before or after but say it was lost alas poor forlorn Night that art thus strangely forsaken what a strange kind of night is this which belongs to no day what a mishapen lump of time art thou and yet how canst thou be part of time that art part of no day but onely as they say of Time flowing and running on without head or foot week or day Thesis 71. They tell us That in Joshua's time when the Sunne stood still and in Hezekiah's time when the Sunne went back that there was as great a perverting of the order of Time as this comes to and that there is as good reason to alter the time upon such a special and wonderfull occasion as Christs Resurrection as there was to disorder the course of time then but the weaknesse of this answer may appear from these things 1. That in the dayes of Ioshuah and Hezekiah there was no such monstrous mishapen piece of time cut out as here is imagined for though the Sunne stood still suppose about twelve hours in Ioshuas time and so made a day of 36 hours yeâ— these twelve hours were part of that day and of that which ordinarily makes the day viz. the motion of the Sun aboue the Earth which is ordinarily once in 24 houres onely the Lord stopt it a while and so made it a longer day and yet measured by the ordinary measure of a day viz. the Sunne compassing the earth which this night is not 2. Though some part of the weekly time was changed in some respect yet no part of sacred and Sabbath time was perverted by either the Sunnes standing still or its going back because though these things were longer then ordinary yet they were but ordinary daies in this sence viz. because there was no more to either day then that which ordinarily makes a day to wit that space of time wherein the Sun circularly compasseth the whole earth For though a seventh part of time be morally due to God man having six daies for himselfe yet this is to be understood as each day is measured by and made up of the whole compleat motion of the Sunne circling the earth now though these daies were longer then usuall in those famous times yet they were onely such daies as were made by this motion and hence there was no change or perverting of the time of the Sabbath but God hath his due then orderly But here we must make a new and strange beginning of time by leaving out a whole night and denying God a seventh day according to ordinary account and reckoning and must fall to a disorderly beginning upon pretence of a more then ordinary occasion which yet we see was not so in those extraordinary times of Hezekiah and Iosuah 3. In the daies of Iosuah and Hezekiah there was some necessity of prolonging those daies and that in a course of providence supposing that God would worke wonders by his providence but what necessity is there to begin the day when Christ did first arise for this action falling out upon the first day might sanctifie the whole day which in ordinary course should have begun at Evening we see the whole fifth of November is sanctified upon an occasion which hapned about nine or ten of the Clock and the Evening of the Passeover was sanctified before the Angel passed over the Israelites at midnight which was the occasion of the sanctification of that day what need or necessity was there to leave a whol night out of weekly account and lose such a part of precious Treasure 4. It was for the manifestation of the marvellous glory of God in the eyes of all the World good and bad to make that violation as it were of the course of Time in 〈…〉 of Iosuah and Hezekiah but what glory doth Christ gaâ—â— in the eyes of others by making the Day to begin at the Time of his Resurrection by the losse of the whole Evening before out of the account of weekely Time or what glory doth Christ loose if he should begin the day at Evening when the Iewish Sabbath ended when as the whole day thuâ— iâ— celebrated and sanctified for his glory in respect of his Resurrection upon this Day and therefore 't is a great mistake to imagine as much reason for the violation of the course of Time in respect of Christ Resurrection which makes so little for the glory of Christ as there was for the variation of Time in the daies of Iosuah and Hezekiah which made so apparently and evidently and exceedingly for the glory of God and the honour of those who were Types of Christ Thesis 72. To say that there is a necessity of beginning the Christian Sabbath when Christ first entered into his Rest the first moment of his Resurrection because the Father began the Jewish Sabbath the first moment of his Rest after his six daies Labour is not solid nor sound For there was a necessity for God the Father to begin his Rest at the end of his workâ— otherwise a morall rule had not bin observed viz. That a seventh pâ—â—t of Time be sanctified for six dayes being finished in creating the World there was now a necessity of sanctifâ—ing the seventh Day wherein his rest began least a morall rule should be exemplarily broken but there was no such necessity here for the whole Evening of the first day may be sanctified upon occasion of Christs Rest on some part of that day and no morall rule broken hereby nay there had bin a morall rule broken if the Christian Sabbath had not begun upon this Evening because hereby God should have lost a Sabbath Day within the compasse of seven dayes as they are measured by the Sun and this is directly crosse to the morality of the fourth command for if a whole night be lost as these men reckon only Time flowes on they say then it must be full seven daies and a halfe before God have a Sabbath to begin and this absurdity in the course of Time I believe will not be found in Iosuahs time nor in altering the beginning of the yeere in Moses time Exod. 12. for â—o morall rule was 〈◊〉 upon by these and such like alterations Thesis 73. It is an ungrounded assertion to say that the Reasons of the change of the Day are the same for the change of the beginning of the Day 〈◊〉 There was a Type affixed as hath bin shewen to that It 〈◊〉 Sabbath but I never yet heard of any Type in respect of the beginning of the Sabbath 2. Divine will and 〈◊〉 on changed 〈…〉 viz. That God hath one day in seven given him but God could not begin the Sabbath with excluding the Evening before Christ arose without breach of this Rule as hath bin shewenâ— the day might be kept and changed without breach of that rule but the beginning could not be changed but there would necessarily follow some breach thereof Thesis 74. To thinke that the Sabbath must needs begin
