still look, as appears from his conclusion, vs, 9, "There remaineth therefore a rest for the people of God." But how doth he prove this? He shows that Psalm xcv. 11, cannot speak either of the rest of Canaan, or of the rest of the seventh day, because that was not a rest to come for Israel, into which they should enter, but that it was known even from the foundation of the world, vrs. 3, 4, even then men of that time entered into the rest; therefore the sabbath was instituted before the fall from the foundation of the world. Whence it evidently followeth, that the sabbath cannot be ceremonial, typifying Christ and his benefits of the New Testament; since Christ could not be considered as Mediator, and therefore no typifying ceremonies could come into consideration before the fall. They object indeed against the institution of the sabbath before the fall, (a) that Adam fell before the seventh day; but what proof have they for that? There is certainly not the least sign nor shadow of it. We have demonstrated the contrary, though briefly, in treating on the seventh question. They say further, (b) that, the sabbath did not become Adam, because he was not weary; but they suppose then that bodily rest only was enjoined in the fourth commandment : but this we deny, and have shown that the seventh day was enjoined, that men abstaining from their daily labour, (which Adam was also obliged to do by keeping and dressing the garden) they might serve God in a solemn manner. How could God command bodily idleness, which is the fruitful source of every kind of iniquity? who can think this? the rest of sleep became Adam; why not then also the rest of the seventh day? (c) They say, we read not that the sabbath was kept before the manna was given, and the fathers were never reproved for not keeping it: But was the sabbath therefore not instituted? can we infer this from a negative argument? The fathers were not reproved for having more than one wife at the same time; was it therefore not contrary to the first institution of marriage? Very little is recorded concerning those times, and therefore we do not know all that happened then. The fathers of those times knew something of the period of seven days, which began with the first, and ended with the seventh day, and so with the sabbath which was then known, Gen. viii. 10, 11. xxix. 27, 28. 1 he godly of those times celebrated public worship: for when "Enos was born, men began to call upon the name of the Lord," Gen. iv. 26. Did they do that without a stated time for it? If I be not prepossessed with prejudices, this will induce me to think that they observed for that purpose the day which God had instituted.

2. The morality of the sabbath appears also from the fourth com

mandment itself; for this commandment is contained in the moral law, as well as the other nine.commandments, it was given to Israel by God amidst a display of his exalted Majesty by thunder and lightening, before the ceremonial law, it was engraven upon the tabies of stone, which were laid up in the ark of the covenant, and enforced, not with ceremonial and typical, but only with the moral reasons of God's blessing, sanctifying, and example. What ritual and ceremonial commandment was ever accompanied with all this? There is therefore no reason why we should esteem the fourth commandment to be ceremonial and abolished, and not moral and everlasting.

3. When we hold that the fourth commandment is ceremonial and abolished, we annul, contrary to the command and threatening of Christ, Matt. v. 17, 18, 19, not merely "one of the least," but one of "the greatest commandments of the law." It appears plainly from the connexion, that he enforceth here serious godliness, according to the moral law; how can we then presume to say, that one of these commandments is ceremonial and abolished? We cannot excuse ourselves by saying that we do not annul the commandment concerning the sabbath, when we declare it to be ceremonial and abolished, because we do still fulfil it by keeping the sabbath spiritually and daily for the antitype of the ceremonies being come, the law of ceremonies is abolished and annulled, and so we teach that one of the commandments of the moral law is annulled, when we declare it to be ceremonial; but this is contrary to the text.

4. Add to this the natural equity of the fourth commandment, which will always declare it to be holy and good. Is it not equitable, that man and beast, when wearied with slavish labour, "should be refreshed?" See Exod. xxiii. 12. Can any person deem it to be improper, that all the saints on the whole earth should, as one body, abstain from labour on a certain day and time, and endeavour to exercise in a solemn manner the communion of saints, and to employ themselves in knowing, loving, fearing, praising and delighting themselves in God? and this belongs to keeping the sabbath: see Isaiah Ixiii. 13, 14. We wonder therefore how men can decry the sabbath, as a superstitious imposition.

We might combat the opinion of our opponents also from its injustice, and because we cannot find any where in the word of God, that the works of the believing Israelites were unclean, and that this was declared to them by the sabbath. We are willing to allow that the purification was not yet accomplished by the actual sacrifice of Christ, but that it should be accomplished; that Christ should rest

in the grave, and the believers under the New Testament from the ceremonial service: but that these things were signified to Israel in the fourth commandment, of this we have neither word nor tittle. But I will not busy myself with these matters, but only vindicate the divine commandment, and refute the objections of the adversaries. The principal objections against the morality of the sabbath of the fourth commandment are the following:

1. That if the fourth commandment do still oblige us, we ought then to observe the last, and not the first day of the week. But we have just now shown. that the seventh day in particular belongs not to the essence of the fourth commandment. We add now also, that if we cannot find here any divine translation of the last to the first day of the week, we are then still bound to that last day. But it is evident, that the first day was instituted instead of the seventh; for why is the first day called "the Lord's day?" Rev. i. 10. Is it not, because the Lord Jesus, the Lord of the sabbath rested on that day from his painful labour, and instituted it for his service, as the seventhday sabbath is therefore called the Lord's sabbath? what else moved the apostles to meet together just on the first day of the week? John xx. 19, 26. Why did the disciples at Troas assemble just on that day to break bread, Acts xx. 7, if that day were not instituted before? why doth Paul recommend to the Galatians and Corinthians to make their charitable collections on the first, and not on any other day of the week? 1 Cor. xvi. 1, 2. No other reason can be assigned for this, but the divine institution of that day. Did not the Lord of the sabbath also bless the first day, when he showed himself present sundry times with his apostles on that day? John xx. 19, &c. poured out his Spirit, Acts ii. 1-4, and caused the disciple, whom he loved, to be in the Spirit on that day? Rev. i. 1. How hath it come to pass, that the Christians throughout the whole world, from the times of the apostles, even until now, have agreed to celebrate public worship on this day? did any synod, or Christian emperour, or king introduce that custom, where it was not before? surely no. It is true, we read not that Christ said, Keep the first day of the week instead of the seventh; but all the words of our Saviour have not been recorded: because he saith no where, baptize infants, shall we therefore say, that he did not institute infant baptism? no, but we conclude that from good reasons and consequences; and so we conclude also from what hath been said, that the first day of the week was instituted, either immediately by the Lord himself, r by his apostles.

2. They allege also against the morality of the fourth commandment, Exod. xxxi. 13. "Verily, my sabbaths ye shall keep, for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations, that ye may know that I am the Lord that doth sanctify you." They conelude from this that the seventhday sabbath was a covenant sign only for the nation of Israel of the future sanctification by Christ: but this doth not follow from that passage, For (a) we do not read in that verse of the seventhday sabbath, but in vs. 16, 17, and so an evident distinction is made between sabbaths in the plural, and sabbath in the singular; and it is not said of this sabbath, that it is a sign of sanctification, but of the creation: "It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever; for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed," vs. 17. (b) If it were even so, that the seventhday sabbath was a sign that the Lord would sanctify Israel, it would not follow therefrom, that it was a sign of the future sanctification; for God signified to Israel by the sabbath, that he sanctified them even then; for Israel by keeping the sabbath was separated from other people, and exercised the holy worship of God, by which they were sanctified. See Psalm cxlvii. 19, 20. (c) If we should allow that the seventhday sabbath was a sacramental sign of the covenant, concerning the future sanctification through Christ, to the generations of Israel only, it would not follow then neither, that the sabbath was from its first institution, of itself a typifying ceremony, that might be abolished; but that it was annexed to the fourth commandmer.. by the Sovereign Lawgiver, as an appendage for the Israel of that time, as the Lord appointed the rainbow, which was naturally and of itself no sign, to be afterwards a sign of the covenant, Gen. xi. 13.

3. It is said further, that the sabbath is distinguished, Ezek. xxii. 12, from "the statutes and judgments, by which we live ;" for the Lord saith, "Moreover also I gave them my sabbaths," But (a) it is not true, that the statutes and judgments signify only the moral law, by which we live; for the ceremonial and civil law is also so called, Mal. iv. 4. Eph. ii. 15. (b) The sabbath is enjoined in the moral law, by which we live. (c) The sabbath is distinguished "from "the statutes, which were not good, and the judgments, by which the Israelites should not live," Ezek. xx. 24, 25, by which some erroneously affirm the ceremonial laws to be understood: and God saith that he gave them those evil statutes and destructive judgments on account of their violation of the sabbath. (d) The word "moreover," or according to the original, " and also," doth

not imply any opposition of the sabbath to the statutes and judg ments, but it connects the sabbath with the statutes and judgments, as of the same nature. We see this word used thus, Gen. i. 18. Exod. x. 25, 26. (e) Further, we do not read here of sabbath in the singular, as the seventhday sabbath is commonly mentioned in the singular; but of sabbaths in the plural, and therefore the ceremonial sabbaths must be understood here.

4. They likewise object against us, Rom. xv. 5. Gal. iv. 10. 11. Col. ii. 16, 17, where Paul considers those as "weak, who esteemed one day above another :" he saith also that "the observation of days, months, times, and years is hurtful and pernicious at present; and that those things were a shadow of Christ :" but if the sabbath be on this account ceremonial, we may not then observe any days at all under any pretence whatever, more than any other part of the ceremonial law, and we must therefore condemn not only all Christians of the present time, who observe the first day of the week, as a day of publick worship, but the apostles and primitive Christians also, whose example we now follow. But besides this, we may understand by those who esteemed one day above another, the stronger Christians of the Gentiles, who observed the Lord's day above other days to the Lord; for as he who believeth that he may eat all things is mentioned before him, who is weak, vrs. 2, 3, so also he who esteemeth one day above another is mentioned in the same order, before him, who esteems every day alike. But not to insist upon this, let it be proved that Paul hath respect in the passages alleged to the seventh day sabbath; he speaks indeed, Col. ii. 16, of sabbaths : he mentions also Gal. iv. 10, days; but there were more sabbaths of days, than the seventhday sabbath, as we have just now shown. And although the apostle did intend the seventhday sabbath, his words cannot however extend further than the Jewish sabbath of the seventh day, after the creation, with all its circumstances and appendages, agreeably to the nature of the ancient œconomy.

5. They think that Christ declares the sabbath to be ceremonial, when he saith, Matt. xii. 5, (a) that the priests profaned the sabbath by their ceremonial works on it; as though he taught that the essence of the fourth commandment required only a cessation from labour. But who sees not that the Saviour refutes the Jews from their own principles ? for they imagined that every kind of labour, even "plucking and eating ears of corn" on the sabbath was forbidden, Christ teaches, in opposition thereto, that this was not forbidden, because otherwise the priests also would have profaned the sabbath by their religious employment on it. Inasmuch as the Jews