a signe and the thing signified vvhich euer vvere together as vvas the Sabbath keeping and Gods sanctifying them for if presence of a signe and thing signified then together had caused an abolition of the signe vvhy then the Sabbath day because a signe of Gods present sanctifications had beene abolisht euen then vvhen Moses vvrote these vvordes Exod. 31.13 if presence of the thing signified could not then abolish the Sabbath why should it now since God is euer the same to them that keepe his Sabbaths then or now he sanctified them then he sanctifieth vs now there is no reason therfore that such as are signes of things present as is the Sabbath Exod. 31.13 should be abolisht My 2d distinction of signes is that there be signes of things future as hath bene showne Genes 17.11 and signes of things past as the Sabbath is made a signe of the creation and of Gods Rest at the begining of the world vvhich is a thing past Exo. 31.16.17 keep the Sabbath c. it is a signe betwene me and the children of Israel for or that in 6. dayes the Lord made heauen c. in the 7th day he rested The word for is and may be translated that as Deuter. 29.6 now though signes of things future vanish when the thing signed comes in place yet is there no cause why vve should thinke a signe should vanish as the Sabbath day whose thing signified is long since past as Gods Rest at the creation why may not the Sabbath day signify and commemorate Gods Rest and Sabbath day at the creation euen to the vvorlds end as vvell as in Moses his tyme and vvhy should vve thinke the coming of Christ in the flesh should haue more force to abolish the Sabbath day if it had beene a signe of Christ to come then the work of creation vvhich is eternally to be remembred hath force to perpetuate and eternalize the Sabbath since that the Sabbath was a signe of its remembrance I confesse I heare them produce one Text to proue that all signes be abolisht and that is written in Colos 2.16.17 vvhere the Apostle seemes to giue a reason vvhy meates and drinkes and Holy dayes Sabbath dayes are abolisht namly because they were shaddowes of things to come vvhence they collect that all shaddowes be abolisht and all signes be shadowes ergo all signes be abolisht Here vnto I answere 1. t is true that it is commonly taken that these things being shadowes vvere therfore abolisht but vvhither this be a necessary or but a contingent truth I vvill not novv question 2. Whereas they suppose all signes to be shadowes this is false for the word shadowe being but thrice as I take it vsed in the New Testament as in this Text Col. 2.17 and Heb. 8.5 and Heb. 10.1 vvith reference to Christ it euer signifieth a shadow of things to come now a signe is vsed to signifie and signe out some tyme a thing past as Rom. 4.11 some tyme a thing present as Exod. 31.13 some tyme a thing future as Genes 17.8.11 now all signes then be not shadowes since some signifie things past some typifie things present 2. Shadowes still hane reference to Christ Col. 2.17 vvhich are a shadow of things to come but the body is of Christ so a shadow aimes at Christ but a signe often hath reference to God to Jehouah as in Exod. 31.13 Isa 38.7 Thus as a shadow and a signe differ in vvordes so you see they differ in vse and application therfore they be not both one as they vvould But when they see this profe thus vvill not hould then they fetch about the bushe an other vvay laboring to make the vvord signe in Exod. 31.13 to be a signe of a thing future and that of Christ too and then they thinke this done the word signe in this text and the vvord shadow in Col. 2.17 vvill be both one and so their propose become good againe To this end they add these vvords By and through Christ to the Text Exod. 31.13 and vnderstand the text as if thus reade The Sabbath is a signe c. that I the Lord doe sanctifie 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 vvho hath blessed vs vvith all spirituall blessings in Christ Hereto I answere 1. admit that God did sanctify by and through Christ how vvill it followe and be soundly proued that because God and Christ doe sanctify man together that therfore also vvhat God made to be a signe of his vvork of sanctification the same also must necessarily be a signe of Christs work of sanctification proue I say that it vvas Gods pleasure to make the Sabbath here a signe of Christ as vvell as a signe of himselfe for though it vvas a signe by Christ yet vvas it a signe of Christ we must know signes are not applied to God or Christ naturally but voluntarily euen according as it pleased the Author of those signes to appointe them to one or more persons to himselfe or to other I answere 