Theses Sabbaticæ, or, The doctrine of the Sabbath wherein the Sabbaths I. Morality, II. Change, III. Beginning. IV. Sanctification, are clearly discussed, which were first handled more largely in sundry sermons in Cambridge in New-England in opening of the Fourth COmmandment : in unfolding whereof many scriptures are cleared, divers cases of conscience resolved, and the morall law as a rule of life to a believer, occasionally and distinctly handled / by Thomas Shepard ...

The Change of the Sabbath.

THESIS 1.

THe change of this day from the last to the first of [ 1] the week, although it be confirmed by an ancient custome, yet the true reason and grounds of so great a change are not so fully known: Sacred writings not so expresly setting down (as it doth in some things of lesse concernment) the causes hereof. And many of the Arguments heaped up, and multiplyed by some for the change of it, which may seem of great weight, while they want an adversary at the other end of the Scale to bal∣lance them: Yet upon sad examination and search into them they prove too light, and consequently occasion the temptati∣on of scrupling the truth and validity of others more cleare. We are therefore with more warinesse and humility of mind to search into this Controversie, and with much thankful∣nesse and modesty to accept that little light which God gives us in greater, as well as of much light which he is pleased to lend us in smaller matters. Pascimur apertis, exercemur obscuris, was his speech long since concerning the Scriptures. There is no truth so clear, but mans loose wit can invent and mint many pernicious Cavils against it; and therefore in those things which shine forth with lesse evidence, it is no wonder if it casts such blots and staines upon them as that they can fear 〈…〉〈…〉 discerned, Nil magis inimicum veritati, acumine 〈…〉〈…〉 therfore be wise with sobriety, & remember

that in this and such like Controversies, the Scriptures were not written to answer all the scruples and objections of Cavil∣lers, but to satisfie and stablish the consciences of poor belee∣vers. And verily when I meet with such like speeches and ob∣jections as these, viz. Where is it expressely said that the old Sab∣bath is abrogated? and what one Scripture is there in the N. Testa∣ment declaring expressely that the Lords day is substituted and put in its roome? I cannot from such expressions but think and fear that the ignorance of this change in some doth not spring so much from deficiency and want of light on Gods part, but ra∣ther from perversnes on mans part, which will not see nor own the t••uth, because it is not revealed and dispensed after that manner and fashion of expression as mans wit and phan∣tasie would have it: Like Naaman, who, because the Prophet went not about the cure of his Leprosie in that way and fashi∣on which he would have him, did not therefore (for a time) see that way of cure which God had revealed to him. For the Holy Ghost is not bound to write all the principles of Religi∣on under Common-place heads, nor to say expressely, In this place of Scripture you may see the old Sabbath abrogated, and the new instituted; for we find no such kind of expressions concerning Pauls Epistles and many books of Scripture, that this or that Epistle or book is Canonical; which yet we know to be so by other evidences. We know also that the Holy Ghost by brief hints of Truth, gives occasion of large Comments; and by writing about other matters tanquam aliud agens, it brings forth to light by the By revelations of great concernment, which it saw meet purposely in that manner to make known. And as in many other things it hath thus done, so especially in this of the Sabbath. So that if our hearts like Locks were fitted to Gods Key, they would be soon opened to see thorough the difficulties of this point; which I confesse of all practicall points hath been most fu••l of knots and difficulties to my own weaknesse.

Thesis 2.

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

[ 3] Thesis 3.

To make Ecclesiasticall Custome, established 〈◊〉〈◊〉 by the Imperiall Law of Constantine, to be the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of

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

Thesis 4.

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

Thesis 5.

For the morality of the fourth Commandment (as hath [ 5] been proved) being preserved in observing not that Sab∣bath only, nor yet a Sabbath meerly when man sees meet: but in observing the Sabbath, i. e. such a Sabbath as is deter∣mined and appointed of God, (which may therefore be either the first or last of the seven dayes) Hence it is that the first of the seven, if it be determined and instituted of God under the New Testament, ariseth equally from the fourth Com∣mandment, as the last seventh day did under the old Testa∣ment; and therefore it is no such piaculum nor delusion of the common People, as Mr. Brabourne would make it, to put the Title of the Lords Sabbath upon the Lords day, and to call it the Sabbath day; for if it be borne out of the same wombe the first seventh was, if it arise (I mean) from the same Com∣mandment,

Remember to keep holy the Sabbath day; why may it not bear the name of the Sabbath n••w, as the first-born did in former times?

