason but that the one may be so called as well as the other; Nor any reason but if we may call the Jews God, our God; so we may call the Jewish Sabbath day, our Sabbath day: and if we do not call it our Sabbath day, because we keep it not the faute is only in our selves: wherefor to avoid all difference about the name, let it not be called the Jews Sabbath day, nor the Christians Sabbath day, as proper to eighther; but let us call it the Lord's Sabbath day, as common to Jews, and to Christians both; and as appertaining unto all nations, unto whom soever the 10. Comm: do appertain: This name you shall find justify able by Moses in Exod. 20.10. where he calls it, the Lord God's Sabbath; when he said, The 7 ^th day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God.

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

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

But our now Sabbath, called the Lord's day, which is on the 8 ^th or first day of the week, is not in force. Therefore the 7 ^th day, which is next foregoeing the Lord's day, is now in force.

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

I prove the consequence to be good, because eighther the 7 ^th or the 8 ^th day must be Sabbath, the one of them, for of all the seven days in the week, there is no scruple or question between them, and me save only about these two days, so as one of these two days must be Sabbath by both our consents: especially since we all hold it moral, that one day in every 7. must be a Sabbath, which to deny were great impiety: I prove the Minor, that is, That the 8 ^th day, or Lord's day, is not in force: and this I prove, because there is neither precept, nor practice, neither of Christ, nor of any of his Apostles in Scripture, to put the Lord's day in force: and this task I have particularly and largely made good in the first parte of my Book, where I have shown by way of answer, That the Lord's day, is not a Sabbath day by Diuiue Institution.

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

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

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

I need not prove the Major, since tis plain to every eye: for the Minor, this I have proved particularly and largely in the 3 ^d parte of my book, where by way of answer I have shown, That the 7 ^th day Sabbath is not abolished.

3. My 3 ^d argument is, because the 7 ^th day Sabbath was never changed; and it may thus be framed.

That which was never altered nor changed, by Christ, or by his Apostles, That is still in force to this day. But the 7 ^th day Sabbath was never altered nor changed, by Christ, or by his Apostles.

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

The Major is clear of it self, since things once instituted by God in the old Testament, if ever they were altered it must be by Christ or his Apostles in the New Testament.

For the Minor, note that the word change intimates two things; thone is the abolishing of the old; the other is the bringing in of a new, as David, 2. Sam. 12.20. he changed his apparel, that is, he left or laid of his mourning apparel, and he put on other apparel: now thus did neither Christ nor his Apostles change the Sabbath, by abolishing it, and by setting up a new: if they did change it, it was by precept, for by practice; but not by precept, for they as they did not blot 〈2 pages missing〉

For the truth of the Major, 1. the writing of this Law in Tables of stone by God, what could it intimate unto posterity if not this for one, namely that those Laws should be perpetual? else they might have been wrote on paper or parchement, or the like vanishing things. 2. what reason can be rendered, why God should put such an apparent difference twixt the 10. Com: and the ceremonial Law, as that he would wright the one with his own finger, but the other he would not, but set Moses to wright it: the one he delivered by his audible voice unto the people; the other was delivered solely by the voice of Moses: what may be judged to be the reason hereof, but that God did more esteem of the one, then the other, and so would have it more durable. 3. This Major is the common received truth at the hand of all Divines, witness Doctor Ames in his Theological Thesis pag. 499. Haec enim regula est certissima, & inter optimos omnes Theologos, recepta; praecepta moralia a ceremonialibus in eorum tradition sic fuisse discriminata, ut omnia & sola moralia publice fuerint coram toto populo Israelis, ex monte Sinai, ipsius Dei Voce proclamata, & postea etiam proprio Dei quasi digito scripta, & rescripta, idque in tabulis lapideis, ad perpetuam & immutabilem ipsorum durationem indicandam: For this (saith he) is a most certain rule, and received by all best Divines, that the Moral Commandments were thus differenced in their delivery, from the ceremonials, that all and only, the Morals were proclaimed publicly before all the people of Israel, from Mounte Sinai, by the Voice of God himself, & after also were wrighten, and again written as it were by the singer of God, and that in Tables of stone, to declare their perpetual and immutable continuance.

As for the Minor, this you have it in the 4 ^th Comm: and delivered as a commandment in preceptiue and commanding terms: Remember the Sabbath day &c. In it thou shalt not do any work &c. now if you ask which day we must remember, the Lord in, the same Com: telleth us, it is the 7 ^th day: But the seventh day is the Sabbath &c. So the 7 ^th Sabbath was commanded; and so it most plain, Exod. 35.2.

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

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

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

Therefore must the 7 ^th day now be Sabbath day: the consequence is clear of it self, and needs no proof to him that howlds there ought to be a Sabbath, as we all do.

The Minor I thus prove, because God without repeal or exception hath commanded us, or at least permitted and freely given us leave, to labor and work, and do all that we have to do, in those 6. days whichgoe next before the Sabbath or 7 ^th day Exod. 20.9.11. six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work, for in six days the Lord made Heaven & Earth &c. so then we may work upon the Lord's day, or any other of the six days, and that by God's authority, by his Moral Law; neither may it be thought that this branch of the 4 ^th Comm: is repealed, for the 6. days for labor, were never made typical and ceremonial, these were never shadows of Christ; yea, the Lord's day it self was never excepted, for Christ himself after his resurrection did both travail upon the first day of the 6. namely, the Lord's day, a matter of 15. miles, and also approved of the like fact in the two disciples by his iournying together with them to Emmaus that day Luk. 24.13. as hath been more largely declared in the former parte of this book: now look what Christ did, the like we may do safely; follow me as I follow Christ, 1. Cor. 11.1. said Paul: so then Christ's example is our pattorne and president, so as we may work still upon the first day of the week, or on the Lord's day: if then we may work upon any of the 6. days, then are we not tied to keep any of those days a Sabbath in resting from work.

If any shall think we now keep the 7 ^th day and that day which followeth these days labor: to him I say, that our Lord's day which we keep is the 8 ^th day or first day in the week by Divine account, and the 6. days labor spoken of in 4 ^th Com: are those 6. days which go next before our Saturday, for those are the days we are to imitate God by working in them, since we all confess Saturday was the 7 ^th day, and that day whereon God rested after his 6. days work, and since we confess those were the days the Jews till and at Christ's death, did labor in.

6. My 6 ^th Argument is, because God must have one day in every 7. days, from the creation to the worlds end: and it may be thus framed.

If God must have one day in every 7. days for a Sabbath, Then must he have Saturday the 7 ^th day for a Sabbath, and not Sunday the first day of the week.

But God must have one day in every 7. days for a Sabbath.

Therefore must God have Saturday the 7 ^th day for a Sabbath, and not Sunday the first day of the week.

For the Minor, it is confessed of all: and it may be proved by the 4 ^th Comm: where the Lord said, Remember the Sabbath, that is every Sabbath: Again, The 7 ^th day is the Sabbath, that is, every 7 ^th day is the Sabbath: like as, Thou shalt not kill, that is every thou: Love thy neighbor, that is, every neighbor &c.

