WHEREIN THE ORIGINAL OF THE SABBATH FROM THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD, THE MORALITY OF THE FOURTH COMMANDMENT, WITH THE CHANGE OF THE SEVENTH DAY, ARE INQUIRED INTO; TOGETHER WITH AN ASSERTION OF THE DIVINE INSTITUTION OF THE LORD’S DAY, AND PRACTICAL DIRECTIONS FOR ITS DUE OBSERVATION.

Dia< dusfhmi>av kai< eujfhmi>av.— 2 Corinthians 6:8.

Search the Scriptures, — John 5:39.

TO THE READER. CHRISTIAN READER, THERE are two great concerns of that religion whose name thou bearest, — the profession of its truth, and the practice or exercise of its power. And these are mutually assistant unto each other. Without the profession of faith in its truth, no man can express its power in obedience; and without obedience profession is little worth. Whatever, therefore, doth contribute help and assistance unto us in either of these, according to the mind of God, is to be highly prized and valued. Especially it is so in such a season as this, wherein the former of them is greatly questioned, and the latter greatly neglected, if not despised. But if there be any thing which doth equally confirm and strengthen them both, it is certainly of great necessity in and unto religion, and will be so esteemed by them who place their principal concerns in these things. Now, such is the solemn observation of a sacred weekly day of rest unto God; for amongst all the outward means of conveying to the present generation that religion which was at first taught and delivered unto men by Jesus Christ and his apostles, there hath been none more effectual than the catholic, uninterrupted observation of such a day for the celebration of the religious worship appointed in the gospel. And many material parts of it were unquestionably preserved by the successively-continued agreement of Christians in this practice. So far, then, the profession of our Christian religion in the world at this day doth depend upon it. How much it tends to the exercise and expression of the power of religion cannot but be evident unto all, unless they be such as hate it, — who are not a few. With others it will quickly appear unto a sober and unprejudicated consideration; for no small part hereof doth consist in the constant payment of that homage of spiritual worship which we owe unto God in Jesus Christ. And the duties designed thereunto are the means which he hath appointed for the communication of grace and spiritual strength unto the due performance of the remainder of our obedience. In these things consist the services of this day; and the end of its observation is their duo performance, unto the glory of God and the advantage of our own souls. Whereas, therefore, Christian religion may be considered two ways ; — first, as it is publicly and solemnly professed in the world, whereon the glory of God and the honor of Jesus Christ do greatly depend; and, secondly, as it prevails and rules in the minds and lives of private men, — neither of them can be maintained without a due observance of a stated day of sacred rest. Take this away, neglect and confusion will quickly cast out all regard unto solemn worship. Neither did it ever thrive or flourish in the world from the foundation of it, nor will do so unto its end, without a due religious attendance unto such a day. Any man may easily foresee the disorder and profaneness which would ensue upon the taking away of that whereby our solemn assemblies are guided and preserved. Wherefore, by God’s own appointment, it had its beginning and will have its end with his public worship in this world. And take this off from the basis whereon God hath fixed it, and all human substitutions of any thing in the like kind to the same purposes will quickly discover their own vanity. Nor without the advantage which it affords, as it is the sacred repository of all sanctifying ordinances, will religion long prevail in the minds and lives of private men; for it would be just with God to leave them to their own weaknesses and decays, — which are sufficient to ruin them, — who despise the assistance which he hath provided for them, and which he tenders unto them. Thus, also, we have known it to have fallen out with many in our days, whose apostasies from God have hence taken their rise and occasion. This being the ease of a weekly sacred day of rest unto the Lord, it must needs be our duty to inquire and discern aright, both what warrant we have for the religious observance of such a day, as also what day it is in the hebdomadal revolution that ought so to be observed. About these things there is an inquiry made in the ensuing discourses, and some determinations on that inquiry. My design in them was to discover the fundamental principles of this duty, and what ground conscience had to stand upon in its attendance thereunto; for what is from God in these things is assuredly accepted with him. The discovery hereof I have endeavored to make, and therewithal a safe rule for Christians to walk by in this matter, so that for want thereof they may not lose the things which they have wrought. What I have attained unto of light and truth herein is submitted to the judgment of men learned and judicious. The censures of persons heady, ignorant, and proud, who speak evil of those things which they know not, and in what they naturally know corrupt themselves, I neither fear nor value. If any discourses seem somewhat dark or obscure unto ordinary readers, I desire they would consider that the foundations of the things discoursed of lie deep, and that no expression will render them more familiar and obvious unto all understandings than their nature will allow. Nor must we in any ease quit the strengths of truth because the minds of some cannot easily possess themselves of them. However, I hope nothing will occur but what an attentive reader, though otherwise but of an ordinary capacity, may receive and digest. And they to whom the argument seems hard may find those directions which will make the practice of the duty insisted on easy and beneficial. The especial occasion of my present handling this subject is declared afterwards. I shall only add, that here is no design of contending with any, of opposing or contradicting any, of censuring or reflecting on those whose thoughts and judgments in these things differ from ours, begun or carried on. Even those by whom a holy day of rest under the gospel and its services are laughed to scorn are by me left unto God and themselves. My whole endeavor is to find out what is agreeable unto truth about the observance of such a day unto the Lord; what is the mind and will of God concerning it; on what foundation we may attend unto the services of it, as that God may be glorified in us and by us, and the interest of religion, in purity, holiness, and righteousness, be promoted amongst men. J.O.

January 11, 1671.

EXERCITATION 1.

DIFFERENCES CONCERNING A DAY OF SACRED REST — PRINCIPLES DIRECTING TO THE OBSERVANCE OF IT — THE NAME OF THE DAY CONSIDERED. ‘]Ara ajpokeipetai sabbatusmov tw~| law~| tou~ Qeou~ . — <580409>Hebrews 4:9. 1. Trouble and confusion from men’s inventions; 2. Instanced in doctrines and practices of a sabbatical rest. 3. Reason of their present consideration. 4. Extent of the controversies about such a rest. 5. A particular enumeration of them. 6. Special instances of particular differences, upon an agreement in more general principles. 7. Evil consequences of these controversies in Christian practice. 8. Principles and rules proposed, for the right investigation of the truth in this matter. 9. Names of a sacred day of rest, y[iybiV]hæ µwOy, JH ebdo>mh, Jiera< ebdo>mh, Genesis 2:3, Hebrews 4:4. 10. ˆwOtB;væ tB;v]mi tB;v]mi tB;væ tB;Væhæ µwOy, Genesis 2:2; Exodus 16:23, 35:2; Lamentations 1:7 — Saturn called ytbç and yatbç by the Jews, and why — The word doubled — ˆwOtB;væ tBævæ — Reason of it. 11. Translation of this word into the Greek and Latin languages — Mi>a sabba>twn. 12. All Judaical feasts called sabbata by the heathen — Suetonius, Horace, Juvenal, cited to this purpose. 13. JHme>ra hJli>ou, Sunday — Used by Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Eusebius — Blamed by Austin, Jerome, and Philastrius. 14. Use of the names of the days of the week derived from the heathen of old — Custom of the Roman church. 15. First day of the week — Lord’s day — Lord’s-day Sabbath. 1. SOLOMON tells us that in his disquisition after the nature and state of things in the world, this alone he had found out, that is, absolutely and unto his satisfaction, namely, that “God made man upright, but they have sought out many inventions,” Ecclesiastes 7:29. And the truth hereof we also find by woful experience, not only in sundry particular instances, but in the whole course of men in this world, and in all their concerns with respect unto God and themselves. There is not any thing wherein and whereabout they have not found out many inventions, to the disturbance and perverting of that state of peace and quietness wherein all things were made of God. Yea, with the fruits and effects of this perverse apostasy, and relinquishment of that universally harmonious state of things wherein we were created, not only is the whole world as it lies in evil filled, and as it were overwhelmed, but we have the relics of it to conflict withal, in that reparation of our condition which in this life, by grace, we are made partakers of. In all our ways, actions, and duties, some of these inventions are ready to immix themselves, unto our own disturbance, and the perverting of the right ways of God. 2. An evident instance we have hereof in the business of a day of sacred rest, and the worship of God therein required. God originally, out of his infinite goodness, when suitably thereunto, by his own eternal wisdom and power, he had made all things good, gave unto men a day of rest , as to express unto them his own rest, satisfaction, and complacency in the works of his hands, so to be a day of rest and composure to themselves, and a means of their entrance into and enjoyment of that rest with himself, here and for ever, which he had ordained for them. Hence it became unto them a principle and pledge, a cause and means, of quietness and rest, and that in and with God himself. So might it be still unto the sons of men, but that they are in all things continually finding out new inventions, or immixing themselves in various questions and accounts; for so saith the wise man, µyBiræ twOnboV]ji Wvq]bi hM;je , — “Themselves have sought out many computations.”

And hence it is that whereas there are two general concernments of such a day, — the doctrine and the practice of it, or the duties to be performed unto God thereon, — they are both of them solicited by such various questions, through the many inventions which men have found out, as have rendered this day of rest a matter of endless strife, disquietment, and contention. And whereas all doctrines of truth do tend unto practice, as their immediate use and end, the whole Scripture being ajlh>qeia h[ kat j eujse>zeian , Tit. 1:1, “the truth which is after godliness,” the contentions which have been raised about the doctrine of the holy day of rest have greatly influenced the minds of men, and weakened them in that practice of godliness which all men confess to be necessary in the observation of such a day of rest unto the Lord, if such a day of rest there be, on what foundation soever it is to be observed. For Christians in general, under one notion or other, do agree that a day of rest should be observed, in and for the celebration of the worship of God. But whereas many controversies have been raised about the grounds of this observance, and the nature of the obligation thereunto, advantage hath been taken thereby to introduce a great neglect of the duties themselves for whose sakes the day is to be observed, whilst one questions the reasons and grounds of another for its observation, and finds his own by others despised. And this hath been no small nor ineffectual means of promoting that general profaneness and apostasy from strict and holy walking before God which at this day are everywhere so justly complained of. 3. It is far from my thoughts and hopes that I should be able to contribute much unto the composing of these differences and controversies, as agitated amongst men of all sorts. The known pertinacy of inveterate opinions, the many prejudices that the minds of most in this matter are already possessed withal, and the particular engagements that not a few are under to defend the pretensions and persuasions which they have published and contended for, will not allow any great expectation of a change in the minds of many from what I have to offer. Besides, there are almost innumerable critical discourses on this subject in the hands of many, to whom perhaps the report of our endeavors will not arrive. But yet these and the like considerations, of the darkness, prejudices, and interests of many, ought not to discourage any man from the discharge of that duty which he owes to the truths of God, nor cause him to cry with the sluggard, “There is a lion without, I shall be slain in the streets.”

Should they do so, no truth should evermore be taught or contended for; for the declaration of them all is attended with the same difficulties, and liable to the same kind of opposition. Wherefore, an inquiry into this matter being unavoidably cast upon me, from the work wherein I am engaged, in the exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, I could not on any such accounts waive the pursuit of it; for this discourse, though upon the desires of many now published by itself, is but a part of our remaining Exercitations on that Epistle. Nor am I without all hopes but that what shall be declared and proved on this subject may be blessed to an usefulness unto them who would willingly learn, or be established in the truth. An attempt also will be made herein for the conviction of others, who have been seduced into paths inconsistent with the communion of saints, the peace of the churches of Christ, or opinions hurtful to the practice of godliness; and left unto the blessing of Him who, when he hath supplied seed to the sower, doth himself also give the increase. And these considerations have prevailed with me to cast my mite into this sanctuary, and to endeavor the right stating and confirmation of that doctrine whereon so important a part of our duty towards God doth depend, as is generally confessed, and will be found by experience, that there doth on this concerning a day of sacred rest. 4. The controversies about the Sabbath (as we call it at present for distinction’s sake, and to determine a subject of our discourse), which have been publicly agitated, are universal; as unto all its concerns. Neither name nor thing is by all agreed on. For whereas most Christians acknowledge (we may say all, for those by whom it is denied are of no weight, nor scarce of any number) that a day on one account or other, in a hebdomadal revolution of time, is to be set apart for the public worship of God, yet how that day is to be called is not agreed amongst them. Neither is it granted that it hath any name affixed unto it, by any such means that should cause it justly to be preferred unto any other, that men should arbitrarily consent to call it by. The names which have been, and amongst some .are still, in use for its denotation and distinction, are, the seventh day, the Sabbath, the Lord’s day , the first day of the week, Sunday. So was the day now commonly observed called o£ old by the Grecians and Romans, before the introduction of religion into its observation; and this name some still retain, as a thing indifferent; others suppose it were better left unto utter disuse. 5. Those about the thing itself are various, and respect all the concerns of the day inquired after. Nothing that relates unto it, no part of its respect to the worship of God, is admitted by all uncontended about. For it is debated amongst all sorts of persons, — (1.) Whether any part of time be naturally and morally to be separated and set apart to the solemn worship of God; or, which is the same, whether it be natural and moral duty to separate any part of time, in any revolution of it, unto divine service, — I mean, so as it should be stated and fixed in a periodical revolution. Otherwise, to say that God is solemnly to be worshipped, and yet that no time is required thereunto, is an open contradiction. (2.) Whether such a time supposed be absolutely and originally moral, or made so by positive command, suited unto general principles and intimations of nature. And under this consideration also a part of time is called moral metonymically from the duty of its observance. (3.) Whether, on supposition of some part of time so designed, the space or quantity of it have its determination or limitation morally, or merely by law positive or arbitrary; for the observation of some part of time may be moral, and the “quota pars” arbitrary. (4.) Whether every law positive of the old testament was absolutely ceremonial, or whether there may not be a law moral-positive , as given to and obligatory on all mankind, though not absolutely written in the heart of man by nature; that is, whether there be no morality in any law but what is a part of the law of creation. (5.) Whether the institution of the seventh-day Sabbath was from the beginning of the world, and before the fall of man, or whether it was first appointed when the Israelites came into the wilderness. This in itself is only a matter of fact, yet such as whereon the determination of the point of right, as to the universal obligation unto the observation of such a day, doth much depend; and therefore hath the investigation and true stating of it been much labored in and after by learned men. (6.) Upon a supposition of the institution of the Sabbath from the beginning, whether the additions made and observances annexed unto it at the giving of the law on mount Sinai, with the ends whereunto it was then designed, and the uses whereunto it was employed, gave unto the seventh day a new state, distinct from what it had before , although naturally the same day was continued as before; for if they did so, that new state of the day seems only to be taken away under the new testament. If not, the day itself seems to be abolished; for that some change is made therein from what was fixed under the Judaical economy cannot modestly be denied. (7.) Whether in the fourth commandment there be a foundation of a distinction between a seventh day in general, or one day in seven , and that seventh day which was the same numerically and precisely from the foundation of the world. For whereas an obligation unto the strict observation of that day precisely is, as we shall prove, plainly taken away in the gospel, if the distinction intimated be not allowed there can be nothing remaining obligatory unto us in that command, whilst it is supposed that that day is at all required therein. (8.) Hence it is especially inquired, whether a seventh day, or one day in seven, or in the hebdomadal cycle, be to be observed holy unto the Lord, on the account of the fourth commandment. (9.) Whether, under the new testament, all religious observation of days be so taken away as that there is no divine obligation remaining for the observance of any one day at all, but that as all days are alike in themselves, so are they equally free to be disposed of and used by us, as occasion shall require; for if the observation of one day in seven be not founded in the law of nature, expressed in the original positive command concerning it, and if it be not seated morally in the fourth commandment, it is certain that the necessary observance of it is now taken away. (10.) On the other extreme, whether the seventh day from the creation of the world, or the last day of the week, be to be observed precisely under the new testament, by virtue of the fourth commandment, and no other.

The assertion hereof supposeth that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of the Sabbath, hath neither changed nor reformed any thing in or about the religious observation of a holy day of rest unto the Lord; whence it follows that such an observation can be no part or act of evangelical worship properly so called, but only a moral duty of the law. (11.) Whether on the supposition of a non-obligation in the law unto the observance of the seventh day precisely, and of a new day to be observed weekly under the new testament, as the Sabbath of the Lord, on what ground it is so to be observed. (12.) Whether of the fourth commandment as unto one day in seven, or only as unto some part or portion of time, or whether without any respect unto that command, as purely ceremonial: for granting, as most do, the necessity of the observation of such a day, yet some say that it hath no respect at all to the fourth decalogical precept, which was totally and absolutely abolished with the residue of Mosaical institutions; others, that there is yet remaining in it an obligation unto the sacred separation of some portion of our time unto the solemn service of God, but undetermined; and some, that it yet precisely requires the sanctification of one day in seven. (13.) If a day be so to be observed, it is inquired on what ground , or by what authority, there is an alteration made from the day observed under the old testament unto that nosy in use, — that is, from the last to the first day of the week; whether was this translation of the solemn worship of God made by Christ and his apostles, or by the primitive church; for the same day might have been still continued, though the duty of its observation might have been fixed on a new reason and foundation. For although our Lord Jesus Christ totally abolished the old solemn worship required by the “law of commandments contained in ordinances,” and by his own authority introduced a new law of worship, according unto institutions of his own, yet might obedience unto it in a solemn manner have been fixed unto the former day (14.) If this was done by the authority of Christ and his apostles, or be supposed so to be, then it is inquired whether it was done by the express institution of a new day, or by a directive example sufficient to design a particular day, no institution of a new day being needful: for if we shall suppose that there is no obligation unto the observance of one day in seven indispensably abiding on us from the morality of the fourth commandment, we must have an express institution of a new day, or the authority of it is not divine; but on the supposition that that is so, no such institution is necessary, or can be properly made, as to the whole nature of it. (15.) If this alteration of the day were introduced by the primitive church, then whether the continuance of the observation of one day in seven be necessary or no; for what was appointed thereby seems to be no further obligatory unto the churches of succeeding ages than their concernment lies in the occasions and reasons of their determinations. (16.) If the continuance of one day in seven for the solemn worship of God be esteemed necessary in the present state of the church, then, whether the continuance of that now in general use, namely, the first day in the week, be necessary or no, or whether it may not be lawfully changed to some other day. And sundry other the like inquiries are made about the original, institution, nature, use, and continuance, of a day of sacred rest unto the Lord. 6. Moreover, amongst those who do grant that it is necessary, and that indispensably so, as to the present church-state, which is under an obligation, from whencesoever it arise, neither to alter nor omit the observation of a day weekly for the public worship of God, wherein a cessation from labor and a joint attendance unto the most solemn duties of religion are required of us, it is not agreed whether the day itself, or the separation of it to its proper use and end, be any part in itself of divine worship, or be so merely relatively, with respect unto the duties to be performed therein. And as to those duties themselves, they are not only variously represented, but great contention hath been about them and the manner of their performance, as likewise concerning the causes and occasions which may dispense with our attendance unto them. Indeed, herein lies secretly the mh~lon e]ridov and principal cause of all the strife that hath been and is in the world about this matter. Men may teach the doctrine of a sabbatical rest on what principles they please, de-dace it from what original they think good, if they plead not for an exactness of duty in its observance, if they bind not a religious, careful attendance on the worship of God, in public and private, on the consciences of other men, if they require not a watchfulness against all diversions and avocations from the duties of the day, they may do it without much fear of opposition; for all the concern-meats of doctrines and opinions which tend unto practice are regulated thereby, and embraced or rejected as the practice pleaseth or displeaseth that they lead unto.

Lastly, On a precise supposition that the observation of such a day is necessary upon divine precept or institution, yet there is a controversy remaining about fixing its proper bounds as to its beginning and ending.

For some would have this day of rest measured by the first constitution and limitation of time unto a day from the creation, namely, from the evening of the day preceding unto its own, as the evening and morning were said to be dj;a, µwOy , “one day,” Genesis 1:5. Others admit only of that proportion of time which is ordinarily assigned to our labor on the six days of the week; that is, from its own morning to its own evening, with the interposition of such diversions as our labor on other days doth admit and require. 7. And thus is it come to pass, that although God made man upright, and gave him the Sabbath, or day of rest, as a token of that condition, and pledge of a future eternal rest with himself, yet, through his finding out many inventions, that very day is become amongst us an occasion and means of much disquietment and many contentions. And that which is the worst consequent in things of this nature, that belong unto religion and the worship of God, these differences, and the way of their agitation, whilst the several parties litigant have sought to weaken and invalidate their adversaries’ principles, have apparently influenced the minds of all sorts of men unto a neglect in the practice of those duties which they severally acknowledged to be incumbent on them, upon those principles and reasons for the observation of such a day which themselves allow. For whilst some have hotly disputed that there is now no especial day of rest to be observed unto the Lord, by virtue of any divine precept or institution, and others have granted that if it be to be observed only by virtue of ecclesiastical constitution, men may have various pretences for dispensations from the duties of it, the whole due observation of it is much lost among Christians.

Neither is it a small evil amongst us, that the disputes of some against the divine warranty of one day in seven to be separated unto sacred uses, and the pretense of others to an equal regard unto all days from their Christian liberty, together with an open, visible neglect in the most of any conscientious care in the observance of it, have cast not a few unwary and unadvised persons to take up with the Judaical Sabbath, both as to its institution and manner of its observation. Now, whereas the solemn worship of God is the spring, rule, and measure of all our obedience unto him, it may justly be thought that the neglect thereof, so brought about as hath been declared, hath been a great, if not a principal, occasion of that sad degeneracy from the power, purity, and glory of Christian religion, which all men may see, and many do complain of at this day in the world.

The truth is, most of the different apprehensions recounted have been entertained and contended for by persons learned and godly, all equally pretending to a love unto truth, and care for the preservation and promotion of holiness and godliness amongst men. And it were to be wished that this were the only instance whereby we might evince that the best of men in this world do “know but in part, and prophesy but in part.” But they are too many to be recounted, although most men act in themselves and towards others as if they were themselves liable to no mistakes, and that it is an inexpiable crime in others to be in any thing mistaken. But as this should make us jealous over ourselves and our own apprehensions in this matter, so ought the consideration of it to affect us with tenderness and forbearance towards those who dissent from us, and whom we therefore judge to err and be mistaken.

But that which principally we are to learn from this consideration is, with what care and diligence we ought to inquire into the certain rule of truth in this matter. For whatever we do determine, we shall be sure to find men learned and godly otherwise minded. And yet in our determinations are the consciences of the disciples of Christ greatly concerned, which ought not by us to be causelessly burdened, nor yet countenanced in the neglect of any duty that God doth require. Slight and perfunctory disquisitions will be of little use in this matter; nor are men to think that their opinions are firm and established when they have obtained a seeming countenance unto them from two or three doubtful texts of Scripture. The principles and foundations of truth in this matter lie deep, and require a diligent investigation. And this is the design wherein we are now engaged. Whether we shall contribute any thing to the declaration or vindication of the truth depends wholly on the assistance which God is pleased to give or withhold. Our part it is to use what diligence we are able; neither ought we to avoid any thing more than the assuming or ascribing of any thing unto ourselves. It is enough for us if in any thing, or by any means, God will use us, not as “lords over the faith of men, but as helpers of their joy.”

Now, for the particular controversies before mentioned, I shall not insist upon them all, for that were endless, but shall reduce them unto those general heads under which they may be comprehended, and by the right stating whereof they will be determined. Nor shall I enter into any especial contest, unless it be occasionally only, with any particular persons who of old or of late have critically handled this subject. Some of them have, I confess, given great provocations thereunto, especially of the Belgic divines, whose late writings are full of reflections on the learned writers of this nation. Our only design is protima~|n th~n ajlh>qeian . And herein I shall lay down the general regulating principles of the doctrine of the Scriptures in this matter, confirming them with such arguments as occur to my mind, and vindicating them from such exceptions as they either seem liable unto or have met withal; all with respect unto the declaration given of the doctrine and practice of the Sabbath in the different ages of the church by our apostle, chap. iv, of the Epistle to the Hebrews. 8. The principles that I shall proceed upon, or the rules that I shall proceed by, are,— (1.) Express testimonies of Scripture, which are not wanting in this cause.

Where this light doth not go before us, our best course is to sit still; and where the word of God doth not speak in the things of God, it is our wisdom to be silent. Nothing, I confess, is more nauseous to me than magisterial dictates in sacred things, without an evident deduction and confirmation of assertions from Scripture testimonies. Some men write as if they were inspired, or dreamed that they had obtained to themselves Pythagorean reverence. Their writings are full of strong, authoritative assertions, arguing the good opinion they have of themselves, which I wish did not include an equal contempt of others. But any thing may be easily affirmed, and as easily rejected. (2.) The analogy of faith in the interpretation, exposition, and application, of such testimonies as are pleadable in this cause. “Hic labor, hoc opus.”