Thesis 6.

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

Thesis 7.

[ 7] It should not seem an uncouth Phrase, or a hard saying, to call the first day of the weeke a seventh or the seventh day: for though it be the first absolutely in order of exi∣stence from the Creation, yet relatively in way of relation, and in respect of the number of seven in a week, it may be in∣vested with the name and title of a seventh, even of such a se∣venth as may lawfully be c••owned and annointed to be the Sabbath day; for look as Noah, though he was the first in order of yeares and dignity of entrance into the Ark, yet he is called the eight, 2 Pet. 2.5. in that he was one of them (as the learned observe) qui octonarium numerum perficiebant, or who made up the number of eight: so it is in respect of the first day, which in divers respects may be called the first, and yet the seventh also. Mr. Brabournes Argument therefore is of no solidity, who goes about to prove the Christian Sabbath to be no Sabbath▪ Because,

That Sabbath which the fourth Com∣mandement injoynes is called the seventh day; but all the Evan∣gelists cal the Lords day the first day of the week, not the se∣venth day.

For he should remember that the same day in di∣vers respects may be called the first day, and yet the seventh day; for in respect of its naturall existence and being, it may

be and is called the first day, and yet in respect of divine use and application, it may be and is called the seventh day, even by vertue of the fourth Commandement, which is the Lords day, which is confessed to be the first day.

Thesis 8.

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

Thesis 9.

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

Thesis 10.

The good will of him who is Lord of the Sabbath, is [ 10]

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

Thesis 11.

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

Thesis 12.

[ 12] Why the Will of God should honour the day of Christs Resurrection as holy, rather then any other day of his In∣carnation, Birth, Passion, Ascension: It is this; because Christs rising day was his resting or Sabbath day, wherein he first entred into his rest, and whereon his rest began. For the Sabbath or Rest-day of the Lord our God, only can be our Rest-day according to the fourth Commandement. Hence the day of Gods rest from the work of Gods Rest from the work of Creation, and the day of Christs Rest from the work of Redemption, are only fit and capable of being our Sabbaths. Now the Lord Christ in the day of his incarnation and birth

did not enter into his rest, but rather made entrance into his labour and sorrow, who then began the wo••k of Humiliation, Gal. 4.4, 5. and in the day of his passion, he was then under the so••est part and feeling of his labour, ••n bitter Agonies up∣on the Crosse and in the Garden. And hence it is that none of those days were consecrated to be ou•• Sabbath or rest-dayes, which were days of Christs labour and sorrow; nor could the day of his Ascension be fit to be made out Sabbath, be∣cause although Christ then and thereby entred into his place of Rest (the third Heavens) yet he did not then make his first entrance into his estate of rest, which was in the day of his Resurrection; the wisedome and will of God did therefore choose this day above any other to be the Sabbath day.

Thesis 13. [ 13]

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

Thesis 14. [ 14]

And looke as Christ was a Lambe slaine from the foundation of the World meritoriously, but not actually: So he was also risen againe in the like manner from the foun∣dation of the world meritoriously, but not actually. Hence it is that look as God the father actually instituted no Sabbath day, untill he had actually finished his work of Creation, so

neither was it meet that this day should be changed, untill Christ Jesus had actually finished (and not meritoriously on∣ly) the work of Redemption or Restoration: And hence it is that the Church before Christs coming might have good reason to sanctifie that day, which was instituted upon the actuall finishing of the work of Creation, and yet might have no reason to observe our Christian Sabbath; the work of Re∣storation and new Creation, and rest from it, not being then so much as actually begun.

[ 15] Thesis 15.

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

[ 16] Thesis 16.

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

Thesis 17.