For the Major, I prove its consequence; Saturday the 7 ^th day, it being the last day of that week, if you omit it, making a change (for you say that day is changed, and if so, then it is omitted by just consequence) & give God Sunday the first day of the next week for it, then it is plain God hath not a Sabbath in every week or 7. days, for the wanted one Sabbath, in that week, wherein the change was made from Saturday to Sunday; now this lack and want of a Sabbath in that week, can no ways be supplied, but by returning back to give God Saturday the 7 ^th day again; So then, if God must have one day in every 7 you must give him Saturday which is the last of 7. without any change to the day after: or else you both deny that in practice, which every man houldes in judgment to wit, that God must have one day in every 7. and also live in the breach of the 4 ^th Com: which enjoineth every 7 ^th day: neither will it serve your turn to say, this change was made by others many 100. years a gone, for so long as you uphold their day and change, you tread in their steppes, and justify their fact, and are accessory to it.

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

Whatsoever God hath commanded in this Moral Law, that is now in force.

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

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

For the Minor, see it expressly proved Exod. 20.8.10. Exod. 23.12. Exod. 31.14.15. Exod. 35.2. Exod. 16.29. Levite. 23.3. where, both the Sabbath day is commanded, and likewise the 7 ^th day is commanded equally: and if any shall answer, a 7 ^th day is commanded, but not the 7 ^th day, I refer him to my exposition upon the 4 ^th Comm: and unto the 2 ^d thing there in, where I have sufficiently proved that God pointed at one singular well known day from all others, and left us not at rouers to take any day.

For the Major, namely, that whatsoever God hath commanded in his Moral Law, that is now in force: this Maxim is so Orthodox, as it should trouble the conscience of any man once to hear it questioned: fearing men hereby go about to serve God by halves, and by pieces, to take and to leave out what they lost, not having respect unto all God's Commandments: the very naming and mention, that a thing is commanded; and that in the 10. Commandments, it bears down all contradiction: Hereby we control the Atheist, the Papist, the vain swearer, the Sabbath breaker, the disobedient child, the murderer, adulterer, thief, false witness bearer, and the couetuouse person: but now if any begin to question this truth, and once to make one breach, the flood of iniquity will flowe in amaine, and if any exception be given way too for the 7 ^th day commanded, under what pretense soever, why other sinners and profane persons will and may be look for the like, and so the whole Law shall be of no force to bind us now: why may not the Papist cauile against 2 ^d Com: and say, that I indeed, it forbad Images to the Jews, but not to Christians: why may not the Atheist cavil at first Command: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God, with all thy heart Matt. 22.37. I says he this belongs not to us, for tis impossible so entirely to love God as with all the heart: why may not the profane man cavil against the Sabbath day, because tis said, In it thou shalt do no work, what not any manner of work? what not feed our children, nor cut our own meat? this Commandment is Jewish: Again, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself? who is able thus to do? wherefor this Commandment pertained only to the servitude of the Jewish nation, saith the uncharitable person? and again, Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife, nor anything that is his, that is, thou shalt not have the least desire to the least thing of the neighbors; Oh saith the lawless Protestant, these things are partly Moral, partly Ceremonial, this same living so accurately and so strictly pertained to the Jews, tis to us a yoke, nor we nor our fathers could bear &c. if I say an exception be once made from this general truth, for you, for the 7 ^th day why may not every of these come in also with his exception too?

Yet farther, since this is that general truth, which all Ministers both in pulpit, and in their books, do uphold whatsoever they say or wright, that it must be so and so, because God had commanded it in the Moral Law: which particular flows from this general, that, whatsoever God hath commanded in his Moral Law 〈◊〉 now in force: since I say they pay out such coin to others, why should they not be willing to be paid in the same coin by others? why therefore should I be put to prove this principle, and fundamental truth, which in other cases themselves make no scruple of? If so be that this be not sufficient that whatsoever is commanded in God's Law, the 10. Comm: is now in force to bind us, our very principles shall become disputable and doubtful.

If they shall answer by any distinction, where by they impair the full force and virtue of any branch of this Law of God, they offend against a plain text Deut. 12.32. whatsoever I command you, you shall take nothing therefro: yea they falsify Christ's words and predication, Mat. 5.18. who confirmed the Law, and every jot & title in it, to abide in such force as it was in, when he preached that sermons in Mat. 5.18. thence forwards unto the worlds end: yea, & they side it with these Priests Zepha. 3.4. who wrested the Law; or, who did violence to the Law of Scripture, we have but two parts left us, the one is the Law Moral, the other is the Gospel: now whosoever shall enfring or deny any jot or title of eighther of these portions of holy writ, he is no freend to God.

2. Nevertheless, something may be said to prove, that whatsoever God hath commanded in the 10. Commandments, the same is now in force: as 1. because all the 10. Commandments were all and everyone equally and a like delivered by the same God, by the same voice, at the fame time, and wrote upon the same tables of stone, therefore one should bind as well as the other, and one should last as long as any other, they should have the same duration, in common reason: 2. Our Savior Christ himself ratified the Moral Law, and every jot and title of it unto the worlds end, Matt. 5, 17.18. which is to the full, as much as can be desired I should prove: 3. If something commanded in the Moral Law doth not bind now, then are there not 10. Commandments, for there is but 9. Commandments and an half, or but 9. Commandments and three quarters, or there abouts, but sure I am ten fully there is not, for there wants the time of 7 ^th day, commanded in the 4 ^th Comm: if you except it; now Moses telde Jews and consequently us, that God wrote in the Tables ten Commandments Deuter. 10.4. if therefore we have not ten commandments complete, then have we Christians not the Law of God as it was delivered at first entirely, but defectiuely and maimedely, and some pieces only of it. 4. If that reasoning of S. James, I am. 2.10.11. be sound and good, where by he proveth that, whosoever breaketh but one Law, is guilty of all the other precepts, by this reason, because he that commanded one Law, he commanded the other Laws also; Then so may I reason and prove, whosoever shall violate the 7 ^th day, is guilty of all the other precepts, by this reason, because, he that commanded us to beepe the Sabbath day, 〈2 pages missing〉 prove it from a like phrase in Scripture, as in Genes. 14.21.23. said Abraham to the King of Sodom, I will not take so much as a thread or shoolatchet of thee &c. and as in Matth. 5.26. said our Savior Christ; thou shalt not come out thence till thou hast paid the utmost farthing: both which phrases intimate thus much, that if the debtor should not come out of prison till he had paid every farching, thē should he not come out till he had paid every penny, every shilling, and every pownd: & if Abraham would not take a thread or shoolatchet of the King, then would he not take of him raiment, cattle, silver, or gold: thus you see it the manner of Scripture, by mentioning and denying of the very least; to intimate there by a denial of all, any, the whole, and every part and parcel of that thing, where to that least belonged: a like phrase you have Mat. 10.30. yea, and the hairs of your head are numbered &c. if the hairs were numbered (may we reason) then were the hands, eyes, ears, the teeth, and the fingers numbered also: just so is my atguing above, if every title of the Law be in force, then so also are thes letters & words in force, to wit, the 7 ^th day is the Sabbath: so you see the consequence proved good and sound.

I prove the Minor, to wit, that every title of the Law is in force to the worlds end, by Mat. 5.18. where our Savior prophesied of the duratiō of the Law, & of every jot and title of it, to last to the worlds end, saying; Amen, or verily Isaiah unto you, ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , donec) until Heaven & Earth pass, one jot or one title of the Law shall not pass, &c. where you see, Christ did ratify this prophecy by a vehement assueueration prefixed to it, Amen, or verily said he &c. Farther note what learned, Chemnitz saith upon this Text, by way of exposition, saith he; Iote is a letter of the Hebrew Alphabet, and a letter of the least value of all the rest in the Alphabet: and title (saith he) is as a prick to a letter, or as a comma to a sentence: so you see, Christ did stablish forever, the very least things of moment in the law: and thus is the minor made good.