168. If God sanctified and commanded Adam to sanctifie the Sabbath it was either that he himselfe should observe it personally or successively in his posterity also now there is no reason to thinke that this is a command peculiarly binding Adam himselfe only there being the same cause for his posterity to observe a Sabbath as himselfe had which was Gods example of labour and rest and if this was given to his posterity also then it was a morall duty and not a point of meer order proper to Adam to attend unto yet Mr. Primrose for feare lest he should shoot short in one of his answers wherein he tels us that it did derogate much from the excellency of Adams condition to have any one day for God appointed unto him yet here notwithstanding hee tels us that if God had appointed such a day it was no morall thing nor yet a ceremony directing to Christ but only as a point of order which God was pleased then to subject him unto and that a man may as well conclude that it was a morall thing to serve God in Eden because it was a place which God had appointed Adam to serve him in as the seventh day to be morall because it was the time thereof but this assertion is but a meer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the text tels us expresly that God did both blesse and sanctifie the Seventh day in a speciall manner as a thing of common concernment but is never said to blesse and sanctifie the place of Eden All men in Adam were made in the image of God and was there but one thing in innocency wherein God made himself eminenâ—ly exemplary in labour and rest shal we think that that one thing was rather a point of order proper to Adam then a part of Gods image common to all the appointment of that royall seat of Eden was an act of heavenly bounty and therfore might well be proper to him in that estate but the appointment of the time for Gods speciall honour was an act of justice made and built upon a rule of common equity as may appear out of the second edition of this Law in the fourth Commandment and therefore might well be morally binding unto all and not a point of meer order only for Adam to observe Thesis 169. If Adam had stood all mankinde might and perhaps should have observed that particular seventh day for ever on earth but look as Adam observed it not meerly because it was That Seventh as hath been shewn which was but secundarily and as it were accidentally morall but because it was the Seventh day appointed of God which is firstly and primarily morall so although we now do not observe that Seventh day which Adam did yet the substance of the morality of this command given unto him is observed still by us in observing the Seventh day which God hath appointed to which the equity of this command bindes generally all mankinde hence therefore it is of little force which some object that if the Commandment to man in innocency be morall that then we are bound to observe the same Seventh day which Adam in innocency did this is oft laid in our dish but the answer is easie from what hath been said Thesis 170. If because we reade not any expresse mention that the Patriarchs before Moses time did sanctifie a Sabbath that therefore the Sabbath was not sanctified at that time we may as well argue that it was not observed all the time of the Judges nor of the books of Samuel because no express mention is made in those books of any such thing for if it be said that there is no doubt but that they observed it because it was published on Mount Sinai the like we may say concerning the Patriarchall times who had such a famâ—us manifestation of Gods minde herein from the known story Commandment and example of God in the first creation Gen. 2.2 it is not â—aid expresly that Abram kept the Sabbath but he is commended for keeping Gods Commandments Gen. 26.5 and is not the Sabbath one of those Commandments the breach of which is accounted the breaking of all Exod. 16.27 28. and may we lawfully and charitably think that Abram neglected other morall duties because they are not expâ—esly mentioned again it may be as well doubted of whether the Patriarchs observed any day at all which our adversaries confesse to be morall because it nâ—ither is expâ—esly mentionedâ— again it may be said with as good reason thâ—â— the sacrifices which they offered were without warrant from God because the Commandment for them is not expresly mentioned but we know that Abel by faith offered and faith must arise from a precedent word so that as the approved practise of holy men doth necessarily imply a command so the command given as hath been shewn to Adam doth as necessarily inferre a practise again if no duties to God were performed by the Patriarchs but such as are expresly mentioned and held forth in their examples we should then behold a strange face of a Church for many hundred years together and necessarily condemn the generatioâ— of the just for living in grosse neglects and impieties tâ—ere being many singular and speciall duties which doubtlesse were done that were not meet particularly to be mentioned in that short epitome of above 2000 years together in the book â—f Genesis and therefore for M. Ironside and Primrose to conclude that the keeping of the Sabbath had certainly been mentioned if it had been observed is very unsound M. Primrose thinks that if the Sabbath had been observed it had been then mentioned because lesser things then the Sabbath are made mention of there being also frequent occasion to speak of the Sabbath and that Moses and the Prophets would have pressed the observation of it from the Patriarchs example if they had so practised But what is this kinde of arguing but to teach the holy Ghost what and when and how to speak for there be many lesser matters exprest in many other historicall parts of the Scripture and good occasion as man may fancy to speake of the Sabbath and yet we see it is past by in â—â—ence but it is no wonder if he who questions whether there were any daies of fasting and prayer for 2000 yeeres together because they are not expresly mentioned if that he doubts also whether there were any Sabbath all that time upon the same ground but can any question that considers the sorrows of those times which all ages have put men to seek God in such duties but that they had such daies of fasting as well as their betters in Evangelicall times when the Bridegroom was gone Thesis 171. It is not improbable but that the Sacrifices of Cain and Abel Gen. 4.3 were upon the Sabbath day the usuall stated time then for such services for that which our Translation renders In processe of time the Hebrew cals it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.