[ 17] The fourth commandment gives in the reason why God sanctified the seventh day from the Creation, viz. because God rested on that day, and as it is in Exod. 31.17. was refreshed in it, that is, took a complacency and delight

in his 〈◊〉〈◊〉 so done and so finished. But the sin of man in fal∣ling from his first Creation, made God repent that ever he made man, Gen. 6. and consequently the world for man, and therefore it tooke off that complacency or rest and refreshing in this his work; if therefore the Lord betake himselfe to work a new work, new Creation or Renovation of all things in and by his Son, in which he will for ever Rest, may not the day of his rest be then justly changed into the first of se∣ven, on which day his rest in his new work began, whereof he will never repent? If the Lord vary his rest, may not be vary the time and day of it,? nay must not the time and day of our rest be varied, because the ground of Gods rest in a new work is changed?

Thesis 18. [ 18]

As it was no necessary duty therefore, perpetually to observe that seventh day wherein God first rested, be∣cause his rest on that day is now changed; so also it is not necessary orderly to observe those six dayes of labour, where∣in He first laboured and built the world, of which for the sin of man he is said to have repented; yet notwithstanding, though it be no necessary duty to observe those particular six dayes of labour, and that seventh of Rest, yet it is a morall duty (as hath been proved) to observe six dayes for labour, and a seventh for Rest; and hence it follows that although the Lord Christs Rest on the Day of his Resurrection (the first day of the week) might and may justly be taken as a ground of our rest on the same day; yet his labour in the work of Redemption three and thirty yeers and upward, all the dayes of his life and humiliation, could not nor cannot justly be made the ground or example of our labour, so as we must labour and worke thirty three yeeres together before we keep a Sabbath the Day of Christs Rest. Because although God could alter and change the Day of Rest without infring∣ment of the Morality of the fourth Commandment; Yet he could not make the example of Christs labour thirty three yeers together, the ground or example of our continuance in our work, without manifest breach of that Morall Rule, viz. That man shal have six dayes together for labour, & the seventh for Rest. For man may rest the first day of the week, and with∣all observe six dayes for labour, and so keep the fourth Com∣mandment; but he cannot labour 33. yeers together, and then keep a Sabbath without apparent breach of the same Com∣mandment: and therefore that Argument of Master Brabourne against 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Christian Sabbath melt•• into Vanity, wherein he

urgeth an equity of the Change of the Dayes of our 〈◊〉〈◊〉, ei∣ther three Dayes onely together (as Christ did lie in the grave) or 33. yeers together (as he did all the dayes of his Humiliation) in case we will make a Change of the Sabbath, from the Change of the Day of Christs Rest. And yet I confesse ingenuously with him, that if the Lord had not instituted the first Day of the week to be our Christian Sabbath, all these, and such like arguings and reasonings were invalid to prove a Change; for mans reason hath nothing to do to Change dayes without Divine appoint∣ment and institution: these things onely I mention why the wisdome of God might well alter the Day. The proofs that he hath changed it, shall follow in due place.

[ 19] Thesis 19.

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

[ 20] Thesis 20.

Yet although Christs Resurrection be one ground not onely of the Institution of the new Sabbath, but also of the abrogation of the Old, yet it is not the onely ground why the Old was abrogated; For, (as hath been shewen) there was some type affixed to the Jewish Sabbath, by reason of which there was just cause to abrogate, or rather (as Calvin calls it) to translate the Sabbath to another Day. And therefore this dasheth another of Mr. Brabournes dreames, who argues the continuance of the Jewish Sabbath, because there is a possibility for all Nations still to observe it. For (saith he) cannot we in England as well as they at Jerusalem re∣member that Sabbath? Secondly rest in it. Thirdly, Keep it ho∣ly. Fourthly, keep the whole day holy. Fifthly, the last of seven. Sixthly, and all this in imitation of God. Could no Nation (saith he) besides the Iewes observe these six things? Yes verily that