Nevertheless against this Text many answers are brought, as 1. that by Law here is not only meant the Law Moral, but also the Law ceremonial: Here unto I say 1. that it is a growndlesse answer, it hath no foundation in the Text, or context, for since all the Laws, in the sequel of the chapter, which Christ expoundeth, be only Moral Laws and not Ceremonial Laws, why should it be thought here should be any Ceremonial Laws meant? anddoe we not use to restrain general words unto the subject matter of the text and context; were it not a racking of the word Law, Heb. 7.12. to understand it of all Laws, Moral and Ceremonial, where the subject matter doth occasion us to limit it to the Levitical Ceremonial Law? I confess Mat. 5.17. there the word Prophets added to the word Jewe: think not I am come to destroy the Law or the Prophets &c. but I see no reason, why the word Prophets should have any aim at the Ceremonial Law, more then the word Law in verse. 18. for the Prophets were exercised about the Moral Law, in urging and expounding it, as Matth. 22.40. yea, since we find this phrase of, The Law and Prophets, to be applied to the Moral, and not to the Ceremonial Law, by Christ himself, and that too in the same Sermon, as Matth. 7.12. why should it be urged any larger here? 2. By Law, here must not be meant the Law Ceremonial, but the Law Moral only, for, Christ saith, he came not to destroy or loosen the Law, but to fulfill it; which speech cannot be true of the Law Ceremonial, for he came both to destroy or loosen it as by his death, and also to fulfill it, as in his life, and by his death. 3. The time wherein Christ foretold the duration of this Law, was but about a matter of two years before his death, at which time every jot and title of the Ceremonial Law, was to be utterly destroyed, now would Christ foretell touching this Law, that it should endure as long as the Heavens and the Earth, when as with in two or three years after it was to be abolished? nay, what likelihood is there that Christ would conjoin the Moral & the Ceremonial Law together touching duration, as if they were both equally and a like to last, and to vanish together?

A 2 ^d answer is, that the duration of the Law here is but until Christ's passion, which they would ground from those words Mat. 5.18. Till all things be fulfilled: to this I say 1. This thwarteth and crosseth Christ's words, in the precedent v. 17. I came not to destroy or loosen ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) the Law &c. but if the Law had retained its force but till his death, then Christ came to destroy or loosen the Law, for it must be his death or nothing that altered the Law, and what was done by his death, that he came to do: 2. This sense were to make Christ words senseless, as if in former parte of the verse he should vow not one jot of the Law shall pass, until heaven and earth pass, that is, not until this worlds end; and instantly should add until all things be fulfilled, that is, until a two or three years hence. 3. The Law is to last after Christ's passiō, as is plain by that of Paul Ro. 3.31. where be saith, faith doth not make the Law of none effect, nor they the Apostles of Christ, but they established the Law: now this was after Christ's passion: and indeed the Law must be in force to this day, to show us our fine, and to bring us to Christ, Gal. 3.24. further, all things shall not be fulfilled, until the mistery of God be fulfilled Revel. 20.7. and until Christi seconde coming Act. 3.21. and 1. Cor. 15.24.25.26.54. &c.

A 3d answer is, that some iotes of the Law are passed, and do not bind us now, as the preface to the Commandments, I am the Lord thy God, that brought the out of the Land of Egypt; and as the promise to the 5 ^th Comm: That thy days may be long in the land, which the Law thy God giveth thee: thone of these concerned Egypt, the other Canaan, and both concerned the Jews, but neither of them concerns us Christians, Ergo: Here unto I say 1. neither of these do, nor ever did bind any, for these be but reasons and motives to obedience of the Commandments, they be no commandments, since they command or forbid nothing, only they be appartenances to the Commandments, so the Law whereof Christ spake, may stand still as a Law, though these motives fail, for God can move us to obedience by other motives Evangelical, as Rom. 12.1. and though these motives were failed, yet were no parte or jot of the Law failed or passed, since these motives were, nor Law, nor parte or jot of the Law: Again 2. it cannot be said that thes 2. motives be failed to this day, for look to whom they did at first belong, to the same nation and people they do at this day belong, that is, to the people of the Jews, for the deliverance out of Egypt, is yet true of their people, and ought still to be a motive to them, even to the worlds end, so then though that reason concerneth not us, yet is it not failed, since it is in force as largely as ever to the Jew: unto us Christians it did never belong: for that other annexed to the 5 ^th Com: I see not but that may be general to all nations.

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

That thing which was a special means and help of God's appointment, to keep in his church, the memory of that memoriable and renowned work of his to wit the creation of this world: That thing and means, ought now and forever, to be in use in God's Church.

But the 7 ^th day Sabbath, was that special means and help of God's appointment, to keep in his Church, the memory of that memorable & renowned work of his, to wit, the ereation of this world.

Therefore the 7 ^th day Sabbath, ought now and forever. to be in use in God's Church.

For proof of the Major, there is no man in our Church but freely confesseth, that both now and forever, there ought to be an honorable, admirable, and thankful remembrance of God's workmanship in the creation of this world, as well as was in the days of Moses, and of old: if then it be granted, that there ought now to be a memory kept thereof, why should it not be granted also, that that special help and means, ordained once of God for that end, should now be in force and in use? 2. There was never any help or means, once appointed to keep memory of the worlds creation, which was afterwards abolished, and if none were abolished, then everyone that once was, remaineth still: true it is, some Sabbaths were abolished, as in Col. 2.16.17. but, we must know, there were 2. sortes of Sabbaths: there were Sabbaths which were shadows or signs of the Redemption, the body whereof was Christ; annual yearly Sabbaths, these indeed be abolished by this text; now there was also Sabbaths which were signs of the creation, weekly Sabbaths, every 7 ^th day, now these which were Sabbaths and signs of things past, as was the creation, these be nowhere abolished: great is the difference twixt Sabbaths, as signs of things to come; and Sabbaths as signs of things past. 3. It is of as great necessity, if not of greater, that we now should have all or any such special helps and means to keep in remembrance the worlds creation, as had those Israelites in Moses time, for, we are a people as forgetful of God's works of wonder, as were they: yea, and we be in greater danger of forgetting the worlds creation then those Israelites, by how much we live longer after the creation then they did; old done things wear out of memory.

For proof of the Minor; to wit, that the Sabbath was an help, to keep memory of the creation. 1. All men grant it, when they thus argue, that the Lord's day was instituded for the memory of the resurrection, as was the Sabbath day, for memory of the creation. 2. I prove it from Exod. 31.16.17. where 2. things be to be marked, 1. that the Sabbath is called a sign, 2. whereof it is a sign, and what is the thing signified: For the latter, the thing signified by the Sabbath considered as a sign, is the creation of the world in 6. days, and God's rest upon the 7 ^th day: since every sign, must signify something, and this Text mentioneth nothing but the creation, and again, where God giveth a sign, he useth to show whereof it is a sign, and here he mentioneth nothing but the creation, therefore the creation is the thing signified: and this truth may yet farther be shown by the very Text v. 17. for in 6. days &c. where note that the Hebrew word translated, for, may also be translated, that, as those skillful in the tongue know well, and find sundry examples in Scripture: yea, the word (for) must be translated (that:) to make good sense: so then, read the Text thus; that in 6. days &c. and you have good sense; & also you see it plain, that the Sabbath was a sign, that in 6. days God created and rested: and the creation was the thing signified by the sign.