Herein the writer’s diligence and the reader’s judgment are principally to be exercised. I have of late been much surprised with the plea of some for the use of reason in religion and sacred things; not at all that such a plea is insisted on, but that it is by them built expressly on a supposition that it is by others, whom they reflect upon, denied; whereas some probably intended in those reflections have pleaded for it against the Papists (to speak within the bounds of sobriety) with as much reason and no less effectually than any amongst themselves. I cannot but suppose their mistake to arise from what they have heard, but not well considered, that some do teach about the darkness of the mind of man by nature with respect unto spiritual things, with his disability, by the utmost use of his rational faculties, as corrupted or unrenewed, spiritually and savingly to apprehend the things of God, without the especial assistance of the Holy Ghost. Now, as no truth is more plainly or evidently confirmed in the Scripture than this, so to suppose that those by whom it is believed and asserted do therefore deny the use of reason in religion, is a most fond imagination. No doubt but whatever we do or have to do towards God, or in the things of God, we do it all as rational creatures; that is, in and by the use of our reason. And not to make use of it in its utmost improvement, in all that we have to do in religion or the worship of God, is to reject it, as to the principal end for which it is bestowed upon us. In particular, in the pursuit of the rule now laid down is the utmost exercise of our reason required of us. To understand aright the sense and importance of the words in Scripture testimonies, the nature of the propositions and assertions contained in them, the lawful deduction of inferences from them, to judge and determine aright of what is proposed or deduced by just consequence from direct propositions, to compare what in one place seems to be affirmed with what in others seems to be asserted to the same purpose or denied, with other instances innumerable of the exercise of our minds about the interpretation of Scripture, are all of them acts of our reason, and as such are managed by us. But I must not here further divert unto the consideration of these things. Only I fear that some men write books about them because, they read none. This I know, that they miserably mistake what is in controversy, and set up to themselves men of straw as their adversaries, and then cast stones at them. (3.) The dictates of general and uncorrupted reason, suitable unto and explained by Scripture light, is another principle that we shall in our progress have a due regard unto; for whereas it is confessed that the separation of some portion of time to the worship of God is a part of the law of our creation, the light of nature doth and must still, on that supposition, continue to give testimony unto our duty therein. And although this light is exceedingly weakened and impaired by sin in the things of the greatest importance, and as to many things truly belonging unto it in our original constitution so overwhelmed with prejudices and contrary usages that of itself it owns them not at oil, yet let it be excited, quickened, rectified, by Scripture light, it will return to perform its office of testifying unto that duty, a sense whereof and a direction whereunto were concreated with it. We shall therefore inquire what intimations the light of nature hath continued to give concerning a day of sacred rest to be observed unto God; and what uncontrollable testimonies we have of those intimations, in the knowledge, confessions, and expressions of them, in and by those who had no other way to come to an acquaintance with them. And where there is a common or prevailing suffrage given amongst mankind unto any truth, and that, to free us from entanglements about it, declared to be such in the Scripture, it must be acknowledged to proceed from that light of nature which is common unto all, though the actings of it be stifled in many. (4.) The custom and practice of the church of God in all ages is to be inquired into. I intend not merely the church of Christ under the gospel, but the whole church from the beginning of the world, in the various dispensations of the will and grace of God unto it, before the giving of the law, under the yoke of it, and since the promulgation of the gospel. And great weight may’ certainly be laid upon its harmonious consent in any practice relating to the worship of God. Nay, what may be so confirmed will thence appear not to be an institution peculiar to any especial mode of worship, that may belong unto one season and not unto another, but to have an everlasting obligation in it, on all that worship God, as such never to be altered or dispensed withal. And if every particular church be the pillar and ground of truth, whose testimony thereunto is much to be esteemed, how much more is the universal church of all ages so to be accounted! And it is a brutish apprehension, to suppose that God would permit a persuasion to befall the church in all ages, with respect unto his worship, which was not from himself, and the expression of its practice accepted with him. This, therefore, is diligently to be inquired into, as far as we may have certain light into things involved in so much darkness, as are all things of so great antiquity. (5.) A due consideration of the spirit and liberty of the gospel, with the nature of its worship, the reasons of it, and the manner of its performance, is to be had in this matter. No particular instance of worship is to be introduced or admitted contrary to the nature, genius, and reason of the whole. If, therefore, such a sabbatical rest, or such an observation of it, be urged, as is inconsistent with the principles and reasons of evangelical worship, as is built upon motives not taken from the gospel, and in the manner of its observance interferes with the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, it discovers itself not to belong unto the present state of the worshippers of God in Christ. Nor is any thing to commend itself unto us under the mere notion of strictness or preciseness, or the appearance of more than ordinary severity in religion. It is only walking according unto rule that will please God, justify us unto others, and give us peace in ourselves. Other seeming duties that may be recommended, because they have lo>gou sofi>av ejn ejqeloqrhskei>a| , kai< tapeinofrosu>nh| kai< ajfeidi>a| sw>matov , “a pretense of wisdom in doing even more than is required of us, through humility and mortification,” are of no price with God, nor useful unto men. And commonly those who are most ready to overdo in one thing are prone also to underdo in others. And this rule we shall find plainly rejecting the rigid observation of the seventh day as a Sabbath out of the verge of gospel order and worship. (6.) The tendency of principles, doctrines, and practices, to the promotion or hinderance of piety, godliness, and universal holy obedience unto God, is to be inquired into. This is the end of all religious worship, and of all the institutions thereof. And a due observation of the regular tendency of things unto this end will give a great discovery of their nature and acceptance with God. Let things be urged under never so specious pretences, if they be found by experience not to promote gospel holiness in the hearts and lives of men, they discover themselves not to be of God.

Much more when principles and practices conformable unto them shall be evidenced to obstruct and hinder it, to introduce profaneness, and countenance licentiousness of life, to prejudice the due reverence of God and his worship, do they manifest themselves to be of the tares sowed by the evil one. And by this rule we may try the opinion which denies all divine institution unto a day of holy rest under the new testament.

These are the principal rules which, in this disquisition after a sabbatical rest, we shall attend unto. And they are such as will not fail to direct us aright in our course, if through negligence or prejudice we miss not of a due regard unto them. These the reader is desired to have respect unto in his perusal of the ensuing discourses; and if what is proposed or concluded be not found suitable unto them, let it be rejected: for I can assure him that no self-assuming, no contempt of others, no prejudicing adherence to any way or party, no pretense of certainty above evidence produced, have had any influence into those inquiries after the truth in this matter, which, suname whereby this day may be called; for that also among some hath been controverted. Under the old testament it had a double appellation; the one taken from the natural order of the day, then separated with respect unto other days; the other from its nature and use. On the first account it was called y[iybiV]hæ µwOy , “the seventh day:” Genesis 2:3, y[iybiV]hæ µwOyAtya, µyhiloa’ Ër,b;y]wæ ; — “ And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it.”

So also Exodus 20:11. Upon its first institution, and on the reintroduction of its observation, it is so called. But it is a mere description of the day from its relation to the six precedent days of the creation that is herein intended; absolutely it is not so called anywhere. Yet hence by the Hellenists it was termed hJ ebdomh , “the sacred seventh day.” So is mention made of it by Philo, Josephus, and others. And our apostle maketh use of this name as that which was commonly in use to denote the Sabbath of the Jews: Chap. 4:4, Ei]rhke garav is not added, because eJbdo>mh was used technically to denote that day. And he educes the reason of this denomination from Genesis 2:2. Being, as was said, the day that ensued immediately after the six distinct days wherein the world was created, and putting a period unto a measure of time by a numeration of days, always to return in its cycle, it was called “the seventh day.” And from that course of time completed in seven days, thence recurring to its beginning, is the name of eJbdoma>v , “hebdomas,” “a week,” which the Hebrews call only [æWbv; , “a seven.” And the same word sometimes signifieth the seventh day, or one day in seven. ]Agein thda is “septimum diem celebrare,” “to celebrate the” (or “a”) “seventh day.” And the Latins used the word in the same manner for seven days, or one day in seven. But this appellation, as we shall see, the apostle casts out of consideration and use, as to the day to be observed under the new testament: for that which was first so is passed away, and another instituted in the room thereof; which although it be also eJbdonatural order, that name is now of no use, but antiquated. 10. From its occasion, sanctification, and use, it was called tB;væ , and tB;Væhæ µwOy , “the Sabbath,” and “the Sabbath-day.” The occasion of this name is expressed, Genesis 2:3, “God blessed the seventh day, tbæv; wOb yKi ,” — “because he rested” (“shabath”) “that day.” It is called rest, the rest because on that day God rested. And in the decalogue, it is tB;Væhæ µwOy tae , “the day of the Sabbath,” or of God’s rest and ours. And absolutely tB;væ , “the Sabbath,” Isaiah 56:2; where also God, from his institution of it, calls it “my Sabbath,” verse 4.

This being a thing so plain and evident, it were mere loss of time to insist upon the feigned etymologies of this name, afar it came to be taken notice of in the world; I shall only name them. Apion the Alexandrian would have it derived from the Egyptian word “sabbo,” as Josephus informs us, cont.

Ap. lib. ii.; and what the signification of that word is the reader may see in the same place. Plutarch derives it from “sabboi” a word that was used to be howled in the furious services of Bacchus; for his priests and devotees used in their bacchanals to cry out, “Evoi, Sabboi,” Sympos. lib. vii. cap. xiv; which things are ridiculous. Lactantius, with sundry others of the ancients, fell into no less, though a 1ess offensive mistake. “Hic,” saith he, “est dies Sabbati, qui lingua Hebræorum à numero nomen accepit; unde septenarius numerus legitimus et plenus est,” Insitut. lib. vii. cap. xiv.

Procopius Gazæus on the Pentateuch hath a singular conceit. Speaking of the tenth of the month Tizri, termed sabbaton sabbat, he calls it, Sullh>yin tou~ prodro>mou , dio< kai< sa>bbata sabba>twn eJorth< , kaq j h[n e]mellen oJ th~v ajfe>Sewv kai< th~v metanoi>av kairoyewv tou~ prodro>mou ; o[qen ejstian tou~ Sabba>tou ; o[ti sabacqa< kalei~tai hJ a]fesiv? ajfia~si de< J au+thw| , o[ti eJbdo .

He would have it to be the day of the conception of John Baptist, the forerunner of Christ, when the remission and repentance that he preached began; and thence conjectures the etymology of the Sabbath to be from “sabachta” (that is, the Syriac atqbç ), which signifies “remission,” that day being remitted holy unto the Lord, being the seventh day, which is Sabaa, that is [bæv, ; the vanity of which conjectures is apparent to all. The reason and rise of this appellation are manifest.

Hence this was the proper and usual name of this day under the old testament, being expressive of its occasion, nature, and end. The word hath also other forms; as ˆwOtB;væ , Exodus 16:23, 35:2, “sabbaton;” and tb;v]mi , Lamentations 1:7, “mishbat;” the signification of the word being still retained. Neither yet is this word peculiarly sacred as to what it denotes, but is used to express things common or profane, even any cessation, resting, or giving over. The first time it occurs, Genesis 2:2, it is rendered in Targum by jn , a common word signifying to rest. See Isaiah 14:4, 24:8, and many other places. It is also applied to signify a week, because every week, or seven days, had a Sabbath or day of rest necessarily included in it: Leviticus 23:15, “Ye shall count to yourselves tmoymiT] twOtB;væ [bæv, “seven complete sabbaths;” that is, weeks, each having a Sabbath in it for its close: for the reckoning was to expire on the end of the seventh Sabbath, verse 16. And this place being expounded by Onkelos, in his Targum, of a week, Nachmanides says upon it, that if it be so (which he also grants and pleads), then qwspb twnwçl ytç wyhy dja , “there will be two tongues in one verse,” or the same word used twice in the same verse with different significations, — namely, that the word tB;væ should denote both the holy day of rest and also a week of days. And he gives another instance to the same purpose in the word µyriy;[\ , Judges 10:4, “Jair the Gileadite had thirty sons,” µh,l; µyriy;[\ µyvilv]W µyriy;[\ µyvilv]Al[æ µybik]wO; where the word µyriy;[\ signifies in the former place “colts of asses,” and in the latter “cities.” And the common number of seven is expressed by it, Leviticus 25:8, “Thou shalt number unto thee µyniv; ttoB]væ [bæv, ,” “seven sabbaths of years ;” that is, as it is expounded in the next words, [bæv, µyniv; [bv, µymi[;P] , seven times seven years;” seven years being called a sabbath of years, because of the land’s resting every seventh year, in answer to the rest of the church every seventh day. See the Tar-gum on Isaiah 58:13; Esth. 2:9. Moreover, because of the rest that was common to the weekly Sabbath, with all other sacred feasts of Moses’ institution in their stated monthly or annual revolution, they were also called sabbaths, as shall be proved afterwards. And as the Greeks and Latins made use of this word, borrowed from the Hebrew, so the Jews, observing that their Sabbath day had amongst them its name from Saturn, “dies Saturni,” as amongst us it is still thence called “Saturday,” they called him, or the planet of that name, yfbç , “Shibti,” and yatbç , “Shabbetai.” And even from hence some of the Jews take advantage to please themselves with vain imaginations. So R. Isaac Caro, commending the excellency of the seventh day, says, “that Saturn is the planet of that -day, the whole being nominated from the first hour;” whereof afterwards. “He therefore,” saith he, “hath power on that day to renew the strength of our bodies, as also to influence our minds to understand the mysteries of God. He is the planet of Israel, as the astrologers acknowledge,” (doubtless!); “and in his portion is the rational soul; and in the parts of the earth, the house of the sanctuary; and among tongues, the Hebrew tongue; and among laws, the law of Israel” So far he; but whether he can make good his claim to the relation of the Jews unto Saturn, or their pretended advantage on supposition thereof, I leave to our astrologers to determine, seeing I know nothing of these things. And on the same account, of their rest falling on the day under that planetary denomination, many of the heathen thought they dedicated the day and the religion of it unto Saturn. So Tacitus, Hist., lib. v.: “Alii honorem eum Saturno haberi. Seu principia religionis tradentibus idæis quos cum Saturno pulsos et conditores gentis accepimus; seu quod e septem sideribus queis mortales reguntur, altissimo orbe et præcipua potentia stella Saturni feratur; ac pleraque cœlestium vim suam et cursum septimos per numeros conficiant.” Such fables did the most diligent of the heathen suffer themselves to be deluded withal, whereby a prejudice was kept up in their minds against the only true God and his worship. The word is also sometimes doubled, by a pure Hebraism: 1 Chronicles 9:32, tB;væ tBævæ , “Shabbath, Shabbath,” — that is, “every Sabbath ;” and is somewhat variously used in the conjunction of another form: tB;væ ˆwOtB;væ , Exodus 16:23, 35:2; and ˆwOtB;væ tBævæ , Exodus 31:15; Leviticus 25:4. We render ˆwOtB;væ , by “rest,” “the rest of the Sabbath,” and “a Sabbath of rest.” Where “sabbaton” is preposed at least, it seems to be as much as “sabbatulum,” and to denote the entrance into the Sabbath or the preparation for it, such as was more solemn, when tbç lwdgh , “a great Sabbath,” a high (lay ensued. Such was the Sabbath before the passover, for the miracle, as the Jews say, which befell their forefathers that day in Egypt. The time between the two evenings was the “sabbatulum.”

This, then, was the name of the day of rest under the old testament; yet was not the word appropriated to the denotation of that day only, but is used sometimes naturally to express any rest or cessation, sometimes as it were artificially in numeration for a week, or any other season whose composition was by, and resolution into seven, though this was merely occasional, from the first limitation of a periodical revolution of time by a Sabbath of rest; of which before. 11. And this various use of the word was taken up among the Grecians and Latins also. As they borrowed the word from the Jews, so they did its use. The Greek sa>bbaton is merely the Hebrew ˆwOtB;væ , or perhaps formed by the addition of their usual termination from tB;væ ; whence also our apostle frames his sabbatismo>v . The Latin “sabbatum” is the same.

And they use this word, though rarely, to express the last day of the week. So Suetonius in Tiber., “Diogenes grammaticus sabbatis disputare Rhodi solitus.” And the LXX. always so express the seventh-day Sabbath; and frequently they use it for a week also. And so in the New Testament, Nhsteu>w ditou , Luke 18:12; — “I fast twice in the sabbath;” that is, two days in the week. And hJ hJme>ra tw~n Sabba>twn Acts 13:14, “the day of the Sabbath,” is that day of the week which was set apart for a sabbatical rest. Hence mi>a sabba>twn , “one day of the sabbaths,” which frequently occurs, is the same with prw>th eJzdoma>dov , “the first day of the week,” ei=v or mi>a being often put for prw~tov , prw>th , the ordinal for the cardinal. 12. About the time of the writing of the books of the New Testament, both the Jews themselves and all the heathen that took notice of them called all their feasts and solemn assemblies their sabbaths, because they did no servile work in them They had the general nature of the weekly Sabbath, in a cessation from labor. So the first day of the feast of trumpets, which was to be on the first day of the second month, what day soever of the week it happened to be on, was called a sabbath, Leviticus 23:24. This Scaliger well observes and well proves, Emendat, Tempor. lib. iii., Canon. Isagog. lib. iii. p. 213: “Omnem festivitatem Judaicam, non solum Judæi sed et Gentiles sabbatum vocant; Judi quidem cure dicunt Tizri. nunquam incipere a feria prima, quarta, sexta, ne duo sabbata continuentur; Gentiles autem non alio nomine omnes eorum solennitates vocabant.”

And this is evident from the frequent mention of the sabbatical fasts of the Jews, when they did not, nor was it lawful for them to fast on the weekly Sabbath. So speaks Augustus to Tiberius in Suetonius, Octav. August. cap. lxxvi.: “Ne Judæus quidem, mi Tiberi, tam diligenter sabbatis jejunium servat, quam ego hodie servavi.”

And Juvenal, Sat. iv:158, — “Observant ubi festa mero perle sabbata reges.” And Martial, — “Et non jejuna sabbata lege premet;” speaking in contradiction, as he thought, unto them. And so Horace mentions their “tricesima sabbata;” which were no other but their new moons. And to this usual manner of speaking in those days doth our apostle accommodate his expressions, Colossians 2:16, “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in part of an holy day” (any part of it, or respect unto it), “or of the new moon, or of the sabbath ;” that is, any of the Judaical feasts whatever, then commonly called sabbaths. So Maimonides, Tract. De Sabb. cap. xxix., speaking of their µybwf µymy , “good days” or “feasts,” says expressly, yyd twtbç µlwkç , — “They are all sabbaths to the Lord.”

And from this usage some think to expound that vexed expression, Sa>bbaton deutero>prwton? ejpeidh< deu>teron mesca , prw~ton de< tw~n ajzu>mwn? eij ou+n sa>bbaton ei]rhtai , mh< qauma>shv? sa>bbaton galoun , — Luke 6:1; which we render, “The second Sabbath after the first.” So Suidas, Sa>bbaton deutero>prwton? ejpeidh< deu>teron mesca , prw~ton de< tw~n ajzu>mwn? eij ou+n sa>bbaton ei]rhtai , mh< zauma>shv? sa>bbaton galoun — “ It was the second day of the passover, and the first of unleavened bread. And wonder not that it is called a sabbath, for they called every feast day a sabbath.” Theophylact gives us another day, but on the same reason. Saith he, OiJ jIoudai~oi pa~san eJorthbbaton wjno>mazon? ajna>pausiv gakiv ou+n ajph>nta hJ eJorth< ejn th~| paraskeuh~| , kai< ejka>loun thbbaton dia< thn? ei=ta to< kuri>wv Sa>bbaton wjno>mazon deutero>prwton , wJv deu>teron o[n ¸ prohghsame>nhv a]llhv kai< Sabba>tou —”The Jews call every feast a sabbath, for sabbath is as much as rest.

Ofttimes, therefore, there fell out a feast on the day before the weekly Sabbath; and they called it a sabbath bemuse it was a feast. And therefore that which was the proper Sabbath at that time was called ‘ the second Sabbath after the first,’ being the second from that which went before.”

Chrysostom allows of the same reason, Hom. XXXix. in Matt. Isidore of Pelusium fixeth on another day, but still for the same reason: Epist. cx.

Lib.iii., Deutero>prwton ei]rhtai , ejpeidh< deu>teron mesca , prw~ton de< tw~n ajzu>mwn? —”It is called the deuteroproton, because it was the second day from the sacrificing of the passover, and the flint day of unleavened bread;” which he shows was called a sabbath upon the general account of all the Jewish feasts being so called: for so he saith, Eij de< sa>bbaton ei[rhtai mh< zauma>shv? sa>bbaton gaSabbath, as it is called without any addition, Matthew 12:11, whereon depended the questions that ensued about its observation. But we are beholden to Scaliger for the tree meaning of this expression, which so puzzled the ancients, and concerning which Gregory Nazianzen turned off Jerome with a scoff scarce becoming his gravity, when he inquired of him what might be the meaning of it. Scaliger, therefore, conjectures that it is called Sa>bbaton deutero>prwton , because it was the first Sabbath ajpo< th~v deute>rav tw~n ajzu>mwn , “from the second day of unleavened bread.” For on that day they offered the handful or sheaf of new fruits; and from that day they counted seven weeks unto Pentecost. And the Sabbaths of thee weeks were reckoned ajpo< th~v deute>rav tw~n ajzu>mwn and the first that followed was called deutero>prwton . So he, both in his Emendat.

Tempor. lib. vi, and Isagog. Canon. p. 218. And this is subscribed unto by his mortal adversary, Dionysius Petavius, Animad. in Epiphan. n. 31, p. 64, who will not allow him ever to have spoken rightly, but in what the wit of man can find no tolerable objection against. But this calling of their feasts “sabbaths,” with the reason of it, is given us by all their principal anthem So Lib. Tseror. Hammor. on Levit. p. 102: µyarqn µyd[wmhç yplw tbçh ˆklw çdq arq arqnç tbçh ˆm µyawrq µh µyd[wmh lkç wçwrypç çdq yarqm ˆwtbç tbç wmçb warqn µlwkw µlwk µyd[wmh çar awh —”Because all solemn days are called holy convocations, they are all called so the Sabbath, which is called holy; wherefore the Sabbath is the head of all solemn feasts, and they are all of them called by the name thereof, sabbaths of rest ;” whereof he gives instances. 13. Some of the ancient Christians, dealing with the heathens, called that day which the Christians then observed in the room of the Jewish seventh day, hJme>ran hJli>on , or “diem sells,” “Sunday;” as those who treat and deal with others must express things by the names that are current amongst them, unless they intend to be barbarians unto them. So speaks Justin Martyr, Apol. ii., Thou hJme>ran , koinh~ pa>ntev thleusin poiou~meqa? — “We meet” (for the worship of God) “in common on Sunday.” Had he said” the Sabbath,” the Gentiles would have concluded it to have been the Judaical Sabbath. To have called it to them “the Lord’s day,” had been to design no determinate day; they would not have known what day he meant. And the name of “the first day of the week,” taken up signally by Christians upon the resurrection of Christ, was not in use amongst them. Wherefore he called the day he intended to determine, as was necessary for him, by the name in use amongst them to whom he spake, “Sunday.” In like manner, Tertullian, treating with the same sort of men, calls it “diem solis,” Apol. cap. xvi. And Eusebius, reporting the edicts of Constantine for the obviation of the Lord’s day, as it is termed in them, adds that is the day which we call hJme>ran hJli>ou , or “Sunday.”

But yet among Christians themselves this name was not in common use, but by some was rejected, as were also all the rest of the names of the days used among the Pagans. So speaks Austin in Psalm xcii.: “Quarta sabbatorum, quarta feria, quæ Mercurii dies dicitur a Paganis, et a mullets Christians. Sed noluimus ut dicant, et utinam corrigantur ut non dicant.”

And Jerome, Epist ad Algas. “Una sabbati, dies dominica intelligenda est; quia hebdomada in sabbatum, ut in primam, et secundam, et tertiam, et quartam, et quintam, et sextam sabbati dividitur; quam ethnici idolorum et planetarum nominibus appellant.” He rejects the use of the ordinary names unto the heathens. And Philastrius makes the usage of them amongst Christians almost heretical, Num. 14. All the eastern nations also, amongst whom the planetary nomination of the days of the week first began, have, since their casting off that kind of idolatry, rejected the use of those names; being therein more religious or more superstitious, than the most of Christians. So is it done by the Arabians and Persians, and those that are joined unto them in religious observances. The day of their worship, which is our Friday, the Arabians call “Giuma,” the Persians “Adina.” The rest of the days of the week they discriminate by their natural order within their hebdomadal revolution, — the first, the second, the third, etc.; only some of them in some places have some special name occasionally imposed on them. The church of Rome, from a decree, as they suppose or pretend, of Pope Sylvester, reckons all the days of the week by “Feria prima, secunda,” and so onwards; only their writers for the most part retain the name of “sabbatum,” and use “dies dominica” for the first day. And the Rhemists, on Revelation 1:10, condemn the name of Sunday as heathenish. And Polydore Virgil before them says, “Profecto pudendum est, simulque dolendum, quod non antehac data sunt istis diebus Christiana nomina; ne dii gentium tam memorabile, inter nos, monumentum haberent,” De Invent. Rer. lib. vi. cap. v.

And indeed, among sundry of thee ancients, there do many severe expressions occur against the use of the common planetary names. And at the first relinquishment of Gentilism, it had no doubt been well if those names of Baalim had been taken away out of the mouths of men, especially considering that the retaining of them hath been of no use nor advantage. As they are now rivetted into custom and usage, claiming their station on such a prescription as in some measure takes away the corruption of their use, I judge that they are not to be contended about; for as they are vulgarly used, these names are mere notes of distinction, of no more signification than first, second, and third, the original and occasioned imposition of them being amongst the many utterly unknown. Only I must add, that the severe reflections and contemptuous reproaches which I have heard made upon and poured out against them who, it may be out of weakness, it may be out of a better judgment than our own, do abstain from the using of them, argue a want of due charity and that condescension in love which become those who judge themselves strong; for the truth is, they have a plea sufficient at least to vindicate them from the contempt of any. For there are some places of Scripture which seem so far to give countenance unto them, that if they mistake in their application, it is a mistake of no other nature but what others are liable unto in things of greater importance; for it is given as the will of God, Exodus 23:13, “In all things,” saith he, “that I have said unto you be circumspect: and make no mention of the name of other gods, neither let it be heard out of thy mouth.”

And it cannot be denied but that the names of the days of the week were the names of gods among the heathen. The prohibition is renewed, Joshua 23:7, “Neither make mention of the name of their gods:” which is yet. extended further, Deuteronomy 12:3, to a command “to destroy and blot out the names of the gods of the people ;” which by this means are retained. Accordingly, the children of-Reuben, building the cities formerly called Nebo and Baal-meon, changed their names, because they were the names of heathen idols, Numbers 32:38. And David mentioneth it as a part of his integrity, that he would not take up the names of idols into his lips, Psalm 16:4. And some of the ancients, as hath been observed, confirm what by some at present is concluded from these places. Saith Jerome, “Absit ab ore Christiano dicere, Jupiter omnipotens, Mehercule, et Mecastor, et cætera magis portenta quam nomina,” Epist. ad Damas. Now, be it granted that the objections against the use of the planetary names of the days of the week from these places may be answered from consideration of the change of times and the circumstances of things, .yet certainly there is an appearance of warranty in them sufficient to secure them from contempt and reproach who are prevailed on by them to another use. 15. But of a day of rest there is a peculiar reason. If there be a name given in the Scripture unto such a day, by that name it is to be called, and not otherwise. So it was unquestionably under the old testament. God himself had assigned a name unto the day of sacred rest then enjoined the church unto observation, and it was not lawful for the Jews to call it by any other name given unto it or in use among the heathen. It was and was to be called “the Sabbath day,” “the Sabbath of theLORD.” In the new testament there is, as we shall see afterwards, a signal note put on “the first day of the week.” So thence do some call their day of rest or solemn worship, and contend that so it ought to be called. But this only respects the order and relation of such a day to the other days of the week, which is natural, and hath no respect unto any thing that is sacred. It may be allowed, then, for the indigitation of such a day, and the discrimination of it from the other days of the week, but it is no proper name for a day of sacred rest. And the first use of it, upon the resurrection of our Lord, was only peculiarly to denote the time. There is a day mentioned by John, in the Revelation, (which we shall afterwards consider,) that he calleth hJme>ran kuriakh>n , “diem dominicam,” “the Lord’s day.” This appellation, what day soever is designed, is neither natural nor civil, nor doth it relate unto any thing in nature or in the common usage of men. It must therefore be sacred; and it is, or may be, very comprehensive of various respects. It is “the Lord’s day,” the day that he hath taken to be his lot or especial portion among the days of the week; as he took, as it were, possession of it in his resurrection. So his people are his lot and portion in the world, therefore called his people. It is also, or may be, his day subjectively, or the day whereon his businesses and affairs are principally transacted. So the poet, Statius, Theb. viii:664, — “Tydeos illa dies;” that was Tydeus’ day, because he was principally concerned in the affairs of it. This is the day wherein the affairs of the Lord Jesus Christ are transacted, his person and mediation being the principal subjects and objects of its work and worship. And it is, or may be, called his, “the Lord’s day,” because enjoined and appointed to be observed by him or his authority over the church. So the ordinance of the supper is called “the supper of the Lord” on the same account. On supposition, therefore, that such a day of rest there is to be observed under the new testament, the name whereby it ought to be called is “the Lord’s day ;” which is peculiarly expressive of its relation unto our Lord Jesus Christ, the sole author and immediate object of all gospel worship. But whereas the general notion of a sabbatical rest is still included in such a day, a super-addition of its relation to the Lord Christ will entitle it unto the appellation of “the Lord’s-day Sabbath ;” that is, the day of sacred rest appointed by the Lord Jesus Christ. And thus, most probably, in the continuation of the old testament phraseology, it is called “the Sabbath day,” Matthew 24:20, and in our Epistle comes under the general notion of a sabbatism, chap. 4:9.