they could in respect of naturall ability; but the question is not what men may or might do, but what they ought to do, and should do. For besides the change of Gods Rest through the work of the Sonne, there was a Type affixed to that Jewish Sabbath, for which cause it may justly vanish at Christs death, as well as other types, in respect of the affixed Type, which was but accidentall; and yet be continued and preserved in another Day, being originally, and essentially Moral: A Sabbath was instituted in Paradise, equally honoured by God in the Decalogue with all other Moral Lawes, foretold to continue in the dayes of the Gospel by Ezekiel and Isaiah, Ezek. 43. ult. Isa. 56.4.6. and commended by Christ, who bids his people pray, that their flight may not be in the winter or Sabbath-day, as it were easie to open these places against all Cavils; and therefore it is for substance Moral. Yet the word Sabbatisme, Heb. 4.9. and the Apostles gradation from yeerely Holy-dayes to monthly new-moons, and from them to weekly Sab∣baths, which are called shadowes of things to come, Colos. 2.16. seemes strongly to argue some type affixed to those individual Sabbaths, or Jewish seventh dayes; and hence it is perhaps that the Sabbath is set among Moral Lawes in the Decalogue, being originally and essentially Moral, and yet is set among ceremonial Feast-dayes, Levit. 23.2, 3. because it is acciden∣tally typical. And therefore Mr. Brabourne need not raise such a dust, and cry out, Oh monstrous! very strange! what a mingle-mangle! what a h••tch-potch have we here! what a confusion and jumbling of things so farre distant, as when Morals and Ceremonials are here mingled together! No verily, we do not make the fourth Commandment essentially Ceremonial; but being acidental∣ly so, why may it notwithstanding this be mingled among the rest of the Morals? Let one solid reason be given, but a∣way with words.

Thesis 21. [ 21]

If the question be, what Type is affixed and annexed to the Sabbath? I think it difficult to find out, although mans wanton wit can easily allegorize and readily frame ima∣ginations enough in this point. Some thing it typified Christs Rest in the grave; but I feare this will not hold, no more then many other Popish conjectures, wherein their al∣legorizing Postillers abound. Bullinger and some others think that it was Typical in respect of the peculiar Sacrifices annexed to it, which Sacrifices were Types of Christ, Numb, 28.9. And although much might be said for this against that which Mr. Brabourne replies, yet I see nothing cogent in this; for the mul∣tiplying

of Sacrifice (which were 〈…〉〈…〉) on this Day proves rather a specialty of worshipping God more a∣boundantly on this Day, then any Ceremonialnesse in it; for if the offering of Sacrifices meerly, should make a day Cere∣monial, why did it not make every Day Ceremonial in re∣spect of every dayes offering of the Morning and Evening Sa∣crifice? Some think that our Rest upon the Sabbath (not God the Fathers Rest, as Mr. Brabourne turnes it) was made not onely a resemblance, but also a Type of our Rest in Christ, of which the Apostle speaks, Heb. 4.3. which is therefore called a Sabbatisme, v••r. 9. or a keeping of a Sabbath at the word sig∣nifies. What others would inferre from this place to make the Sabbath to be meerly Cermonial: and what Mr. Brabourne would answer from hence, that it is not at all Ceremonial, may both of them be easily answered here again as already they have been in some of the former Theses. Some scruples I see not yet through about this text, inforce me herein to be si∣lent, and therefore to leave it to such as think they may de∣fend it, as one ground of some affixed Type unto the Jewish Sabbath.

[ 22] Thesis 22.

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

[ 23] Thesis 23.

The Deliverance 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of Egypt, saith he, is not 〈…〉〈…〉

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

Thesis 24.

But still the difficulty remains; for Master Brabourne [ 24] will say that those were but humane reasons; but what ground is there from Scripture for the institution of another Sabbath, as well as of the abrogation of the old? which if it be not cleared. I confesse this cause sinks; here therefore let it be again observed, that we are not to expect such evidence from Scripture concerning this Change, (as fond and humo∣rous wit sometimes pleads for) In this controversie, namely, That Christ should 〈◊〉〈◊〉 with 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉〈◊〉, as it were upon

Mount Zion, and proclaime by word or writing in so many expresse words, That the Iewish Sabbath is abrogated, and the first day of the week instituted in its roome to be observed of all Christians to the end of the world. For tis not the Lords manner so to speak in many other things which concerne his King∣dome, but as it were occasionally, or in way of History, or Epistle to some particular Church or people; and thus he doth concerning the Sabbath: and yet Wisdomes mind is plain enough to them that understand. Nor do I doubt but that those Scriptures which are sometimes alledged for the Change of the Sabbath, although at first blush they may not seeme to heare up the we••ght of this cause, yet being throughly con∣sidered, they are not onely sufficent to stablish modest minds, but are also such as may 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or stop the mouths even of wranglers themselves.

[ 25] Thesis 25.