The other thing to be considered in the text, is, that the Sabbath is called a sign: and hence I thus argue; If signs be helps and means to bring to mind or keep in memory the things where of they be signs, then doth the Sabbath day help us to mind and keep in memory the worlds creation: but signs be helps & means to bring, to mind, and to keep in memory the things whereof they be signs: therefore the Sabbath day doth help us to mind and to keep in memory the worlds creation, the consequence is good, it proceeding from the genus to the species, the Sabbath day being one kind of signs; and what belongeth to all signs, appertaineth to every or any sign. I prove the Minor, by an induction of particulares; the rain-bow in the clouds, Genes. 4. it is called a sign or a token v. 13. and the Lord said, He would look upon the bow, that he might remember the covenant (which was the thing signified by the bow) v. 16. The Passover was a sign or token Exod. 12.13. which when the Angel of the Lord saw, then he remembered the covenant, and spared them. Circumcision Genes. 17.11. it was a sign and token, to put them in mind of God's covenant made with Abraham &c. and see Exod. 31.13. a text pregnant to the same purpose: The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper it is a sign; and this sign is to be used in remembrance of the thing signified, which is Christ, 1. Cor. 12.24. neither can any example be shown to the contrary, for, it is the very nature of a sign, to bring to mind the thing signified: I conclude, as the Lord's Supper is a sign of the work of redemption; So the Sabbath is a sign of the work of creation.

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

That thing which in the time of Moses, was used as an help and means, to put the children of Israel in mind, who it was that sanctified them; that means and help ought now and forever to be in the Church; to show us who is our Sanctifier.

But the 7 ^th day Sabbath, was used in the time of Moses, as an help and means, to mind the children of Israel, who it was that sanctified them.

Therefore the 7 ^th day Sabbath, ought now and forever to be used in the Church, as a mean & help, to show us, who is our Sanctifier.

For proof of the Major, 1. what reason can be rendered, or instance given to the contrary, to show that our churchs and people should not now, have the same means and helps to put us in mind, & show unto us who is the author of our sanctification, the which the children of Israel, and Church of the Jews had? 2. No help or means once appointed of God, to mind the Israelites, who did sanctify them, was ener yet abolished, and if never abolished, then must they remain: True it is, Sabbaths ceremonial, and annual, which were signs of Christ, and of justification, such were abolished in Col. 2.16.17. but Sabbaths Moral, and weekly, which were signs of God the Father, and of sanctification, such were never yet abolished: besides, the Sabbaths abolished in Col. 2.16. were such as were signs of things to come afterwards, as of Christ: but the Sabbaths Moral in Exod. 31.13. were signs of things present, as of God presently sanctifying, as you may see in the Texts. 3. We now in these times, have as much need of that help, to put us in mind of God our Sanctifier, as they had in former times; for instance, let a Christian pray fervently; give alms bountifully, hate syne unfeignedly; do the duties of his calling conscionably; preach powerfully; and in a word, live holily and blamelessly in this evil world; whereby he out strippeth the men of this world, and is as a light set upon an hill; is not this man in great danger to be puffed up with pride, as were those Israelites Deut. 8.17, arrogating to themselves the glory of their abundance, forgetting God the author? and is not this man in danger, to use his gifts as if he had not received them, and to glory in them as his own, 1. Cor. 4.7. surely upon a search, we cannot but confess, we Christians are as subject to spiritual pride, and as backward & sluggish, to give unto God the glory of his merciful work of sanctifying us, as ever were the Israel of God: now what help could be better to foreward us in this Divine work of hallowing God's name, then to have once in every 7. days, that 7 ^th day appointed of God, to be a sign and remembrancer unto us, that Jehouah the Holy God is that fountain and author of our sanctification and holiness? Well then, since we Christians have as much need of helps and means, to mind us of the author of our sanctification, as those Israelites had, and God hath given us no other helps or means in the room of those he gave to the Israelites; then it followeth, that we now 〈2 pages missing〉 and the 7 ^th day, do both notify but one time, which is the last day of the week: so them conjoined by God, and also permiseously used Exo. 20.10. Levite. 23.3. Exod. 31.15. there you have them conjoined by way of apposition, Gen. 2.3. Exod, 20.11. Exod. 16.29. Luk. 13.14. here you have them permiscously used the one for the other: so as the name Sabbath, and the time the 7 ^th day, cannot be separated. 2, Whereas they deny me the accident of time, the 7 ^th day see it expressly commanded in so many words, Exod. 16.29. Exod. 20.10. Exod. 23.12. Exod. 31.15. Exod. 35.2. and so you see not only the Sabbath is in force now, but also the time and 7 ^th day.

The other commone answer is, that the 4 ^th Com: and so the Sabbath day are now in force indeed, as touching the Morality of them, but not as touching their special application unto the Jewish state: Here unto I say, it is but a feigned thing to think that eighther the 4 ^th Com: or the Sabbath day, were so commanded and appointed of God to the Jew, as if made peculiar and proper to their state, and not common to all nations; To this end, perpende we the particulars of the 4 ^th Comm: to see if ought there be that might give us occasion to think it was applied to the Jewish nation exclusiuely; or, if all Nationes might not equally participate with them, in this Commandment, as well as in the other 9. Commandments: In the Com: ye have these things enjoined: 1. Remember the Sabbath: 2. to rest in it: 3. to keep it holy: 4. a day 5. the 7 ^th day, or last of 7.6. because God resteth on that day. What is here now, that is peculiar to the Jew, so as other nations cannot observe the same? Cannot we in England, as well as they in Ierusalē, 1. Remember the Sabbath? 2. rest in it? 3. keep it holy? 4. a whole day? 5. the 7 ^th day, and last of 7? 6. in imitation of God, because he rested on this day? could no nation beside the Jew observe thes 6. things?

Perhaps it will be said, The Sabbath, and so the Comm: was applied to the Jewish state, because of that reason moving them to obedience of it, which is annexed to the Com: Deut. 5.15. namely, God's bringing them out of Egypt: Here unto I say, This motive and reason may be said to be applied indeed to the Jewish state exclusiuely, as not belonging to other nations, and if they mean no more but thus: that the 4 ^th Com: and so the Sabbath, are not now in force, as touching this special application only to the Jewish state, because the Lord brought them out of Egypt, & that this reason should not now be properly pressed upon us Christians; I am not against it, nor doth it at all help them: who goeth about to prove the Sabbath is in force now to us, with relation to that reason, of God's bringing Israel out of Egypt? or to move Christians to obedience by that reason? The 4 ^th Com: stands on two partes; The one is Law, commanding or forbidding something to be done, this part only I urge: The other part is reason or motive, to enforce to obedience of the Law, now this I urge not, nor need I, for it is no Law properly, for it nor forbides, nor commands anything: Be it, that the Law as touching the motives be applied specially to the Jewish state, yet the Law as touching all things commanded or forbidden in it, is universal to all nations.

Thus having proved the 7 ^th day Sabbath is still in force to this day: in next place I will show you how this Sabbath hath been practiced and in use in the Christian Church both in the days of the Apostles, after Christ his resurrection; and after also in the more primitive churches: for the practice of the Apostles I do the rather produce it, because the contrary side I see lean much vpō their practice, laboring much though all in vain (as hath been shown) to prove the practice of the Apostles upon the Lord's day; wherefor since Apostles practice, is with them of so great strength, if I shall prove now, that the Apostles practiced the 7 ^th day Sabbath, I trust they will forth with yield, that the 7 ^th day Sabbath is now in force, & make no further question of the matter.