2. if Christs coworking vvith God causeth that vvhich is a signe of Christ Then it followes too that the Ministers of the Gospell coeworking vvith God and Christ in the worke of sanctification that therfore if the Sabbath be a signe that God sanctifieth his people the Sabbath must be a signe also that vve of the Ministry doe sanctify Gods people and such an vse of the Sabbath vvas neuer heard of before I answere 3. if they vvill conioyne any of the persones in the Trinity vvith the vvork of God the Father in sanctifying vs it vvere most proper to ioyne the Holy Ghost and so Piscator vpon Ezek. 20.12.20 applieth it and say God sanctifyeth vs 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 Sonne redemeth the Holy Ghost sanctifieth But I will not stand vpon this I come to the Text Eph. 1.3 God hath blessed vs with all spirituall blessings in Christ if you vnderstand these vvordes so as if vvhatsoeuer blessing the Church enioyeth Christ doth equally equally and a like with the Father dispense effectuall and bestowe it on the church you misvnderstand them doth not Piscator vpon this text that the word all must haue a limitation Justification is an acte solely of God the Father not of God the Redeemer absoluing and acquiting a penitent beleeuing sinner likewise Election is an acte of God the Father not of Christ the Re-Redeemer Also the donation of the elect vnto Christ Joh. 6.37 is of like nature can it be said here God the Father gaue the elect vnto Christ in Christ by Christ or through Christ vvhereby you see Christ is so farre from effecting equally and a like all vvorkes vvith the Father that some vvorkes he hath no
in the Sabbath all their labour vvill be lost as I trust in God it will appeare at the last what they say against the 7th day Sabbath I reduce to two heades the former shall consist of textes of Scripture and artificiall arguments the latter of testimonies and authorities of men for their Textes of Scripture whereby they would proue the 7th day Sabbath is abolisht 1. The first text shall be that of Isai 66.23 from month to month or from new Moone to new Moone and from Sabbath to Sabbath shall all flesh come to worship before me c. whence it is collected by them that the weekly 7th day Sabbath was a signe and that of the euerlasting Sabbath in Heauen and therfore the ceremoniall and temporary Hereto I answere 1. that this phrase of speech in this text is obscure and dark some to vs for vvhat shall be meante by these words from Month to Month whereof are these a signe now t is vnmeet that so plaine a text as is the 4th Com touching the Sabbath which is deliured in plaine and proper vvords should be contradicted and blotted out by an other text which is in Metaphoricale phrases of a doubtfull sense 2. if this Sabbath was a signe of heauen it is so farre from being a temporary ceremony as rather it is perpetuall Morall to last till Heauen comes as hath beene said before for the signe or shadowe is to last vntill the body a substance be comne or admit this Sabbath a signe both of the whole tyme of the Church of the New Testament on earth and also of the Church triumphant in heauen as some would why yet I hope the body of Heauen 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 labour to spend more words about this text it hauing so little culler to any thing in it for their purpose 2. A 2d text to proue the Sabbath a ceremony and so abolisht is Numb 28.9.10 where it was commanded the Isralites to offer two lambes for for a sacrifice on the Sabbath day Hereto I answere 1. why should the sacrificing of two lambes on the Sabbath make the Sabbath a ceremony and abolisht any more then the sacrificing of one lambe euery day for a daily burnt offring Numb 28.4.6 make the working dayes of the weeke ceremoniall and abolisht 2. Hath not the Morall works in the Sabbath as Rest and Holinesse and remembrance of Gods Rest after creation as much and more power ouer the tyme 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 tyme of the Sabbath which was commanded why did they not also abolish the duties in the tyme as Rest and Holinesse 3. The Sabbath was a Sabbath in nature and institution before there was any sacrifices for it was in tyme of Adams innocency before the fall wherfore 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. yeeres 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 therfore the Sabbath had a being before sacrifices and ceremonies so may it haue its being after all sacrifices and ceremonies be abolisht 3. A 3d Text is in Deuter. 