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

[ 26] Thesis 26.

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

[ 27] Thesis 27.

The Primitive patterne Churches thus honoured the fi••st Day of the weeke; and what they practised without reproof, that the Apostles (who planted those Churches) en∣joyned and preached unto them so to do; at least in such weighty matters as the Change of Dayes, of preferring one be∣fore that other which the Lord had honoured before; and what the Apostles preached, that the Lord Jesus commanded Matth. 28.20. Go teach all Nations that which I Command you: unlesse any shall think that the Apostles sometime went be∣yond

their Commission to teach that to others which Christ never commanded, which is blasphemous to imagine; for though they might erre in practise as men, and as Peter did at Antioch, and Paul and Barnabas in their contention; yet in in their publike ministry they were infallibly and extraordina∣rily assisted, especially in such things which they hold forth as patterns for after times: if therefore the Primitive Chur∣ches thus honoured the first day of the week above any other day for Sabbath services, then certainly they were instituted and taught thus to do by the Apostles approving of them herein; and what the Apostles taught the Churches, that, the Lord Iesus commanded to the Apostles. So that the approved practise of the churches herein shewes what was the Doctrine of the Apostles; and the Doctrine of the Apostles shewes what was the command of Christ: so that the sanctification of this Fi••st Day of the week is no humane tradition but a Divine institution from Christ himselfe.

Thesis 28.

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

it; a pernicious conceit, enough to undermine the faith of Gods elect in many matters more weighty then this of the Sabbath.

Thesis 29.

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

Thesis 30.

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

Thesis 31.

[ 31] Nor did the Apostles sinfully Iudaize by preaching to the Iewes upon their Sabbaths (as Mr. Brabourne would inferre); supposing that their Sabbaths should not be still observed, they should then Iudaiz and after Ceremonies, saith he, and so build up those things which they laboured to destroy: For, suppose they did ob∣serve

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

forth in appointing other times, may be easily judged of by what hath been said.

Thesis 32.

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

Thesis 33.

[ 33]

Now although the Iewes observing this day, the Apostles observed it among the Iewes by preaching among them; yet we shall finde that among the Christian Gentile Chur∣ches and believers (where no Iudaisme was to be so much as tolerated for a time) not any such day was thus observed, nay another day, the first day in the weeke is honoured and prefer∣red by the Apostles above any other day in the weeke for reli∣gious and Sabbath services. For, although Holy duties doe not argue alway a Holy day; yet when wee shall finde the Holy Ghost single out and nominate one particular day to be observed and honoured rather then any other day, and rather then the Iewish seventh day it selfe for Sabbath services and Holy duties: this undeniably proves that day to be the Chri∣stian Sabbath: and this we shall make evident to be the first day of the weeke. Which one thing seriously minded (if proved) doth utterly subvert the whole frame and force of Master Brabournes shady Discourse for the observation of the Jewish Sabbath, and most effectually establisheth the Chri∣stian Sabbath. Master Braburne therefore herein bestirs his wits, and tells us on the contrary that Paul preached not

onely to the Iewes, but even unto the Gentiles upon this Iewish Sabbath rather then any other day; and for this end brings double proof••; one is Acts 13.42, 44. where the Gentiles are said to desire Paul to preach to them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. the weeke betweene, or any Day betweene till the next Sabbath (as some translate it) or (if Master Brabourne will) the next Sabbath, or Iewish Sab∣bath, when almost all the City came out to heare Paul, who were most of them Gentiles, not Iewes. Be it so, they were Gen∣tiles indeed; but as yet no Church or Christian Church of Gentiles actually under Christs Government and Ordinan∣ces, among whom (I say) the first day of the weeke was so much honoured above any other day for sacred Assem∣blies. For, 'tis no wonder if the Apostles yield to their desires in preaching any time of the weeke, which they thought the best time, even upon the Iewish Sabbath; a∣mong whom the Iewes being mingled, they might have the fitter opportunity to preach to them also, and so become all things to all men to gaine some. His second proofe is, Acts 16 12, 13. and here he tells us that Paul and Timothy preached not to the Iewes, but to the Gentiles, upon the Sabbath day. I confesse they are not called Iewes no more then 'tis said that they were Gentiles; but why might not Lydia and her company be Iewes or Iewish Proselytes, vvho vve know did observe the Iewish Sabbath strictly till they were better instructed, as they did all other Jewish ceremonies also? For Lydia is expressely said to be one who worshipped God befo••e Paul came. Master Brabourne tels us, they were no Iewish Proselytes, because they had no Iewish Synagogue, and therefore they were faine to goe out of the City into the Fields, beside a River, to pray. I confesse the Text saith that they went out to a River side where prayer was wont to be made; but that this was the open Fields, and that there was no Oratory, house, or place of shelter to meet and pray in, this is not in the Text, but its Master Brabournes com∣ment and glosse on it. But suppose it was in the open Fields, and that they had no Synagogue: yet will it follow that these were not Iewes? might not the Iewes be in a Gentile City for a time without any Synagogue? especially if their number be but small, and this small number consist chiefly of women, as it seemes this did, whose hearts God touched, leaving their husbands to their owne waies? If they were not Iewes or rather Iewish Prosely••es, why did they choose the Sabbath day