EXERCITATION 2.

OF THE ORIGINAL OF THE SABBATH. 1. Of the original of the Sabbath — The importance of this disquisition. 2. Opinion of some of the Jewish masters about the original of the Sabbath, that it began in Marah. 3. The station in Marah, and the occurrences thereof — Tacitus noted — Exodus 15:25,26; Jews’ exposition of it. 4. These opinions refuted by testimonies and reasons. 5. Another opinion of the ancient Jews about the original of the Sabbath, and of the Mohammedans. 6. Opinions of Christians about the original of the Sabbath proposed. 7. That of its original from the foundation of the world asserted — The first testimony given unto it, <010201>Genesis 2:1-3, vindicated — Exceptions of Heidegger answered. 8. What intended by “sanctifying” and “blessing the seventh day.” 9. Other exceptions removed — Series and dependence of the discourse in Moses cleared — The whole testimony vindicated. 10. Hebrews 4:3,4, vindicated. 11. Observation of the Sabbath by the patriarchs before the giving of the law — Instances hereof collected by Manasseh Ben Israel — Further confirmation of it. 12. Tradition among the Gentiles concerning it — Sacredness of the septenary number. 13. Testimonies of the heathen, collected by Aristobulus, Clemens, Eusebius. 14. Importance of these testimonies examined and vindicated. 15. Ground of the hebdomadal revolution of time — Its observation catholic. 16. Planetary denominations of the days of the week, whence. 17. The contrary opinion, of the original of the Sabbath in the wilderness, proposed and examined. 18-26. Arguments against this original of the Sabbath answered, etc. 1. HAVING fixed the name, the thing itself falls nextly under consideration.

And the order of our investigation shall be, to inquire first into its original, and then into its causes. And the true stating of the former will give great light into the latter, as also into its duration. For if it began with the world, probably it had a cause cognate to the existence of the world and the ends of it, and so must in duration be commensurate unto it. If it owed its rise to succeeding generations, amongst some peculiar sort of men, its cause was arbitrary and occasional, and its continuance uncertain; for every thing which had such a beginning in the worship of God was limited to some seasons only, and had a time determined for its expiration. This, therefore, is first to be stated. And, indeed, no concern of this day hath fallen under more diligent, severe, and learned dissertations, Very learned men have here engaged into contrary opinions, and defended them with much learning and variety of reading. “Summa sequar fastigia rerum,” and I shall briefly call the different apprehensions both of Jews and Christians in this matter unto a just examination. Neither shall I omit the consideration of any opinion whose antiquity or the authority of its defenders did ever give it reputation, though now generally exploded, as not knowing, in that revolution of opinions which we are under, how soon it may have a revival. 2. The Jews (that we may begin with them with whom some think the Sabbath began) are divided among themselves about the original of the Sabbath no less than Christians; yea, to speak the truth, their divisions and different apprehensions about this matter of fact have been the occasion of ours, and their authority is pleaded to countenance the mistakes of others.

Many, therefore, of them assign the original or first revelation of the Sabbath unto the wilderness station of the people in Marah; others of them make it coeval with the world.

The first opinion hath countenance given unto it in the Talmud. Gemar.

Babyon. Tit. Sab. cap. ix., and Tit. Sanhed. cap. vii. And the tradition of it is embraced by so many of their masters and commentators that our learned Seedless, de Jur. Gen. apud Heb. lib. iii. cap. xii.-xiv., contends for it as the common and prevailing opinion amongst them, and endeavors an answer unto all instances or testimonies that are or may be urged to the contrary. And, indeed, there is scarce any thing of moment to be observed in all antiquity, as to matter of fact about the Sabbath, whether it be Jewish, Christian, or heathen, but what he hath heaped together, or rather treasured up, in the learned discourses of that third book of his, Jus Gentium aped Hebraeos. Whether the questions of right belonging thereunto have been duly determined by him is yet left unto further inquiry. That which at present we are in the consideration of, is the opinion of the Jews about the original of the Sabbath at the station of Marah, which he so largely confirms with testimonies out of all sorts of their authors, and those duly alleged, according to their own sense and conceptions. 3. Marah was the first station that the children of Israel fixed in the wilderness of Shut, five days after their coming up out of the Red sea.

Before their coming hither, they had wandered three days in the wilderness without finding any water, until they were ready to faint. The report of this their thirst and wandering was famous amongst the heathen, and mixed by them with vain and monstrous fables. One of the wisest amongst them puts as many lies together about it as so few words can well contain. “Effigiem,” saith he, “animalis, quo monstrante errorem sitimque depulerant, penetrali sacravere,” Tacit. Hist., lib. v. cap. iv. He feigns that by following some wild asses they were led to waters, and so made an end of their thirst and wandering; on the account whereof they afterwards consecrated in their temple the image of an ass. Others of them besides him say that they wandered six days, and finding water on the seventh, that was the occasion and reason of their perpetual observation of the seventh day’s rest. In their journey from the Red sea to Marah, they were particularly pressed with wandering and thirst, Exodus 15:22; but this was only for three days, not seven: “They went three days in the wilderness, and found no water.” The story of the ass’s image or head consecrated amongst them was taken from what fell out afterwards about the golden calf. This made them vile among the nations, and exposed them to their obloquy and reproaches. Upon the third day, therefore, after their coming from the Red sea, they came to Marah; that is, the place so called afterwards from what there befell them, for the waters which there they found being µyrim; , “bitter,” they called the name of the place hr;m; , or “bitterness.” Hither they came on the third day; for although it is said that “they went three days in the wilderness, and found no water,” Exodus 15:22, after which mention is made of their coming to Marah, verse 23, yet it was in the evening of the third day, for they pitched that night in Marah, Numbers 33:8. There, after their murmuring for the bitterness of the waters, and the miraculous cure of them, it is added in the story, “There theLORD made for them a statute and an ordinance, and there he proved them, and said, If thou wilt diligently hearken to the voice of theLORD thy God, and wilt do that which is right in his sight, and wilt give ear to his commandments, and keep all his statutes, I will put none of these diseases upon thee, which I have brought upon the Egyptians: for I am theLORD that healeth thee,” Exodus 15:25,26.

It is said that he gave them fP;v]miW qjo , the words whereby sacred ordinances and institutions are expressed. What this “statute and ordinance” were in particular is not declared. These, therefore, are suggested by the Talmudical masters. One of them, they say, was the ordinance concerning the Sabbath. About the other they are not so well agreed. Some refer it to the fifth commandment, of honoring father and mother; others to the ceremonies of the red heifer, with whose ashes the water of sprinkling was to be mingled: for which conjectures they want not such reasons as are usual amongst them. The two first they confirm from the repetition of the law, Deuteronomy 5:12,15; for there these words, “As theLORD thy God hath commanded thee,” are distinctly added to those two precepts, the fourth and fifth, and to no other. And this could arise from no other cause but because God had before given them unto the people in Marah, where he said he had given them fP;v]miW qjo ; that is, the ordinance and law of the Sabbath, and the judgment of obedience to parents and superiors! This is one of the principal ways whereby they confirm their imaginations. And fully to establish the truth hereof, Baal Hatturim, or the small gematrical annotations on the Masoretical Bibles, adds, that in these words, Úyh,loa’ hwO;hy] ÚW]xi rv,a\Kæ , the final numeral letters make up the same number with hr;m; , the name of the place where these laws were given. And this is the sum of what is pleaded in this case. 4. But every one may easily seethe vanity of these pretences, and how easy it is for any one to frame a thousand of them who knows not how better to spend his time. Aben Ezra and Abarbanel both confess that the words used in the repetition of the law, Deuteronomy 5, do refer to the giving of it on mount Sinai. And if we must seek for especial reasons for the inserting of those words, besides the sovereign pleasure of God, they are not wanting which are far more probable than these of the masters. (1.) The one of these commandments closing up the first table, concerning the worship of God, and the other heading the second table, concerning our duties amongst ourselves and towards others, this memorial, “As the\parLORD thy God hath commanded thee,” is on that account expressly annexed unto them, being to be distinctly applied unto all the rest. (2.) The fourth commandment is, as it were, “custos primæ tabulæ,” the keeper-of the whole first table, seeing our owning of God to be our God, and our worship of him according to his mind, were solemnly to be expressed on the day of rest commanded to be observed for that purpose, and in the neglect whereof they will be sure enough neglected; whence also a remembrance to observe this day is so strictly enjoined. And the fifth commandment is apparently “custos secundæ tabulæ,” as appointed of God to contain the means of exacting the observation of all the duties of the second table, or of punishing the neglect of them and disobedience unto them. And therefore it may be the memorial is not peculiarly annexed unto them on their own distinct account, but equally upon that of the other commandments whereunto they do refer. (3.) There is yet an especial reason for the peculiar appropriation of these two precepts by that memorial unto this people; for they had now given unto them an especial typical concern in them, which did not at all belong unto the rest of mankind, who were otherwise equally concerned in the decalogue with themselves. For in the fourth commandment, whereas no more was before required but that one day in seven should be observed as a sacred rest, they were now precisely confined to the seventh day in order from the finishing of the creation, or the establishing of the law and covenant of works, or a day answering thereunto; for the determination of the day in the hebdomadal revolution was added in the law decalogical to the law of nature. And this was with respect unto and in the confirmation of that ordinance which gave them the seventh-day Sabbath in a peculiar manner, — that is, the seventh day after six days’ raining of manna, Exodus 16:And in the other, the promise annexed unto it of prolonging their days had peculiar respect unto the land of Canaan. There is neither of these but is a far more probable reason of the annexing these words, “As theLORD thy God commanded thee,” unto those two commandments, than that fixed on by the Talmudical masters. Herein only I agree with them that both those commands were given alike in Marah; and one of them I suppose none will deny to be a. principal dictate of the law of nature. For the words mentioned, fP;v]miW qjo , “a statute and an ordinance,” the meaning of them is plainly expounded, Exodus 15:26.

God then declared this unto them as his unchangeable ordinance and institution, that he would bless them on their obedience, and punish them upon their unbelief and rebellion; wherein they had experience of his faithfulness to their cost. The reader may see this fiction further disproved in Tostatus on the place., though I confess some of his reasons are inconstringent and frivolous.

Moreover, this station at Marah was reached on or about the twentyfourth day of Nisan, or April; and the first solemn observation of the Sabbath in the wilderness was upon the twenty-second of Iyar, the month following, as may easily be evinced from Moses’ journal. There were therefore twenty-seven days between this fictitious institution of the Sabbath and the first solemn observation of it, which was at their station in Alush, as is generally supposed, certainly in the wilderness of Sin, after they had left Marah and Elim, and the coast of the Red sea, whereunto they returned from Elim, Exodus 16:1; Numbers 33:8-14. For they first began their journey out of Egypt on the fifteenth day of Nisan, or the first month, Exodus 12:37, Numbers 33:3; and they passed through the sea into the wilderness about the nineteenth day of the month, as is evident from their journeyings, Numbers 33:5-8. On the twenty-fourth of that month they pitched in Marah; and it was the fifteenth day of Iyar, or the second month, before they entered the wilderness of Sin, where is the first mention of their solemn observation of the Sabbath, upon the occasion of the gathering of manna, Between these two seasons three Sabbaths must needs intervene, and those immediately upon its first institution, if this fancy may be admitted. And yet the rulers of the congregation looked upon the people’s preparation for its observation as an unusual thing, Exodus 16:22, which could not have fallen out had it received so fresh an institution.

Besides, these masters themselves, and Rashi in particular, who in his comment on the place promotes this fancy, grants that Abraham observed the Sabbath. But the law and ordinance hereof, they say, he received on peculiar favor and by especial revelation. But be it so; it was the great commendation of Abraham, and that given him by God himself, that he would “command his children and his household after him” to “keep the way of theLORD,” Genesis 18:19. Whatever ordinance, therefore, he received from God of any thing to be observed in his worship, it was a part of his fidelity to communicate the knowledge of it unto his posterity, and to teach them its observance. They must, therefore, of necessity, on those men’s principles, be instructed in the doctrine and observation of the Sabbath before this pretended institution of it. Should we, then, allow that the generality of the Jewish masters and Talmudical rabbis do assert that the law of the Sabbath was first given in Marsh, yet the whole of what they assert being a mere curious, groundless conjecture, it may and ought to be rejected. Not what these men say, but what they prove, is to be admitted. And he who, with much diligence, hath collected testimonies out of them unto this purpose, hath only proved what they thought, but not what is the truth. And upon this fond imagination is built their general opinion, that the Sabbath was given only unto Israel, is the “spouse of the synagogue,’’ and that it belongs not to the rest of mankind. Such dreams they may be permitted to please themselves withal; but that these things should be pleaded by Christians against the true original and use of the Sabbath is somewhat strange. If any think their assertions in this matter to be of any weight, they ought to admit what they add thereunto, namely, that all the Gentiles shall once a week keep a Sabbath in hell. 5. Neither is this opinion amongst them universal. Some of their most famous masters are otherwise minded; for they both judge that the Sabbath was instituted in paradise, and that the law of it was equally obligatory unto all nations in the world. Of this mind are Maimonides, Aben Ezra, Abarbanel, and others; for they expressly refer the revelation of the Sabbath unto the sanctification and benediction of the first seventh day, Genesis 2:3. The Targum on the title of Psalm xcii. ascribes that psalm to Adam, as spoken by him on the Sabbath day; whence Austin esteemed this rather the general opinion of the Jews, Tractat. 20 in Johan. And Manasseh Ben Israel, lib. de Creat. Problem. 8, proves out of sundry of their own authors that the Sabbath was given unto and observed by the patriarchs, before the coming of the people into the wilderness. In particular, that it was so by Abraham, Jacob, and Joseph, he confirms by testimonies out of the Scripture not to be despised. Philo Judæus and Josephus, both of them more ancient and more learned than any of the Talmudical doctors, expressly assign the original of the Sabbath unto that of the world. Philo calls it, Tou~ ko>smou gene>sion , “The day of the world’s nativity;” and JEorthlewv h[ cw>rav ajlla< tou~ panto>v , “A feast not of one city or country, but of the whole world,” De Opificio Mundi, et de Vita Mos lib. 2. To the same purpose speaks Josephus, lib. 2. cont. Apion. And the words of Abarbanel are sufficiently express in this matter: çdq tkalm hrmgnw hmlçn wtsnkhbç rwb[b y[ybçh µwy ta traptlw dwbkl lydbhw gws µwyw htçm htrymg dha hç[y hrqy hkalm wtwç[b µdah wmk Åraw µymç ;—”He sanctified and separated the seventh day unto glory and honor, because on its approach the work of heaven and earth was perfected and finished,..., even as a man when he hath performed an honorable work and perfected it maketh a banquet and a day of feasting.”

And yet more evident is that of Maimon. Tract. Kiddush Hakkodesh cap. i.; hçç hnwm dja lkç tyçarb tbç wmk µda lkl hrwsm jryh tyar ˆya µwyh wtwa y[bqzw ˆyd tyb whwçdqyç d[ rwsm rbdh ˆyyd tybl ala y[ybçb tbwçw çdj çar hyhyç awh çdj çar ; — “The vision or sight of the moon is not delivered to all men, as was the Sabbath bereschith” (or “in the beginning”). “For every man can number six [days] and rest on the seventh: but it is committed to the house of judgment” (the sanhedrin), that is, to observe the appearances of the moon; “and when the sanhedrin declareth and pronounceth that it is the new moon, or the beginning of the month, then it is to be taken so to be.”

He distinguisheth their sacred feasts into the weekly Sabbath and the new moons, or those that depended ajpo< th~v fa>sewv th~v selh>nhv “upon the appearing of the new moon.” The first he calls tbç tyçarb , “Sabbath bereschith,” the Sabbath instituted at the creation; for so, from the first of Genesis, they often express technically the work of the creation. This, he says, was given to every man; for there is no more required to the due observation of it, in point of time, but that a man be able to reckon six days, and so rest on the seventh. But now for the observation of the new moons, for all feasts that depended on the variations of her appearances, this was peculiar to themselves, and the determination of it left unto the sanhedrin. For they trusted not unto astrological computations merely as to the changes of the moon, but sent persons unto sundry high places to watch and observe her first appearances; which if they answered the general established rules, then they proclaimed the beginning of the feast to be. So Maimon. Kiddush Hakkodesh, cap. ii.

And Philippus Guadagnolus, Apol. pro Christiana Relig., part. 1:cap. viii., shows that Ahmed Ben Zin, a Persian Mohammedan, whom he confutes, affirmed that the institution of the Sabbath was from the creation of the world. This, indeed, he reflects upon in his adversary with a saying out of the Koran, Azoar. 3, where those that sabbatize are cursed: which yet will not serve his purpose; for in the Koran respect is had to the Jewish Sabbath, or the seventh day of the week precisely, while one day of seven only is pleaded by Ahmed to have been appointed from the foundation of the world. I know some learned men have endeavored to elude most of the testimonies which are produced to manifest the opinion of the most ancient Jews in this matter; but I know also that their exceptions might be easily removed, would the nature of our present design admit of a contest to that purpose. 6. We come now to the consideration of those different opinions concerning the original of the Sabbath which are embraced and contended about amongst learned men, yea, and unlearned also, of the present age and church. And rejecting the conceit of the Jews about the station in Marah, which very few think to have any probability attending it, there are two opinions in this matter that are yet pleaded for. The first is, that the Sabbath had its institution, precept, or warranty for its observation, in paradise, before the fall of man, immediately upon the finishing of the works of creation. This is thought by many to be plainly and positively asserted, Genesis 2:3; and our apostle seems directly to confirm it, by placing the blessing of the seventh day as the immediate consequent of the finishing of the works of God from the foundation of the world, Hebrews 4:3,4. Others refer the institution of the Sabbath to the precept given about its observation in the wilderness of Sin, Exodus 16:22-26; for those who deny its original from the beginning, or a morality in its law, cannot assert that it was first given on Sinai, or had its spring in the decalogue, nor can give any peculiar reason why it should be inserted therein, seeing express mention is made of its observation some while before the giving of the law there. These, therefore, make it a mere typical institution, given, and that without the solemnity of the giving of other solemn institutions, to the church of the Hebrews only. And those of this judgment, some of them, contend that in these words of Moses, Genesis 2:3, “And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it, because that in it he had rested .from all his work,” a prolepsis is to be admitted; that is, that what is there occasionally inserted in the narrative, and to be read in a parenthesis, came not to pass indeed until above two thousand years after, namely, in the wilderness of Sin, where and which God first blessed the seventh day and sanctified it. And the reason given for the supposed intersertion of the words in the story of Moses is, because when it came to pass indeed that God so blessed the seventh day, he did it on the account of what he was then relating of the works that he made, and the rest that ensued thereon. Others give such an interpretation of the words as that they should contain no appointment of a day of rest, as we shall see. Those who assert the former opinion deny that the precept, or rather directions, about the observation of the Sabbath given unto the people of Israel in the wilderness of Sin, Exodus 16, was its first original institution; but affirm that it was either a new declaration of the law and usage of it unto them, who in their long bondage had lost both its doctrine and practice, with a renewed re-enforcement of it, by an especial circumstance of the manna not falling on that day, or rather a particular application of a catholic moral command unto the economy of that church unto whose state the people were then under a preludium, in the occasional institution of sundry particular ordinances, as hath been declared in our former Exercitations. This is the plain state of the present controversy about the original of the Sabbath as to time and place, wherein what is according unto truth is now to be inquired after. 7. The opinion of the institution of the Sabbath from the beginning of the world is founded principally on a double testimony, one in the Old Testament, and the other in the New. And both of them seem to me of so uncontrollable an evidence that I have often wondered how ever any sober and learned persons undertook evade their force or efficacy in this cause.

The first is that of Genesis 2:1-3, “Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all host of them, And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.”

There is, indeed, somewhat in this text which hath given difficulty unto the Jews, and somewhat that the heathen took offense at. That which troubles the Jews is, that God is said to have finished his work on the seventh day; for they fear that somewhat might be, hence drawn to the prejudice of their absolute rest on the seventh day, whereon it seems God himself wrought in the finishing of his work. And Jerome judged that they might be justly charged with this consideration. “Arctabimus,” saith he, “Judos, qui de otio sabbati gloriantur, quod jam tunc in principio Sabbatum dissolutum sit; dun Deus operatur in Sabbato complens opera sua in eo, et benedicens ipsi diei, quia in illo universa complevit;” — “ We will urge the Jews with this, who glory of their sabbatical rest, in that the Sabbath was broken” (or “dissolved “)” from the beginning, whilst God wrought in it, finishing his work, and blessing the day, because in it he finished all things” Hence the LXX. read the words, by an open corruption, ejn th~| hJme>ra| th~ e[kth , “on the sixth day ;” wherein they are followed by the Syriac and Samaritan versions. And the rabbins grant that this was done on purpose that it might not be thought that God made any thing on the seventh day. But this scruple was every way needless; for, do but suppose that lkæy]wæ , which expresseth the time past, doth intend the preterpluperfect tense, — as the preterperfect in the Hebrew must do where occasion requires, seeing they have no other to express that which at any time is past by, — and it is plain that God had perfected his work before the beginning of the seventh-day’s rest. And so are the words well rendered by Junius, “Quum autem perfecisset Deus die septimo, opus suum quod fecerat.” Or we may say, “Compleverat die septimo.”

That which the heathen took offense at, was the rest here ascribed unto God, as though he boa been wearied with his work. Hence was that of Rutilius in his Itinerary: — “Septima, quæque dies turpi damnata veterne, Ut delassati mollis imago Dei.” The sense of this expression we shall afterwards explain. In the meantime, it is certain that the word here used doth often signify only to cease, or give over, without respect either to weariness or rest, as Job 32:1; 1 Samuel 25:9: so that no just cause of offense was given in the application of it to God himself. However, Philo, lib. de Opific. Mund., refers this of God’s rest to his contemplation of the works of his hands, and that not unmeetly, as we shall see. But set aside prejudices and preconceived opinions, and any man would think that the institution of the Sabbath is here as plainly expressed as in the fourth commandment. The words are the continuation of a plain historical narration. Having finished the account of the creation of the world in the first chapter, and given a recapitulation of it in the first-verse of this, Moses declares what immediately ensued thereon, — namely, the rest of God on the seventh day, and his blessing and sanctifying that day whereon he so rested. That day on which he rested he blessed and sanctified, even that individual day in the first place, and a day in the revolution of the same space of time for succeeding generations. This is plain in the words, or nothing can be thought to be plainly expressed. And if there be any appearance of difficulty in these words, “God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it,” it is wholly taken away in the explication given of them by himself afterwards in the fourth commandment, where they are plainly declared to intend its setting apart and consecration to be a day of sacred rest. But yet exceptions are put in to this plain, open sense of the words. Thus it is lately pleaded by Heidegger, Theol. Patriarch. Exerc. iii. sect. 58, “Deus die septimo cessaverat facere opus novum, quia sex diebus omnia consummata erant. Ei dici benedixit eo ipso quod cessans ab opere suo, ostendit, quod homo in cujus creatione quievit, factus sit propter nominis sui glorificationem; quod cure mains fuerit cæteris quæ hactenus creata sunt, vocatur benedictio; eundem diem cui sic benedixit sanctificavit, quia et illo die, et reliquo toto tempore constituerat se in homine sanctificare tanquam in corona et gloria sui operis. Sanctificare enim est, eum qui sanctus est, sanctum dicere et testari. Dies igitur et tempus sanctum erat et agnoscebatur, non per se, sed per sanctitatem hominis, qui in tempore se sanctificat, et cogitationes, et studia, et actiones suas Deo, qui sanctus est, vindicat et consecrate” I understand not how God can be said to bless the seventh day because man, who was created on the sixth day, was made for the glory of his name; for all things, as well as man, were made for the glory of God. He “made all things for himself,” Proverbs 16:4; and they all “declare his glory,” Psalm 19:1. Nor is it said that God rested on the seventh day from making’ of man, but “from all his work which he had made.”

Granting man, who was last made, to have been the most eminent part of the visible creation, and most capable of immediate giving of glory to God, yet it is plainly said that the rest of God respected “all his work which he had made,” which is twice repeated; besides that the works themselves are summed up into the making of “the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them.” And wherein doth this include the blessing of the seventh day?

It may he better applied to the sixth, wherein man was made; for on the seventh God did no more make man than he did the sun and moon, which were made on the fourth. Nor is there here any distinction supposed between God’s resting on the seventh day and his blessing of it, which yet are plainly distinguished in the text. To say he blessed and sanctified it merely by resting on it, is evidently to confound the things that are not only distinctly proposed in the text, but so proposed as that one is laid down as the cause of the other; for because God rested on the seventh day, therefore he blessed it. Nor is the sanctification of the day any better expressed. “God,” saith he, “had appointed on that day, and always, to sanctify himself in man, as the crown and glory of his work.” I wish this learned man had more clearly expressed himself. What act of God is it that can be here intended? It must be the purpose of his will. This, therefore, is given us as the sense of this place: God sanctified the seventh day; that is, God purposed from eternity to sanctify himself always in man, whom on the sixth day he would create for his glory. These things are so forced as that they scarcely afford a tolerable sense. 8. Neither is the sense given by this author and some others of that expression, “to sanctify,’ — that is, to declare or testify any person or thing to be holy, — being spoken by God, and not of him objectively, usual, or to be justified. In reference unto God, our sanctifying him, or hisname, is indeed to testify or declare his holiness, by our giving honor and glory to him in our holy obedience. But as to men and things, to sanctify them, is either really to sanctify them, by making them internally holy, or to separate and dedicate them unto holy uses; the former peculiar to persons, the latter common to them with other things made sacred, by an authoritative separation from profane or common uses, unto a peculiar, sacred, or holy use in the worship of God. Nor are the following words in our author, that “the day is sanctified and made holy, not in itself, but by the holiness of man,” any more to the purpose; for as man was no more created on that day than the beasts of the field, — so that from his holiness no color can be taken to ascribe holiness unto the day, — so it is not consistent with what was before asserted, that the sanctification intended is the holiness of God himself as declared in his works, for now it is made the holiness of man.

The sense of the words is plain, and is but darkened by these circumlocutions: wOtao vDeqæy]wæ y[iybiV]hæ µwOyAta, µyhiola’ Ër,b;y]wæ . The Jews do well express the general sense of the words, when they say of the day, that µlw[h yqs[m ldkn , “It was divided” (or “distinguished ) “from the common nature of things in the world,” namely, by having a new, sacred relation added unto it; for that the day itself is the subject spoken of, as the object of God’s blessing and sanctification, nothing but unallowable prejudice will deny. And this to be the sense of the expressions both the words used to declare the acts of God about it do declare. (1.) Ër,b;y]wæ , “He blessed it.” God’s blessing, as the Jews say, and they say well therein, is tbwf tpswt , — “an addition of good.” It relates to some thing that hath a real present existence, to which it makes an addition of some further good than it was before partaker of. Hereof, as we said, the day in this place was the direct and immediate object: “God blessed it.”