5.15 where the Lord telleth the Israelites He brought them out of Egypte and therfore the Lord commanded them to keepe the Sabbath vvhence they would argue to this effect since that the Sabbath is an effect of or hath necessary dependance vpō their deliuerance out of Egypt it followeth if that deliuerance out of Egypt be but ceremoniall as a thing proper to the Iewe Then so is the Sabbath also I answere 1. The Sabbath may be said to be an effect or haue dependance of an other thing two wayes one as touching its obseruation the other as touching its institution now this deliuerance out of Egypt was not cause of the Sabbaths institution for the Sabbath was before they euer went downe into Egypt Genes 2.3 neither vvas or could the deliverance out of Egypt be the sole cause nor the cheife cause of the Sabbaths institution for Gods owne rest vpon that day Genes 2.3 was the cheife 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 soule in duties of holinesse But as touching the Sabbaths obseruation the deliuerance from Egypt might be a cause and was and ought to be a motiue to obedience in obseruance keeping the Sabbath day and so all blessings whatsoeuer should be motiues to obedience as Deut. 6.20.21.23.24 Deuter. 28.47.48 but vvhat if these blessings faile and God giue others in roome of them shall our obedience and obseruance faile and vanishe vvhat and if we Christians haue not that one particular blessing of deliuerance from Egypt which the Jewe had haue vve no many other blessings and deliuerance to moue vs to obedience as from that Armade in 88. from the Gunpowder plott and I know not how many more I conclude that since the deliuerance out of Egypt vvas not the cause of the Sabbaths institution but only of its after obseruation therfore though that deliuerance was ceremoniall yet was not the Sabbath ceremoniall 2. I answere if this motiue of Isralites deliuerance from Egypt because not belonging to vs Christians therfore shewes the Sabbath belongs not to vs neither Then may we by as good reason abolish not the Sabbath alone but the whole morall law also and then as vve vvill none of the Jewes Sabbath to be ours no more need vve vvill the Iewes God to be ours commanded in the first Com for the reason to induce to obedience and hauing the true God for their God was this I Law as therfore vvhen the Apostle saith Ephes 2.15 Christ abrogated the Law of Commandements vve vnderstand it only of the ceremoniall law of commandements not of the morall So vvhere here the Apostle takes away the difference of dayes I vnderstand him to abolish only ceremoniall dayes but not the Morall 7th day Sabbath I answere 3d. if all difference of all dayes be abolisht vvhy then keepe we the Lords day now for a Sabbath in a religiouse manner if you say you keep it not as a ceremony or type shaddow of Christ to come which was the reason of the Sabbaths abolition but in other respects as in remembrance of Christ alredy comne vvhy then by like reason may not the 7th day Sabbath be now kept by vs so be we lay aside that supposed typicall shaddowish respect vvhich it had of Christ to come and vve keeping it in other respects as in remembrance of
Gods Rest on the same day after the vvork of creation and as it is a day for the benefit of both our bodies for rest and our soules for holinesse Thus none of those former textes you see can proue that the 7th day Sabbath vvas euer ceremoniall or yet abolisht but yet they haue two textes more behinde vvherein they put great confidence and especially in the former of the two and if they faile in these two as I trust in God they shall then are they quite gone and for euer to hould their peace for speaking more against the Lord Gods Sabbath 6. The 6th text is that Colos 2.16.17 let no man condemne you in meate and drinke or in respect of an holy day or of the new Moone or of the Sabbath dayes vvhich are a shaddow of things to come but the body is of Christ Loe say they here you haue Sabbath dayes forbidden the very point in question they are counted a shaddaw of Christ and therfore abolisht I answere 1. as there is two Lavves a morall Lavv consisting of 10. Comm all vvritten by the finger of God vpon Tables of stone and a ceremoniall Law vvritten by Moses and deliuered to the people so are there Sabbaths morall that is such as God engraued vpon the Tables of stone vvith other 9. preceptes and there are Sabbaths ceremoniall that is such as you finde no mention of in the Decalogue but such as you finde recorded by Moses dispersed here there in the 5. bookes of Moses specially in Leuit. 