(which the Iewes so much set by) rather then any other, to pray and worship God together in? But verily such answers as these wherewith the poor man abounds in his Treatise, make me extreamly fear that he rather stretcht his Consci∣ence, then was acted by a plaine deluded Conscience in this point of the Sabbath.

Thesis. 34.

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

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

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

Thesis 35.

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

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

2, That this meeting was upon the first day of the week, called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: which phrase although Go∣marus, Primrose, Heylin, and many others go about to translate thus, viz. upon one of the dayes of the week. Yet this is sufficient to dash that Dream (besides what else might be said) viz That this phrase is expounded in other Scriptures to be the first day of the week, Luke 24, 1. Iohn 20, 1. but never to be found throughout all the Scriptures expounded of one day in the week. Gomarus indeed tels us of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Luke 5.17. & 8.22. & 20.1. which is translated quodam

die, or a certain day; but this will not help him, for this is not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as 'tis in this place.

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

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

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

6. Why is the first Day of the week mentioned which is attributed onely in the New Testament to the Day of Christs resurrection, unlesse this day was then usually honoured and sanctified for Holy Duties called here breaking of bread by a Synecdoche of a part for the whole, and therefore compre∣hends all other Sabbath Duties? For there is no more reason to exclude prayer, preaching, singing of Psalmes, &c. because these are not mentioned, then to exclude drinking of Wine in

the Sacrament, (as the blinde Papists do) because this neither is here made mention of. Master Primrose indeed tels us that it may be, the first Day of the week is named in respect of the Miracle done in it upon Eu••ichus: But the Text it plaine, the time of the meeting is mentioned, and the end of it to break Bread, and the Miracle is but brought in as a particularly event which happened on this day, which was set apart first for higher ends.

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

8, Nor is it said that the Disciples met together, the night after the first day; but its expressely said to be upon the first day of the week: and supp••se (as Mr. Brabourne saith) that their meeting was no•• together in the morning, but onely in the evening time to celebrate the Lords Supper, a little before the shutting in of the day: yet its a sufficient ground for

conscience to observe this day above any other for holy servi∣ces, although every part of the day be not filled up with publike & Church duties; for suppose the Levites on the Jewish sabbath should do no holy publike duty on their own Sabbath untill the day was farre ••pent; will Mr. Brabourne argue from thence, that the Jewish Sabbath was not wholly holy unto God? But againe, suppose the latter part of the day was spent in breaking of Bread, yet will it follow that no other part of the day was spent before, either in any private or publique holy duties? pos∣sibly they might receive the Lords Supper in the evening of this Sabbath (for the time of this action is in the general indif∣ferent) yet might they not spend the rest of the morning in publike Duties, as we know some do now in some Churches, who are said to meet together to break Bread the latter part of this day, and yet sanctifie the Sabbath the whole day before. Suppose it be not expressely said that they did shut up shop∣windwes at Troas and forsake the Plough and the Wheele, and abstaine from all servile work; yet if he beleeves that no more was done this day but what is expressely set downe, Mr. Brabourne must needs see a pitiful face of Christ in the Lords Supper, and people comming ••ushing upon it without any serious examination or preparation or singing of Psalms, be∣cause no such Duties as these are mentioned to be upon this Day.