the more clear and distinct knowledge of it it being the priviledge of truth to be more purified and shine the brighter by passing thorough the heats and fires of mens contentions and disputations Thesis 2. There being therefore Five severall opinions concerning this particular it may not be unusefull to bring them all to the Balance and Touchstone that so by snuffing the Candle and rejecting that which is false the light of truth may shine the brighter at last Thesis 3. Some there be who make the Time mutable and various affirming that God hath not fixed any set time or that he stands upon or would have his people troubled with such Niceties so long as the day be observed say they it is no matter when it be begun nor do they make this variation to be according to that which God allows suppose from Sun to Sun sooner or later as the time of the yeere is but according to the civill customs of severall Nations as they variously begin or end their daies among whom they live as suppose they live among Romans they think they may begin it at midnight if with Babylonians at Sun-rising if among Grecians at Sun-set if among Umbrians and Arabians at mid-day Thesis 4. If the Scripture had left us such a liberty as this viz to measure the beginning of the day according to humane custome a scrupulous conscience I think might have a most and ready quieting answer here but it will be found too true that though Civill and common Time may admit of such variations as may best suit with their manner and occasions yet sacred and holy time is not dependent upon humane customs but upon divine institutions for which purpose God hath made the lights of Heaven to be for seasons Gen. 1.14 to be guides and helps to begin and end the seasons and daies which he shall appoint Thesis 5. T is true that it suits not with Gods wisdome to determine all particular circumstances of things which are almost innumerable and infinite by the expresse letter of the Scripture and therefore he hath left us a few generall Rules to direct us therein yet for the Lord to leave the determination of some circumstances to humane liberty would be very perilous The Temple was but a circumstance of place and King Vzziah in in offering Incense varied onely in a circumstance of person yet we know that the ten Tribes were carried away captive for not sacrificing at the Temple and Vzziah smitten with Leprosie till his death so the Lord having determined the Seventh day to be his what now should hinder but that he should determine the Beginning also thereof Thesis 6. If God hath been accurately carefull to fix the beginning of other Feasts and Holy daies far inferior unto this as appeareth Levit. 23.23 Exod. 12.6 why should we think that the Lord is lesse carefull about the beginning of his Sabbath Thesis 7. If the Lord hath not left it to humane wisdome to set down the bounds and limits of holy places as appears in the Temple Tabernacle and all their appurtenances why should we think that he hath left it to mans wisdome to limit and determine holy Time Thesis 8. If the Lord will have a speciall Time of worship once within the circle of Seven daies and not appoint the Time for the beginning and end of it might he not lose much of the beauty of the holinesse of the day every thing being beautifull in its season may not man begin the day at such a season as may not be beautifull Thesis 9. The Deputation of Time for holy uses upon occasion is allowed to man yet sanctification of Time and to set the bounds and limits of it is left to no man Sanctification not only positive but relative as here in the Sabbath being as proper to the Holy Ghost as Creation to the Father and Redemption to the Son Thesis 10. Application of holy Time to the performance of holy duties on the Sabbath as to fix what houres to meet in upon that day is left to humane prudence from generall rules of Conveniency Order Comelinesse but Consecration of constant and fixed Time is the Lords propriety not onely of the middle but of the beginning and end thereof Thesis 11. The Scriptures have left the determination of the Beginning of the Sabbath no more to civill Nations and their customs then to particular Churches and each particular person for they may all equally plead against the the Lordâ— strictnesse to any exact begining of time but if such a loose liberty were granted a world of confusion scandall and division would soon appeare for some persons might then begin it at midnight some at mid-day some might mâ—asure the beginning of the Sabbath according to their sleeping sooner or latter on the Sabbath day morning some might be Plowing or dancing and drinking when others are praying and hearing of the word and who could restraine them herein for they might plead the Sabbath is not yet begun to them Thesis 12. If therefore God hath sanctified a set Time he hath set and sanctified the bounds and limits of that Time and to begin the time when we lift it may sometime arise from weaknesse but usually t is a fruit of loosnesse of heart which secretly loves to live as it lists which would not conform to Gods rule and therefore will crook and bend the rule to its humour which will not come up to Gods time and therefore make God to come downe to theirs Thesis 13. O here there be who give god the honour of determining the beginning and end of the day but they cut him short of one halfe of it in that they make the Artificiall day or the Day-Light from Sun-rising to Sun-setting to be the day of his Sabbath Thus some affirm downright Others more modestly say hâ—t mans conscience ought not to be scrupulous nor trouble it selfe if conscienciously give God the honour of the Sabbath day-light having some generall preparations for it the night before and good affections the night after Thesis 14. But if the Day-light be the measure of the Sabbath those that live in some paâ—ts of the Russia and East-land must have once a yeere a very long Sabbath for there are some times of the yeeâ—e wherein they have day-light a moneth together Thesis 15. If God give us six naturall daies to labour in is it not fit that the seventh day should beare an equall proportion with every working day and therefore it is not an Artificiall but a Naturall day consisting of twenty four houres which we must in conscience allow unto God to be the Sabbath day Thesis 16. It is true that the night is given to man to rest in it being most fit for that end but it is not necessary that all the weekâ—ly nights be spent in sleep for we then do labour and Gods providence puts men generally upon it to labour in their callings earely and laâ—e those nights