23.4 c. to the end of the chapter Novv as vvhen you reade Heb. 7.12 Ephes 2.15 If the priesthode be changed then must there be a change of the lavv you vvill not here permite any man to iumble confusedly together the lavv morall and Law ceremoniall and say both these lawes are here changed but you vvill distinguish of Lawes granting them the ceremoniall Law to be meante here but not the morall so doe I in answere to this text Col. 2.16 distinguish of Sabbaths granting them here is meante only ceremoniall Sabbaths denying that here is meante the Morall Sabbath of 7th day That this distinction is good and that by Sabbaths here is meant only ceremoniall Sabbaths doe beare witnesse to me euen vvorthy diuines of their owne side as Greenham in his vvorke vpon the Sabbath day and Perkins in his cases of conscience booke 2. chapt 16. Sect. 3. and Dod vpon the 4th Comm pag. 133. and Elton vpon the Colossians 2.16 and Ames in his Thesis touching the Sabbath 2. That here is meante only ceremoniall Sabbaths is plaine by the context and that by two reasons the former in that these Sabbathes are ranked vvith other things all vvhich be ceremonies as meates and drinkes and new Moones and holy dayes so that all other things in this text vvhich the Apostle abolisheth being ceremonies it giues vs cause to thinke the Sabbaths placed and ioyned vvith them be only ceremoniall Sabbaths as M. Dod vvell obserueth vpon the 4th Com the latter reason is for that this 16th verse is as you may see by the vvord of inference Therfore a conclusion vvhose premise you haue in the 14th verse and here the Apostles discourse is on this wise If the hand wrighting of ordinances which is the Law that commanded meates drinkes and Holy dayes new Moones Sabbath dayes be put out and taken away Then let no man condemne you in meates and drinkes in Holy dayes new Moones or Sabbaths dayes But the handwrighting of ordinances is put out and taken away Therfore let no man condemne you in meates and drinkes in Holy dayes new Moones or Sabbath dayes The minor you haue v. 14. the conclusion in v. 16. Now for asmuch as it is a rule vvith Logicians that there should not be more in the conclusion then vvas in the premisses Hence it followeth that if by the vvord Sabbathes in v. 16. you vvill vnderstand the morall Sabbath of the 7th day then by handvvrighting of ordinances in v. 14. you must vnderstand at least that parte of the Morall Law vvhich is the 4th Com the vvhich commanded that Sabbath The vvhich if you doe then you rune vpon this absurdety that you make the Apostle to abolish in this text a branch of morall Law as the vvhole or at least a parte of the 4th Com and so wheras the Lord wrote vpon the Table tenne commandements Deut. 10.4 you make by this interpretation but nyne commandements or at most but nyne and an halfe or but nyne and three quarters or there abouts for tenne compleate there is not I am sure Against my distinction they say by Sabbaths in this text of necessity must morall Sabbaths be meante because vnder the name of Holy dayes is comprised all ceremoniall Sabbathes so that then the word Sabbaths must meane the morall Sabbath whereto I answere that I vvill lay you out for euery word its proper day it signifies and yet the morall Sabbath excepted 1. by nevv Moones is meante only the first day of month Numb 28.11 2. Holy day is in the originall feast day or a feaste or in parte of a feaste 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 now the Lord had commanded the Jewes a feast of 7. dayes Leuit. 23.34.39 of vvhich feast the first day and also the last day were Sabbaths now the dayes goeing betwene the first and last day these vvere the parte of a feast 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and these the Apostle aimed at by holy day and then 3d. and lastly by Sabbaths are meante those annuall Sabbaths vvhich vvere on the first and last day of the Feast of 7. dayes now least ye think this distinction and application but a conceipte see Leuit. 23.37.38 where the Lord himselfe distinguisheth twixt Feastes and Sabbathes vvhen he said These are the Feastes c. besides the Sabbathes c. Or if by Holy day or Feast you vvill vnderstand all these 7. dayes with the first and last dayes which were Sabbathes then by the vvord Sabbathes in Col. 2.16 may be vnderstood these Sabbathes Leuit. 23.24.32 which were feastes but of one single day a peece and eighther of them called Sabbathes and these vvere the Sabbathes vvhich Paul abolished so you see there is no necessity by Sabbathes to vnderstand the Morall Sabbath at all I answere 2. to the text Col. 2.16 that hereby vve ought not to vnderstand the Morall Sabbath as if that were abolisht for this vvere to set Paul against Christ the seruant against his Lord for Christ established the morall Law and euery iott and title of it to the vvorlds end Math. 5.18 now the 7th day Sabbath vvas not lesse than a iott or title of the Law and did Christ please to ratifie it to the vvorlds end and shall vve make Paul with in a fewe yeeres after to abolish it vvhat necessety is there of such large vnderstanding of the vvord Sabbathes is there any besides mens pleasures so to haue it that they might throw downe the