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

Thesis 36.

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

1. Although it be true, that in some cases Collections may be made any day for the poore Saints; yet why doth the A∣postle here limit them to this day for the performance of this Duty? they that translate 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 upon one day of the week, do miserably mistake the phrase, which in Scripture

phrase onely signifies the first day of it, and beat their forheads against the maine Scope of the Apostle, viz. to fixe a certaine day for such a Duty as required such a certaine time: For, they might (by this translation) Collect their Benevolences one day in foure or ten yeers, for then it should be done one day in a week.

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

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

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

5. That the Apostle doth not in this place immediatly ap∣point and institute the Sabbath, but supposeth it to be so al∣ready

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

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

therefore I passe them by as I do many other things in that book as not worth the time to name them.

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

[ 37] Thesis 37.

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

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

[ 38] Thesis 38.

The first Difficulty here to prove and cleare up, is, that, This Day which is here called the Lords Day, is a day institu∣ted and sanctified for the Lords honour and service above any other Day. For, as the Sacrament of Bread and Wine is called the Lords Supper, and the Lords Table, for no other reason but because they were instituted by Christ, and sanctified for him and his honour; so what other reason can be given by any Scripture-light why this is called the Lords Day, but because

••t was in the like manner instituted and sanctified as they were? Master Brabourne here shifts away from the light of this Text, by affirming that it might be called the Lords Day in re∣spect of God the Creator, not Christ the Redeemer, and therefore may be meant of the Iewish Sabbath which is called the Lords holy Day, Isaiah 58 3. But why might he not as well say that its called the Lords Supper & Table in respect of God the Creator, consider∣ing that in the New Testament since Christ is actually exalt∣ed to be Lord of all, this phrase is onely applyed to the Lord Christ as Redeemer? Look therefore as the Jewish Sabbath being called the Lords Sabbath, or the Sabbath of Iehovah, is by that title and note certainly known to be a Day sanctifi∣ed by Iehovah, as Creator; so this Day being called the Lords Day, is by this note as certainly known to be a Day sanctified by our Lord Jesus as Redeemer. Nor do I finde any one distinct thing in all the Scripture which hath the Lords superscription or name upon it (as the Lords Temple, the Lords Offerings, the Lords people, the Lords Priests &c.) but it is sanctified of God and holy to him: why is not this Day then Holy to the Lord, if it equally bears the Lords name? Ma∣ster Primrose indeed puts us off with another shift, viz. That this Day being called so by the Churches customs; John therefore calls it so in respest of that custome which the church then used, with∣out Divine institution. But why may he not as well say that he calls it the Lords Table in respect of the Churches Custome also? the Designation of a Day, and of the first time in the Day for Holy publike services is indeed in the power of each particular Church (Suppose it be a Lecture, and the houres of Sabbath-meetings) but the Sanctification of a Day, if it be Di∣vine worship, to observe it if God command and appoint it; then surely it is wil-worship for any Humane Custome to in∣stitute it. Now, the Lords name being stamped upon this Day and so set apart for the honour of Christ, it cannot be that so it should be called in respect of the Churches customes; for surely then they should have been condemned for wil-wor∣ship by some of the Apostles; and therefore it is in respect of the Lords institution hereof.

Thesis 39.

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

1. That this Day of which Iohn speaks, is a known Day,

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

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

1. There is no other Day on which mention is made of any other work or action of Christ which might occasion a Ho∣ly Day, but onely this of the Resurrection, which is exactly noted of all the Evangelists to be upon the first Day of the week, and by which work he is expressely said to have all power given him in heaven and earth, Matt. 28.18. and to be actually Lord of dead and living, Rom. 14.9. and there∣fore why should any other Lords Day be dreamed of? why should Master Brabourne imagine that this day might be some superstitious Easter Day, which happens once a yeer? the Holy Ghost on the contrary, not setting downe the month or day of the yeer, but of the week wherein Christ arose, and therefore it must be meant of a weekly Holy Day here called the Lords Day.

2. We do not read of any other Day (besides this first Day of the week) which was observed for Holy Sabbath Duties and honoured above any other day for breaking of Bread, for preaching the Word (which were acts of piety) nor for Collections for the poor (the most eminent act of mercy) why then should any imagine any other day to be the Lords day, but that first day?