For this purpose look Act. 13.14.15.16. Act. 13.42.44. Act. 16.13. here ye see 3. several Sabbaths, and in two several places, the Apostles preached upon the Sabbath day: and see Act. 17.2. Paul as his manner was, went in unto them, and three Sabbath days, disputed with them, by the Scriptures: Here you see in another place and Church, three Sabbaths more kept by Paul and those that travailed with him; nor was this any extraordenary thing: for the Text saith; it was an usual thing for Paul so to do, Paul as his manner was &c. and see Act. 18.4 here Paul in another place and Church, namely, in the Church of Corinth v. 1. disputed in the Synagogue every Sabbath day: so here was a constant practice, Sabbath by Sabbath; Every Sabbath day saith the Text: and thus I trust I have more soundly proved, that the Apostles kept the Sabbath day; and that constantly, and the same in soundery Churches, then they have proved that the Apostles kept the Lord's day: The keeping the Sabbath day, was an Apostolical practice, but so was not the Lord's day: Let the indifferent reader judge now and let him choose to practice that day of the twain, which he seeth most soundly and plainly proved before his eyes, practiced by the Apostles.

Against this be sundry answers brought, as 1. True, Paul preached on the Sabbath day amongst 〈2 pages missing〉 the Sabbath day, but they undertook indeed, but never did, nor ever will be able to prove the Apostles did constantly keep the Lord's day, so in this point of Apostles practice, I have the better of them, since they cannot prove Apostles constantly kept the Lord's day amongst nor Jews, nor Gentiles, no nor Jews and Gentiles mixed.

Secondly, I produce another Text against their answer, showing the Apostles preached amongst the Gentiles, in which Text is not the least ground for any such exception, as to say, there was a mixture of Jews and Gentiles: see Act. 16.12.13. here Paul and Timothy preached on the Sabbath day: and note 1. that there was nothing constrayning them to preach, rather on this then on any other day, unless it were the 4 ^th Comm: they had been there as the Text saith, certain days; and of all thes days, the Sabbath day was chosen; & what can be thought should incline them to this choice, but the 4 ^th Comm: 2. Note, here is not any reason to think here were any Jews, because we read not of any Synagues the Jews had here: & the people assembled in the open fields, besides a river to pray, as the Text speaketh, and therefore not with the Jews in their Synagogues, as they were wont to do where the Jews had Synagogues. As for Lydia, it will not follow she was a Iewesse, because the Text saith, she was a worshipper of God: for so was Cornelius Act. 10.2. but yet no Jew, no nor any proselyte, for he was uncircumcised then, Act. 11.3. finally, I say, suppose here was a mixture of Jews and Gentiles, and also in that other place Act, 13.42.44. yet there is no cause of scruple or doubt, that the Apostles would use any ceremonies (as they suppose the Sabbath) to be amongst those Jews that were mingled with the Gentiles, no more then they would amongst the Gentiles alone; for, saith the Text Act. 21.21. Paul taught those Jews that were mixed among the Gentiles, to forsake Ceremonies &c. and you see it his practice Gal. 2.11. he would not endure no not a Peter to Judaize it amongst the Gentiles; and can we think himself would do what he reproved in another? besides, it was against reason, for so he should build up things (as ceremonies) which he labored to destroy, Gal. 5.1.2. I say build up, for Paul counted Judaising amongst Gentiles, a constraining of those Gentiles unto Judaizme, Gal. 2.14. for all this, I deny not, but Paul did Judaize, but it was only in such places of assembly where were none but Jews only, as at Jerusalem, and the like places, Act. 21.17.20.26. but in assemblies mixed of Jews and Gentiles, there he would not Judaize, lest he should contstrain the Gentiles to Iudaizme, as hath been said.

An other and seconde answer usually brought against this practice of the Apostles is, that Paul did keep Sabbath here with the Jews, to bear with their weakness for a time, and as he did Judaize it by circumcision of Timothy: Here unto I say 1. it appeareth he did not keep Sabbath only for the Jews sake, for then would he not have kept the Sabbath with the Gentiles, as he did: 2. was it a weakness in the Jews to yield obedience to a moral precepts, to the 4 ^th Com? 3. The things wherein properly Paul was said to Judaize, were Ceremonial things, standing in force by the Ceremonial Law, as Circumcision and the Rest, but things standing in force by the Moral Law, as doth the Sabbath day, performance of these is no Judaizing, but Moralizing, if I may so speak.

A 3 ^d answer is, that the Apostles must take such days, as they found in use in the Church then, or else they cold not preach and divulge the Gospel: and the Jews then would assemble on no days but the Sabbath: Here unto I say, the Apostles cold make known the Gospel, though they had never frequented the Jews usual assemblies, for the Apostles taught and preached Christ, in private housen, from house to house Act. 5.42. and when Paul forsook preaching in the Synagogue, he taught else, where as in the School of one Tyrannus, and there frequented him both Jews and Grecians Act. 19.9.10. yea, Paul cold assemble the Jews them selves upon occasion, & the very chief of them refused not to assemble at his call, Act. 28.17.20. wherefore, necessity compelled him not to keep the Sabbath with them.

To make a more full answer to those common objections which they bring against the practice of the Apostles, in keeping the Sabbath day: one of which main objections is that fore spoken of to this effect, true the Apostles practiced the 7 ^th day Sabbath, but it was amongst the Jews, not amongst the Gentiles: where unto I say, what and if it were only amongst the Jews? are therefore the Apostles practices and actions vnwareantable and vnimitable, because they were done amongst the Jews? are all their actions amongst Jews but, of an indifferent nature? if such objections be lawful, if a preacher confirms his doctrines in the pulp it, by the practice of the Apostles, then is it lawful for any thus to cavil against it, oh but that, it was done among Jews: for instance, suppose this the doctrine; Ministers must preach constantly on the Sabbath day: now after it is proved, &c. then he confirms it by the constant practice of the Apostles, Act. 13.14.44. Act. 17.2. Act. 18.4. is it tolerable for an auditor to cavil thus, oh this it 〈2 pages missing〉 dience and reference unto some of those Commandments.

The last objection is, that tis true indeed, the Apostles kept the Sabbath, but it was but for a time, till the Jews were better instructed, the which if they had refused to keep, the Jews would never have heard them preach of Christ &c. Here unto I answer, this objection presupposeth now as granted, two false suppositions; the one, that the Apostles would not (if they cold have avoided it) have kept this Sabbath: the other, that the Jews were needlessly religious, making conscience of this Sabbath now, when they needed not: for the former, for any thus to imagine or say is growndlesse, for where hath any of the Apostles declared themselves any enemies to the Moral Sabbath, that it should be thought they had rather not to have kept the Sabbath, then to have kept it? for the latter, tis true, of Circumcision, it might be said the Jews were needlessly religious and careful of it, because we find the Apostle inueighing against it Galat. 5.2. but how can we say so of the Jews as touching the Sabbath day, since we nowhere find the Apostles inueighing against it, or reprehending the Jews for keeping it, as they did for Circumcision? The main error in these objections is, that they take it for granted which is not granted, that is, supposing the Sabbath day in the 10. Commandments to be a Ceremony, as well as Circumcision, and that so it was abolished by Christ; whereof there is no ground in Scripture, as else where I have largely shown; nay farther, for any to say, the Sabbath is a ceremony, or that any word or letter of the Law or 10. Commandments is Ceremonial, is no better then blasphemy against God's Law and Truth, & to speak evil of the way of God.