is this That since the Ceremoniall Sabbaths whilst in force did binde as strictly as did the Morall Sabbath therfore there is the same reason and the regard of the Ceremoniall and of the Morall Sabbath for strictnes of obseruation and therfore it followeth by like reason as farre 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 Morall Sabbath so long as that necessity vnauoidably lasteth vnles groundlesly we should think God is more strict towards Christians about the Sabbath then he vvas towards Iewes about the Sabbath of the Passeouer One obiection more vvhat and if vve cannot haue publike assemblies in the congregatiō may are vve not bounde to keep the Sabbath as vve can priuately euery man in his owne familie I answere since God had ordeined the Sabbath to be kept vvith publike assemblies and with the helpe of Priestes or Ministers as hath beene showne therefore I judge it better to alter the day vntill the tyme of reformation that so we might enioy the publike assemblies and benefite of an able Minister on an other day then without these to keep the very selfe same day that this opinion is justifiable see the like practise of the good King Hezekiah fore mentioned 2. Chron. 30.1.2.3 vvho because the Priests were not prepared to keep the Passeouer in the first Month nor vvere the people publikely assembled together in the same month for these two causes the King with his Princes altered the day of the Passeouer to the second month If any shall obiect or doubt that I straine things to farre when I wold justifie the change of the Sabbath by the change of the Passeouer because these two are things of a different kinde c. and because the reasons mouing vs 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 vveakest in this point I thus answer 1. to the latter touching the reasons of our change they be not the same indeed euery way yet if they be as they are as necessary to enforce a change as thes Numb 9.10 it is sufficient and for proofe hereof see it in the practise of King Hezekiah who changed the day of the Passeouer 2. Chron. 30.3 not vpon these very particular grounds which God specified in Numb 9.10 for God specified onely these two defilment by a dead corps and being in a farre iourney but Hezekiah by like reason gatheted that they might alter the day vpon other grounds also if as weightie as those first and namely vpon these 1. Because the Priests vvere 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 cōparing thos two textes together Secondly I answere to the former and I justifie my arguing from the Passeouer to the Sabbath from the practise of our Sauiour who argued from Dauids eating the Shewbread to the Sabbath Math. 1.12.2.3 which were things farre more different then the Passeouer day the Sabbath day for both these are of day and tyme but thos were of bread and tyme Further by this practise of Christ I finde it lavvfull for vs to reason from a ceremoniall as the shewe breade was or by like reason from a ceremoniall as the Passeouer was to a morall as the Sabbath was concluding that the same exceptions and dispensations belonge to the morall Sabbath which God granted to the ceremoniall Law of Shewbread or to the Law of Passeouer if there be necessity in the one as vvas in the other For a conclusion let me stopp vp one gapp wher at I perceiue some will be redy to breek out saying since that we haue not now the very day vvhich God sanctified but an other day in its roome vve are not tied so strictly to keepe this day in the duties of Reste and Holinesse as we shold be if we had the righte day and therfore vve may take liberty c. where vnto I ansvvere hovv euer the right day is to be desired principally and before any other and all good meanes to be vsed for obtayning it yet vntill a tyme of reformation I hould this day ought as strictly to be Sanctified as that other suppose a debtor bound in a bond to pay 10li. on the seauenth day of March and his creditor seing him in a streight and necessity is vpon him so as he he cannot bring the mony iust vpon the day in mercy the creditor permitteth him to make payment on the next day after on the 8th day of March shall novv this vnthankfull debtor thus revvard his mercifull creditor saying since I carry not my 10li. vpon the right day of my bond being dispensed vvith all for the tyme