Some peculiar good was added unto it. Let this be inquired into, what it was and wherein it did consist, and the meaning of the words will be evident. It must be somewhat whereby it was preferred unto or exalted above other days. When any thing of that nature is assigned, besides a relation given unto it to the worship of God, it shall be considered. That this was it, is plain from the nature of the thing itself, and from the actual separation and use of it to that purpose which did ensue. (2.) The other word, vDeqæy]wæ , “And sanctified it,” is further instructive in the intention of God, and is also exegetical of the former. Suppose still, as the text will not allow us to do otherwise, that the day is the object of this sanctification, and it is not possible to assign any other sense of the words but that God set apart, by his institution, that day to be the day of his worship, to be spent in a sacred rest unto himself. And this is declared to be the intendment of the word in the decalogue, where it is used again to the same purpose; for none ever doubted that the meaning of vDeqæy]wæ , “And he sanctified it,” therein, is any other but that by his institution and command he set it apart for a day of holy rest. And this signification of that word is not only most common, but solely to be admitted in the Old Testament, if cogent reason be not given to the contrary; as where it denotes a dedication and separation to civil uses, and not to sacred, as it sometimes doth, still retaining its general nature of separation. And therefore I will not deny but that these two words may signify the same thing, the one being merely exegetical of the other. He blessed it by sanctifying of it; as Numbers 7:1, µt;aO vDeqæy]wæ µjev;m]Yiwæ , “And he anointed them and sanctified them ;” that is, he sanctified them by anointing them, or by their unction set them apart unto a holy use: which is the instance of Abarbanel on this place. This, then, is that which is affirmed by Moses: On the seventh day, after he had .finished his work, God rested, or ceased from working, and thereon blessed and sanctified the seventh day, or set it apart unto holy uses, for their observance by whom he was to be worshipped in this world, and whom he had newly made for that purpose. God then sanctified this day: not that he kept it holy himself, which in no sense the divine nature is capable of; nor that he purified it, and made it inherently holy, which the nature of the day is incapable of; nor that he celebrated that which in itself was holy, as we sanctify his name, which is the act of an inferior towards a superior; but that he set it apart to sacred use authoritatively, requiring us to sanctify it in that use obedientially . And if you allow not this original sanctification of the seventh day, the first instance of its solemn, joint, national observation is introduced with a strange abruptness. It is said, Exodus 16, where this instance is given, that “on the sixth day the people gathered twice as much bread” as on any other day, namely, “two omers for one man ;” which the rulers taking notice of acquainted Moses with it, verse 22. And Moses, in answer to the rulers of the congregation, who had made the information, gives the reason of it: “To-morrow,” saith he, “is the rest of the holy Sabbath unto theLORD,” verse 23. Many of the Jews can give some color to this manner of expression; for they assign, as we have showed, the revelation and institution of the Sabbath unto the station in Marah, Exodus 15, which was almost a month before. So they think that no more is here intended but a direction for the solemn observance of that day which was before instituted, with particular respect unto the gathering of manna; which the people being commanded in general before to gather every day according to their eating, and not to keep any of it until the next day, the rulers might well doubt whether they ought not to have gathered it on the Sabbath also, not being able to reconcile a seeming contradiction between those two commands, of gathering manna every day, and of resting on the seventh- But those by whom the fancy about the station in Marah is rejected, as it is rejected by most Christians, and who will not admit of its original institution from the beginning, can scarce give a tolerable account of this manner of expression. Without the least intimation of institution and command, it is only said, “To-morrow is the Sabbath holy to the\parLORD ;” that is, ‘ for you to keep holy.’ Bat on the supposition contended for, the discourse in that place, with the reason of it, is plain and evident; for there being a previous institution of the seventh day’s rest, the observation whereof was partly gone into disuse, and the day itself being then to receive a new, peculiar application to the church-state of that people, the reason both of the people’s act, and the rulers’ doubt, and Moses’ resolution, is plain and obvious. 9. Wherefore, granting the sense of the words contended for, there is yet another exception put in to invalidate this testimony as to the original of a seventh day’s sabbatical rest from the foundation of the world. And this is taken, not from the signification of the words, but the connection and disposition of them in the discourse of Moses. For suppose that by God’s blessing and sanctifying the seventh day, the separation of it unto sacred uses is intended, yet this doth not prove that it was so sanctified immediately upon the finishing of the work of creation. For, say some learned men, these words of Genesis 2:3, “And God blessed the seventh, day, and sanctified it, because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made,” are inserted occasionally into the discourse of Moses, from what afterwards came to pass, They are not therefore, as they suppose, a continned part of the historical narration there insisted on, but are inserted into it by way of prolepsis or anticipation, and are to be read as it were in a parenthesis. For supposing that Moses wrote not the book of Genesis until after the giving of the law (which I will not contend about, though it be assumed gratis in this discourse), there being a respect had unto the rest of God when his works were finished in the institution of the Sabbath, upon the historical relation of that rest Moses interserts what so long after was done and appointed on the account thereof. And so the sense of the words must be, that “God rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made ;” that is, the next day after the finishing of the works of creation: wherefore, two thousand four hundred years after, “God blessed the seventh day, and ‘sanctified it,” — not that seventh day where, on he rested, with them that succeeded in the like revolution of time, but a seventh day that felt out so long after, which was not blessed nor sanctified before ! I know not well how men learned and sober can offer more hardship unto a text than is put upon this before us by this interpretation. The connection of the words is plain and equal: “Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.” You may as well break off the order and continuation of the words and discourse in any other place as in that pretended. And it may be as well feigned that God finished his work on the seventh day, and afterwards rested another seventh day, as that he rested the seventh day, and afterwards blessed and sanctified another. It is true, there may be sundry instances given out of the Scripture of sundry things inserted in historical narrations by way of anticipation, which fell not out until after the time wherein mention is made of them; but they are mostly such as fell out in the same age or generation, the matter of the whole narration being entire within the memory of men. But of so monstrous and uncouth a prolepsis as this would be, which is supposed, no instance can be given in the Scripture or any sober author, especially without the least notice given that such it is And such schemes of writing are not to be imagined, unless necessity from the things, themselves spoken of compel us to admit them, much less where the matter treated of and the coherence of the words do necessarily exclude such an imagination, as it is in this. place; for without the introduction of the words mentioned, neither is the discourse complete nor the matter of tract absolved. And what lieth against our construction and interpretation of these words, from the arguments insisted on to prove the institution of the Sabbath in the wilderness, shall be afterwards considered. 10. The testimony, to the same purpose with the former, taken out of the New Testament, is that of our apostle: Hebrews 4:3,4, “For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I sware in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world. For he speaketh somewhere concerning the seventh day on this wise, And God rested on the seventh day from all his works.” having insisted at large on this place, with the whole ensuing discourse, in our exposition of the chapter itself, I shall here but briefly reflect upon it, refereeing the reader for its full vindication unto its proper place. The present design is to convince the Hebrews of their concernment in the promise of entering into the rest of God, namely, that promised rest which yet remained, and was prophesied of, Psalm 95. To this purpose he manifests, that notwithstanding any other rest of God that was mentioned in the Scripture, there yet remained another rest, for them that did or would believe in Christ through the gospel. In the proof and confirmation hereof he takes into consideration the several rests of God, under the several states of the church which were now past and gone. And first he fixeth upon the sabbatical rest of the seventh day, as that which was the first in order, first instituted, first enjoyed or observed. And this, he says, ensued upon the finishing of the works of creation. This the order of the words and coherence of them require: “Although the works were finished from the foundation of the world. For he speaketh concerning the seventh day on this wise.” The works and the finishing of them did not at all belong to the apostle’s discourse or purpose, but only as they denoted the beginning of the seventh day’s sabbatical rest; for it is the several rests of God alone that he is inquiring after. ‘ The first rest mentioned,’ saith he, ‘ cannot be that intended in the psalm; because that rest began from the foundation of .the world, but this mentioned by David is promised,’ as he speaketh, ‘so long a time after.’ And what was this rest? Was it merely God’s ceasing from his own works? This the apostle had no concernment in; for he treateth of no rest of God absolutely, but of such a rest as men by faith and obedience might enter into, — such as was that afterwards in the land of Canaan, and that also which he now proposed to them in the promise of the gospel, both which God calleth his rests, and inviteth others unto an entrance into them. Such, therefore, must be the rest of God here intended; for concerning his rest absolutely, or his mere cessation from working, he had no reason to treat: for his design was only to show that notwithstanding the other rests that were proposed unto men for to obtain an entrance into them, there yet remained another rest, to be entered into and enjoyed under the gospel Such a rest, therefore, there was instituted and appointed of God from the foundation of the world immediately upon the finishing of the works of creation; which fixeth immovably the beginning of the sabbatical rest. The full vindication of this testimony the reader may find in the Exposition itself, whither he is referred. And I do suppose that no cause can be confirmed with more clear and undeniable testimonies. The observation and tradition of this institution, whereby it will be further confirmed, are next to be inquired after. 11. That this divine original institution of the seventh-day Sabbath was piously observed by the patriarchs, who retained a due remembrance of divine revelations, is out of controversy amongst all that acknowledge the institution itself; by others it is denied, that they may not be forced to acknowledge such an institution. And indeed it is so fallen out with the two great ordinances of divine worship before the giving of the law, the one instituted before the fall, the other immediately upon it, that they should have contrary lots in this matter, — namely, the Sabbath, and sacrifices. The Sabbath we find expressly instituted; and therefore do and may justly conclude that it was constantly observed, although that observation be not directly and in terms mentioned. Sacrifices we find constantly observed by holy men of old, although we read not of their express institution; but from their observation we do and may conclude that they were instituted, although that institution be not expressly recorded. But yet as there is such light into the institution of sacrifices as may enable us to justify them by whom they were used, that they acted therein according to the mind of God and in obedience unto his will, as we have elsewhere demonstrated; so there want not such instances of the observation of the Sabbath as may confirm the original divine institution of it pleaded for. This, therefore, I shall a little inquire into.

Many of the Jewish masters, as we observed before, ascribe the original of the Sabbath unto the statute given them in Marah, Exodus 15:And yet the same persons grant that it was observed by the religious patriarchs before, especially by Abraham, unto whom the knowledge of it was granted by peculiar privilege. But these things are mutually destructive of each other.

For they have .nothing to prove the institution of the Sabbath in Marah but these words of verse 25, fP;v]miW qjo wOl µc; µv; , — “There he made for them a statute and an ordinance.” And it is said of Abraham that he “commanded his children and his household after him” to “keep the way of theLORD, to do justice and judgment,” Genesis 18:19. If, then, the observation of the Sabbath be a “statute” or “ordinance,” and. was made known to Abraham, it is certain that he instructed his household and children, all his posterity, in their duty with respect thereunto. And if so, it could not be first revealed unto them at Marah. Others, therefore, of their masters do grant, as we observed also, the original of the Sabbath from the creation, and do assert the patriarchal observation of it upon that foundation. The instances, I confess, which they make use of are not absolutely cogent; but yet, considered with other circumstances wherewith they are strengthened, they may be allowed to conclude unto a high probability. Some of them are collected by Manasseh Ben Israel, Lib. de Creat. Problem. 8. Saith he, “Dico quemadmodum traditio creationis mundi penes Abrahamum et ejus posteros tantum fuit; ita etiam ex dictamine legis naturalis Sabbatum ab iis solis culture fuisse. De Abrahamo dicit sacra Scriptura, ‘Observavit cultum meum’ ( yTir]mæv]mi ), Genesis 26:5; quo loco custodia Sabbati intelligitur. De Jacobo idem affirmant veteres, ex eo loco quo dicitur venisse ad Salem, et castra posuisse e regione vel ad conspectum civitatis ( ry[ih; yneP]Ata, ), Genesis 33:18. Quia enim Sabbatum, inquiunt, instabat, non licebat ei ulterius proficisci, sed subsistebat ante urbem. Idem asserunt de Josepho, quando dicitur jussisse servis suis ut mactarent et præpararent, id propter Sabbatum factum fuisse. Ad hoc refertur in fera et Rabba Mosem petiisse a Pharaone in Ægypto, ut afflicto populo suo permitteret uno die cessare à laboribus; eoque impetrato, ex traditione elegisse Sabbatum; ex his omnibus colligitur Sabbatum ante datam legem observatum fuisse.” So far he. Of the observation of the Sabbath by the light of nature we shall treat afterwards.

As to the instances mentioned by him, that concerning Abraham is not destitute of good probability. That expression, yTir]mæv]mi rmov]Ywæ , “And kept my charge,” seems to have peculiar respect unto the Sabbath, called elsewhere “The charge of theLORD.” Hence some of those amongst Christians who contend for the wilderness original of the Sabbath, yet grant that probably there was a free observation of it among the patriarchs, from the tradition they had of the rest of God upon the creation of the world. So Tornellius, Annal. Vet. Test.; Suarez de Religione, lib. ii. cap. i. sect. 3; Prideaux Orat. de Sabbat. For as there is no doubt but that the creation of the world was one of the principal articles of their faith, as our apostle also asserts, Hebrews 11:3, so it is fond to imagine that they had utterly lost the tradition of the rest of God upon the finishing of his works; and it may easily be conceived what that would influence them unto, should you suppose that they had lost the remembrance of its express institution, which will not be granted. What, therefore, may be certainly judged or determined of their practice in this matter shall be briefly declared.

That all the ancient patriarchs before the giving of the law diligently observed the solemn worship of God in and with their families, and those under their rule or any way belonging to their care and disposal, both their own piety forbids us to question, and the testimony given them that they walked with God, and by faith therein obtained a good report, gives us the highest assurance. Now, of all obedience unto God faith is the principle and foundation, without which it is impossible to please him, Hebrews 11:6. This faith doth always (and must always so do) respect the command and promise of God, which gives it its formal nature; for no other principle, though it may produce the like actions with it, is divine faith but what respects the command and promise of God, so as to be steered, directed, guided, and bounded by them. Unto this solemn worship of God, which in faith they thus attended unto, some stated time is indispensably necessary; and therefore that some portion of time should be set apart to that purpose is acknowledged almost by all to be a dictate of the law of nature, and we shall afterwards prove it so to be. What ground have we now to imagine that the “holy men of old” were left without divine direction in this matter? That a designation and limitation of this time was, or would have been, of great use and advantage unto them, none can deny. Considering, therefore, the dealings of God with them, and how frequently he renewed-unto them the knowledge of his will by occasional revelations, it cannot be supposed that divine grace was wanting unto them herein. Besides, in what-they did in this kind, they are expressly said to “keep the way of theLORD,” Genesis 18:19; and in particular, “his charge, his commandments, his statutes, and his laws,” chap. 26:5, — which comprise all the institutions and ordinances of divine worship. That they did any thing of themselves, from their own wisdom and invention, in the worship of God, is nowhere intimated, nor are they anywhere commended on the account thereof; yea, to do a thing in faith, as they did whatever of this kind they did, and that as a part of the worship of God, is to do it upon the command of God. And the institution mentioned, upon the reason of God’s rest joined with it, is so express as that none can doubt a practice conformable unto it by all that truly feared the Lord, although the particulars of it should not be recorded. 12. It was from no other original that the tradition of the sacredness of the septenary number, and the fixing of the first period of time (next unto that which is absolutely natural, and appearing so to the senses, of night and day, with the composition of the night and day into one measure of time, which was also from the original creation and Conjunction of evening and morning into one day) unto a septenary revolution of days, was so catholic in the world, and that both amongst nations in general, and particularly amongst individual persons that were inquiring and contemplative. Not only that sort of philosophers who expressed their apprehensions mystically by numbers, as the Pythagoreans. and some of the Platonics, who from hence took the occasion of that way of teaching and instruction, esteemed the septenary number sacred, but those also did so who resolved their observations into things natural or physical; for in all their notions and speculations about the Pleiades and Triones in heaven, lunar changes, sounds of instruments, variations in the age of man, critical days in bodily distempers, and transaction of affairs private and public, they found a respect thereunto. It must therefore be granted, that there is a great impression left on the whole creation of a regard to this number, whereof instances might be multiplied. The ground hereof was no other but an emanation from the old tradition of the creation of the world, and the rest that ensued on the seventh day. So say the ancient verses, which some ascribe to Linus, others to Callimachus: — JEpta< de< pa>nta te>tuktai ejn oujranw~| ajstero>enti JEn kukloi~v fane>nt j ejpitellome>noiv ejniautoi~v? — “In seven all things were perfected in the starry heavens, which appear in their orbs or circles, in the rolling or voluble years.” This was the true original of their notions concerning the sacredness of the number seven. But when this was obscured or lost amongst them, as were the greatest and most important sacred truths communicated unto man in his creation, they, many of them, retaining the principle of the sacred number, invented other reasons for it of no importance. Some of these were arithmetical, some harmonical or musical notions. But were their reasons for it never so infirm, the thing itself they still retained. Hence were their notations of this number. It was termed by them the Virgin, and Pallas, and Karo>v , which sacredly is, saith Hesychius, oJ tw~n eJpta< ajriqmo>v , “the number of seven.” It is hard to give any-other account whence all these conceptions should arise besides that insisted on. From the original impression made on the minds of men by the instruction of the law of creation, which they were made under, and the tradition of the creation of the world in six days, dosed with an additional day of sacred rest, did these notions and obscure remembrances of the specialty of that number arise. And although we have not yet inquired what influence into the law of creation, as instructive and directive of our actions, the six days’ work had, with its consequential day of rest, yet all will grant that whatever it was, it was far more clear and cogent unto man in innocency, directly obliged by that law, and able to understand its voice in all things, than it could be to them who, by the effects of it, made some dark inquiries after it; who were yet able to conclude that there was somewhat sacred in the number of seven, though they knew not well what. 13. Neither was the number of seven only in general sacred amongst them, but there are testimonies produced out of the most ancient writers amongst the heathen expressing a notion of a seventh day’s sacred feast and rest. Many of these were of old collected by Clemens Alexandrinus and by Eusebius out of Aristobulus, a learned Jew. They have by many been insisted on, and yet I think it not amiss here once more to report them. The words of Aristobulus, wherewith he prefaceth his allegation of them, are in Eusebius, Præpar. Evangel., lib. xiii. cap. xii., speaking of the seventh day, Diasa>fei [Omhrov kai< Jhsi>odov meteilhfo>tev ejk tw~n hJmete>rwn bizli>wn iJeraaffirm that it is sacred.” That what they affirm herein was taken from the Jewish books I much question, nor do I think that in their time, when the Law only was written, the nations of the world had any the least acquaintance with their writing, nor much until after the Babylonish captivity, when they began to be taken notice of; which [knowledge of them] was principally diffused under the Persian empire, by their commerce with the Grecians, who inquired into all things of that nature, and that had an appearance of secret wisdom. But these apprehensions, whatever they were, they seem rather to have taken up from the secret insinuations of the law of creation, and the tradition that was in the world of the matter of fact. Out of Hesiod, therefore, he cites the following testimonies, j jErg . kai< jHm . 770: — Prw~ton e[nh , tetra>v te , kai< eJzdo>mh , iJero“The first, the fourth and the seventh day, is sacred.” Again, — JEzdoma>th d j au+tiv lamproov hjeli>oio? — “The seventh again the sacred or illustrious light of the sun.” And out of Homer, — JEzdoma>th d j h]peita kath>luqen iJero“Then came the seventh day, that is sacred.” Again, — \Ezdoma>th| dh< oiJ li>pomen rJo>on ejx jAce>rontov? — “It was the seventh day, wherein al1 things were finished, or perfected.” Again, — JEzdoma>Th| dh< oiJ li>pomen rJo>on ejx jAce>rontov? — “We left the flood of Acheron on the seventh day.” Whereunto he subjoins an ingenious exposition about the relinquishment of the oblivion of error, by virtue of the sacredness of the number seven.

He adds also out of Linus: — JEzdoma>th| dh< oiJ tetele>smena pa>nta te>tuktai? — “The seventh day, wherein all things were finished.” Again,— JEzdo>mh ei+n ajgaqoi~v , kai< eJzdo gene>qlh , Ezdo>mh ejn prwtoi~si , kai < eJzdo>mh ejsti< telei>v? — “The seventh day among the best things, the seventh is the nativity of all things The seventh is among the chiefest, and is the perfect day.” Again, — JEpta< de< panta te>tuktai ejn oujranw~| ajstero>enti jEn kukloi~si fane>nt j ejpitellome>noiv ejniautoi~v? of which before.

The same testimonies he repeats again in his next chapter out of Clemens, with an alteration of some few words not of any importance; and the verses ascribed to Linus in Aristobulus are said to be the work of Callimachus in Clemens, — which is not of our concernment. Testimonies to the same purpose may be taken out of some of the Roman writers. So Tibullus, giving an account of the excuses he made for his unwillingness to leave Rome, — “Aut ego sum causatus aves, aut omina, dira Saturni sacra me tenuisse die;” — “Either I laid it on the birds” (he had no encouraging augury), “or that bad omens had detained me on the sacred day of Saturn,” lib. 1:eleg. iii. 14. I shall not, from these and the like testimonies, contend that the heathens did generally allow and observe themselves one day sacred in the week. Nor can I grant, on the other hand, that those ancient assertions of Hesiod, Homer, and Linus, are to be measured by the late Roman writers, poets or others, who ascribe the seventh day’s sacred feast to the Jews in way of reproach; as Ovid,— ——”Nec to peregrina morentur Sabbata,” Remed. Amoris v. 219; — “Stay not” (thy journey) “for foreign Sabbaths.” And Artis Amator lib. 1. 416, — “Culta Palæstino septima festa Syro;” — “The seventh day feast observed by the Jew.” Nor shall I plead the testimony of Lampridius, concerning the Emperor Alexander Severus going into the Capitol and the temples on the seventh day, seeing in those times he might learn that observance from the Jews, whose customs he had occasion to be acquainted with; for all ancient traditions were before this time utterly worn out or inextricably corrupted.

And when the Jews by their conversation with the Romans, after the wars of Pompey, began to present them unto them again, the generality despised them all, out of their hatred and contempt of that people. And I do know that sundry learned men, especially two of late, Gomarus and Selden, have endeavored to show that the testimonies usually produced in this case do not prove what they are urged for. Great pains they have taken to refer them all to the sacredness of the septenary number before mentioned, or to the seventh day of the month, sacred, as is pretended, on the account of the birth of Apollo; whereunto, indeed, it is evident that Hesiod hath respect in his e[zdomon iJeroauthority of Aristobulus and Clemens is not to be despised. Something they knew, undoubtedly, of the state of things in the world in their own days and those that went before; and they do not only instance in the testimonies before rehearsed, but also assert that the sacredness of one of the seven days was generally admitted by all. And the testimonies of Philo and Josephus are so express to that purpose as that their force cannot be waived without offering violence unto their words. The words of Philo we expressed before. And Josephus, in his second book against Apion, chap.

XXXix., says positively, Oujd j e]stin ouj po>liv JEllh>nwn , oujdhtisou~n oujde< barzarov , oujde< e[n e]qnov , e]nqa mh< to< th~v eJzdoma>dov h[n ajrgou~men hJmei~v , to< e]qov ouj diapefoi>thke? — “There is neither any city of the Greeks, nor barbarians, nor any nation whatever, to whom our custom of resting on the seventh day is not come.” And this, in the words foregoing, he affirmeth to have been ejk makrou~ , from a long time before, as not taken up by an occasional acquaintance with them. And Lucian his Pseudologista tells us that children at school were exempted from studying ejn tai~v eJzdosacred feast is not proved by the testimonies produced; which is all that those who oppose them do labor to disprove. But I desire to know from what original these traditions were derived, and whether any can be assigned unto them but that of the original institution of the sabbatical rest. It is known that this was common amongst them, that when they had a general notion or tradition of any thing, whose true cause, reason, and beginning, they knew not, they would feign a reason or occasion of accommodated to their present apprehensions and practices, as I have elsewhere evinced and cleared. Having, therefore, amongst them the tradition of a seventh day’s sacred rest, which was originally catholic, and having long lost the practice and observance of it, well as its cause and reason, they laid hold on any thing to affix it unto which might have any resemblance unto what was vulgarly received amongst them, or what they could divine in their more curious speculations. 15. The hebdomadal revolution of time, generally admitted in the world, is also a great testimony unto the original institution of the Sabbath. Of old it was catholic, and is at present received among those nations whose converse was not begun until of late with any of those parts of the world where there is a light gone forth in these things from the Scripture. All nations, I say, in all ages, have from time immemorial made the revolution of seven days to be the second stated period of time. And this observation is still continued throughout the world, unless amongst them who in other things are openly degenerated from the law of nature; as those barbarous Indians who have no computation of times, but by sleeps, moons, and winters. The measure of time by a day and night is directed unto sense by the diurnal course of the sun: lunar months and solar years are of an unavoidable observation unto all rational creatures. Whence, therefore, all men have reckoned time by days, months, and years, is obvious unto all But whence the hebdomadal revolution, or weekly period of time, should make its entrance and obtain a catholic admittance, no man can give an account, but with respect to some impressions on the minds of men from the constitution and law of our nature, with the tradition of a sabbatical rest instituted from the foundation of the world. Other original, whether artificial and arbitrary or occasional, it could not have. Nothing of any such thing hath left the least footsteps of its ever being in any of the memorials of times past. Neither could any thing of so low an original or spring be elevated to such a height as to diffuse itself through the whole world. A derivation of this observation from the Chaldeans and Egyptians, who retained the deepest tincture of original traditions, hath been manifested by others. And so fixed was this computation of time on their minds, who knew not the reason of it, that when they made a disposition of the days of the year into any other period, on accounts civil or sacred, yet they still retained this also. So the Romans, as appears by the fragments of their old kalendars, had their nundinæ, which were days of vacation from labor, on the eighth, or, as some think, the ninth day’s recurring; but yet still made use of the stated weekly period. It is of some consideration in this cause, and is usually urged to this purpose, that Noah observed the septenary revolution of days in sending forth the dove out of the ark, Genesis 8:10,12. That this was done casually is not to be imagined. Nor can any reason be given why, notwithstanding the disappointment he met with the first and second time, he should still abide seven days before he sent again, if’ you consider only the natural condition of the flood, or the waters in their abatement. A revolution of days, and that upon a sacred account, was doubtless attended unto by him. And I should suppose that he still sent out the dove the next day after the Sabbath, to see, as it were, whether God had returned again to rest in the works of his hands. And, Genesis 29:27, a week is spoken of as a known account of days or time: “Fulfil her week;” that is, not a week of years, as he had done for Rachel, but fulfill a week of days in the festival of his marriage with Leah; for taz [æbuv] can have no other sense, seeing taOz , of the feminine gender, relates unto Leah, whose nuptials were to be celebrated, and not to [æbuv] , “a week,” which is of the masculine. And it was the custom, in those ancient times of the world, to continue the celebration of a marriage feast for seven days, or a week; as Judges 14:12,15,17. “The seven days of the feast” is spoken of as a thing commonly known and in vulgar use. 16. Let us, therefore, consider what is offered to weaken the force of this observation. It is pretended that the ancient heathen, or the contemplative persons amongst them, observing the unfixed, various motions of the seven planetary luminaries, as they used and abused it to other ends, so they applied their number and names unto so many days, which were thereby as it were dedicated unto them, which shut them up in that septenary number. But that the observation of the weekly revolution of time was from the philosophers, and not the common consent of the people, doth not appear; for those observed also the twelve signs of the zodiac, and yet made that no rule to reckon time or days by. Besides, the observation of the site and posture of the seven planets, as to their height or elevation with respect unto one another, is as ancient as the observation of their peculiar and various motions. And upon the first discovery thereof, all granted this to be their order, Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Sol, Venus, Mercury, Luna. What alteration is made herein by the late hypothesis, fixing the sun as in the center of the world, built on fallible phenomena, and advanced by many arbitrary presumptions, against evident testimonies of Scripture and reasons as probable as any that are produced in its confirmation, is here of no consideration: for it is certain that all the world in former ages was otherwise minded; and our argument is not taken, in this matter, from what really was true , but from what was universally apprehended so to be . Now, whence should it be, that, if this limiting the first revolution of time unto seven days proceeded from the planetary denominations fixed to the days of the year arbitrarily, the order among the planets should be so changed as every one sees it to be? For in the assignation of the names of the planets to the days of the week, the midst is taken out first, and so the fourth in order inclusive falls to be next, until the whole cycle be finished. Some would take the reason hereof from the proportion of harmony, some from the diurnal ascension of the planets; which is ridiculous. So Dio Cassius, in the thirty-seventh book of his History (the third of them that remain), treating of the taking of Jerusalem by Pompey on the seventh day of the week, when the people, out of their superstition, made not their wonted resistance, inquires on that occasion of the reason of the assignation of the planetary names to the days of the week; which he affirms to have had its original from the Egyptians. And two reasons he tells us that he had heard of the especial assignation of their several names unto the several days, in the order wherein they are commonly used. The first is, that it was taken from the harmony dai< tessa>rwn , or the musical note of diatessaron. For beginning, saith he, with Saturn in the highest sphere, and so passing unto the fourth in order, it is the Sun, and so throughout in the whole revolution. His other reason is, that taking the day and night, beginning with the first hour, and assigning the name of a planet to each hour, beginning with Saturn for the reason before mentioned, and the succeeding hours to the other planets in their order, so renewing the numerations to the end of the four and twenty hours, the first hour of the next day falls to the Sun, and so of the day following to the moon, and the remainder to the other planets in the order commonly ascribed unto them. What there is in these conjectures I know not; but both of them give the precedency of the first day, as they are fixed, unto that which, in the true and natural order of the days, is the last.