by mans Preaching a longer or a shorter time Paul might have continued Preaching longer then the Sabbath or midnight the case being extraordinary in respect of his departure the next day never to see their faces more And he might have continued a shorter time then the Sabbath continued as our Saviour himselfe did before Sun-set Mark 1.22.32 for the bounds of of continuance of the Sabbath are not set according to the beginning and end of any mans Preaching which is so exceeding uncertaine Pauls long Sermon was not continued and ended at Midnight purposely and because so long the Sabbath continued but occasionally in regard of his finall departure from them the next day and hence in respect of this extraordinary cause he continued so long at it which in ordinary course had bin very unseasonable Thesis 32. It is not said in the first of Genesis that the Morning and the Evening were the first day as if the day should begin at Morning Midnight but the Evening and the Morning were the first Day and therefore its strange that any should derive the beginning of the Sabbath from Morning Midnight out of this Text The Graecians because they begin the day at the Evening of Sunset did therefore orderly call their naturall day 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and is it probable that Moses would speake disorderly ordine retrogrado here and not rather according to the interpretation of Daniel who calls 2300 daies by name of Ghneâ—eb Boker which signifies Evenings Mornings because the Evening not the morning much lesse Midnight-Morning is to begin the day Dan. 14.26 Thesis 33. It is true that sometimes those things which are first in order of tâ—me are spoken of last in order of story and therefore it s no solid Argument to prove that the Evening is before the Morning meerly because the Evening is set downe first before the Morning unlesse it can be proved that the story sets down such things and so this in particular orderly which I suppâ—se is evident 1 Because the first darknesse is called Night and also comprehends the whole Time of night as light comhends the whole Time of the Day Gen. 1.4 5. Now I doe not find in all the Scripture nor is any man I thinkable to shew that the whole Night is taken for the Morning and therefore the first darknesse could not possibly begin at the Morning or Midnight Morning 2. Because the Scope of Moses in this Chapter is to set down not onely the work of Creation but the exact order of it and consequently of the order of Time which was consecrated with the World first the beginning of it then the succession and vicissitude of it first in the dark night then in the light day and which is all one first in the Evening then in the Morning 3. Because the Evening may be the end of the Artificiall day but I know no proofe from any instance in Scripture to make it the end of the Naturall day of which Moses here speakes and therefore as Evening cannot end the day so Midnight Morning cannot beâ—in it Thesis 34. To affirme that the Evening is never taken in Scripture for the whole Night and that therefore by the Evening we are to understand six houres Day and six houres Night as the consequence is most weake so the assertion is most false as may appear to any who seriously ponders these and such like Scriptures Hab. 1.8 Ps. 92.2 Iob. 7.4 Deut. 28.66 67. Zach 14.7 Isa. 21.12 Thesis 35. Nor can it be proved that the Evening begins at mid-day which is their principall Argument to prove that the Morning begins at midnight Thesis 36. For though it be said Ex. 29.38 39. Ex. 12.6 That the Lambe was to be slaine betweene the two Evenings as t is in the Hebrew yet neither these or any such Scriptures are able to prove that one of those Evenings must necessarily begin at mid-day but onely this that some part of the afternoone when the Sun was in his declining was one of these Evenings and some of the Iewish Rabbins begin it at noone yet it is without warrant from Scripture and they are overwhelmed with crosse Testimonies from most of their fellowes who begin it some about one some about two of the Clock in the afternoone and Iosephus who knew best his Countreymens manners and who is one of most credit in his writings tells us that they began their first Evening about three of the Clock in the afternoone Thesis 37. We read indeed of the shadowes of the Evening Ier. 6.4 but it doth not hence follow that the Evening begins at mid-day but rather some time after it the shadowes of the Evening being the shadowes of the day declining which therefore grow long but mid-day is no time of declining shadowes Thesis 38. Although the Evening may be called by humane custome all that part of the day wherein we wish men good Even from noone till Sun-set yet it s then called the Evening in respect of the Artificiall not Naturall day of which Moses speakes when he divides the day into Morning and Evening part of which afternoone is also called Evening by the Holy Ghost in Scripture because it is either approaching or hastning toward the Evening of the naturall day or contiguous to it even as part of the dark Night is sometime called Morning because it is either contiguous or not far from the Morning light and men are then usually up and preparing for it Thesis 39. And as no Text can be produced to prove that the Evening begins at mid-day so neither can any be alledged to prove the Morning to begin at mid-night The Scripture speaking properly putting an expresse difference betweene Mid-night Cocâ—-crowing and Morning Marke 13.35 Thesis 40. And therefore to Translate the words in Gen. 1 so was the Evening so was the Morning the first day and then and this glosse and interpretation viz. That out of the premisses of Night and Day so was the Evening mixed of them both so was the morning also compounded of both to wit of Night and Light this I say is but words here is no proofe for such an interpretation Iunius Translation is best and most cleare and rationall viz. So was the Evening and the Morning of the first day for as hath bin said the whole time of Night is never called by the name of Morning let any man shew the leaft Tittle in any Scripture it and I will yeeld to them in this cause Thesis 41. To affirme that the division of the naturall day Gen. 1. into Day and Night was for civill use and into Evening and Morning for Religious use in respect of the Evening and Morning sâ—crifice along time after is just such a device as his who would needs thinke that the first day of the weâ—ke was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because God foresaw and ordained the change of the Sabbath unto that first Day for we know God speakâ—s of