Thus you see, I have proved, the practice of the Apostles, was constantly to keep the Sabbath day, and the keeping of the Sabbath day was an Apostolical practice; the which proof I have made to this end, that you might see we have better grounds for the Apostles keeping the Sabbath day, then for their keeping the Lord's day, nay there is good ground for the Sabbath day, but no ground at all, for the Lord's day; Further more, as by the way, you may see it hath been shown the Apostles kept the Sabbath day, 1. constantly, not once, or twice, or thrice, and no no more. 2. In sundry places & in diverse churches, not at one place or two, but at more. 3. that where they abode diverse days, they chose the Sabbath day, not the Lord's day, to teache and to preach in, as Act. 16.12.13. Act. 13.42.44. Act. 17.2. Act. 18.4. 4. They kept Sabbath with both Jews and Gentiles together, & sometime with 〈2 pages missing〉 you see the duties of a Sabbath, meditation in God's Law with joy and delight; and admiration of the works of God. There be I confess, that would have all this understood of the Lord's day; but Ignatius speaks both of the Sabbath, & also of the Lord's day, distinctly in the same Text: for the very next words are thus, And after the Sabbath, let the Lord's day be celebrated &c. Athanasius in his Homilie de semente, saith thus; We assemble together in the Sabbath day, not as if we were sick of Iudaizme: but therefore we meet on the Sabbath, that we may worship Jesus, the Lord of the Sabbath: where ye see Athanasius not only auowching that they of this time kept the Sabbath, but also he defendeth their keeping of it from superstition or Iudaizme: but our times are now of a contrary mind, thinking and saying, if we should keep the Sabbath day, we should play the Jews, and be infected with Judaizme. Socrates in his History chap, 8. book 6 ^th saith: Assemblies were wont to be in the Churches, every week upon the Sabbath, & upon the Lord's day: Zanchi ypon the 4 ^th Com: Thes. 1. saith out of Sozomen, That thos of Constantinople, & almost all others, have Ecclesiastical assemblies, to hear God's Word, on the Sabbath day, and on the Lord's day: Doctor Prideaux on the Sabbath; saith, The Churches after Christ, kept both the Sabbath, & the Lord's day, for diverse years, with holy assemblies, and this thing is so manifest (saith he) as it needeth no proof &c. In a word, is it not plain the Sabbath was in use in the Church, until the year of Christ 364. at what time the Laodicean counsel enacted a Law against it, and for the Lord's day? Hosp. de Orig. Fest. cap. 9. pag. 27. but how vniustifiable this their act was, may appear, in that they enacted a Law against God's Law: and were guilty of that brande in Dan. 7.25. of unlawful changing of Tymes, and the Law: yea, how full of suspicion this their fact was, may appear in this that Church of Laodicea, it was the worst of all the 7. churches that S. John wrote unto in his Revelations: yea, and in that this change was not made till the year 364. tis of small account, since the elder the church grew, the more corrupt it grew; for, 364. years after Christ crept into the church superstition, and so daily thence forwards popery by degrees: But how soever, it is plain that the Sabbath day was in use in the church at that time, in which they enacted a Law against it; or else they made a Law against nothing.

Here it shall not be amiss to add the testimony of two or three of our own Divines, auowching the morality of the 7 ^th day Sabbath, I could produce many, but two or three for all; 〈2 pages missing〉 strengthen myself, and wrong not them. 3. Doctor Prideaux upon the Sabbath, lately comne forth, pag. 140. saith. Where did Christ abrogate the Sabbath? where is there any mention of setting the Lord's day in the room of it? well, Christ ascendeth, he left his Apostles preachers, and did not they without any scruple observe the Sabbath of the Jews, wich the Jews? did not they institute most freely assemblies in the Sabbath day? & did not the succeeding churches the like, &c?

And now let me propounded unto your choice, these two days, The Sabbath day on Saturday; or the Lord's day on Suneday, and keep whither of the twain you shall in conscience find the more safe; If you keep the Lord's day, but profane the Sabbath day, you walk in great danger and peril (to say the last) of transgressing one of God's eternal & inviolable Laws the 4 ^th Com: but on the other side, if you keep the Sabbath day, though you profane the Lord's day, you are out of all guneshot and danger, for so you transgress no Law at all, since Christ, nor his Apostles did ever leave any Law for it.

1. To conclude, let me take away two or three objections and so an end; Say some what a do is here about a day, is God so strict for a day? so be he hath the duties, it matters not so much for the time: To whom I answer; and make not you as much a do too as you can, for the Lord's day, the 8 ^th day, else why may not Mooneday, or Tewsday, or some other day, be kept in memory of Christ's Resurrection, as well as Sunday, the first day of the week? and do not our divines of best rank, lay it down as their judgment, that the Church, the whole Church cannot now alter the Lord's day to any other? it seems then in your own judgment, that time and day, how light a circumstance soever you make it, when you dispute about the 7 ^th day in the 4 ^th Com: yet it is a matter of weight and moment when you argue for the Lord's day, for which yet you have no Com: 2. Think you it a light matter, the which God hath been pleased to stamp his Commandment upon Exod. 35.2. The 7 ^th day shall be unto you the Holy Sabbath &c. Will you sleight God's Commandments? admit the time, and 7 ^th day, be as thing little profitable to God, as was the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good & evil, in Paradise, dareth any man hazard with God as Adam did? The less the thing is, with the more ease we may show our obedience, and the greater our sine, if disobedient. 3. We dare not forfighte a bond with man, upon such shifts, saying whē tis paiable on 7 ^th day of January, oh my neighbor regardeth not so much the day, so I carry him the full some, though it be the day after tis due: nor durst those faithful Israelites so sleight God's times, as to circumcise on the 9 ^th day, to call Passover on the 15 ^th day, when God hath commanded CIrcumcision on the 8 ^th day, and the Passover on the 14 ^th day.

2. Saith another, this were to bring into the Church Iudaizme again, and that strict rigorous observation of the Sabbath which they used: Here to I answer; Athanasius afore cited, said: They kept the Sabbath day in their times, and yet he saith, they were not infected with Judaizme; Further, Iudaizme is when obedience is yielded to a Law Ceremonial, but he that keeps the Sabbath day, doth it in obedience to a Law Moral: And as touching the rigorous strictenesse of the Jewish Rest or Sabbath, it is not better than an evil report, brought up upon the Lord's Sabbath, to loathe men of it; what and if men erroneously think, the Jews were more strictly tied then indeed they were, that is their error: and what and if the Scribes and Pharisees were superstitious in keeping the 4 ^th Com: and forbad works of charity to be done on the Sabbath, were they not erroniouse too in expounding and observing other of the Commandments? But sure I am our Savior Christ the true expounder of the Law, he gave leave even to the Jews in his time, (before any Ceremonies were abolished) to do works of charity and works of necessity even upon the Sabbath day, as to rub ears of corn: to carry a bedd: to lift a beast out of a ditch, and the like: yea, do not we hold our selves now thus strictly tied upon the Lord's day, as not to do any works thereon save works of necessity and charity? I find not that a believing Jew was anything more strictly tied then so: For my parte I see no difference twixt the doctrine of our Church of Engeland, touching keeping the Lord's day for strictness: and the doctrine of Moses and of Christ, touching the keeping of the Sabbath day: nor can I see how a believing Jew, was more strictly tied then a believing Christian is, in right account.