There is a good account given us of this matter by Johannes Philoponus, peri< kosmopoii~>av , or de Creation. Mund. Lib. vii. cap. xiv.: j jEkei~no ge mhnhtai pa~sin ajnqrw>poiv eJppa< mo>nov ei+nai hJme>rav , ai[tinev eijv eJautanai pa~sin ajnqrw>poiv eJpta< mo>nav ei+nai hJme>rav , ai[tinev eijv eJautanai tonon . “This,” saith he, “is consented unto amongst all men, that there are only seven days, which, by a revolution into themselves, compose the whole of time; whereof we can assign no other reason but that only which is given by Moses. The Grecians, indeed, ascribe the seven days to the seven planets, — the first to the Sun, the second to the Moon, the third to Mars, the fourth to Mercury, the fifth to Jupiter, the sixth to Venus, the seventh to Saturn; and hereby they first acknowledge that there are but seven days, whereof al1 time consisteth: but further they can give no reason why the days are so dished of unto the planets; for why did they not rather constitute twelve days, from the twelve parts of the zodiac, through which the sun passing perfecteth the year? Nor can any reason be assigned from the motions of the planets why any one of the days is inscribed to any of them. It is most likely, therefore, that the Gentiles, as they without just reason or cause dedicated the planets by the names of demons and heroes, so when they observed that there were seven days acknowledged by all, and that the planets were so many in number, they did according to their pleasure, in the two equal numbers, assigning one day to one planet, another to another.” To which he adds truly, Mo>nov a]ra than tou~ ejzdomadikou~ tw~n hJme>rwn ajriqmou~ zeo>qen ejmpneusqeigav toi~v ajnqrw>poiv ajpode>dwke Mwush~v? — “ Only the great Moses, being divinely inspired, hath delivered unto men the true reason of the septenary number of the days.” So far he. There seems to be some reason for assigning the conduct of time to the sun, or calling the first day by his name, as also of adjoining the moon unto him in the next place; for the succession of the sun, though created the fourth day, in point of use, unto that diffused light which was created the first day, with its being the instrumental cause and measure of every day, with the tradition of the appointment of sun and moon to rule and distinguish times and seasons, with the sensible effects and operations of them, might easily give them the pre-eminence by common consent in giving names unto the days of the week. The other names were added and applied according to some prevailing fictions concerning the planets, and their respect unto men and their actions. But the hebdomadal period of time was fixed long before the imposition of those names prevailed among the Grecians and the Romans; which perhaps is not very anciently, as Dio thinks, though they derived them from the Chaldeans and Egyptians. And that the acknowledgment of seven days gave occasion to fix unto them the names of the seven planets, and not that the observation of the seven planets gave occasion to compute the days of the world by sevens, is manifest from hence, in that many nations admitting of the hebdomadal revolution of time gave the days in it quite other names, as various reasons or occasions did suggest them unto them. In the ancient Celtic or German tongue, and all languages thence deriving, the sun and moon only, on the reasons before mentioned, giving name to the leading days of the week, the rest of the days are distinguished and signalized with the names of the conductors of their first great colonies in the north-western parts of the world; for to fancy that Tuisco is the same with Mars, Woden with Mercury, Thor with Jupiter, and Frea with Venus, is to fancy what we please, without the least ground of probability. Nor did the Celtic ever call the planets by those names. So that if there be any allusion in those names unto those of the Grecians and Romans, it was not taken .from their natural speculation about the planets, but from their pleasing fictions about deified heroes, wherein they were imitated by most nations of the world. The English and Dutch have taken in Saturday from Saturn; other nations of the same extract retain their own occasional names. The observation, therefore, of the seven planets gave neither rise, reason, cause, nor occasion, to this original period of time in a hebdomadal revolution of days. And hence Theophilus Antiochenus, lib. ii. ad Antolychum, affirms that “all mortal men agreed in the appellation of the seventh day;” whose testimony is of good force, though himself mistake the original of that appellation. For he tells us that par j JEbrai>oiv kalei~tai sa>bbaton , JEllhnisti> ejrmhneu>etai eJbdoma>v , by an error common to many of the ancients, who could not distinguish between tB;væ and [bæv, . It is also to this purpose observed by Rivet and Selden, from Salmasius, out of Georgius Syncellus, in his Chronology, that the patriarchs reckoned the times or distinguished them kaq j ejzdoma>dav , by weeks only. This, therefore, is to me no small evidence of the institution and observation of the Sabbath from the foundation of the world; for hence did this periodical revolution of time prevail amongst the nations, even those which had not the least converse with or knowledge of the Jews or their customs, after the command and observation of it was renewed amongst them. Not that this evidence is of itself a sufficient testimony unto its original institution, nor that going before, but that the piety of the patriarchs and traditions of the apostate Gentiles do confirm the time of that institution, which is so expressly recorded. 17. It remaineth that we take a view of the opinion advanced by many learned men in opposition unto what we have been pleading for; and this is, that the command concerning the Sabbath was peculiar to the Jews alone, and that it was given unto them in the wilderness, and not at all before. Many of the Jews, as was declared, are of this judgment, and thence call the Sabbath the “bride of their nation,” that which, God gave to them, as he did Eve to Adam, and to no other. Abulensis contends for this opinion in his comment on Exodus 16; who is followed by some expositors of the Roman church, and opposed by others, as Cornelius à Lapide, etc. The same difference in judgment is found amongst the protestant divines. The dissertations of Rivet and Gomarus on this subject are well known. The controversy being of late renewed, especially among some of the Belgic divines, I shall take under consideration the arguments of one of them, who hath last of all defended this cause, and weigh of what importance they are, separating as much as we can between the matter of our present dispute, which is the original of the Sabbath, and that of the causes of it, which we shall nextly inquire into. 18. The design is to prove that the Sabbath was first given to the Jews, and that in the wilderness. And to this purpose, after having repeated the words of the fourth commandment, he adds: “Quis vero dicere audebit, verba hæc convenire in hominem ab initio creationis, sicut hic statuitur?” (that is, by his adversary) “an illi incumbebat opus et quidem servile, idque per sex dies? an ipsi erant servi et ancillae? an jumenta requietis indigentia? an peregrini inter portas ejus? quis non videt ad solum Israelitarum statum in toto illo præcepto respici? Ita Calvinus in Genesis 2 Postea in lege novum de Sabbato præceptum datum est, quod Judæis et quidem ad tempus peculiare foret; fuit enim legalis ceremonia, spiritualem quietem adumbrans, cujus in Christe apparuit veritas. Quo nihil efficacius dici poterat. Hanc vero præcepti mentem esse patet ex aliis testimoniis Scripturæ apertissime, in quibus Judæis tantum datum esse Sabbatum constanter docetur: Exodus 16:29, ‘Videte, quod Jehovah dedit vobis illud Sabbatum, idcirco dat vobis cibum bidui.’ Et Ezech. 20:12, ‘Sabbata dedi eis, ut essent signum inter me et ipsos, ad sciendum me Jehovam sanctificare ipsos.’ Denique Nehemiah 9:14, ‘Sabbatum quoque sanctum notum fecisti eis; quum præcepta, statutaque, et leges, præciperes eis per Mosem servum tuum.’ In quibus locis uniformiter docetur tanta cum emphasi, per Mosem Deum dedisse Judæis Sabbatum, non ergo aliis gentibus datum fuit; ant ipsis etiam per majores ipsorum ante illud tempus ab origine mundi,” Disquisit. cap. ii. p. 50. Ans. (1.) It is by all confessed that the command of the Sabbath, in the renewal of it in the wilderness, was accommodated unto the pedagogical state of the church of the Israelites. There were also such additions made unto it, in the manner of its observance and the sanction of it , as might adapt its observation unto their civil and political estate, or that theocratical government which was then erected amongst them. So was it to bear a part in that ceremonial instruction which God in all his dealings with them intended. To this end also the manner of the delivery of the whole law and the preservation of its tables in the ark were designed. And divers expressions in the explicatory parts of the decalogue have the same reason and foundation. For there is mention of fathers and children to the third and fourth generation, and of their sins, in the second commandment; of the land given to the people of God, in the fifth; of servants and handmaids, in the tenth. Shall we therefore say that the moral law was not before given unto mankind, because it had a peculiar delivery, for special ends and purposes, unto the Jews? It is no argument, therefore, that this command was not, for the substance of it, given before to mankind in general, because it hath some modifications added in the decalogue, to accommodate it to the present church and civil state of the Hebrews, as likewise had the fifth commandment in particular. (2.) For those expressions insisted on, of “work,” “servile work,” “work for six days,” of “servants and handmaids,” of “the stranger within the gates,” they were necessary explications of the command in its application unto that people, and yet such as had a just proportion unto what was enjoined at the first giving of this command, occasioned from the outward change of the state of things amongst men from what it was in innocency.

For in that state God signed man to work, and that in the tilling of the ground, whilst he abode in it: Genesis 2:15, “He put the man in the garden Hd;b][;l] ,” “to work in it;” the same word whereby work is enjoined in the decalogue. And whereas God had sanctified the seventh day to be a day of rest, and thereon put man into the garden Hd;b][;l] , “to till it,” by work and labor, he did virtually say unto him, as in the command, ÚT,k]alæm]AlK; t;yci[;w] dbo[\Tæ µymiy; tv,ve ; — “Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work.” Neither was this in the least inconsistent with the condition wherein he was created; for man being constituted and composed partly of an immortal soul, of a divine extract and heavenly original, and partly of a body made out of the earth, he was a middle creature between those which were purely spiritual, as the angels, and those which were purely terrestrial , as the beasts of the field. Hence when God had made man hm;d;a\h;Aˆmi rp;[; , “of dust from out of the earth,” as all the beasts of the field were made, and had given him distinctly µyYHæ tmæv]ni , “a breath of life,” in a distinct substance, answerable to that of the angels above, whose creation was not out of any pre-existing matter, but they were the product of an immediate emanation of divine power, as was the soul of man, there was no meet help to be associated unto him in the whole creation of God.

For the angels were not meet for his help and individual converse, on the account of what was terrene and mortal in him; and the beasts were much more unsuited unto him, as having nothing in them to answer his divine and more noble part. And as his nature was thus constituted, that he should converse, as it were amphibiously, between the upper and inferior sort of creatures, so he was divided in his works and operations, suitably unto the principles of his nature and peculiar constitution; for they were partly to be divine and spiritual, partly terrene and earthly, though under the government of the sovereign divine principle in him. Hence it was required that in this condition, being not absolutely fitted, as the angels, for constant contemplation, he should work and labor in the earth whilst; he continued in it, and his terrene part not refined or made spiritual and heavenly. This made a certain time of rest necessary unto him, and that upon a double account, flowing from the principles of his own nature. For his earthly constitution could not always hold out to labor with its own satisfaction, and his intellectual and divine part was not to be always diverted, but to be furthered in and unto its own peculiar operations. This made a sacred rest necessary to him And in that addition of sweat and travail which befell him in his labor afterwards, there was not a new course of life enjoined him, but a curse was mixed with that course and labor which was originally allotted unto him. So, then, although there is a different manner of working more necessary, and supposed in the giving of the law, than was at the first institution of a sabbatical rest, yet the change is not in the law or command for labor, but in the state or condition of man himself.

The same may be spoken concerning the addition about servants and handmaids; for in the state of innocency there would have been a superiority of some over others, in that government which is economical or paternal. Hence all duties of persons in subordination are built on the law of nature; and what is not resolved thereinto is force and violence.

And herein lies the foundation of what is ordained with reference unto servants and strangers, which is expressed in the fourth commandment, with an especial application to the state of the Judaical church and people.

Wherefore, although there should have been no such servants or strangers as are intended in the decalogue in the ‘state of innocency, when we plead that the law of the Sabbath was first given, yet this proves no more but that this precept, in the renovation and repetition of it unto the Jews, was accommodated to the present state of things amongst them, that state being such as had its foundation in the law of creation itself.

The places adjoined of Exodus 16:29, 31:17, Ezekiel 20:12, do prove sufficiently and undeniably that in the Mosaical pedagogy, the observation of the seventh day being precisely enjoined, there were additions of signification given unto it, that is, to the seventh day precisely, by divine institution, as amongst them it was to be observed. And therefore unto the utmost extent of the determination of the day of rest unto the seventh day precisely, and all the significancy annexed unto it, to that people, we acknowledge that the Sabbath was absolutely commensurate to the churchstate of the Jews, beginning and ending with it. But the argument hence educed, namely, that “God gave the Sabbath, that is, the law of it, in a peculiar manner unto the Jews, therefore he had not given the same law for the substance of it before unto all mankind,” is infirm: for God gave the whole law to the Jews in an especial manner, and enforced the observation of it with a reason or motive peculiar to them, namely, “I am theLORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage ;” and yet this law was before given unto them who never were in Egypt, nor never thence delivered. And upon the account of this peculiar appropriation of the law unto the Jews, it is spoken of in the Scripture in places innumerable as if it had been given unto them only, and to no others at all. So speaks the psalmist, Psalm 147:19, bqo[\yæl] wr;b;D] dyGmæ laer;c]yil] wyf;P;v]miW wyQ;ju ; — “Declaring his words unto Jacob, his statutes and judgments unto Israel;” where as by µyQiju and µymiP;v]mi , the ceremonial and judicial laws are intended, so by wr;b;D] , “his words,” are the µyrib;D]hæ tr,v,[\ “the ten words,” as Moses calls the decalogue. And of them all the psalmist adds, verse 20, ywON lk;l] zke hc;[;Aalo , — “He hath not done so unto any nation,” namely, not in the same manner; for none will deny hut that nine precepts at least were given unto all mankind in Adam. 19. It is added by the same learned author, “Præterea (p. 51) si quies septimi diei omnibus ab origine mundi hominibus injuncta fuisset, non autem solis Israelitis a tempore Mosis, Deus non solum Israelitas ob neglectum illius præcepti sed et Gentiles, semel saltem eadem de causa reprehendisset. Cum vero Israelitas ea de causa reprehendat sæpissime, Gentiles tamen nuspiam reprehendere hoc nomine legitur, qui propter peccata in legem naturalem commissa toties et tam arciter à Deo reprehenduntur. Luculentum ejus rei exemplum est, Nehemiah 13.

Tyrii asserunt Hierosolymas et omnes res venales quas vendebant ipso Sabbato Judæis, et quidem Hierosolymis, ver. 16. Non tamen Nehemias peccati violati Sabbati reos arguit Tyrios sed Judæos, ver. 17. Tyrios autem clausis portis pridie Sabbati à vespera usque urbem excludit, et ita compescit, et tandem à muris urbis abigit, ver. 19-21. Si vero Tyrii hi una cure Judæis lege Sabbati communi præcepto fuissent obstricti; nonne à viro sanctissimo ejus peccati nomine quoque reprehensi fuissent? quod tamen factum non apparet. Quum præterea Scriptura impia Gentilium festa graviter reprehendat, an sancti Sabbati neglectum, si id quoque ipsis observandum fuisset, tam constanti silentio dissimulasset?”

The force of this argument consists in this assertion, that whatever we find God did not reprove in the Gentiles, therein they did not sin, nor had they any law given unto them concerning it, no, not even in Adam: which will by no means be granted. For, — (1.) The times are spoken of wherein God “suffered them to walk in their own ways, and winked at their ignorance?’ Hence, as he gave them no reproofs for their sins by his revealed word, so those which he gave them by his providence are not recorded. We may not therefore say, they sinned in nothing but what we find them reproved for in particular. (2.) Other instances may be given of sins against the light of nature among the Gentiles, and that in things belonging to the second table, wherein that light hath a greater evidence accompanying it than in those of the first, the first precept only excepted, which yet we find them not rebuked for. Such were the sins of concubinacy and fornication. (3.) After the renovation or giving of this command unto the Jews, it was the duty of the nations to whom the knowledge thereof did come to take up the observation of it. For it was doubtless their duty to join themselves to God and his people, and with them to observe his statutes and judgments; and their not so doing was their sin; which, as is pretended, they were not reproved for, or God was not displeased with them on that account. (4.) The publication of God’s commands is to be stated from giving of them, and not from the instances of men’s transgressing of them. Nor is it any rule, that a law is then first given when men’s sins against it are first reproved. For the instance insisted on of Nehemiah and the Tyrians, with his different dealing with them and the Jews about the breach of the law of the Sabbath, chap. xiii., it is of no force in this matter; for when the Tyrians knew the command of the Sabbath among the Jews, — which was a sufficient revelation of the will of God concerning his worship, — it was their duty to observe it. I do not say that it was their duty immediately, and abiding in their Gentilism , to observe the Sabbath according to the institution it had among the Jews; but it was their duty to know, own, and obey the true God, and to join themselves to his people, — to do and observe all his commands If this was not their duty, upon that discovery and revelation which those had of the will God who came up to Jerusalem, as they did concerning whom we speak, then was it not their sin to abide in their Gentilism; which I suppose will not be asserted. It was therefore, on one account or other, a sin in the Tyrians to profane the Sabbath. It will be said, Why then did not Nehemiah reprove them as well as he did the Jews? The answer is easy. He was the head and governor of the state and polity of the Jews, unto whom it belonged to see that things amongst them were observed and done according to God’s law and appointment; and this he was to do with authority, having the warrant of God for it. With the Tyrians he had nothing to do; no care of them, no jurisdiction over them, no intercourse with them, but according to the law of nations. On these accounts he charged not them with sin or a moral evil, which they would not have regarded, having no regard to the true God, much less to his worship but he threatened them with war and punishment for disturbing his government of the people according to the law of God.

It is well observed, that God reproved the profane feasts of the heathen, and therein unquestionably the neglect of them that were of his own appointment. For this is the nature and method of negative precepts and condemnatory sentences in divine things, that they assert what is contrary to that which is forbidden, and recommend that which is opposite unto what is condemned. Thus, the worship of God according to his own institution is commanded in the prohibition of making to ourselves or finding out ways of religious worship and honor of our own. For whereas it is a prime dictate of the law of nature, that God is to be worshipped according to his own appointment, — which was from the light of it acknowledged among the heathen themselves, —it is not anywhere asserted or intimated in the decalogical compendium of it, unless it be in that prohibition. It sufficeth, then, that even among the Gentiles God vindicated the authority of his own Sabbaths, by condemning their impious feasts and abominable practices in them. 20. By the same learned writer (p. 52), the testimony of the Jews in this case is pleaded. They generally affirm that the Sabbath was given unto them only, and not to the rest of the nations, Hence it is by them called the “bride of the synagogue.” Nor do they reckon the command of it amongst the Noachical precepts, which they esteem all men obliged unto, and whose observation they imposed on the proselytes of the gate, or the uncircumcised strangers that lived amongst them. Nay, they say that others were liable to punishment if they did observe it. For that part of the command, “Nor the stranger that is within thy gates,” they say, it intends no more but that no Israelite should compel him to work, or make any advantage of his labor; but for himself, he was not bound to abstain from labor, but might exercise himself therein at his own discretion for his advantage. These things are pleaded at large, and confirmed with many testimonies and instances, by the learned Selden; and from him are they again by others insisted on. But the truth is, there is not any thing of force in the conceits of these Talmudical Jews in the least to weaken the principle we have laid down and established; for, — (1.) As hath been showed, this opinion is not indeed catholic amongst them; but many, and those of the most learned of the masters, do oppose it, as we have proved already. And others may be added to them, whose opinion, although it be peculiar, yet it wanteth not a fair probability of truth; for they say that the first part of the precept, “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy,” hath respect to the glorifying of God on the account of his original work and rest. This, therefore, belongs unto all mankind. But as for that which follows, about the six days’ labor, and the seventh day’s cessation or quiet, it had respect unto the bondage of the Israelites in Egypt, and their deliverance thence, and was therefore peculiar unto them. So R. Ephraim in Keli Jacar. And hence, it may be, the word “remember” hath respect unto the command of the Sabbath from the foundation of the world. And therefore when the command is repeated again, with peculiar respect to the church of Israel, as the motive from the Egyptian bondage and deliverance is expressed, so the caution of remembering is omitted, Deuteronomy 5:12, and transferred to this other occasion, “Remember that thou wast a servant,” verse 15. (2.) The sole foundation of it is laid in a corrupt and false tradition or conceit of the giving of the law of the Sabbath in Marsh; which we have before disproved, and which is despised as vain and foolish by most learned men. (3.) The assertors of this opinion do wofully contradict themselves, in that they generally acknowledge that the Sabbath was observed by Abraham and other patriarchs, as it should seem, at least four hundred years before its institution. (4.) It is none of the seven called “Noachical precepts,” for they contain not the whole law of nature, or precepts of the decalogue, and one of them is ceremonial in their sense; so that nothing can hence be concluded against the original or nature of this law. (5.) That an uncircumcised stranger was liable to punishment if he observed the Sabbath is a foolish imagination, not inferior unto that of some others of them, who affirm that “all the Gentiles shall keep the Sabbath one day in seven in hell.” (6.) For the distinction which they have invented, that a proselyte of the gate might work for himself, but not for his master, it is one of the many whereby they make void the law of God through their traditions. Those who of old amongst them feared God, knowing their duty to instruct their households and families, — that is, their children and servants, — in the ways and worship of God, walked by another rule. 21. It is further pleaded by the same author (p. 53), “That the Gentiles knew nothing of this sabbatical feast, but that when it came to their knowledge they derided and exploded it as a particular superstition of the Jews.” To this purpose many instances out of the historians and poets who wrote in the time of the first Roman emperors are collected by Selden, which we are again directed unto. “Now it could not be, if it had been originally appointed unto all mankind, that they should have been such strangers unto it.” But this matter hath been discoursed before. And we have showed that sundry of the first writers of the Christian church were otherwise minded: for they judged and proved that there was a notion at least of the “seventh day’s sacred rest” diffused throughout the world; and they lived nearer the times of the Gentiles’ practice than those by whom their judgment and testimony are so peremptorily rejected. It is not unlikely but that they might be mistaken in some of the testimonies whereby they confirm their observation; yet this hinders not but that the observation itself may be true, and sufficiently confirmed by other instances which they make use of.

For my part, as I have said, I will not, nor, for the security of the principle laid down, need I to contend that the seventh day was observed as a sacred feast amongst them. It is enough that there were such notices of it in the world as could proceed from no other original but that pleaded for, which was common unto all. The Roman writers, poets and others, do speak of and contemn the Judaical sabbaths; under which name they comprehended all their sacred feasts and solemn abstinences. Hence they reproached them with their sabbatical fasts; of which number the seventh-day, hebdomadal Sabbath was not. But they never endeavored to come to any real acquaintance with their religious rites, but took up vulgar reports concerning them; as did their historians also, who in the affairs of other nations are supposed to have been curious and diligent. 22. Indeed, after the conquest of Jerusalem by Pompey, when the people of the Jews began to be known among the Romans, and to disperse themselves throughout their provinces, they began every day more and more to hate them, and to east all manner of reproaches on them, without regard to truth or honesty. And it may not be amiss here a little, by the way, to inquire into the reasons of it. The principal cause hereof, no doubt, was from the God they worshipped, and the manner of his worship observed amongst them; for finding them to acknowledge and adore one only (the true) God, and that without the use of any kind of images, they perceived their own idolatry and superstition to be condemned thereby.

And this had been the condition of that people under the former empires, of the Chaldeans, Persians, and Grecians. God had appointed them to be his witnesses in the world that he was God, and that there was none other: Isaiah 44:8, “Ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.”

As also chap. 43:10-12, “Ye are my witnesses,” that “before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am theLORD; and beside me there is no savior. ...... Therefore ye are my witnesses, saith the\parLORD, that I am God.”

This greatly provoked, as other nations of old, so at length the Romans, as bidding defiance to all their gods and their worship of them, wherein they greatly boasted; for they thought that it was merely by the help of their gods, and on the account of their religion, that they conquered all other nations. So Cicero, Orat. de Harusp. Respon., cap. ix.: “Quam volumus licet ipsi nos amemus, tamen nec numero Hispanos, nec robore Gallos, nee calliditate Pœnos, nec artibus Græcos; sed pietate ac religione, atque hae una sapientia, quod deorum immortalium numine omnia regi, gubernarique perspeximus, omnes gentes nationesque superavimus;” — “Let us love and please ourselves as we think meet, yet we outgo neither the Spaniards in number, nor the Gauls in strength, nor the Africans in craft, nor the Grecians in arts; but it is by our piety and religion, and this only wisdom, that we refer all to the government of the immortal gods, that we have overcome all countries and nations.” And Dionysius Halicarnassæus, Antiq. Romans lib. ii., having given an account of their sacred rites and worship, adds that he did it i[na toi~v ajgnoou~si tw~n JRwmai>wn eujse>qeian , h[n oiJ a]ndrev ejpeth>deuon , mh< para>doxon fanh~| to< pa>ntav aujtoi~v to< ka>lliston lazei~n toulov , — “that those who knew not before the piety or religion of the Romans might not now think it strange that they should have such success in all their wars.” To be judged and condemned those things, by the contrary witness of the Jews, they could not bear. This made them reflect on God himself, as the God which they worshipped. They called him incertum and ignotum, affirming the rites of his worship to be absurd, and contrary to the common consent of mankind, as Tacitus expressly, Hist. lib. v. cap. iv.