Our Saviour indeed doth not speak particularly about the law of the Sabbath as he doth of killing and adultery c. but if therefore it be not morall because not spoken of here then neither the first second or fift command are morall because they are not expresly opened in this Chapter for the scope of our Saviour was to speak against the Pharisaicall interpretations of the Law in curtalling of it in making grosse murder to be forbidden but not anger adultery to be forbidden but not lust which evil they were not so much guilty of in point of the Sabbath but they rather made the Phylacteries of it too broad by overmuch strictnesse which our Saviour therefore elsewhere condemns but not a word tending to abolish this Law of the Sabbath Thesis 150. If therefore the Commandment is to be accounted morall which the Gospel reinforceth and commends unto us according to Mr. Primrose principles then the fourth Commandment may wel come into the account of such as are morall but the places mentioned and cleared out of the New Testament evince thus much The Lord Jesus comming not to destroy the Law of the Sabbath but to establish it and of the breach of which one Law he that is guilty is guilty of the breach of all Thesis 151. If the observation of the Sabbath had been first imposed upon man since the fall and in speciall upon the people of the Jews at mount Sinai there might be then some colour and reason to cloath the Sabbath with rags and the worn-out garments of ceremonialnesse but if it was imposed upon man in innocency not only before all types and ceremonies but also before all sin and upon Adam as a common person as a Commandement not proper to that estate nor as to a particular person and proper to himselfe then the morality of it is most evident our adversaries therefore lay about them here that they might drive the Sabbath out of Paradise and make it a thing altogether unknown to the state of innocency which if they cannot make good their whole frame against the morality of the Sabbath fals flat to the ground and therefore it is of no small consequence to clear up this truth viz. That Adam in innocency and in him all his posterity were commanded to sanctifie a weekly Sabbath Thesis 152. One would thinke that the words of the Text Gen. 2.2 3. were so plain to prove a Sabbath in that innocent estate that there could be no evasion made from the evidence of them for it is expresly said that the dâ—y the Lord rested the same day the Lord blessed and sanctified but we know he rested the Seventh day immediatly after the Creation and therefore he immediately blessed and sanctified the same day also for the words runne copulatively he rested the Seventh day and he blessed and sanctified that day but its strange to see not only what odde evasions men make from this cleare truth but also what curious Cabilismes and fond interpretations men make of the Hebrew Text the answer to which learned Rivet hath long since made which therefore I mention not Thesis 153. The words are not thus copulative in order of story but in order of time I say not in order of story and discourse for so things far distant in time may â—e coupled together by this copulative particle And as Mr. Primrose truly shews Exod. 16.32 33. 1 Sam. 17.54 but they are coupled and knit together in respect of time for it is the like phrase which Moses immediatly after useth Gen. 5.1 2. where t is said God created man in his Image and blessed them and called their names c. which were together in time so t is here the time God rested that time God blessed for the scope of the words Gen 2.1 2 3. is to shew what the Lord did that seventh day after the finishing of the whole creation in six daiâ—s and that is He blessed and sanctified it For look as the scope of Moses in making mention of the six daies orderly was to shew what God did every particular day so what else should be the scope in making mention of the seventh day unlesse it was to shew what God did then on that day and that is he then rested and blessed and sanctified it even then in that state of innocency Thesis 154. God is said Gen. 2.1 2 3. to blesse the Sabbath as he blessed other creatures but he blessed the creatures at that time they were made Gen. 1.22 28. and therefore he blessed the Sabbath at that time he rested Shall Gods work be presently blessed and shall his rest be then without any Was Gods rest a cause of sanctifying the day many hundred yeers after as our adversaries say and was theâ—e not as much cause then when the memory of the creation was most fresh which was the fittest time to remember Gods work in M. Primrose tels us that the creatures were blessed with a present benediction because they did constantly need it but there was no necessity he saith that man should solemnize the seventh as soon as t is made but as we shall shew that man did then need a speciall day of blessing so t is a sufficient ground of believing that then God blessed the day when there was a full and just and sufficient cause of blessing which is Gods resting it being also such a cause as was not peculiar to the Jews many hundred yeers after but common to all mankinde Thesis 155. The Rest of God which none question to be in innocency immediatly after the creation was either a naturall rest as I may call it that is a bare cessation from labour or a holy rest i. a rest set apart in exemplum or for example and for holy uses but it was not a naturall rest meerly for then it had been enough to have said that at the end of the sixt day God rested but we see God speaks of a day the seventh day God hath rested with a naturall rest or cessation from creation ever since the end of the first sixt day of the world untill now why then is it said that God rested the seventh day Or why is it not rather said that he began his rest on that day but that it is limited to a day Certainly this argues that he speaks not of naturall rest meerly or that which ex natura reâ— follows the finishing of his work for it 's then an unfit and improper speech to limit Gods rest within the ciâ—cle of a day and therefore he speaks of a holy rest then appointed for holy uses as an example for holy rest which may well be limited within the compasse of a day and hence it undeniably follows that if God rested in innocency with such a rest then the seventh day was then sanctified it being the day of holy rest Thesis 156. It cannot be shewn that ever God made himself an example of any act but that in the present