why therfore I nede not be strict neighther in the some nor yet in the currantnesse of the mony I may take liberty and carry but 9li. 10s. therfore yea and I care not if also I put in some light gould and clipt siluer is this good dealing thinke you by the debtor towards his mercifull creditor Why apply this the case is thine if thou vvilt giue Godlesse dutie and seruice on this 8th day then on the 7th day yea farther consider of that text Num. 9.12 vvhere though the Lord had permitted that in a case of necessity the tyme and day might be changed for the Passeouer yet as touching the duties of the Passeouer to be by the Law performed in the tyme and in the first day God vvold abate none of them though vpon another day for so saith the text According to all the ordinances of the Passeouer they shall keepe it So may I say of this first day of the vveeke vntill a tyme of reformation and necessity be remoued According to all the ordinances of the Sabbath on the seauenth day shall yee keep it FINIS
hand or stroke in and yet if they vvill haue this text to make for them they must proue by it that not only Christ doth effect all vvorkes the vvhich his Father effecteth but also that Christ doth them euery way equally and a like as God the Father doth them for else how vvill it follow by like reason that the Sabbath being a signe of Gods sanctification it must also be a signe of Christs sanctification too vnlesse it be from this grownd that God his sanctification and Christ his sanctification be both performed equally and a like in all respectes but since the former cannot be proued the latter can much lesse be proued But there vnto it may be said though the generall cannot be proued yet the particular in question may Heb. 10.10 wher t is said we be sanctified by the offring vp of Iesus Christ c. so that Christ doth sanctify as well as God the Father Herevnto I answere whither sanctification here importeth any more then a washing vs from the guiltinesse of our sines or not I will not dispute but let it goe for granted that by sanctification here is meant that inherent new quality of Holines yet it will not follow that because Christ sanctifyeth vs as well as God the Father sanctifyeth vs therfore vvhatsoeuer is made a signe of God the Fathers sanctifying vs is necessarily must be a signe of Christ his sanctifying vs to so as if God made the Sabbath a signe of his sanctification he must also make the Sabbath a signe of Christs sanctification how by force of our feeble reason we dare put such a necessity vpon God I cannot see nay rather the cōtrary appeares to mee that for so much as Gods sanctifying vs and Christs sanctifying vs be farre vnlike each other therfore they should not by force of reason obtaine a like preuiledges and relations to this purpose see how they differ 1. God sanctifyeth by virtue of his Godhead and Diuinity Christ sanctifyeth by the offering of his body Heb. 10.10 now great is the difference twixt the Deity and the Humanity 2. God the Father sanctifyeth vs of himselfe by himselfe originally but Christ his death and sufferings or Christ his body offred vp sanctifyeth not of and by it selfe but of from and by God and by his blessing vpon it so you see there is not so strong reason that Christ should haue the Sabbath made a signe of his worke as there is that God should haue it made a signe of his and so much of his answere wherein you see they put me to much nedlesse busines by shewing themselues too to busy with humane reason for as by bare force of reason without any precept they vvill erect and vphould new Sabbathes as the Lords day so by meere force of their reason they vvill make new signes or else will make those signes to appertaine to such persons as to Christ newly the which Gods word is deeply silent in I can but wonder that discreete men who woll know the defects in our reason dare there withall wade into the deepes of God thus farre yea I vvonder the more when I consider the ende thereof which is to defeate God of his chosen sacred tyme for his worship and to thwarte a morall precept I answere 5. admite that God doth all by Christ and so euer did and also admit the Sabbath vvas a signe of Christs sanctification no lesse then of Gods yet though I may truely and soundly distinguish of Christs workes and sanctification some are euer present with the signe some are future whose signe goeth long before the thing signified of Christs present sanctification was the Sabbath a present signe Exod. 3.13 keepe ye my Sabbath for it is a signe c. That I the Lord doe sanctify you where the signe and the thing signified are together of Christs future sanctification you haue