The best they could afford when they spake of him was, \Ov ti>v pote oi=tov ejsti>n , “Whoever he be.” And Tully will not allow that it was any respect to their God or their religion which caused Pompey to forbear spoiling the temple when he took it by force. “Non credo,” saith he, “religionem et Judæorum, et hostium, impedimento præstantissimo imperatori fuisse (quod victor ex illo fano nihil attigerit),” Orat. pro Flacc., cap. xxviii.; whereunto he adds as high a reproach of them and their religion as he could devise: “Stantibus Hiero-solymis, pacatisque Judæis, tamen istorum religio sacrorum a splendore hujus imperii, gravitate nominis nostri majorum institutis, ahorrebat: nunc vero hoc magis, quod illa gens, quid de nostro imperio sentiret ostendit armis: quam cara diis immortalibus esset docuit, quod victa est, quod elocata, quod servata.” — “Whilst Jerusalem stood” (that is, in its own power), “and the Jews were peaceable, yet their religion was unworthy the splendor of this empire, the gravity of our name, and abhorrent from the ordinances of our ancestor. How much more now, when that nation hath showed what esteem it hath of our empire by its arms, and how dear it is to the immoral gods, that it is conquered, and set out under tribute!” The like reflections yea worse, may be seen in Trogus, Tacitus, Plutarch, Strabo, and Democritus in Suidas, with others. 23. Another ground of their hatred was, that the Jews, whilst the temple stood, gathered great sums of money out of all their provinces, which they sent unto the sacred treasury. So the same person informs us in the same place: “Cum aurum Judæorum nomine, quotas ex Italia, et ex omnibus vestris provinciis Hierosolymam exportari soleret;” — “ Out of Italy, and all other provinces of the empire, there was gold wont to be sent by the Jews to Jerusalem;” as now the European Jews do contribute to the maintenance of their synagogues in the same place. And this is acknowledged by Philo, Legat. ad Caium, and Josephus, Antiq. lib. xiv. cap. xi., to have been yearly a very great sum. But by his “Judæorum nomine,” he seems not only to express that the returns of the gold mentioned were in the name of the Jews, but also to intimate that it might be raised by others also, who had taken on them the profession of their religion; for this was the third and principal cause of their hatred and animosity, namely, that they drew over multitudes of all sorts of persons to the profession of the law of Moses. And a good work this was, though vitiated by the wickedness and corrupt ends of them who employed themselves therein, as our Savior declares, Matthew 23:15. This greatly provoked the Romans in those days, and on every occasion they severely complain of it. So Die Cassius speaking of them adds, Kai< ejsti< kai< para< toi~v jRwmai>oiv to< ge>nov tou~to , kolasqekiv , aujxhqen , w[ste kai< ejv parjrJhsi>an th~v nomi>sewv nikh~sai? — “And this kind of men” (that is, men of this profession, not natural Jews) “is found also among the Romans; which though they have been frequently punished, yet have for the most part increased, so as to take the liberty of making laws to themselves.” As for their punishments, an account is given, in Suetonius in Domit., and others, of the inquisition and search made after such as were circumcised. And as to their making of laws unto themselves, he respects their feasts, Sabbaths, abstinences, and such like observances as the Jews obliged their proselytes unto. In like manner complaineth Juvenal, Sat. xiv. 100, — ‘Romanas autem soliti contemnere leges, Judaicum ediscunt, et servant, ac metuunt jus, Tradidit arcano quodcunque volumine Moses;”— “Contemning the Roman laws, they learn the rites and customs of the Jews, observing and learning the whole right or law delivered in the secret writing of Moses.”

Seneca is yet more severe: “Cum interim usque eo sceleratissima gentis consuetudo convaluit, ut per omnes jam terras recepta sit; victi victoribus leges dederunt;” — “The custom of this wicked nation hath so far prevailed that it is now received among all. nations; the conquered have given laws to the conquerors.” And Tacitus, Hist. lib. v. cap. v.: “Pessimus quisque, spretis religionibus patriis, tributa et stipes illuc” (that is, to Jerusalem) “gerebant.” The like revengeful spirit appears in those verses of Rutilius, lib. 1. Itinerar., though he lived afterwards, under the Christian emperors : — “O utinam nunquam Judæa victa fuisset Pompeii bellis imperioque Titi; Lætius excisæ pestis contagia serpunt Victoresque suos natio victa premit.” But it is not unlikely that he reflects on Christians also. 24. We may add hereunto, that for the most part the conversation of the Jews amongst them was wicked and provoking. They were a people that had, for many generations, been harassed and oppressed by all the principal empires in the world; this caused them to hate them, and to have their minds always possessed with revengeful thoughts. When our apostle affirmed of them, “that they pleased not God, and were contrary to all men,” 1 Thess. 2:15, he intended not their opposition to the gospel and the preachers of it, which he had before expressed, hut that envious contrariety unto mankind in general which they were possessed with. And this evil frame the nations ascribed’ to their law itself. “Moses novos ritus contrariosque cæteris mortalibus indidit,” saith Tacitus, Hist., lib. v. cap. iv. But this most falsely. No law of men ever taught such benignity, kindness, and general usefulness in the world, as theirs did. The people themselves being grown wicked and corrupt, “pleased not God, and were contrary to all men.” Hence they were looked on as such who observed not so much as the law of nature towards any but themselves, as resolving “Quæsitum ad fontem solos diducere verpes,” Juv., xiv. 104; — “Not to direct a thirsty person to a common spring if uncircumcised.” Whence was that censure of Tacitus, “Apud ipsos tides obstinata, misericordia in promptu, adversus omnes alios hostile odium;” — “Faithful and merciful among themselves, towards all others they were acted with irreconcilable hatred:” which well expresseth what our Savior charged them with, as a corrupt principle among them, Matthew 5:43, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy ;” into which two sorts they distributed all mankind, — that is, in their sense, their own countrymen and strangers.

Their corrupt and wicked conversation also made them a reproach, and their religion contemned. So was it with them from their first dispersion, as God declares: Ezekiel 36:20, “When they entered unto the heathen, whither they went, they profaned my holy name, when they said to them, These are the people of theLORD.”

And their wickedness increased with their time; for they still learned the corrupt and evil arts, with all ways of deceit, used in the nations where they lived, until, for the crimes of many, the whole nation became the common hatred of mankind. And, that we may return from this digression, this being the state of things then in the world, we may not wonder if the writers of those days were very supinely negligent or maliciously envious in reporting their ways, customs, and religious observances. And it is acknowledged that, before those times, the long course of idolatry and impiety wherein the whole world had been engaged had utterly corrupted and lost the tradition of a sabbatical rest. What notices of it continued in former ages hath been before declared. 25. But it is further pleaded (p. 54), “That indeed the Gentiles could be no way obliged to the observation of the fourth commandment, seeing they had no indication of it, nor any means to free them from their ignorance of the being of any such law. That they had once had, and had lost the knowledge of it, in and by their progenitors, is rejected as a vain pretence.”

And so much weight is laid on this consideration, that a demand is made of somewhat to be returned in answer that may give any satisfaction unto conscience. But I understand not the force of this pretended argument.

Those who had absolutely lost the knowledge of the true God (in and by their progenitors), as the Gentiles had done, might ‘well also lose the knowledge of all the concernments of his worship. And so they had done, excepting only that they had traduced some of his institutions, as sacrifices, into their own superstition; and so had they corrupted the use of his sabbaths into that of their idolatrous feasts. But when the true God had no other acknowledgment amongst them but what answered the title of “The unknown God,” is it any wonder that his ways and worship might be unknown amongst them also? And it is but pretended that they had no indication of a sabbatical rest, nor any means to free them from their ignorance. Man’s duty is both to be learned and observed in order. It is in vain to expect that any should have indications of a holy rest unto God before they are brought to the knowledge of God himself. When this is obtained, — when the true God upon just grounds is owned and acknowledged, — then that some time be set apart for his solemn worship is of moral and natural right. That this is included in the very first notion of the true God and our dependence upon him, all men do confess. And this principle was abused among the heathen to be the foundation of all their stated annual and monthly sacred solemnities, after they had nefariously lost the only object of all religious worship. Where this progress is made, as it might have been, by attending to the directive light of nature, and the impressions of the law of it left upon the souls of men, there will not be wanting sufficient indicatives of the meetest season for that worship. However, these things were and are to be considered and admitted in their order; and with respect unto that order is their obligation.

The heathen were bound first to know and own the true God, and him alone; then to worship him solemnly; and after that, in order of nature, to have some solemn time separated unto the observance of that worship.

Without an admission of these, all which were neglected and rejected by them, there is no place to inquire after the obligation of a hebdomadal rest.

And their nonobservance of it was their sin, not firstly, directly, and immediately, but consequentially , as all others are that arise from an ignorance or rejection of those greater principles whereon they do depend. 26. The trivial exception from the difference of the meridians is yet pleaded also; for hence it is pretended to be impossible that all men should precisely observe the same day. For if a man should sail round the world by the east, he will at his return home have gotten a day by his continual approach towards the rising sun; and if he steer his course westward, he will lose a day in the annual revolution, as it is gotten the other way: so did the Hollanders, anno 1615. And hence the posterity of Noah, gradually spreading themselves over the world, must have gradually come to the observation of different seasons, if we shall suppose a day of sacred rest required of them or appointed to them. “Apage, nugas.” If men might sail eastward or westward, and not continually have seven days succeeding one another, there would be some force in this trifle. On our hypothesis, wherever men are, a seventh part of their time, or a seventh day, is to be separated to the remembrance of the rest of God, and the other ends of the Sabbath. That the observance of this portion of time shall in all places begin and end at the same instants, the law and order of God’s creation will not permit. It is enough that amongst all who can assemble for the worship of God there is no difference in general, but that they all observe the same proportion of time. And he who, by circumnavigation of the world, (such rare and extraordinary instances being not to be provided for in a general law,) getteth or loseth a day, may at his return, with a good conscience, give up again what he hath not, or retrieve what he hath lost, with those with whom he fixeth; for all such occasional accidents are to. be reduced unto the common standard. All the difficulty, therefore, in this objection relates to the precise observation of the seventh day from the creation, and not in the least unto one day in seven. And although the seventh day was appointed principally for the land of Palestine, the seat of the church of old, wherein there was no such alteration of meridians, yet I doubt not but that a wandering Jew might have observed the foregoing rule, and reduced his time to order upon his return home. What other exceptions of the like nature occur in this cause, they shall be removed and satisfied in our next inquiry, which is after the causes of the Sabbath, and the morality of the observation of one day in seven.

EXERCITATION 3.

OF THE CAUSES OF THE SABBATH. 1. Of the causes of the Sabbath. 2. God the absolute original cause of it — Distinction of divine laws into moral and positive. 3. Divine laws of a mixed nature; partly moral, partly positive. 4. Opinion of some that the law of the Sabbath was purely positive — Difficulties of that opinion. 5. Opinion of them who maintain the observation of one day in seven to be moral. 6. Opinion of them who make the observation of the seventh day precisely to be a moral duty. 7. The second opinion asserted. 8. The common notion of the Sabbath explained. 9, The true notion of it further inquired into. 10. Continuation of the same disquisition. 11. The law of nature, wherein it consists – Opinion of the philosophers. 12. Not comprised in the dictates of reason – No obliging authority in them formally considered. 13. Uncertainty and disagreement about the dictates of reason – Opinions of the Magi. Zeno, Chrysippus, Plato, Archelaus, Aristippus, Carneades, Brennus, etc. 14. Things may belong to the law of nature not discoverable to the common reason of the most. 15. The law of nature, wherein it does really consist. 16. Light given unto a septenary. sacred rest in the law of nature. 17. Further instances thereof. 18. The observation of the Sabbath on the same foundation with monogamy. 19. The seventh day an appendage of the covenant of works. 20. How far the whole notion of a weekly sacred rest was of the law of nature. 21. Natural light obscured by the entrance of sin. 22. The sum of what is proposed. 23. The inquiry about the causes of the Sabbath renewed. 24. The command of it, in what sense a Iaw moral, and how evidenced so to be. 25. To worship God in associations and assemblies of moral duty. 26. 0ne day in seven required unto solemn worship by the law of our creation 27. What is necessary to warrant the. ascription of any duty to the law of creation. 28. (1.) That it be congruous to the known principles of it. 29. (2.) That it have a general principle in the light of nature. 30. (3.) That it be taught by the works of creation. 31. (4.) Direction for its observance, by superadded revelation, no impeachment of it. 32. How far the same duty may be required by a law moral and by a law positive. 33. Vindication of the truths laid down from an objection. 34. Other evidences of the morality of this duty. 35. Required in all states of the church. 36. These varied states. 37. Command for the Sabbath before the fall. 38. Before and at the giving of the law, and under the gospel. 39. Whether appointed by the church. 40. Of the fourth commandment in the decalogue. 41. The proper subject of it. 42. The seventh day precisely not primarily required therein. 43. Somewhat moral in the granted by all. 44. The matter of this command a moral duty by the law of creation. 45. The morality of the precept itself proved from its interest in the decalogue, in various instances. 46. The law of the Sabbath only preferred above all ceremonial and judicial laws. 47. The words of our Savior, Matthew 24:20, considered. 48. The whole law of the decalogue established by Christ. 49. Objections proposed. 50. The first answered, 51. The second answered. 52. The third answered. 53. One day in seven, not the seventh day precisely, required in the decalogue. 54. An objection from the sense of the law. 55. Answered. 56, 57. Other objections answered. 58, 59. Colossians 2:16,17, considered. 1. WE have fixed the original of the sabbatical rest, according to the best light we have received into these things, and confirmed the reasons of it with the consent of mankind. The next step in our progress must be an inquiry into its causes. And here also we fall immediately into those difficulties and entanglements which the various apprehensions of learned men, promoted and defended with much diligence have occasioned. I have no design to oppose or contend with any, although a modest examination of the reasons of some will be indispensably necessary unto me. All that I crave is the liberty of proposing my own thoughts and judgement in this matter, with the reasons and grounds of them. When that is done, I shall humbly submit the whole to the examination and judgment of all that call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, their Lord and ours. 2. First, it is agreed by all that God alone is the supreme, original, and absolute cause of the Sabbath. Whenever it began, whenever it ends, be it expired or still in force, of what kind soever were its institution, the law of it was from God. It was from heaven, and not of men; and the will of God is the sole rule and mea-sure of our observation of it, and obedience to him therein. What may or may not be done, in reference unto the observation of a day of holy rest, by any inferior authority comes not here under consideration. But whereas there are two sorts of laws whereby God requires the obedience of his rational creatures, which are commonly called moral and positive, it is greatly questioned and disputed to whether of these sorts does belong the command of a sabbatical rest. Positive laws are taken to be such as have no reason for them in themselves,–nothing of the matter of them is taken from the things themselves commanded,— but do depend merely and solely on the sovereign will and pleasure of God. Such were the laws and institutions of the sacrifices of old; and such are those which concern the sacraments and other things of the like nature under the new testament Moral laws are such as have the reasons of them taken from the nature of the things themselves required in them; for they are good from their respect to the nature of God himself, and from that nature and order of all things which he has placed in the creation. So that this sort of laws is but declarative of the absolute goodness of what they do require; the other is constitutive of it, as unto some certain ends. Laws positive, as they are occasionally given, so they are esteemed alterable at pleasure.

Being fixed by mere will and prerogative, without respect to any thing that should make them necessary antecedent to their giving, they may by the same authority at any time be taken away and abolished. Such, I say, are they in their own nature, and as to any firmitude that they have from their own subject-matter. But with respect unto God’s determination, positive divine laws may become eventually unalterable. And this difference is there between legal and evangelical institutions. The laws of both are positive only, equally proceeding from sovereign will and pleasure, and in their own natures equally alterable; but to the former God had in his purpose fixed a determinate time and season wherein they should expire or be altered by his authority; the latter he has fixed a perpetuity and unchangeableness unto, during the state and condition of his church in this world. The other sort of laws are perpetual and un-alterable in themselves, so far as they are of that sort, —that is, moral. For although a law of that kind may have an especial injunction, with such circumstances as may be changed and varied (as had the whole decalogue in the commonwealth of Israel), yet so far as it is moral, —that is, as its commands or prohibitions are necessary emergencies, or expressions of the good or evil of the things it commands or forbids, —it is invariable. And in these things there is an agreement, unless sometimes, through mutual oppositions, men are chafed into some exceptions or distinctions 3. Unto these two sorts do all divine laws belong, and unto these heads they may be all reduced. And it is pleaded by some that these kinds of laws are contradistinct, so that a law of one kind can in no sense be a law of the other. And this doubtless is true reduplicatively, because they have especial formal reasons. As far and wherein any laws are positive, they are not moral; and as far as they are purely moral, they are not formally positive, though given after the manner of positive commands. Howbeit this hinders not but that some do judge that there may be and are divine laws of a mixed nature; for there may be in a divine law a foundation in and respect unto somewhat that is moral, which yet may stand in need of the superaddition of a positive command for its due observation unto its proper end. Yea, the moral reason of things commanded, which arises out of a due natural respect unto God and the order of the universe, may be so deep and hidden, as that God, who would make the way of his creatures plain and easy, gives out express positive commands for the observance of what is antecedently necessary by the law of our creation. Hence a law may partake of both these considerations, and both of them have an equal influence into its obligatory power. And by this means sundry duties, some moral, some positive, are as it were compounded in one observance; as may be instanced in the great duty of prayer. Hence the whole law of that observance becomes of a mixed nature; which yet God can separate at his pleasure, and taking away that which is positive, leave only that which is absolutely moral in force. And this kind of laws, which have their foundation in the nature of things themselves, which yet stand in need of further direction for their due observation, which is added unto them by positive institution, some call moral-positive. 4. According to these distinctions of the nature of the laws which God expresses his will in and by, are men’s apprehensions different about the immediate and instrumental cause of the sabbatical rest. That God was the author of it is, as was said, by all agreed But, say some, the law whereby he appointed it was purely positive, them matter of it being arbitrary, stated and determined only in the command itself; and so the whole nature of the law and that commanded in it are changeable. And because positive laws did, and always do, respect some other things besides and beyond themselves, it is pleaded that this law was ceremonial and typical; that is, it was an institution of an outward, present religious observation, to signify and represent something not present nor yet come. Such were all the particulars of the whole system of Mosaical worship, whereof this law of the Sabbath was a part and an instance. In brief, some say that the whole law of the Sabbath was, as to its general nature, positive and arbitrary, and so changeable; and in particular, ceremonial and typical, and so actually changed and abolished. But yet it is so fallen out, that those who are most positive in these assertions cannot but acknowledge that this law is so ingrafted into, and so closed up with somewhat that is moral and unalterable, that it is no easy thing to hit the joint aright, and make a separation of the one from the other. But concerning any other law expressly and confessedly ceremonial, no such thing can be observed.

They were all evidently and entirely arbitrary institutions, without any such near relation to what is moral as might trouble any one to make a distinction between them. For instance, the law of sacrifices has indeed an answerableness in it to a great principle of the law of nature, namely, that we must honor God with our substance and the best of our increase; yet that this might be done many other ways, and riot by sacrifice, if God had pleased so to ordain, every one is able to apprehend. It is otherwise in this matter; for none will deny but that it is required of us, in and by the law of nature, that some time be set apart and dedicated unto God, for the observation of his solemn worship in the world; and it is plain to every one that this natural dictate is inseparably included in the law of the Sabbath. It will therefore surely he difficult to make it absolutely and universally positive. I know some begin to whisper things inconsistent with this concession. But we have as yet the universal consent of all divines, ancient and modern, fathers, schoolmen, and casuists, concurring in this matter; for they all unanimously affirm, that the separation of some part of our time to sacred uses, and the solemn honoring of God, is required of us in the light and by the law of nature. And herein lies the fundamental notion of the law now inquired after. This also may be further added, that whereas this natural dictate for the observation of some time in the solemn worship of God has been accompanied with a declaration of his will from the foundation of the world, that this time should be one day in seven, it will be a matter of no small difficulty to find out what is purely positive therein. 5. Others building on this foundation, that the dedication of some part of our time to the worship of God is a duty natural or moral, as required by the law of our creation (not that time in itself, which is but a circumstance of other things, can be esteemed moral, but that our observation of time may be a moral duty), do add that the determination of one day in seven to be that portion of time so to be dedicated is inseparable from the same foundation, and is of the same nature with it; that is, that the sabbatical observation of one day’s holy rest in seven has a moral precept for its warranty, or that which has the nature of a moral precept in it: so that although the revolution of time in seven days, and the confining of the day to that determined season, do depend on revelation and a positive command of God for its observance, yet on supposition thereof the moral precept prevails in the whole, and is everlastingly obligatory. And there are some divines of great piety and learning who do judge that a command of God given unto all men, and equally obligatory unto all respecting their manner of living unto God, is to be esteemed a moral command, and that indispensable and unchangeable, although we should not be able to discover the reason of it in the light and law of nature. Nor can such a command be reckoned amongst them that are merely positive, arbitrary, and changeable; all which depend on sundry other things, and do not firstly affect men as men in general. And it is probable that God would not give out any such catholic command, which comprised not somewhat naturally good and right in it And this is the best measure and determination of what is moral, and not our ability of discovering by reason what is so and what is not, as we shall see afterwards. 6. Moreover, there are some who stay not here, but contend that the precise observation of the seventh day in the hebdomadal revelation lies under a command moral and indispensable for God, they say, who is the sovereign Lord of us and our times, has taken, by an everlasting law, this day unto himself, for his honor and service; and he has therein obliged all men to a holy rest, not merely on some certain fixed and stated time, not on one day in seven originally, as the first intention of his command, but on the seventh day precisely, whereunto those other considerations of some stated and fixed time and of one day in seven are consequential, and far from previous foundations of it The seventh day, as the seventh day, is, they say, the first proper object of the command; the other things mentioned, of a stated time and of one day in seven, do only follow thereon, and by virtue thereof belong to the command of the Sabbath, and no otherwise. Herein great honor indeed is done unto the seventh day, above all other ordinances of worship whatever, even of the gospel itself, but whether with sufficient warranty we must afterwards inquire. At present I shall only observe, that this observation of the seventh day precisely is resolved into the sovereignty of God over us and our times, and into an occasion respecting purely the covenant of works; on which bottoms it is hard to fix it in an absolute, unvariable station. 7. It is the second opinion, for the substance of it, which I shall endeavor to explain and confirm; and therein prove a sacred sabbatical rest unto God, of one day in seven, to be enjoined unto all that fear him, by a law perpetual and indispensable, upon the account of what is moral therein.

The reason, I say, of the obligation of the law of the Sabbath is moral, and thence the obligation itself universal; however,. the determination and declaration of the day itself depend on arbitrary revelation and a law merely positive. These things being explained and confirmed, the other opinions proposed will fall under our consideration.

To obtain a distinct light into the truth in this matter, we must consider both the true notion of the sacred rest, as also of the law of our creation, whereby we affirm that fundamentally and virtually it is required. 8. The general notion of the Sabbath is, “a portion of time set apart, by divine appointment, for the observance and performance of the solemn worship of God.” The worship of God is that which we are made for, as to our station in this world, and is the means and condition of our enjoyment of him in glory, wherein consists the ultimate end, as unto us, of our creation. This worship, therefore, is required of us by the law of our creation; and it is upon the matter all that is required of us thereby, seeing we are obliged by it to do all things to the glory of God. And therefore is the solemn expression of that worship required of us in the same manner; for the end of it being our glorifying him as God, and the nature of it consisting in the profession of our universal subjection unto him and dependence upon him, the solemn expression of it is as necessary as the worship itself which we are to perform. No man, therefore, ever doubted but that by the law of nature we were bound to worship God, and solemnly to express that worship; for else wherefore were we brought forth in this world? These things are inseparable from our nature; and where this order is disturbed by sin we fall into another, which the properties of God, on the supposition of transgressing our first natural order, do render no less necessary unto his glory than the other, namely, that of punishment.

Moreover, in this worship it is required, by the same law of our being, that we should serve God with all that we do receive from him. No man can think otherwise. For is there any thing that we have received from God that shall yield him no revenue of glory, whereof we ought to make no acknowledgment unto him? Who dare once so to imagine? Among the things thus given us of God is our time. And this falls under a double consideration in this matter: —First, As it is an inseparable moral circumstance of the worship required of us; so it is necessarily included in the command of worship itself, not directly, but consequentially.

Secondly, It is in itself a part of our vouchsafements from God, for our own use and purposes in this world. So upon its own account, firstly and directly, a separation of a part of it unto God and his solemn worship is required of us. It remains only to inquire what part of time it is that is and will be accepted with God. This is declared and determined in the fourth commandment to be the seventh part of it, or one day in seven. And this is that which is positive in the command; which yet, as to the foundation, formal reason, and main substance of it, is moral. And these things are true, but yet do not express the whole nature of the Sabbath, which we must further inquire into. 9. And, first, it must be observed, that wherever there is mention of a sabbatical rest, as enjoined unto men for their observation there is still respect unto a rest of God that preceded it, and the cause and foundation of it. In its first mention, God’s rest is given as the reason of his sanctifying and blessing a day of rest for us, whence also it has its name: Genesis 2:3, “God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it, tbæv; wOb yKi ,”—” because he sabbatized thereon himself.” And so it is expressed, and the same reason is given of it, in the fourth commandment. God wrought six days, and rested the seventh; therefore must we rest, Exodus 20:11. The same is observed in the new creation, as we shall see afterwards and more fully in our exposition of Hebrews 4. Now, that God may he said to rest, it is necessary that some signal work of his do go before; for rest, in the first notion of it, includes a respect to an antecedent work or labor. And so it is everywhere declared. God wrought his works and finished them, and then rested; he made all things in six days; and rested on the seventh. And he that is entered into rest ceases from his work. And both these, the work of God and the rest of God, must in this matter be considered. For the work of God, it is that of the old and whole creation, as is directly expressed, Genesis 2:1-3, Exodus 20:11, which I desire may be borne in mind.

And this work of God may he considered two ways: —First, Naturally or physically, as it consisted in the mere production of the effects of his power, wisdom, and goodness. So all things are the work of God. Secondly, Morally, as God ordered and designed all his works to be a means of glorifying himself, in and by the obedience of his rational creatures. This consideration, both the nature of it, and the order and end of the whole creation, do make necessary. For God first made all the inanimate, then animate and sensitive creatures, in their glory, order, and beauty. In and on all these he implanted a teaching and instructive power: for “the heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament shows his handiwork,” Psalm 19:1; and all creatures are frequently called on to give praise and glory to him. And this expresses that in their nature and order which reveals and manifests him and the glorious excellencies of his nature, which man is to contemplate in their effects in them, and give glory unto him; for after them all was man made, to consider and use them all for the end for which they were made, and was a kind of mediator between God and the rest of the creatures, by and through whom he would receive all his glory from them. This is that which our apostle discourses about, Romans 1:19,20. The design of God, as he declares, was to manifest and show himself in his works to man. Man learning from them “the invisible things of God,” was to “glorify him as God,” as he disputes. The ordering and disposal of things to this purpose is principally to be considered in the works of God, as his rest did ensue upon them.