the word Rested but we know how many waies some of the Hebrew â—enses look nor is it any matter now to trouble our selves about them this only may be considered That it is a meer uncertain shift to affirm that Genesis was writ after Exodus M. Ironside tels us he could give strong reasons for it but he produceth none and as for his authorities from humane testimonies we know it is not fit to weigh out truth by humane suffrages and yet herein they do not cast the scale for Genesis to be writ after Exodus for although Beda Abulensiâ— and divers late Jesuites do affirm it yet Eusebius Catharinus Alcuinns a Lapide and sundry others both Popish and Protestant writers are better judgmented herein and their reasons for Genesis to be the first-born as it is first set down seem to be most strong The casting of this cause therefore depends not upon such uncertainties and yet if this disorder were granted iâ— will do their cause no good as if need were might be made manifest Thesis 165. M. Ironside confesseth That Gods resting and sanctifying the Sabbath are â—â—etaneous and acknowledgeth the connexion of them together at the same time by the câ—pulative And and that as God actually rested so he actually sanctifed the day but this sanctification which he means is nothing else but destination or Gods purpose and intention to sanctifie â—t afterward so that in effect this evasion amounts to thus much viz. that God did actually purpose to sanctifie it about 2500. years after the giving of the Law but yet did not actually sanctifie it and if this be the meaning it is all one as if he had said in plain terms viz. that when God is said to sanctifie the Sabbath he did not indeed sanctifie it only he purposed so to do and although M. Primrose and himself tels us that the word sanctifie signifies in the Originall some time to prâ—pare and ordain so it may be said that the word signifies sometimes to publish and proclaim if they say that this latter cannot be the meaning because we reade not in Scripture of any such proclamation that this should be the Sabbath the like may be said upon the reasons mentioned concerning their destination of it thereunto Again if to sanctifie the day be only to purpose and ordain to sanctifie it then the Sabbath was no more sanctified since the Creation then ab aeterno and before the world began for then God did purpose that it should be sanctified but this sanctification here spoken of seems to follow Gods resting which was in time and therefore it must be understood of another sanctification then that which seems to be before all time again as God did not blesse the Sabbath in way of destination so neither did he sanctiffe it in way of destination but he did not blesse it in way of destination for let them produce but one Scripture where the word blessed is taken in this sence for a purpose only to blesse indeed they think they have found out this purpose to sanctifie in the word sanctified Isa. 13.3 but where will they finde the like for the word blessed also for as the day was blessed so it was sanctified and yet I think that the Medes and Persians in Isa. 13.3 are not called Gods sanctified ones because they were destinated to be sanctified for that work but because they were so prepared foâ— it as that they were actually separated by Gods word for the accomplishment of such work but our adversaries will not say that God did thus sanctifie the Sabbath in Paradice by his word and yet suppose they are called his sanctified ones in way of destination yet there is not the like reason so to interpret it here for in Isa. 13.3 God himselfe is brought in immediatly speaking before whose eternall eyes all things to come are as present and hence he might call them his sanctified ones but in this place of Gen. 2.2 Moses not God immediatly speaks of this sanctifying in way of Historicall narration only this destination which is stood so much upon is but a meer imagination Thesis 166. It cannot be denied but that it is a usuall thing in Scripture to set down things in way of Prolepsis and Anticipation as they call it i. to set down things aforehand in the history which many years hapned and came after in order of time but there is no such Prolepsis or Anticipation here as our adversaries dream so that when God is said to sanctifie the Sabbath in Genesis the meaning should be that this he did 2500. years after the creation for this assertion wants all proof and hath no other prop to bear it up then some instances of Anticipations in other places of Scripture the Jesuites from some unwary expressions of some of the Fathers first started this answer whom Gomarus followed and after him sundry others prelatically minded but Rivet Ames and others have scattered this mist long since and therefore I shall leave but this one consideration against it viz. That throughout all the Scripture we shall not finde one Prolepsis but that the history is evident and apparently false unlesse we do acknowledge a Prolepsis and Anticipation to be in the story so that necessity of establishing the truth of the history only can establish the truth of a Prolepsis in the history I forbear to give a taste thereof by any particular instances but leave it to triall buâ— in this place alledged of Gen. 2.2 can any say that the story is apparently false unlesse we imagine a Prolepsis and the Sabbath to be first sanctified in mount Sinai Exod. 20. for might not God sanctifie it in Paradise as soon as Gods rest the cause and foundation of sanctifying of it was existing will any say with Gomarus that the Sabbath was first sanctified Exod. 16. because God blessed them so much the day before with Manna whenas in the Commandment it selfe Exod. 20. the reason of it is plainly set down to be Gods resting on the seveth day and sanctifying of it long before Thesis 167. There is not the least colour of Scripture to make this blessing and sanctifying of the day to be nothing else but Gods magnifying and liking of it in his own mind rejoycing and as it were glorying in it when he had rested from his works and yet M. Primrose casts this block in the way for the blind to stumble at supposing that there should be no such Anticipation as he pleads for for surely if God blessed and sanctified the day it was a reall and an effectuall sanctification and blessing but this magnifying and glorying in it in Gods minde is no reall thing in the blessed God he having no such affections in him but what is said to be in him that way is ever by some speciall effects the simple and pure essence of God admitting no affections per modum affectus sed affectus as is truly and commonly maintained Thesis