3. Saith a 3 ^d . Should we embrace the Sabbath day, then should we be accused of novelty, and the neighbor Churches of Papists would upbraid us: Here too I answer, what if man accuseth, where God commendeth; it was new doctrine, that Paul brought to Berea, but it was their commendations, that they received the word, with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily, to see whither those things were so or not: it was not the newenesse of the Gospel, nor the singularity of Paul the teacher, that cold daunte them: and for Papists it is not the first time that they have upbraided us for novelty, if they think it a matter of reproach, to confess we know but in parte, and that the best Church and purest may be more pure, and grow nearer to God in knowledge and reformation daily, let them scoff on, what David will regard a Michal, or Isaac an Ishmael? what and if we offend the Church of Papists, if we may gain the Church of the Jews; do we not wright of, & speak of, and pray for, and hope for conversion of the Jews, and can there be a better way for their entrance into our Church, then by removing a way this great stumbling block, that is, our profanation of the Lord's Sabbath day? said not the Jews of Christ, this man is not of God, because he kept not the Sabbath day John. 9.16. & can the Jews say any better of us at this day, who are not causelessly taxed as was Christ; why these Christians (may they say) were their religion good, they would never live in so manifest a breach of the 4 ^th Commandment weekly, as they do, profaning the Lord's Sabbaths.

4. Saith a 4 ^th : This were to bring an imputation upon our Church, that have not seen this, of 1600. years &c. I answer, for 300. or 400. years after Christ; this Sabbath was kept, and that by the purest Churches of the primitine times; so the over sight was not above a matter of 1200, years: Again, at these time, when the Lord's Sabbath was abolished, by the Laodicean counsel in the year 364. even then the churches began to decline strangely, and then began superstition & popery to creep into the Church, and by little & little it ouerspreade the Christian world, until about Luther's time, all which time our Church was covered in the Romish Church, as corn in the chaff, and we were as captives in a foreign nation, where we were kept from knowledge of the Laws of our Lawfull and rightful sovereign, the Lord our God: now what imputation is it to our Church, that the Romish Church did oversee this, and blott out the 4 ^th Com: as they had done the 2 ^d Com? Since Luther's time indeed by the mercy of God, the chaff hath been fanned away, yet have we not had a setteled constant shine of the Sune of the Gospel, but twixt times it hath been elouded, as in the reign of Queen Mary &c. and for this short breating time, since Queen Elizabeth of blessed memory, hath not our Church had work enough to hold the ground, which our forefathers won for us, have we not been in a continued warfare battailing with Romish doctrine, both by pen, and by preaching, even until now of late years, during which conflict, our church hath had scarce leisure to bethink hir self of any further purification: but now, since God hath in some sort given us rest from our enemies, labor we to grow in grace, both in knowledge and in obedience; labor we to perfect Holiness daily more and more: & let us rather imitate the more pure primitive churchs, (from whom the Church of Roome is fled in practice of the Sabbath day,) then the corrupted Romish church, from whom we suckte this evil milk. Neither is it to be thought a thing impossible, for a Church of God ignorantly, to lie in the breach of one branch of God's Law for a season; for did not the Church of God in Josiah his time as much when the book of the Law of God it self had been lost, for I know not how long time, 2. King. 22. now to whom was this great sine of carelessness in loosing the book of God's Law to be imputed, was it not unto the Idolatrous times and church, which went last before the Rain of Josiah? & so who is mostly to be blamed for our ignorance in this, but the idolatry and superstition & irreligion of former times, which began at the Counsaill held at Laodicea Anno 364. for they first puffed out this light?

There are two sortes of people to whom this discourse doth pertain, the Laity, and the Clergye: as for the Laity, God he knoweth they can do no more then they can do; though of wiling minds that all should go well, and that God might have this own times, and tis not a far thing gain to them, whither they give God the Saturday or the Sunday: but since they want the Arts & tongues, those instruments of knowledge in this points they must be guided by their Ministers, The Priests lips must preserve knowledge, and they must ask the Law of their mouths, I say the lesser care of this matter pertains to the people, I do not say no care, for their is a spurr for them in Ezek. 33.6. and a president, in those Noble men of Berea, for serching the Scriptures: and let them in God's fear both privately pray to God, to direct their Ministers with Spiritual illumination; and also let them often call upon them to see to their Ministry, showing them the price of their souls is in their hands, and if Ministers neglect, the souls of people pay for it.

As for these of the Ministry, these do know, this matter mostly conserueth them, to know whither Saturday, or Sunday, or Sabbath day by God's appointment: And hereof it is that our Savior Christ having ratified the Law, and every jot and title of it, to the worlds end Matth. 5.18. He turnetb himself to thos of the Ministry to look to it afore others, that by their liefe and doctrine, they teach, not break not one of the last of those Cemmandements, saying v. 19. whosoever therefore shall break one of the last of those commandments, & teach men so, he shall be called the last of the Kingdom of Heaven: 〈2 pages missing〉 myself, so far forth, as to cause me liften redily to what may be said to the contrary, and to scan and search it to my utmost: yea so far forth too, as in partt to with hold me from the practice of it, and so accordingly upon the same ground, to counsel others to do the like.

If it please God to bless this point, so as it be generally found to be a truth of God's, then will there be a far more comfortable and laudable course, to go together with ioynte petitions, & humble requests, unto his Majesty, and that honorable house of Parliament, desiring them to take this matter into their considerations, whose it is properly to reform Ministers may inform, but Magistrates should reform; it was Nehemiah chapt. 13.15.16.17.18.19.20.21.22. that reformed the profanation of the Sabbath day, in his time: and having done it; Remember me, O my God, conseruing this, saith he &c. it was Christ a King, as well as a Prophet, who whipped the buyers & scelleres out of the Temple, that holy place; and it is the office of God's Anoynted a King, to purge the Lord's Sabbath day, on our Saturday, that sacred Tyme, from buyers and scellers, and markelinges; Let us patiently therefore with prayers to God wait and expect, until God shall be pleased first to move the harts of mcn generally to embrace this truth, and then to stir up the heart, and couradge and zeal of King to do this great work.

For conclusion of all, one scruple and case of conscience would be satisfied, and tis this; If our consciences be once rightely informed, (as we think) that Saturday is the true Sabbath, by force of the 4 ^th Comm: how can we dispence with God's Commandment, and still our consciences, until a public reformation cometh? and is it not hypocrisy, to think one thing, and practice another, judging Saturday to be Sabbath day, & yet keeping Sunday Sabbath? For, thus a Divine of note delivered it in public; that for a man to divide betwixt his profession, or (in judgment) and his practice, is a note of hypocrisy. Here to I answer, 1. Hypocrisy is when a man maketh an outward show of doing something, but indeed he doth it not: now this agreeth not to us, since we make no show to men, that we keep Saturday Sabbath, but the quite contrary, for both our actions, and our shows, and appearances to men are both one, that is, to labor on the Saturday, so we use no hypocritical dissimulations: Paul, when he became all things to all men, that he might wine some, therefore he circumcised Timothy Act. 16.3. the which fact him self else where, in another case speaks against, Gal. 5.2. and it was unlawful to be done. It was a Law of God, who so shedeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shede, Genes. 9.6. and the Magistrate is God's Minister to take vengeance &c. Rom. 13.14. now David being King, Joab murdered 2. Captains, 1. King. 2.5. here it was the duty of David, to have taken vengeance for God, but David finding Joab to strong for him, 2. Sam. 3.27.39. omitted execution, and gave it in charge to his Son Solomon, to execute it after his death, 1. King. 2.6. I trust no man will count David or Paul herein Hypocrites, & yet their judgment and practice was divided.