Secondly, The rest of God is to be considered as that which completes the foundation of the sabbatical rest inquired after; for it is built on God’s working and entering into his rest. Now, this is not a mere cessation from working. It is not absolutely so; for “ God works hitherto.” And the expression of God’s rest is of a moral and not a natural signification; for it consists in the satisfaction and complacency that he took in his works, as effects of his goodness, power, and wisdom, disposed in the order and unto the ends mentioned. Hence, as it is said that upon the finishing of them, he looked on “every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good” Genesis 1:31, —that is, he was satisfied in his works and their disposal, and pronounced concerning them that they became his infinite wisdom and power; so it is added that he not only “ rested on the seventh day,” but also that he was “refreshed,” Exodus 31:17, —that is, be took great complacency in what he had done, as that which was suited unto the end aimed at namely, the expression of his greatness, goodness, and wisdom, unto his rational creatures, and his glory through their obedience thereon, as on the like occasion he is said to “rest in his love,” arrd to “rejoice with singing,” Zephaniah 3:17.

Now, in the work and rest of God thus stated did the whole rule of the obedience of man originally consist; and therein was he to seek also his own rest, as his happiness and blessedness; for God had not declared any other way for his instruction in the ends of his creation, —that is, his obedience unto him and blessedness in him, —but in and by his own works and rest, This, then, is the first end of this holy rest And it must always be born in mind, as that without which we can give no glory to God as rational creatures, made under a moral law in a dependence on him; for this he indispensably requires of us, and this is the sum of what be requires of us, namely, that we glorify him according to the revelation that he makes of himself unto us, whether by his works of nature or of grace.

To the solemnity hereof the day inquired after is necessary. To express these things is the general end of the sabbatical rest prescribed unto us and our observation; for so it is said God wrought and rested, and then requires us so to do.

And it has sundry particular ends or reasons: —First, That we might learn the satisfaction and complacency that God has in his own works, Genesis 2:2,3; that is, to consider the impressions of his excellencies upon them, and to glorify him as God on that account, Romans 1:19-21.

For hence was man originally taught to fear, love, trust, obey, and honor him absolutely, even from the manifestation that he had made of himself in his works, wherein he rested And had not God thus rested in them, and been refreshed upon their completing and finishing, they would not have been a sufficient means to instruct man in those duties. And our observation of the evangelical Sabbath has the same respect unto the works of Christ and his rest thereon, when he saw of the travail of his soul and was satisfied, as shall afterwards be declared.

Secondly, Another end of the original sabbatical rest was, that it might be a pledge unto man of his rest in and with God; for in and by the law of his creation, man had an end of rest proposed unto him, and that in God. This he was to be directed unto and encouraged to look after. Herein God by his works and rest had instructed him. And by giving him the Sabbath, as he gave him a pledge thereof, so he required of him his approbation of the covenant way of attaining it; whereof afterwards. Hence Psalm 92, whose title is, tB;Væhæ µwOyl] ryvi rwOmz]mi , “A psalm or song for the Sabbath day,” —which some of the Jews ascribe unto Adam, —as it principally consists in contemplations of ‘the works of God, with holy admiration of his greatness and power manifested in them, with praises unto him on their account, so it expresses the destruction of ungodly sinners and the salvation of the righteous, whereof in that day’s rest they had a pledge.

And this belonged unto that state of man wherein he was created, namely, that he should have a pledge of eternal rest. Neither could his duty and capacity be otherwise answered or esteemed reasonable. His duty, which was working in moral obedience, had a natural relation unto a reward; and his capacity was such as could not be satisfied, nor himself attain absolute rest, but in the enjoyment of God. A pledge hereof therefore, belonged unto his condition.

Thirdly, Consideration was had of the way and means whereby man might enter into the rest of God proposed unto him. And this was by that obedience and worship of God which the covenant wherein he was created required of him. The solemn expression of this obedience and exercise of this worship were indispensably required of him and his posterity, in all their societies and communion with one another. This cannot be denied, unless we shall say that God making man to be a sociable creature, and capable of sundry relations, did not require of him to honor him in the societies and relations whereof he was capable; which would certainly overthrow the whole Jaw of his creation with respect unto the end for which he was made, and render all societies sinful and rebellious against God. Hereunto the sabbatical rest was absolutely necessary; (or without some such rest, fixed or variable, those things could not be. This is a time or season for man to express and solemnly pay that homage which he owes to his Creator; and this is by most esteemed the great, if not the only end of the Sabbath. But it is evident that it falls under sundry precedent considerations. 10. These being the proper ends and reasons of the original sabbatical rest, which contain the true notion of it, we may next inquire after the law whereby it was prescribed and commanded. To this purpose we must first consider the state wherein man was created, and then the law of his creation. And for the state and condition wherein man was created, it falls under a threefold consideration: for man may be considered either, — (1.) Absolutely as a rational creature; or, (2.) As made under a covenant of rewards and punishments; or, (3.) With respect unto the special nature of that covenant.

First, He was made a rational creature, and thereby necessarily in a moral dependence on God for being endowed with intellectual faculties, in an immortal soul, capable of eternal blessedness or misery, able to know God, and to regard him as the first cause and last end of all, as the author of his being and object of his blessedness, it was naturally and necessarily incumbent on him, without any further considerations, to love, fear, and obey him, and to trust in him as a preserver and rewarder. And this the order of his nature, called “the image of God,” inclined and enabled him unto. For it was not possible that such a creature should be produced, and lie under an obligation unto all those duties which the nature of God and his own, and the relation of the one to the other, made necessary. Under this consideration alone, it was required, by the law of man’s creation, that some time should be separated unto the solemn expression of his obedience, and due performance of the worship that God required of him; for in vain was he endued with intellectual faculties and appointed unto society, if he were not to honor God by them in all his relations, and openly express the homage which he owed him. And this could not be done but in a time appointed for that purpose; the neglect whereof must be a deviation from the law of the creation. And as this is generally acknowledged, so no man can fancy the contrary. Here, then, do we fix the necessity of the separation of some time to the ends of a sabbatical rest, even on the nature of God and man, with the relation of one to the other; for who can say no part of our time is due to God, or so to be disposed?

Secondly, Man in his creation, with respect unto the ends of God therein, was constituted under a covenant. That is the law of his obedience was attended with promises and threatenings, rewards and punishments, suited unto the goodness and holiness of God; for every law with rewards and recompenses annexed has the nature of a covenant. And in this case, although the promise wherewith man was encouraged unto obedience, which was that of eternal life with God, did in strict justice exceed the worth of the obedience required, and so was a superadded effect of goodness and grace, yet was it suited unto the constitution of a covenant meet for man to serve God in unto his glory; and, on the other side, the punishment threatened unto disobedience, in death and an everlasting separation from God, was such as the righteousness and holiness of God, as his supreme governor, and Lord of him and the covenant, did require.

Now, this covenant belonged unto the law of creation; for although God might have dealt with man in a way of absolute sovereignty, requiring obedience of him without a covenant of a reward infinitely exceeding it yet having done so in his creation, it belongs unto and is inseparable from the law thereof. And under this consideration, the time required in general for a rest unto God, under the first general notion of the nature and being of man, is determined unto one day in seven; for as we shall find that in the various dispensations of the covenant with man and the change of its nature, so long as God is pleased to establish any covenant with man, he has and does invariably require one day in seven to be set apart unto the assignation of praise and glory to himself; so we shall see afterwards that there are indications of his mind to this purpose in the covenant itself.

Thirdly, Man is to be considered with special respect unto that covenant under which he was created, which was a covenant of works; for herein rest with God was proposed unto him as the end or reward of his own works, or of his personal obedience unto God, by absolute strict righteousness and holiness. And the peculiar form of this covenant, as relating unto the way of God’s entering into it upon the finishing of his own works, designed the seventh day from the beginning of the creation to be the day precisely for the observation of a holy rest.

As men, then, are always rational creatures, so some portion of time is by them necessarily to be set apart to the solemn worship of God. As they are under a covenant, so this time was originally limited unto one day in seven. And as the covenant may be varied, so may this day also; which under the covenant of works was precisely limited unto the seventh day.

And these things must be further illustrated and proved. 11. This was the state and condition wherein man was originally created.

Our next inquiry is after the law of his creation, commonly called the law of nature, with what belongs thereunto, or what is required of us by virtue thereof. Now, by the law of nature most understand the dictates of right reason, which all men, or men generally, consent in and agree about; for we exclude wholly from this consideration the instinct of brute creatures, which has some appearance of a rule unto them. So Hesiod of old determined this matter speaking of them, jErg . kai < JHm . 278, — “They devour one another, because they have no right or law amongst them.” Hence the prophet complaining of force and violence amongst men, with a neglect of right, justice, and equity, says, “Men are as the fishes of the sea, as the creeping things, that have no ruler over them,” Hab. 1:14. They devour one another, without regard to rule or fight; as he in Varro,— “Natura humanis omnia sunt paria.

Qui pote plus, urget; pisces ut sæpe minutos Magnu’ comest, ut aves enecat accipiter.” Most learned men, therefore, conclude that there is no such thing as “jus,” or “lex naturæ,” among irrational creature; and consequently nothing of good or evil in their actions. But the consent of men in the dictates of reason is esteemed the law of nature. So Cicero, Tusc. 1:cap. xiii, “Omni in re consensio omnium gentium lex naturæ putanda est;”—”The common consent of all nations in any thing is to be thought the law of nature.” And Aristotle also, Rhet lib. 1:cap. xiv., calls it no>mou koino>n “a common law, unwritten,” pertaining unto all, whose description he adds: Koinosin? e]sti gaontai> ti pa>ntev fu>sei koinokaion h[ ajdikoa koinwni>a prolouv , ka\|n h+ , mh>de sunqh>kh? —That which is common is according to nature; for there is somewhat which all men think, and this is common right or injustice by nature, although there should be neither society nor compact between them.” And this he confirms out of Empedocles, that it is that ou+ tisi< mekaion , tisi< de< ouj di>kaion ,— “not which is just to some, and unjust to others.”

JAlla< to< mentwn no>mimon , dia< eujrume>dontov Aijqe>rov hjneke>wv te>tatai dia< th~v ajple>tou aujgh~v? — “But it in right amongst all, spread out with immense right by the broad ruling sky” The like he affirms in his Ethics, lib. 5:cap. vii., defining it to be that which pantacou~ th~n aujthnamin , kai< ouj tw~| do>kein h[ mh> ,— “that which has always, or everywhere, the same force or power, and does not seem or not seem so to be” [and not because it has been so decreed or not].

This his expositors affirm to be para< toi~v plei>stoiv , kai< ajdiafo>roiv kai< kata< fu>sin e]cousin ,—”amongst the most of men who live according to the light of nature, with the principles of it uncorrupted.”

This kata< fu>sin is the same with meta< lo>gou , “according to the dictates of reason.” So lo>gov oJ ojrqo>v , “right reason, is the same with many as “jus naturæ,” or “naturale.” Tully in his first de Legib., cam xii., pursues this at large. “Est unum jus,” says he, “quo devincta est hominum societas, et quod lex constituit una Quæ lex est recta ratio imperandi atque prohibendi;” —”There is one common right, which is the bond of human society, and which depends on one law. And this law is the right reason of forbidding and commanding.” This, then, is generally received,— namely, that the law of nature consists in the dictates of reason, which men sober, and otherwise uncorrupted, do assent unto and agree in. But there are sundry things which will not allow us to acquiesce in this description of it; for,— 12. First, the law of nature is a constant and perfect law. It must be so, because it is the fountain and rule of all other laws whatever; for they are but deductions from it and applications of it. Now, unto a complete law it is required, not only that it be instructive, but also that it have a binding force, or be coactive; that is, it does not only teach, guide, and direct what is to be done, persuading by the reason of the things themselves which it requires, but also it must have authority to exact obedience, so far as that those who are under the power of it can give themselves no dispensation from its observance. But thus it is not with these dictates of reason. They go no further than direction and persuasion; and these always have, and always will have, a respect unto occasions, emergencies, and circumstances. When these fall under any alterations, they will put reason on new considerations of what it ought to determine with respect unto them; and this the nature of a universal law will not admit. Whatever, then, men determine by reason, they may alter on new considerations, such as occasioned their original determination. I do not extend this unto all instances of natural light, but to some only; which suffices to demonstrate that the unalterable law of nature does not consist in these dictates of reason only. Suppose men do coalesce into any civil society on the mere dictates of reason that it is meet and best for them so to do, if this be the supreme reason thereof, no obligation arises from thence to preserve the society so entered into but what is liable unto a dissolution from contrary considerations. If it be said that reason dictates and commands in the name of God, whence an indissoluble obligation attends it, it will be answered, that this introduces a new respect, which is not formally included in the nature of reason itself. Let a man indeed use and improve his own reason without prejudice, — let him collect what resolutions, determinations, instructions, laws, have proceeded from the reason of other men,— it will both exceedingly advance his understanding, and enable him to judge of many things that are congruous to the light and law of nature; but to suppose the law of nature to consist in a system or collection of such instances and observations is altogether unwarrantable. 13. The event of things, in the disagreement of the wisest men about the dictates of reason, utterly everts this opinion. The law of nature, whatever it be, must in itself be one, uniform, unalterable, the same in and unto all; for by these properties it differs from all other laws. But if it have no higher nor more noble original to be resolved into but mere human reason, it will be found, if not in all things, yet in most, fluctuating and uncertain.

For about what is agreeable to reason in things moral, and what is not there have been differences innumerable from time immemorial, and that amongst them who searched most diligently after them, and boasted themselves to be wise upon their self-pleasing discoveries. This gave the greatest occasion unto the two hundred and eighty-eight sects of philosophers, as Austin reports them out of Varro, who was “disertissimus nepotum Romuli,” lib. 19:de Civit. Dei. Yea, and some of the most learned and contemplative authors did not only mistake in many instances what natural light required, but also asserted things in direct opposition unto what is judged so to be. The saying produced out of Empedocles by Aristotle, before mentioned, is to prove that the killing of any living creature is openly against the universally prevailing law of nature. Others maintained such things to be natural as the most did abominate. Incest in the nearest instances, with sodomy, were asserted lawful by the Magi, and some of the most learned Greeks, as Zeno and Chrysippus. And it was the judgment of Theodorus that a wise man ought kai< kle>yein te kai< moiceu>ein , kai< iJerosulh>sein ejn kairw~| , mhdesei aijscroreports in his life. He thought that neither theft, nor adultery, nor sacrilege, had any thing evil or filthy in them in their own nature, so that a wise man ought to have respect unto them, according to circumstances and occasions. Plato’s promiscuous use of wives was confirmed by law at Sparta. And Archelaus at once determined kai< to< di>kaion ei+nai , kai< to< aijscromw| , as Diogenes in his life, who likewise reports the same of Aristippus and Carneades. Naturally they thought nothing just or unjust, good or evil, but by virtue of some arbitrary law. And there are yet those in the world, partakers of human nature in common with us all, who know no other rule of their actions towards others but power, as the cannibals, and those Indians who suppose they may justly spoil all that are afraid of them. Yea some, who of late have pretended a severe inquisition into these things, seem to incline unto an opinion that power and self-advantage are the rule of men’s conversation among themselves in this world. So it was the principle of Brennus, in his time the terror of Europe, that there was no other law of nature but that the weaker should obey the stronger.” And the commander of the Gauls who besieged the Roman Capitol, when he was on a composition to depart upon the giving to him such a weight of gold, threw his sword and helmet into the scale against it, giving no other reason for what he did but “Væ victis.” Neither will another rule which they had of assigning things to the law of nature hold firm, namely, a general usage of mankind from time immemorial. This Antigone pleads in Sophocles for her burying of Polynices, j jAntig .— Ouj ga>r ti nu~n ge kajcqe pote Zh~| pau~ta kojudeinh? — “This (right) arose not today nor yesterday, but was in force ever of old, nor does any man know from whence it arose.” For all nations, from beyond the records of the original of things, had consented unto practices directly contrary to the light of nature, as is now acknowledged. And hence were all the disputes of old about the nature, bounds, and ends of good and evil, duty and vice, honest and filthy, just and unjust,. that could never be determined. This Plato observing, affirms in his Phædo, “That if any one name either silver or iron, presently all men agree what it is that is intended; but if they speak of that which is just and good, presently we are at variance with others and among ourselves.” So great uncertainty is there in human reason, under its best natural improvements, in its judgment of what does or does not belong to the principles and condition of our nature, so far is it from being comprehensive of the whole law thereof. 14. When, therefore, we plead any thing to belong unto or to proceed from the law of nature, it is no impeachment of our assertion to say that it does not appear so to the common reason of mankind, or that right reason has not found it out or discovered it, provided it contain nothing repugnant thereunto; for it will never be universally agreed what does so appear to the common reason of all, nor what is, has been, or may be discovered thereby. And although it should be true, which some say, that moral and natural duties depend on and have their formal reason from the nature of God and man, yet it does not thence follow that we do, or may, by the sole light of nature, know what does so arise, with the due bounds and just consequences of it. But there is, as we shall. see, something yet further required in and unto the law of nature, which is the adequate rule of all such duties. I shall not, therefore, endeavor to prove that the mere dictates of reason do evince a sacred hebdomadal rest as knowing that the law of nature, unto which we say it does belong, does not absolutely consist in them; nor did they ever since the fall, steadily and universally, as acted in men possessed of reason, either comprehend or express all that belongs thereunto. 15. By the law of nature, then, I intend, not a law which our nature gives unto all our actions , but a law given unto our nature , as a rule and measure unto our moral actions. It is “lex naturæ naturantis,” and not “naturæ naturæ” It respects the efficient cause of nature, and not the effects of it.

And this respect alone can give it the nature of a law,— that is, an obliging force and power; for this must be always from the act of a superior, seeing “par in parem jus non habet,”— “equals have no right one over another.”

This law, therefore, is that rule which God has given unto human nature, in all the individual partakers of it, for all its moral actions, in the state and condition wherein it was by him created and placed, with respect unto his own government of it and judgment concerning it; which rule is made known in them and to them by their inward constitution and outward condition wherein they were placed of God. And the very heathens acknowledged that the common law of mankind was God’s prescription unto them. So Tully, lib. 2:de Legibe. cap. iv., “Hanc video sapientissimorum fuisse sententiam, legem neque hominum ingenus excogitatam, nec scitum aliquod esse populoruim, sed æternuni quiddam, quod universum mundum regeret, imperandi prohibendique sapientia. Ita principem legem illam et ultimam, mentem esse dicebant, omnia ratione aut cogentis, aut vetantis Dei.” Take this law, therefore, actively , and it is the will of God commanding; take it passively , and it is the conscience of man complying with it; take it instrumentally , and it is the inbred notions of our minds, with other documents from the works of God, proposed unto us.

The supreme original of it, as of all authority, law, and obligation, is the will of God, constituting, appointing, and ordering the nature of things; the means of its revelation, is the effect of the will, wisdom, and power of God, creating man and all other things wherein he is concerned, in their order, place, and condition; and the observation of it, as far as individual persons are therein concerned, is committed to the care of the conscience of every man, which naturally is the mind’s acting itself towards God as the author of this law. 16. These things being premised, we shall consider what light is given unto this sacred duty from the law of our creation. The first end of any law is to instruct, direct, and guide them in their duty unto whom it is given. A law which is not in its own nature instructive and directive, is no way meet to he prescribed unto rational creatures. What has an influence upon any creature of any other kind, if it be internal, is instinct , and not properly a law; if it be external, it is force and compulsion. The law of creation, therefore, comprised every thing whereby God instructed man, in the creation of himself and of the universe, unto his works or obedience, and his rest or reward. And whatever tended unto that end belonged unto that law. It is, then, as has been proved, unduly confined unto the ingrafted notions of his mind concerning God and his duty towards him, though they are a principal part thereof. Whatever was designed to give improvement unto those notions and his natural light, to excite or direct them,— I mean in the works of nature, not superadded positive institutions,— does also belong thereunto. Wherefore the whole instruction that God intended to give unto man by the works of creation, with their order and end, is, as was said, included herein. What he might learn from them, or what God taught him by them, was no less his duty than what his own inbred light directed him unto, Romans 1:18-20.

Thus the framing of the world in six days , in six days of work , was intended to be instructive unto man, as well as the consideration of the things materially that were made. God could have immediately produced all out of nothing, ejn ajto>mw| ejn rJiph~| ojfqalmou~ ,— in the shortest measure of time conceivable; but he not only made all things for himself, or his glory, but disposed also the order of their production unto the same end. And herein consisted part of that covenant instruction which he gave unto man in that condition wherein he was made, that through him he might have glory ascribed unto him on the account of his works themselves, as also of the order and manner of their creation; for it is vain to imagine that the world was made in six days, and those closed with a day of rest, without an especial respect unto the obedience of rational creatures, seeing absolutely with respect unto God himself neither of them was necessary. And what he intended to teach them thereby, it was their duty to inquire and know. Hereby, then, man in general was taught obedience and working before be entered into rest; for being created in the image of God, he was to conform himself unto God. As God wrought before he rested, so was he to work before his rest, his condition rendering that working in him obedience, as it was in God an effect of sovereignty.

And by the rest of God, or his satisfaction and complacency in what he had made and done, he was instructed to seek rest with God, or to enter into that rest of God, by his compliance with the ends intended. 17. And whereas the innate light and principles of his own mind informed him that some time was to be set apart to the solemn worship of God, as he was a rational creature made to give glory unto him, so the instruction he received by the works and rest of God, as made under a covenant, taught him that one day in seven was required unto that purpose, as also to be a pledge of his resting with God. It may be, it will be said that man could not know that the world was made in six days, and that the rest of God ensued on the seventh, without some especial revelation. I answer,— (1.) That I know not. He that knew the nature of all the creatures, and could give them names suited thereunto upon his first sight and view of them, might know more of the order of their creation than we can well imagine; for we know no more, in our lapsed condition, what the light of nature directed man unto as walking before God in a covenant, than men merely natural do know of the guidance and conduct of the light and law of grace in them who are taken into the new covenant. (2.) However, what God instructed him in, even by revelation, as to the due consideration and improvement of the things that belonged unto the law of his creation, that is to be esteemed as a part thereof. Institutions of things by special revelation, that had no foundation in the law or light of nature, were merely positive; such were the commands concerning the trees of life and of the knowledge of good and evil. But such as were directive of natural light and of the order of the creation were moral, and belonged unto the general law of obedience; such was the especial command given unto man to till and keep the garden, Genesis 2:15, or to dress and improve the place of his habitation, for this in general the law of his creation required. Now this God did, both as to his works and his rest.

Neither do I know any one as yet that questions whether Adam and the patriarchs that ensued before the giving of the law knew that the world was created in six days. Though some seem to speak doubtfully hereof, and some by direct consequent deny it, yet I suppose that hitherto it passes as granted. Nor have they who dispute that the Sabbath was neither instituted, known, nor observed, before the people of Israel were in the wilderness, once attempted to confirm their opinion with this supposition, that the patriarchs from the foundation of the world knew not that the world was made in six days, which yet alone would be effectual unto their purpose. Nor, on the other side, can it be once rationally imagined that if they had knowledge hereof, and therewithal of the rest which ensued thereon, they had no regard unto it in the worship of God. 18. And thus was the Sabbath, or the observation of one day in seven as a sacred rest, fixed on the same moral grounds with monogamy , or the marriage of one man to one woman only at the same time; which, from the very fact and order of the creation, our Savior proves to have been an unchangeable part of the law of it. For because God made them two single persons, male and female, fit for individual conjunction, he concludes that this course of life they were everlastingly obliged not to alter nor transgress. As, therefore, men may dispute that polygamy is not against the law of nature, because it was allowed and practiced by many, by most of those who of old observed and improved the light and rule thereof to the uttermost, when yet the very “factum” and order of the creation is sufficient to evince the contrary; so although men should dispute that the observation of one day’s sacred rest in seven is not of the light or law of nature,— all whose rules and dictates, they say, are of an easy discovery, and prone to the observation of all men, which this is not,— yet the order of the creation, and the rest of God that ensued thereon, are sufficient to evince the contrary. And in the renewing of the law upon mount Sinai, God taught the people not only by the words that he spake, but also by the works that he wrought Yea, he instructed them in a moral duty, not only by what he did, but by what he did not; for he declares that they ought to make no images of or unto him, because he made no representation of himself unto them. “They saw no manner of similitude on the day that the LORD spoke unto them in Horeb out of the midst of the fire,” Deuteronomy 4:15,16. 19. But now, to shut up this discourse, whereas the covenant which man originally was taken into was a covenant of works, wherein his obtaining rest with God depended absolutely on his doing all the work he had to do in a way of legal obedience, he was during the dispensation of that covenant tied up precisely to the observation of the seventh day, or that which followed the whole work of creation. And the seventh day, as such, is a pledge and token of the rest promised in the covenant of works, and no other. And those who would advance that day again into a necessary observation do consequentially introduce the whole covenant of works, and are become debtors into the whole law; for the. works of God which preceded the seventh day precisely were those whereby man was initiated into and instructed in the covenant of works, and the day itself was a token and pledge of the righteousness thereof, or a moral and natural sign of it, and of the rest of God therein, and the rest of man with God thereby.