observe it in respect of the Churches Custome and constitution as some pretend why may not the Chuâ—ches Commandment be a rule of obedience in a thousand things else as well as in this and so introduce Will-Worship and to serve God after the tradition of men which God abhors Thesis 4. The observation of the first day of the weeke for the Christian Sabbath ariseth from the force of the fourth Commandment as strongly as the observation of the media cultus or means of worship now under the New Testament doth from the force of the second Commandment only let this be supposed that the day is now changed as we shall hereafter prove as also that the worship it self is changed by divine institution for Gospel-institutions when they be appointed by divine and soveraign Authority yet they may then be observed and practised by vertue of some morall Law The Gospel appointed new Sacraments but we are to use them by vertue of the second Commandment so here the Gospel appoints a new seventh day for the Sabbath but it stands by vertue of the fourth Commandment and therefore the observation of it is not an Act of Christian Liberty but of Christian duty imposed by divine Authâ—rity and by vertue of the moral Law Thesis 5. For the morality of the fourth Commandment as hath been proved being preserved in observing not that Sabbath only nor yet a Sabbath meerly when man sees meet but in observing the Sabbath i. e. such a Sabbath as is determined and appointed of God which may therefore be either the first or last of the seven dayes Hence it is that the first of the seven if it be determined and instituted of God under the New Testament ariseth equally from the fourth Commandment as the last seventh day did under the old Testament and therefore it is no such piaculum nor delusion of the common People as Mr. Brabourne would make it to put the Title of the Lords Sabbath upon the Lords day and to call it the Sabbath day for if it be borne out of the same wombe the first seventh was if it arise I mean from the same Commandment Remember to keep holy the Sabbath day why may it not bear the name of the Sabbath nâ—w as the first-born did in former times Thesis 6. If the Lord would have man to worke six dayes together according to his own example and the morality of the fourth Commandement that so a seventh day determined by himselfe might be observed Hence it is that neither two Sabbaths in a week can stand with the morality of the fourth Commandement nor yet could the former Sabbath be justly changed into any other day then into the first day of the week the first day could not belong to the week before for then there should be eight days in a week and if it did belong to the week following then if we suppose that the second day had been the Sabbath there must be one working day viz. the first day to go before it and five working dayes after it and so there should not nor could not be six working dayes continued together that the seventh might be the Lords according to the morality of the fourth Commandement And hence it is that no Humane or Ecclesiasticall power can change the Sabbath to what day of the week they please from the first which now is Thesis 7. It should not seem an uncouth Phrase or a hard saying to call the first day of the weeke a seventh or the seventh day for though it be the first absolutely in order of existence from the Creation yet relatively in way of relation and in respect of the number of seven in a week it may be invested with the name and title of a seventh even of such a seventh as may lawfully be câ—owned and annointed to be the Sabbath day for look as Noah though he was the first in order of yeares and dignity of entrance into the Ark yet he is called the eight 2 Pet. 2.5 in that he was one of them as the learned observe qui octonarium numerum perficiebant or who made up the number of eight so it is in respect of the first day which in divers respects may be called the first and yet the seventh also Mr. Brabournes Argument therefore is of no solidity who goes about to prove the Christian Sabbath to be no Sabbath Because That Sabbath which the fourth Commandement injoynes is called the seventh day but all the Evangelists cal the Lords day the first day of the week not the seventh day For he should remember that the same day in divers respects may be called the first day and yet the seventh day for in respect of its naturall existence and being it may be and is called the first day and yet in respect of divine use and application it may be and is called the seventh day even by vertue of the fourth Commandement which is the Lords day which is confessed to be the first day Thesis 8. For although in numero numerante as they call it i. e. in number numâ—â—ing there can be but one seventh which immediately follows the number six yet in numero numerato i. e. in number numbred or things which are numbred as are the dayes of the week any of the seven may be so in way of relation and proportion As suppose seven men stand together take the last man in order from the other six who stand about him and he is the seventh so againe take the first in order and set him apart from the six who stand below him and if the number of them who are taken from him make up the number of six he then may and must necessarily be called the seventh Just thus it is in the dayes of the week the first Sabbath from the Creation might be called the seventh day in respect of the six dayes before it and this first day of the week may be called the seventh day also in respect of the six working dayes together after it That may be called the last seventh this the first seventh without any absurdity of account which some would imagine and if this first day of the week is called the eight day according to Ezekiels Prophesie of Evangelicall times and his reckoning onward from the Creation Ezek. 43.27 why may it not then in other respects put on the name of a seventh day also Thesis 9. The reason why the Lord should depose the last seventh and exalt and crowne the first of seven to be the day of the Christian Sabbath is not so well considered and therefore to be here narrowly examined For as for those Easterne Christians who in the primitive times observed two Sabbaths in a week the Jewish and the Christian doubtlesse their milke sod over and their zeale went beyond the Rule The number of Jewes who were beleevers and yet too too zealous of their old customes we know did fill those places in their dispersion and before more then