3. There seems to be much in that which Beza observes out of an ancient Greek Manuscript wherein that first Day of the week, 1 Cor. 16.2. is expressely called the Lords Day, and the Syriack Translation saith that their meeting together to receive the Sacrament, 1 Cor. 11.20. was upon the Lords Day; nor is there any antiquity but expounds this Lords Day of the first Day of the week, as learned Rivet makes good against Gomarus, professing, that Quotquot Interpretes hactenus fuerunt, haec verba de die Resurrectionis Domini intel∣lexerunt; solus quod quidem sciam, Cl. D. Gomarus contra∣dixit.

4. Look as Iehovahs, or the Lords Holy Day, Isaiah 58.13. was the seventh Day in the week then in use in the Old Testament, so why should not this Lords Day be meant of some seventh Day (the first of seven in the week which the Lord appointed, and the Church observed under the New Testament, and therefore called (as that was) the Lords Day?

5. There can be no other Day imagined but this to be the Lords Day; indeeed Gomarus affirms that its called the Lords Day, because of the Lord Jesus apparition in Vision to Iohn, and therefore he tell us that in Scripture phrase, the Day of the Lord is such a Day wherein the Lord manifests him∣selfe either in wrath or in favour, as here to Iohn. But there's a great difference between those phrases, The Lords Day, and the Day of the Lord, which it is not called here. For such an interpretation of the Lords Day, as if it was an uncertaine time, is directly crosse to the Scope of Iohn in setting downe this Vision, who to beget more credit to it, tels us, First, of the person that saw it, I Iohn ver. 10. Secondly, the particular place, in Paimo. Thirdly, the particular time, the Lords Day.

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

Thesis 40.

Hence therefore it followes, that although this particular [ 40] seventh day, which is the first of seven, be not particularly made mention of in the fourth Commandment; yet the last

of seven being abrogated, and this being instituted in its roome, it is therefore to be perpetuated and observed in its roome. For though it be true (as Mr. Brabourne urgeth) That New Institutions cannot be founded, no not by Analogy of propor∣tion, meerly upon Old Institutions; as because children were Circum∣cised, it will not follow that they are therefore to be baptized: and so because the Iewes kept that seventh day, that we may therefore keep the first day. Yet this is certaine, that when New things are instituted not by humane Analogy, but by Divine appoint∣ment, the Application of these may stand by vertue of old pre∣cepts and general Rules, from whence the Application even of old Institutions formerly arose. For we know that the Cul∣tus institutu•• in the New Testament in Ministry and Sacra∣ments, stands at this day by vertue of the second Command∣ment, as well as the instituted worship under the Old. And though Baptisme stands not by vertue of the institution of Circumcision, yet it being De novo instituted by Christ as the Seale of Initiation into Christs mystical Body, 1 Cor. 12.12. it now stands by vertue of that general Rule by which Cir∣cumcision it selfe was administred, viz That the Seale of ini∣tiation into Christs Body be applyed to all the visible mem∣bers of that Body: and hence children are to be now Baptized, as once they were Circumcised, being members of Christs Body. So the first day of the week being instituted to be the Lords Day or Lords Sabbath, hence it followes that if the first seventh which is now abrogated, was once observed, be∣cause it was the Lords Sabbath or the Sabbath Day which God appointed; by the very same Rule, and on the very same ground we also are bound to keep this first day being also the Sabbath of the Lord our God, which he hath now appointed anew under the New Testament.

Thesis 41.

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

Thesis 42.

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

Thesis 43.

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

Thesis 44.

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

Notes

• Vide Spri•••• on Sabb. Ironsides answer to 30 Argum. Qu. 5. c. 17.
• Austin.
• Prim. part- cap. ••. Hey. lin. Hist. l. 2.
• Lake Theses.
• Jun. Ann. in Gen. 2.3.
• Iron. Qu. 5. cap. 89.
• Gomar. In∣vest. Sent. & orig. Sab. cap. 9.
• Primr. par. 3. cap. 5.
• Primr. par. •• cap. 5.
• Ibid.
• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• Primr. par. 3. c. 6.
• Primr. par. 3. cap. 7.
• Rivet Dis∣sert. De o∣rig. Sab. cap. 10.