And it is no service to the church of God, nor has any tendency into the honor of Christ in the gospel, to endeavor a reduction of us unto the covenant of nature. 20. Thus was man instructed in the whole notion of a weekly sacred rest, by all the ways and means which God was pleased to use in giving him an acquaintance with his will, and that obedience unto his glory which he expected from him: for this knowledge he had partly by the law of his creation, as innate unto him or con-created with the principles of his nature, being the necessary exsurgency of his rational constitution; and partly by the works and rest of God , thereon proposed unto his consideration; both firmed by God’s declaration of his sanctification of the seventh day. Hence did he know that it was his duty to express and celebrate the rest of God, or the complacency that he had in the works of his hands, in reference unto their great and proper end, or his glory, in the honor, praise, and obedience of them unto whose contemplation they were proposed for those ends. This followed immediately from the time spent in the creation , and the rest that ensued thereon, which were so ordered for his instruction, and not from any other cause or reason, taken either from the nature of God or of the things themselves, which required neither six days to make the world in, nor any rest to follow thereon; for that rest was not a cessation from working absolutely, much less merely so. Hence did he learn the nature of the covenant that he was taken into, namely, how he was first to work in obedience, and then to enter into God’s rest in blessedness; for so had God appointed, and so did he understand his will, from his own present state and condition. Hence was he instructed to dedicate to God, and to his own more immediate communion with him, one day in a weekly revolution, wherein the whole law of his creation was consummated, as a pledge and means of entering eternally into God’s rest, which from hence he understood to be his end and happiness. And for the sanctification of the seventh day of the week precisely , he had it by revelation, or God’s sanctification of it; which had unto him the nature of a positive law, being a determination of the day suited unto the nature and tenor of that covenant wherein he walked with God. 21. And by this superadded command or institution, the mind of man was confirmed in the meaning and intention of his innate principles, and other instructions to the same purpose in general. All these things, I say, the last only excepted, was he directed unto in and by the innate principles of light and obedience wherewith the faculties of his soul were furnished, every way suited to guide him in the whole of the duty required of him, and by the further instruction he had from the other works of God, and his rest upon the whole. And although, it may be, we cannot now discern how in particular his natural light might conduct and guide him to the observance of all these things, yet ought we not therefore to deny that so it did, seeing there is evidence in the things themselves, and we know not well what that light was which was in him; for although we may have some due apprehensions of the substance of it, from its remaining ruins and materials in our lapsed condition, yet we have no acquaintance with that light and glorious luster, that extent of its directive beams, which it was accompanied withal, when it was in him as he came immediately from the hand of God, created in his image. We have lost more by the fall than the best and wisest in the world can apprehend whilst they are in it,— much more than most will acknowledge, whose principal design seems to be to extenuate the sin and misery of man; which issues necessarily in an undervaluation of the love and grace of Jesus Christ. But if a natural or carnal man cannot discern how the Spirit or grace of the new covenant, which succeeds into the room of our first innate light, as unto the end of our living unto God’s glory in a new way, directs and guides those in whom it is unto the observance of all the duties of it, let us not wonder if we cannot easily and readily comprehend the brightness, and extent, and conduct of that light which was suited unto an estate of things that never was in the world since the fall, but only in the man Christ Jesus; whose wisdom and knowledge in the mind and will of God even thereby, without his superadded peculiar assistance, we may rather admire than think to understand. 22. Thus, then, were the foundations of the old world laid, and the covenant of man’s obedience established, when all the sons of God sang for joy, even in the first rest of God, and in the expression of it by the sanctification of a sacred rest, made to return unto him a revenue of glory in man’s observance of it. And on these grounds I do affirm that the weekly observation of a day to God for sabbath ends is a duty natural and moral , which we are under a perpetual and indispensable obligation unto,— namely, from that command of God, which, being a part of the law of our creation, is moral, indispensable, and perpetual. And these things, with the different apprehensions of others about them, and oppositions unto them, must now be further explained and considered; and that we now enter·upon,— namely, the consideration of the judgment and opinions of others about these things, with the confirmation of our own. 23. In the inquiry after the causes of the Sabbath, the first question usually insisted on is concerning the nature of the law whereby its observation is commanded. This some affirm to be moral, some only positive, as we have showed before. And many disputes there have been about the true notion and distinction of laws moral and positive. But whereas these terms are invented to express the conceptions of men’s minds, and that of moral, at least, includes not any absolute determinate sense in the meaning of the word, those at variance about them cannot impose their sense and understanding of them upon one another; for seeing this denomination of moral, applied unto a law, is taken from the subject-matter of it, which is the manners or duties of them to whom the law is given, if any one will assert that every command of God which respects the manners of men, that is, of all men absolutely as men, is moral, I know not how any one can compel him to speak or think otherwise, for he has his liberty to use the word in that sense which he judges most proper. And if it can be proved that there is a law, and ever was, binding all men universally to the observation of a hebdomadal sacred rest, I shall not contend with any how that law ought to be called, whether moral or positive. This contest, therefore, I shall not engage into, though I have used, and shall yet further use, those terms in their common sense and acceptation. My way shall be plainly to inquire what force there is in the law of our creation unto the observation of a weekly Sabbath, and what is superadded there-unto by the vocal declaration of the will of God concerning it. 24. And here, in the first place, it is generally agreed,— so that the opposition unto it is not considerable, nor any way deserving our notice,— that in and by the light of nature, or the law of our creation, some time ought to be separated unto the observance of the solemn worship of God; for be that worship what it will, merely natural, or any thing superadded by voluntary and arbitrary institutions, the law for its observance is natural, and requires that time be set apart for its celebration, seeing in time it is to be performed. When there was but one man and woman, this was their duty; and so it continued to be the duty of their whole race and posterity, in all the societies, associations, and assemblies whereof they were capable. But the first object of this law or command is the worship of God itself ; time falls under it only consequentially and reductively. Wherefore the law of nature does also distinctly respect time itself; for we are bound thereby to serve God with all that is ours, and with “the first fruits of our substance” in every kind. Somewhat of whatever God has given unto us is to be set apart from our own use, and given up absolutely to him, as a homage due unto him, and a necessary acknowledgment of him. To deny this, is to contradict one of the principal dictates of the law of nature; for God has given us nothing ultimately for ourselves, seeing we and all that we have are wholly his. And to have any thing whereof no part as such is to be spent in his service, is to have it with his displeasure. Let any one endeavor to assert and prove this position, ‘No part of our time is to be set apart to the worship of God and his service in a holy and peculiar manner,’ and he will quickly find himself setting up in a full contradiction to the law of nature, and the whole light of the knowledge of God in his mind and conscience. Those who have attempted any such thing have done it under this deceitful pretense, that all our time is to he spent unto God, and every day is to be a Sabbath. But whereas, notwithstanding this pretense, they spend most of their time directly and immediately to themselves and their own occasions, it is evident that they do but make use of it to rob God of that which is his due directly and immediately; for unto the holy separation of any thing unto God, it is required as well that it be taken from ourselves as that it be given unto him. This, therefore, the law of our creation requires as unto the separation of some part of our time unto God. And if this does not at first consideration discover itself in its directive power , it will quickly do so in its condemning power, upon a contradiction of it. Thus far, then, we have attained. 25. Moreover, men are to worship God in assemblies and societies, such as he appoints, or such as by his providence they are cast into. This will not be denied, seeing it stands upon as good, yea, better evidence, than the associations of mankind for ends political unto their own good by government and order, which all men confess to be a direction of the law of nature. For what concerns our living to God naturally is as clear in that light and conduct as what concerns our living among ourselves. Now, a part of this worship it is that we honor him with what by his gift is made ours. Such is our time in this world. Nor can the worship itself be performed and celebrated in a due manner without the designation and separation of some time unto that purpose. And thereby, secondly, this separation of time becomes a branch of the law of nature, by an immediate, natural, and unavoidable consequence. And what is so is no less to he reckoned among the rules of it than the very first notions or impressions that it gives us concerning the nature of any thing, good or evil; for whatever reason can educe from the principles of reason, is no less reason than those principles themselves from whence it is educed. And we aim at no more from this discourse but that the separation of some time to the worship of God, according to the ends before insisted on, is reasonable; so that the contrary in its first conception is unreasonable and foolish. And this, I suppose, is evident to all; I am sure by most men it is granted.

Could men hereupon acquiesce in the authority and wisdom of God indigitating and measuring out that portion of time in all seasons and ages of the church, there might be a natural rest from these contentions about a rest sacred and holy. However, I cannot but admire at the liberty which some men take, positively to affirm and contend that the command for the observation of the Sabbath, when or however it was given, was wholly umbratile and ceremonial; for there is that in it confessedly, as its foundation, and that which all its concernments are educed from, which is as direct an impression on the mind of man from the law of creation as any other instance that can be given thereof 26. Upon this foundation, therefore, we may proceed. And I say, in the next place, that the stated time directed unto for the ends of a sacred rest unto God by the light and law of nature,— that is, God’s command impressed on the mind of man in and by his own creation, and that of the rest of the works of God, intended for his direction in obedience,— is, that it be one day in seven . For the confirmation hereof; what we have discoursed concerning the law of creation and the covenant ratified with man therein is to be remembered. On the supposition thereof; the advancement or constitution of any other portion of time, in the stead and to the exclusion thereof; as a determination and limitation of the time required in general in the first instance of that law, is and would appear a contradiction unto it God having finished his works in six days, and rested on the seventh, giving man thereby and therein the rule and law of his obedience and rewards, for him to assign any other measure or portion of time for his rest unto God in his solemn worship, is to decline the authority of God for the sake of his own inventions; and to assign no portion at all unto that end, is openly to transgress a principal dictate of the law of nature, as has been proved. Neither this direction nor transgression, I confess, will evidently manifest themselves in the mere light of nature, as now depraved and corrupted; no more will sundry instances of its authority, unless its voice be diligently attended unto, and its light cultivated and improved in the minds of men, by the advantage of consequential revelations, given unto us for that purpose. For, that by the assistance of Scripture light, and rational considerations thence arising, we may discover many things to be dictates of, and to be directed unto by, the law of nature, which those who are left unto the mere guidance and conduct of it could not discover so to be, may be easily proved, from the open transgression of it in sundry instances, which they lived and approved themselves in, who seemed most to have lived according unto it, and professed themselves to be wise in following the light and conduct of reason in all things, as was before at large discoursed. The polytheism that prevailed amongst the best of the heathens, their open profession of living unto themselves, and seeking after their happiness in themselves, with many other instances, make this evident. And if revelation, or Scripture light, contributed no more to the discovery of the postulata of the law of nature, but by a removal of those prejudices which the manner and fashion of the world amongst men, and a corrupt conversation received by tradition from one generation to another, had fixed on and possessed their minds withal, yet were the advantages we had by it unto this end unspeakable. Let, then, this help be supposed, and let a judgment be made of the injunctions of the law of nature rather by its condemning right and power than by its directive light (for that, in our lapsed estate, is a better krith>rion of its commands than the other), and we shall find it manifesting itself in this matter. For on this supposition, let those who will not acknowledge that the separation of one day in seven is to be observed unto God for the ends declared, allowing the assertion before laid down of the necessity of the separation of some stated time to that purpose, fix to themselves any other time in a certain revolution of days, and they will undoubtedly find themselves pressed with so many considerations from the law of their creation to the contrary, as will give them little rest or satisfaction in their minds in what they do. 27. Further to manifest this, we may inquire what is necessary unto any duty of obedience towards God, to evince it to be a requisite of the law of our creation. And here our diligence is required; for it must be said again expressly, what was before intimated, that it is a childish mistake to imagine that whatever is required by the law of nature is easily discernible, and always known to all. Some of its directions it may be are so, especially such as are inculcated on the minds of men by their common interest and advantage. Such are “neminem lædere,” and “jus suum cuique tribuera.” But it is far from being true that all the dictates of the law of nature and requisites of right reason are evident and incapable of controversy, as they would have been unto man had he continued in his integrity. Many things there are between men themselves, concerning which, after all helps and advantages, and a continued observation of the course of the world unto this day, it is still disputed what is the sense of the law of nature about them, and wherein or how far they belong unto it.

The law of nations among themselves with respect unto one another, on which is founded the peace and order of mankind, is nothing but the law of nature, as it has been expressed in instances, by the customs and usages of them who are supposed to have most diligently attended unto its directions. And how many differences, never to be determined by common consent, there are in and about these things, is known; for there are degrees of evidence in the things that are of natural light. And many things that are so are yet in practice accompanied with the consideration of positive laws, as also of civil usages and customs amongst men. And it is not easy to distinguish in many observances what is of the law of nature, and what of law positive, or of useful custom. But of these things we have discoursed before in general. We are now to inquire what is requisite to warrant the ascription of any thing unto this law. 28. And, (1.) It is required that it be congruous unto the law of nature , and all the other known principles of it. Unto us it may be enjoined by law positive, or be otherwise made necessary for us to observe; but it must in itself; or materially, hold a good correspondency with all the known instances of the law of our creation, and this manifested with satisfying evidence, before its assignation thereunto. It is of natural light that we should obey God in all his commands; but this does not cause every command of God to belong to the law of nature. It is, as was said, moreover required thereunto, that it be in itself; and the subject-matter of it, congruous unto the principles of that law, whereof there is nothing in things merely arbitrary and positive, setting aside that general notion that God is to be obeyed in all his laws, which belongs not to this question. Now, when this congruity unto the law of nature or right reason, in the matter of any law or command, is discovered and made evident, it will greatly direct the mind in its inquiry after its whole nature, and manifest what is superadded unto it by positive command. And this will not be denied unto the Sabbath, its command and observation. Let the ends of it before laid down be considered, and let them be compared with any other guidances or directions which we have by natural light concerning our living to God, and there will not only a harmony appear amongst them, but also that they contribute help and assistance to one another towards the same ultimate end. 29. (2.) It is required that it have a general principle in the light of nature and dictates of right reason, from whence it may be educed, or which it will necessarily follow upon, supposing that principle rightly and duly improved. It is not enough that it be at agreement, that it no way interfere with other principles; it must also have one of its own, from whence it does naturally arise. So does the second commandment of the decalogue belong to the law of nature. Its principle lies in that acknowledgment of the being of God which is required in the first; for therein is God manifested to be of that nature, to be such a being, that it is, and must be, an absurd, unreasonable, foolish, and impious thing in itself, implying a renunciation of the former acknowledgment, to make any images or limited representations of his being, or to adore him any way otherwise than himself has declared. So is it here also. The separation of a stated time unto the solemn worship of God is so fixed on the mind of man, by its own inbred light, as that it cannot be omitted without open sin against it in those who have not utterly sinned away all the efficacy of that light itself.

However, that this is required of us by the law of our creation may be proved against all contradiction. Hence, whatever guiding, directing, determining, positive law may ensue or be superadded, about the limitation of this time so to be separated, it being only the application of this natural and moral principle, as to some circumstance of it, it hinders not but that the law itself concerning it is of the law of nature, and moral; for the original power unto obligation of such a superadded law lies in the natural principle before mentioned. 30. (3.) What all men are taught by the works of creation themselves , their order, harmony, and mutual respect to each other, with reference unto their duty towards God and among themselves, is of the law of nature, although there be not an absolute distinct notion of it inbred in the mind discoverable. It is enough that the mind of man is so disposed as to be ready and fit to receive the discovery and revelation of it. For the very creation itself is a law unto us, and speaks out that duty that God requires of us towards himself; for he has not only so ordered all the works of it that they should be meet to instruct us, or contain an instructive power towards rational creatures, made in that state and condition wherein man was created, which was before described, which has in it the first notion of a law; but it was the will of God that we should learn our duty thereby, which gives it its complement as a law obliging unto obedience. And it is not only thus in general, with respect unto the whole work of creation in itself, but the ordering and disposal of the parts of it is alike directive and instructive to the nature of man, and has the force of a law morally and everlastingly obligatory. Thus, the pre-eminence of the man above the woman, which is moral, ensues upon the order of the creation, in that the man was first made, and “the woman for the man,” as the apostle argues, 1 Corinthians 11:8,9, 1 Timothy 2:12,13. And all nations ought to be obliged hereby, though many of them, through their apostasy from natural light knew not that either man or woman was created, but, it may be, supposed them to have grown out of the earth like mushrooms; and yet an effect of the secret original impression hereof influenced their minds and practices. So the creation of one man and one woman gave the natural law of marriage, whence polygamy and fornication became transgressions of the law of nature. It will be hard to prove that about these and the like things there is a clear and undoubted principle of directive light in the mind of man, separate from the consideration of the order of creation; but therein a law, and that moral, is given unto us, not to be referred unto any other head of laws but that of nature. And here, as was before pleaded, the creation of the world in six days, with the rest of God on the seventh, and that declared, gives unto all men an everlasting law of separating one day in seven unto a sacred rest; for he that was made in the image of God was made to imitate him and conform himself unto him, God in this order of things saying as it were unto him, ‘What I have done, in your station do ye likewise.’ Especially was this made effectual by his innate apprehension that his happiness consisted in entering into the rest of God, the pledge whereof it was his unquestionable duty to embrace. 31. (4.) In this state of things, a direction by a revelation, in the way of a precept, for the due and just exercise of the principles, rules, and documents before mentioned, is so far from impeaching the morality of any command or duty, as that it completes the law of it, with the addition of a formal obligatory power and efficacy. The light and law of creation, so far as it was innate, or concreated with the faculties of our souls, and completing our state of dependence on God, has only the general nature of a principle, inclining unto actions suitable unto it, and directing us therein.

The documents also that were originally given unto that light from without, by the other works and order of the creation, had only in their own nature the force of an instruction. The will of God, and an act of sovereignty therein, formally constituted them a law. But now, man being made to live unto God, and under his conduct and guidance in all things, that he might come to the enjoyment of him, no prejudice arises unto, nor alteration is made in the dictates of, the law of creation, by the superadding any positive commands for the performance of the duties that it does require, and regulating of them, as to the especial manner and ends of their performance. And where such a positive law is interposed or superadded, it is the highest folly. to imagine that the whole obligation unto the duty depends on that command, as though the authority of the law of nature were superseded thereby, or that the whole command about it were now grown positive and arbitrary; for although the same law cannot be moral and positive in the same respect, yet the same duty may be required by a law moral and a law positive. It is thus with many observances of the gospel. We may, for example, instance in excommunication, according to the common received notion of it. There is a positive command in the gospel for the exercise of the sentence of it in the churches of Christ But this hinders not but that it is natural for all societies of men to exclude from their societies those that refractorily refuse to observe the laws and orders of the society, that it may be preserved unto its proper end. And according to the rule of this natural equity, that it should be so, have all rational societies amongst men, that knew nothing of the gospel, proceeded, for their own good and preservation. Neither does the superadded institution in the gospel derogate from the general reason hereof, or change the nature of the duty, but only direct its practice, and make application of it to the uses and ends of the gospel itself. 32. I do not plead that every law that God prescribes unto me is moral because my obedience unto it is a moral duty; for the morality of this obedience does not arise from, nor depend upon, the especial command of it, which, it may he, is positive and arbitrary, but from the respect that it has unto our dependence, in all things which we have to do, absolutely and universally on God. To obey God in all things is unquestionably our moral duty. But when the substance of the command itself, that is, the duty required, is moral, the addition of a positive command does no way impeach its morality, nor suspend the influence of that law whereon its morality does depend. It is, therefore, unduly pretended by some, that because there is a positive command for the observation of the Sabbath,— supposing there should be such a command for the whole of it, which is nothing else but an explanation and enforcement or the original moral precept of it (as in every state of the church something relating unto it, namely, the precise determination of the day itself in the hebdomadal revolution, depended on a law positive),— therefore the law of it is not moral. It is not so, indeed, so far and in that respect wherein it is positive; but it is so from itself, for the substance of it and antecedently unto that positive command. The whole law, therefore, of the Sabbath and its observation may be said to be moral-positive ; which expression has been used by some learned divines in this case, and that not unduly. For a law may be said to be so on a double account:— First, When the positive part of the law is declarative, and accumulative with respect unto a precedent law of nature, as when some additions are made to the duties therein required, as to the manner of their performance. Secondly, When the foundation of a duty only is laid in the law of nature, but its entire practice is regulated by a positive law. From all the instances insisted on, it is manifest that the law of the sabbatical observation is moral, a branch of the law of nature, however it be enforced, directed, and the especial day in seven be limited and determined, by positive command. 33. These things by many are denied. They will not grant that there is any rule or direction in the law of creation for a sacred rest unto God on one day in seven; for they say that no such [rule] can be made to appear with that evidence which the common anticipations of the minds of men are accompanied withal. But this objection has been sufficiently obviated by a due stating of the law of nature, which is not to be confined unto inbred natural anticipations only. And it is certain also that some say the very same concerning the being of God himself, and of the difference between good and evil, namely, that there are no manifest and steadfast presumptions of them in the mind of man; which yet hinders not but that the acknowledgment of a Divine Being, as also the difference that is between good and evil, is natural, and inseparable from the faculties of our souls. Hence Julian in Cyril. lib. 5:con. Jul. joins the first and fourth precept together. Saith he, Poi~on e]qnov ejsti< , proseiv qeoi~v eJte>roiv , kai< tou~ mnh>sqhti tw~n Sabba>twn , oj mh< tattein ejntola>v? — “ He says” (and swears) “that all nations judged that the commandments” (of the decalogue) “ought to be kept excepting the first, forbidding other gods, and the other of remembering the Sabbath to keep it.” The one may be rejected as well as the other.

Besides, the law of nature, as to an obligatory indication of our duty, is not, no, not in the extent insisted on, as comprising the objective documents that are in the works and order of the creation, to be considered alone by itself in this matter, but in conjunction with the covenant that it was the rule of; for whatever was required of man by virtue of that covenant was part of the moral law of God, or belonged unto the law of his creation. From all which the rest pleaded for to be moral does arise.

And considering the nature of this duty, with the divine positive direction whereby its first practice was regulated, and stood in need so to be, when “God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it,” it is marvelous that the remaining light of nature about it should put forth itself by so many intimations as it does, and in so many instances, to express the first impression that it had from God in this matter; for I think we have manifested that they are many, and those pleadable against any probability of contradiction. In a word, we may in all ages find the generality of mankind feeling, and as it were groping in the dark, after a stated sacred rest to be observed unto God. And however the most of men destitute of divine revelation missed the season, the ends, and the object of this rest, yet they were plainly influenced unto all their stated sacred or religious solemnities, both feasts and abstinences, by the remainders of an innate persuasion that such a rest was to be observed. Besides, we know that the present indications of nature, as corrupt, are no just rule and measure of its original abilities, with respect unto living to God. And they do but woefully bewray their ignorance and impudence, who begin to plead that our minds or understandings were no way impaired or worsted by the fall, but that the principles or abilities in them, in reference unto God and ourselves, are the same as originally, and that unimpaired. Either such men design to overthrow the gospel and grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, or they know not what they say, nor whereof they do affirm. But hereof we shall treat elsewhere, by God’s assistance. At present we know that the light of nature is so defective, or so impotent in giving indications of itself, that many nations left destitute of divine revelation, or wilfully rejecting it, have lived and approved themselves in open transgression of the law of it, as has been showed. The apostle gives sundry instances of that kind amongst them who most boasted themselves to attend to the dictates of right reason, Romans 1. All idolaters, polygamists, fornicators, and those who constantly lived on spoil and rapine, approving themselves, or not condemning themselves in what they did, are testimonies hereof.

That alone, then, is not to be pretended to be of the law of nature which all men acknowledge to be a part of it; nor is every thing to be rejected from having a place therein which some have lived in a secure transgression of, and others say that it gives no indications of itself; but that is to be understood to belong thereunto which, by the diligent consideration of all means and advantages of knowledge, may be found to be congruous to all the other known and allowed principles and maxims of it, and to have its foundation in it, being what originally God by any means instructed our nature in, as that which belonged unto our living unto him. And, it may be, a man may sooner learn what is natural duty to God, in and from corrupted nature, by the opposition that it will make unto its practice, as it is corrupted, than by the light and guidance it will give unto it as nature.

It is also, as we have. observed, more discernible in its judging and condemning what is done contrary unto it, than in directing unto what it did originally require. 34. Having given evidence unto the morality of the Sabbath from the indications of it and directions unto it in the light and law of nature,— which will be found to be such as not to be by any modest or sober man contemned,— we proceed to add those other consequential confirmations of the same truth, which God has given us in the following revelations of his will about it. And, first, this gives no small countenance unto an apprehension of an unchangeable morality in the law of the Sabbath, that in all estates of the church, from the foundation of the world, under the several covenants wherein it has walked with God, and the various dispensations of them, there is a full evidence that in them all God has still required of his people the observation of a sacred rest unto himself in a hebdomadal revolution of time or days. A full confirmation hereof; with its proofs and illustrations, the reader will find at large in our exposition of the fourth chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews, so soon as God shall give an opportunity to have it communicated unto him. At present I shall touch only on the heads of things. 35. That any religious observance has been required through all estates of the church, having no foundation but only in arbitrary institution, cannot be proved by any one single instance. The institutions of the state of innocency, in the matters of the garden, with the trees of life and of the knowledge of good and evil, ceased, as all men confess, with that estate.

And although God did not immediately upon the sin of man destroy that garden, — no, nor it may be until the flood, leaving it as a testimony against the wickedness of that apostate generation for whose sins the world was destroyed,— yet was neither it nor the trees of it of any use, or lawful to be used, as to any significancy in the worship of God. And the reason is, because all institutions are appendixes, and things annexed unto a covenant; and when that covenant ceases, or is broken, they are of no use or signification at all. 36. There was a new state of the church erected presently after the fall, and this also attended with sundry new institutions, especially with that concerning sacrifices. In this church-state some alterations were made, and sundry additional institutions given unto it upon the erection of the peculiar church-state of the Israelites in the wilderness; which yet hindered not but that it was in general the same church-state, and the same dispensation of the covenant, that the people of God before and after the giving of the law enjoyed and lived under. Hence it was that sundry institutions of worship were equally in force both before and after the giving of the law on mount Sinai; as is evident in sacrifices, and some other instances may be given. But now, when the state of the church and the dispensation of the covenant came to be wholly altered, as they were by the gospel, not any one of the old institutions was continued, or to be continued, but they were all abolished and taken away. Nothing at all was traduced over from the old church-states, neither from that in innocency nor from that which ensued on the fall in all its variations, with any obligatory power, but what was founded in the law of nature, and had its force from thence. We may then confidently assert, that what God requires equally in all estates of the church, that is moral, and of an everlasting obligation unto us and all men. And this is the state of matters with the Sabbath and the law thereof. 37. Of the command of the Sabbath in the state of innocency we have before treated, and vindicated the testimony given unto it, Genesis 2:2,3. It will, God assisting, be further discoursed and confirmed in our exposition of the fourth chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews. The observation of it by virtue of its original law and command, before the promulgation of the decalogue in Sinai, or the first wilderness observation of the Sabbath, recorded on the occasion of giving manna, has also been before confirmed. Many exceptions, I acknowledge, are laid in against the testimonies insisted on for the proof of these things; but those such as, I suppose, are not able to invalidate them in the minds of men void of prejudice. And the pretense of the obscurity that is in the command will be easily removed, by the consideration of another instance of the same antiquity. All men acknowledge that a promise of Christ, for the object and guide of the faith of the ancient patriarchs, was given in those words of God immediately spoken unto the serpent, Genesis 3:15, “I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.”

The words in themselves seem obscure unto any such end or purpose. But yet there is such light given into them; and the mind of God in them, from the circumstances of time, place, persons, occasion, from the nature of the things treated of; from the whole ensuing economy, or dealing of God with men, revealed in the Scripture, as that no sober man doubts of the promissory nature of those words, nor of the intention of them in general, nor of the proper subject of the promise, nor of the grace intended in it.

This promise, therefore, was the immediate object of the faith of the patriarchs of old, the great motive and encouragement unto and of their obedience. But yet it will be hard, from the records of Scripture, to prove that any particular patriarch did believe in, trust, or plead that promise, which yet we know that they did all and every one; nor was there any need, for our instruction, that any such practice of theirs should be recorded, seeing it is a general rule that those holy men of God did observe and do whatever he did command them. Wherefore, from the record of a command, we may conclude unto a suitable practice, though it be not recorded; and from a recorded approved practice, on the other side, we may conclude unto the command or institution of the thing practiced, though it be nowhere plainly recorded. Let unprejudiced men consider those words, Genesis 2:2,3, and they will find the command and institution of the Sabbath as clear and conspicuous in them, as the promise of grace in Christ is in those before considered, especially as they are attended with the interpretation given of them in God’s following dealings with his church. And therefore, although particular instances of the obedience of the old patriarchs in this part of it, or the observation of the Sabbath, could not be given and evinced, yet we ought no more on that account to deny that they did observe i