2. To the scruple of conscience, in a case of necessity, you read what David did, when he was an hungered, he profaned hallowed bread, contrary to God's Law, and Christ justified him, Math. 12.3.4. you read how Circumcision was omitted all the time the Israelites were in the wilderness Josh. 5.5? if in case of necessity thes might do thus, I trust there is mercy for us also, if our case be like; specially, since we do not utterly abolish all days, for we do but change the day, and for a time give God one day for another: That necessity is upon us, as it was on those Israelites, is plain; do not we live in a Church whose government is established by law, the which law cannot be transgressed with safety to our persons, & goods? besides, is not necessity upon us, as touching the good of our souls? A Sabbath should be celebrated with public and holy convocations and assemblies Levite. 23.3. 〈◊〉 with public preaching and reading Luk. 4.16. now can we have in safety assemblies in private housen? or can we have possible a preacher in every family? & how shall they hear without a preacher? Rom. 10.14. were not these the very causes, why the good King Hezekiah 2. Chron. 30.3. altered the day of the passover. 1. Because they had not Priests, who had fitted themselves for that day; 2. Because the people, were not together assembled in public, on that first day? It may be said, how do they in a voyage at Sea keep Sabbath, who cannot have these? I answer, the case is not a like, for, would they put of the Sabbath day, from one day unto another, they cold not amende themselves, but we by a change and defering the day, we may obtain all those comforts which else we cannot enjoy: and if any shall say, Keep both days: I answer, tis more then ever God required; nor will the necessity of our callings permit it, God himself thought it needful we should have 6. days for our works, to one day for his service, as in the 4 ^th Com.

One instance more, showing God permitted a change of a day, in case of necessity; The Passover was to be eaten ordenarily on the 14 ^th day of the first Moneth, Numb. 9.1.2.3. but in case a man were in a far journey, then he might keep the Passover in the 14 ^th day of the second Moneth, Numb. 9.10.11. now it is farther to be noted, that ever the next day after the Passover, it was a Sabbath, Levite. 23.7. so that as the Passover day was altered, so also this Annual Sabbath was changed answerablie: so that not only the Passover day, but also the Passover Sabbath day, in a case of necessity might be altered and changed: But it will be said, these were Ceremonials, and what is this to a Moral? I answer, why Ceremoniales in their time, whilst they stood in force, called for obedience, as well as Moralls, yea the first Sabbath of the Passover; which followed next day after Passover day, it was eommanded to be kept just as a Sabbath, in holy convocations, and in resting from servile labor, Levite. 23.7. yea, death was to be inflicted upon the breakers of this Ceremonial Sabbath, Numb. 9.13. as well as upon thos that violated the Moral Sabbath, Exod. 31.15. The sum of which is this; That since the Ceremonial Sabbaths, whilst in force, did bind as strictly, as did the Moral Sabbath, therefore there is the same reason and the regard, of the Ceremonial and of the Moral Sabbath, for strictness of observation; and therefore it followeth by like reason (as far as man may judge) that if a dispensatiō be granted in case of necessity, for a change of that day, so a dispensation likewise in like case, is granted for a change of the Moral Sabbath, so long as that necessity vnauoidably lasteth, unless groundlessly we should think, God is more strict towards Christians about the Sabbath, then he was towards Jews about the Sabbath of the Passover.

One objection more, what and if we cannot have public assemblies in the congregatiō, may are we not bound to keep the Sabbath as we can privately, every man in his own family? I answer, since God had ordained the Sabbath to be kept, with public assemblies, and with the help of Priests or Ministers, as hath been shown, therefore I judge it better to alter the day, until the time of reformation, that so we might enjoy the public assemblies, and benefit of an able Minister on another day, then without these, to keep the very self same day; that this opinion is justifiable, see the like practice of the good King Hezekiah, fore mentioned 2. Chron. 30.1.2.3. who because the Priests were not prepared to keep the Passover, in the first Month: nor were the people publicly assembled together in the same month, for these two causes the King with his Princes altered the day of the Passover to the second month. If any shall object or doubt that I strain things to far, when I would justify the change of the Sabbath, by the change of the Passover, because these two are things of a different kind &c. and because the reasons moving us to change the Sabbath, are not the same that God mentioned in the Law of the Passeouers change Numb. 9.10. for satisfaction of the weakest in this point, I thus answer 1. to the latter, touching the reasons of our change: they be not the same indeed every way, yet if they be (as they are) as necessary to enforce a change, as thes, Numb. 9.10. it is sufficient; and for proof hereof, see it in the practice of King Hezekiah, who changed the day of the Passover, 2. Chron. 30.3. not upon these very particular grounds, which God specified in Numb. 9.10. for God specified only these two defilment by a dead corps: and being in a far journey: but Hezekiah by like reason gatheted, that they might alter the day upon other grounds also, if as weighty as those first, and namely upon these, 1. Because the Priests were not sanctified: 2. because the people were not assembled: so thes two differ both in the persons, and also in the things, as may be seen by comparing thos two texts together. Secondly, I answer to the former, and I justify my arguing from the Passover to the Sabbath, from the practice of our Savior, who argued from David's eating the Shewbread, to the Sabbath, Math. 1.12.2.3. which were things far more different, then the Passover day, & the Sabbath day, for both these are of day and time, but thos were of bread and time: Further, by this practice of Christ, I find it lawful for us to reason from a ceremonial, as the show bread was, or by like reason, from a ceremonial as the Passover was to a moral, as the Sabbath was: concluding that the same exceptions, and dispensations belong to the moral Sabbath, which God granted to the ceremonial Law of Shewbread, or to the Law of Passover, if there be necessity in the one as was in the other.

For a conclusion let me stop up one gapp, where at I perceive some will be ready to breek out, saying, since that we have not now the very day which God sanctified, but another day in its room, we are not tied so strictly to keep this day, in the duties of Reste and Holiness, as we should be if we had the righte day, and therefore we may take liberty &c. where unto I answer, how ever the right day is to be desired principally, and before any other, and all good means to be used for obtaining it, yet until a time of reformation, I hold this day ought as strictly to be Sanctified, as that other: suppose a debtor bound in a bond to pay 10 ^li . on the seventh day of March, and his creditor seeing him in a straight, and necessity is upon him, so as he he cannot bring the money just upon the day, in mercy the creditor permitteth him, to make payment on the next day after, on the 8 ^th . day of March; shall now this unthankful debtor, thus reward his merciful creditor, saying, since I carry not my 10 ^li . upon the right day of my bond, being dispensed with all for the time; why therefore I need not be strict neighther in the some, nor yet in the currantnesse of the money, I may take liberty and carry but 9 ^li . 10 ^s . therefore, yea and I care not if also I put in some light gold, and clipt silver: is this good dealing think you by the debtor towards his merciful creditor? Why apply this, the case is thine, if thou wilt give Godlesse duty and service on this 8 ^th . day, then on the 7 ^th . day: yea farther, consider of that text Num. 9.12. where though the Lord had permitted, that in a case of necessity, the time and day might be changed for the Passover, yet as touching the duties of the Passover, to be by the Law performed in the time and in the first day, God would abate none of them, though upon another day, for so saith the text, According to all the ordinances of the Passover they shall keep it. So may I say, of this first day of the week (until a time of reformation, and necessity be removed) According to all the ordinances of the Sabbath, on the seventh day, shall ye keep it.