darkenesse is not so called Night but the separated darkenesse Gen. 1.3 when God separated the light into one Hemisphere and darknesse into another Thesis 84. But this arguing is almost against the expresse Letter of the Text Gen. 1. wherein it is most evident that light was created after darknesse had bin some time upon the face of the deepe which darknesse cannot be part of the Day-light no more then blindnesse is a part of sight and therefore is a part of the Night before this conceived separated darkenesse could exist Beside the separation of darknesse from light doth not make any new darkenesse which is a new denominated darkenesse but is the same darkenesse which was at first onely the separation is a new placeing of it but it gives no new being to it Thesis 85. Suppose also that light and darknesse are contraria privantia yet 't is not true either in Philosophy or Divinity that the habit must alway actually goe before the privation in the same subject for the privation may be first if it be in subjecto capaci i. e. In a subject capable of the habit for silence may be before speech in a man and blindnesse and deafenesse in a man who never saw nor heard a word because man is a subject capable of both and so here darknesse might be before light because this subject of the first matter was capable of both Thesis 86. Nor is it true in Divinity that the darkenesse and light were at first separated into two Hemispheres or if they were yet what orthodox Writer affirmes that the supposed separated darkenesse onely is called Night Thesis 87. For looke as the darkenesse did overspread the whole Chaos and all the dimensions of it at the same time why might not the light the habit be extended as far as was the privation before and that at the same time there being no globe or dense body of earth and waters existing as now they doe at that time created and consequently no opake and solid body to divide betweene light and darkenesse and so to seprate them into two Hemispheres as by this meanes it is at this day unlesse we imagine miracles without necessity and that God then miraculously did it when there was no necessity of it For the Element of fire being figuratively called light it being as Iunius shewes proprietas essentialls ignis being also created in the superiour part of the vast Chaos might therefore be cast downe by a mighty hand of God there being no ordinary meanes of Sun or Stars yet created to do it into all the inferiour Chaos and so make day And the ascending of this light upwards againe might make it to be Night and therefore although God separated between light and darkenesse yet this separation seâ—mes to be rather in respect of time then in respect of place or two Hemispheres for the light when it was east downe separated and scattered the darkenesse and so excluded it so that when there was light there was no darknesse when darkenesse there was no light and thus they succeeding and excluding one another the Lord is said to separate them one from another but not into two imagined Hemispheres by which imagination of two Hemispheres it will be also very difficult to set downe when it was day and when it was night at this time of the Creation because in respect of one part of the Chaos it might be called day in respect of the other Hemisphere of the Chaos it might be called night and therefore it seems more suitable to the truth that the descending of the Light made day thorowout the whole Chaos remaining and the ascending of it to its proper place successively made night which as it answers many curious questions about the nature and motion of this light so it yeelde a more then probable argument that if the day-light continued twelve houres which none question why should not each night continue as long and therefore that the first darknesse did continue such a time before the creation of the Light Thesis 88. But suppose this locall separation into two Hemispheres was granted yet it will not follow from hence that this separated darknesse onely is called night and that the darkenesse before was no part of it for if the day and night began at the imagined division of light and darknesse then this division being in an instant of time neither could the day be before the night nor the night before the day but both exist and begin together and then it will follow that the beginning of the first day was neither in the morning nor evening in darknesse nor light in night nor day but that it began in the morning and evening day-light and dark night together which is too grosse for any wise man to affirm nor would the God of Order do it Againe if the first darkenesse which was prâ—eexistent to this Hemisphericall light and darknesse was no part of the night then much lesse was it any part of the first day-light and so no part of the naturall day which if any should affirm they must deny the creation of the world in six dayes for its evident that the Heavens and Earth were made in the time of the first darknesse Thesis 89. To say that this first darknesse was part of the morning and did belong to the morning-light as now some time of darknesse in the the morning is called morning and therefore is called the womb of the morning Psal. 110.2 is a meer shift to prove the beginning of time to be in the morning and an evasion from the evidence of truth For 1. This first darknesse must either be the whole night consisting as the light did of about twelve houres and then it cannot possibly be called morning or belong thereunto or it must be part of the night and that which came after the light another part of it and then we may see a monstrous day which hath part of its night before it and part after it beside its contrary to the Text which makes the whole morning together and the whole evening together the whole day-light together and so the whole night together 2. That darknesse which by an improper speech we make to belong to the morning in our ordinary account is the latter part of the night or of the darknesse but we read not in all the Scripture nor is it suitable to any solid reason to make the first beginning of Night or darknesse as part of the morning Now this first darknesse which is the beginning of darknesse is called night at least is the beginning of night and therefore cannot be called morning but evening rather as we usually call the first beginning of darknesse after day light Thesis 90. That expresse Commandment Lev. 23 32. to celebrate the Ceremoniall Sabbath from Even to Even doth strongly prove the beginning of the morall Sabbath at the same time for why else is it called a Sabbath of rest but because