the Sacraments of the ould Testament circumcision and the Passeouer and also as they would those meates drinkes and Holy dayes and Sabbath dayes vvhich are a shaddow or signe of things to come Col. 2.16.17 vvhere the signes and things signifyed are farre distāt in tyme tone long before thother Note farther Christ may be said to sanctify virtually or really as I may say virtually and as thus he is the lambe slaine from the begining of the world the virtue of whose death did saue the Patriarkes so the virtue of Christs incarnate may be said euer to sanctifye as in dayes of Moses Exod. 31.13 and thus although I grante Christ did sanctify with God Exod. 31.13 and that perhaps also the Sabbath was a signe that Christ did then sanctify the people yet this signe being present with the thing signifyed could not be abolisht by the presence of the body or thing signifyed for if it could then had the Sabbath beene abolisht euen in Moses dayes when he wrote thos wordes Exod. 31.13 since the Sabbath vvhich was the signe and sanctification which was the the thing signifyed 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 signes of things to come may be abrogate but yet here I deny that the Sabbath Exod. 31.13 was made any signe of any thing to come afterwards So then vntill they proue the Sabbath Exod. 31.13 was accounted and called by God a signe to come of Christs sanctification they cannot proue it abolisht The Text saith not The Sabbath shall be a signe c. that I the Lord will hereafter sanctifie thee but it saith The Sabbath is a signe c. that I the Lord doe sanctifie thee now we must not confound tymes the present tense with the future tense and so ouerthrow Grammar I answer 6. and lastly I haue cause to reiect that which is their summe and scope out of this text Exod. 31.13 namly to proue this conclusion and assertion That the Sabbath day is not abolisht it being brought in direct opposition to Gods commandement Exod. 35.2 The 7th day shall be vnto you the Holy Sabbath c. God said the 7th day shall be your Sabbath and they say The 7th day shall not be your Sabbath now I reiect this because these two are not of equall authorities tone is an expresse plaine infallible word of God tother is but a collection by man liable to error in his collections now if Paul so sleited mens contrary judgments of him I passe not to be judged of mans judgment 1. Cor. 4.3 may not I sleite mens contrary judgements of Gods Law saying I passe not what censure and collections men bringe against Gods Law shall mans collections conclusions beare equall authority with an expresse Commandement of a God or countermaunde it Neuer with me I trust to God Finally to giue
day vvas chosen what can be thought should incline them to this choise but the 4th Comm 2. Note here is not any reason to thinke here were any Iewes because vve reade not of any Synagues the Iewes had here the people assembled in the open fields besides a riuer to pray as the Text speaketh and therfore not with the Iewes in their Synagogues as they were wonte to doe where the Jewes had Synagogues As for Lydia it will not follow shee was a Iewesse because the Text saith shee was a vvorshipper of God for so was Cornelius Act. 10.2 but yet no Iewe no nor any proselyte for he vvas vncircumcised then Act. 11.3 finally I say suppose here was a mixture of Iewes and Gentiles and also in that other place Act 13.42.44 yet ther is no cause of scruple or doubt that the Apostles would vse any ceremonies as they suppose the Sabbath to be amongst those Iewes that vvere mingled with the Gentiles no more then they would amongst the Gentiles alone for saith the Text Act. 21.21 Paul taught those Jewes that were mixed among the Gentiles to forsake Ceremonies c. and you see it his practise Gal. 2.11 he would not endure no not a Peter to Iudaize it amongst the Gentiles and can we thinke himselfe would doe vvhat he reproued in an other besides it was against reason for so he should builde vp things as ceremonies which he labored to destroy Gal. 5.1.2 I say build vp for Paul counted Judaising amongst Gentiles a constraining of those Gentiles vnto Judaizme Gal. 2.14 for all this I deny not but Paul did Iudaize but it was only in such places of assemblie where vvere none but Iewes only as at Ierusalem and the like places Act. 21.17.20.26 but in assemblies mixed of Iewes and Gentiles there he would not Iudaize lest he should constraine the Gentiles to Iudaizme as hath beene said An other and seconde answer vsually brought against this practise of the Apostles is that Paul did keepe Sabbath here vvith the Iewes to beare with their weakenesse for a tyme and as he did Iudaize it by circumcision of Timothie Here vnto I say 1. it appeareth he did not keepe Sabbath only for the Iewes sake for then vvould he not haue kept the Sabbath with the Gentiles as he did 2. vvas it a weakenesse in the Iewes to yeeld obedience to a morall precepts to the 4th Com 3. The things vvherin properly Paul was said to Iudaize were Ceremoniall things standing in force by the Ceremoniall Law as Circumcision and the Rest but things standing in force by the Morall Law as doth the Sabbath day performance of these is no Iudaizing but Moralizing if I may so speake A 3d answere is that the Apostles must take such dayes as they found in vse in the Church then or else they cold not preach and divulge the Gospell and the Iewes then would assemble on no dayes but the Sabbath Here vnto I say the Apostles cold make knowne the Gospell though they had neuer frequented the Iewes vsuall assemblies for the Apostles taught and preached Christ in priuate housen from house to house Act. 5.42 and when Paul forsooke preaching in the Synagogue he taught else where as in the Schoole of one Tyrannus and there frequented him both Iewes and Grecians Act. 19.9.10 yea Paul cold assemble the Iewes them selues vpon occasion the very chiefe of them refused not to assemble at his calle Act. 28.17.20 wherefore necessity compelled him not to keepe the Sabbath vvith them To make a more full answere to those common obiections vvhich they bring against the practise of the Apostles in keeping the Sabbath day one of vvhich maine obiections is that fore spoken of to this effecte true the Apostles practised the 7th day Sabbath but it was amongst the Iewes not amongst the Gentiles where vnto I say vvhat and if it vvere only amongst the Ievves are therefore the Apostles practises and actions vnvvareantable and vnimitable because they vvere done amongst the Iewes are all their actions amongst Jewes but of an indifferent nature if such obiections be lawfull if a preacher confirmes his doctrines in the pulp it by the practise of the Apostles then is it lawfull for any thus to cauill against it oh but that it vvas done among Jewes for instance suppose this the doctrine Ministers must preach constantly on the Sabbath day novv after it is proued c. then he confirmes it by the constant practise of the Apostles Act. 13.14.44 Act. 17.2 Act. 18.4 is it tollerable for an auditor to cauill thus oh this it dience and reference vnto some of those Commandements The last obiection is that t is true indeed the Apostles kept the Sabbath but it was but for a tyme till the Iewes vvere better instructed the vvhich if they had refused to keepe the Iewes vvould neuer haue heard them preach of Christ c. Here vnto I answere this obiection presupposeth now as granted two false suppositions the one that the Apostles vvould not if they cold haue auoided it haue kept this Sabbath the other that the Iewes vvere needlesly religiouse making conscience of this Sabbath now vvhen they neded not for the former for any thus to imagine or say is growndlesse for vvhere hath any of the Apostles declared themselues any enemies to the Morall Sabbath that it should be thought they had rather not to haue kept the Sabbath then to haue kept it for the latter t is true of Circumcision it might be said the Iewes vvere needlessely religious and carefull of it because vve finde the Apostle inueighing against it Galat. 5.2 but how can vve say so of the Iewes as touching the Sabbath day since vve no where finde the Apostles inueighing against it or reprehending the Iewes for keeping it as they did for Circumcision The maine errour in these obiections is that they take it for granted vvhich is not granted that is supposing the Sabbath day in the 10. Commandements to be a Ceremony as vvell as Circumcision and that so it vvas abolisht by Christ vvhereof there is no grownd in Scripture as else vvhere I haue largely shewed nay farther for any to say the Sabbath is a ceremony or that any vvord or letter of the Law or 10. Commandements is Ceremoniall is no better then blasphemy against Gods Law and Truth to speake euill of the way of God Thus you see I haue proued the practise of the Apostles vvas constantly to keep the Sabbath day and the keeping of the Sabbath day vvas an Apostolicall practise the vvhich proofe I haue made to this end that you might see vve haue better grounds for the Apostles keeping the Sabbath day then for their keeping the Lords day nay there is good ground for the Sabbath day but no ground at all for the Lords day Further more as by the way you may see it hath beene showne the Apostles kept the Sabbath day 1. constantly not once or twice or thrice and no no more 2.