commonly said to be, that some part of our time be dedicatd to the public worship of God. But as this would overthrow the pretension before mentioned, that there can be no moral command about time, which is but a circumstance of moral duties, so the limitation of that time to one day in seven is, so evidently a perpetually binding law, that it will not be hard to prove the unchangeable obligation that is on all men to the observance of it, which is all, that for the substance is contended for. To avoid this it is now affirmed, (Disquisit. p. 14.) That, Morale quarti præcepti est, non unum diem sed totum tempus vitæ nostra quantum id fieri potest, impendendum esse cultui Dei, quærendo regnum Dei et justitiam ejus, atque inserviendo ædificationi proximi: quo pertinet ut Deo serviamus, ejus beneficia agnoscamus et celebremus, eum invocemus Spiritu, fidem nostram testemur confessione oris, &c. This is that which is moral in the fourth commandment, namely, that not one day, but as much as may be, our whole lives, be spent in the worship of God, in seeking his kingdom and the righteousness thereof, and in furthering the edification of our neighbour. Hereunto it belongeth, that we should serve God, acknowledge and celebrate his benefits, pray unto him in spirit, and testify our faith by our confession.'

§ 55. Answ. It is hard to discover how any of these things have the least respect to the fourth commandment, much more how the morality of it should consist in them. For all the instances mentioned, are indeed required in the first precept of the decalogue, that only excepted, of taking care to promote the edification of our neighbour, which is the sum and substance of the second table, expressed by our Saviour by "loving our neighbour as ourselves." To live unto God, to believe and trust in him, to acknowledge his benefits, to make confession of him in the world, are all especial moral duties of the first commandment. It cannot therefore be apprehended, how the morality of the fourth commandment should consist in them. And if there be nothing else moral in it, there is certainly nothing moral in it at all. For these things and the like are claimed from it, and taken out of its possession, by the first precept. And thereunto doth the general consideration of time, with respect to these duties belong, namely, that we should live unto God, whilst we live in this world.' For we live in time, and that is the measure of our duration and continuance. Something else therefore must be found out to be moral in the fourth commandment, or it must be denied plainly to have any thing moral in it.

§ 56. It is farther yet pleaded, that the Sabbath was a type of our spiritual rest in Christ, both that which we have in him at present by grace, and that which remains for us in heaven.

Hence it was a shadow of good things to come, as were all other ceremonial institutions. But that the same thing should be moral, and a shadow, is a contradiction. That which is a shadow can in no sense be said to be moral, nor on the contrary. The Sabbath therefore was merely ceremonial.'

Answ. It doth not appear, it cannot be proved, that the Sabbath, either as to its first original, or as to the substance of the command of it in the decalogue, was typical, or instituted to prefigure any thing that was future. Yea, the contrary is evident. For the law of it was given before the first promise of Christ, as we have proved, and that in the state of innocence, and while the covenant of works was in perfect force, wherein there was no respect to the mediation of Christ. I do acknowledge, that God did so order all his works in the first creation, and under the law of nature, as that they might be suitable morally to represent his works under the new creation, which, from the analogy of our redemption to the creation of all things, is so called. And hence, according to the eternal counsel of God, were all things meet to "be gathered into an head in Christ Jesus." On this account there is an instructive resemblance, between the works of one sort and of the other. So the rest of God, after the works of the old creation, is answered by the rest of the Son of God, upon his laying the foundation of the new heavens and new earth, in his resurrection. But that the Sabbath originally, and in its whole nature, should be a free institution to prefigure, and as in a shadow to represent any thing spiritual or mystical, afterwards to be introduced, is not, nor can be proved. It was indeed originally a moral pledge of God's rest, and of our interest therein, according to the tenor of the covenant of works; which things belong unto our relation unto God, by virtue of the law of our creation. It continueth to retain the same nature, with respect to the covenant of grace. What it had annexed to it, what applications it received to the state of the Mosaic Pedagogy, which were temporary and umbratile, shall be declared afterwards.

§ 57. But it is yet pleaded from an enumeration of the parts of the fourth commandment, that there can be nothing moral, as to our purpose in it. And these are said to be three. • First, The determination of the seventh day to be a day of rest. Secondly, The rest itself commanded on that day. Thirdly, The sanctification of that rest unto holy worship. Now neither of these can be said to be moral. Not the first, for it is confessedly ceremonial. The second is a thing in its own nature indifferent, having nothing of morality in it, antecedent unto a positive command. Neither is the third moral, being only the means or manner of performing that worship which is moral.'

66

Answ. It will not be granted, that this is a sufficient analysis or distribution of the parts of this command. The principal subject-matter of it is omitted, namely the observance of one day in seven" to the ends of a sacred rest. For we are required in it to sanctify the "Sabbath of the Lord our God," which was a seventh day in a hebdomadal revolution of days. Supply this in the first place in the room of the determination of the seventh day to be that day,' which evidently follows it in the order of nature, and this argument vanisheth. Now it is here only tacitly supposed, not at all proved, that one day in seven is not required.

2. Rest, in itself absolutely considered, is no part of divine worship antecedently unto a divine positive command. But a rest from our own works, which might be of use and advantage unto us, which by the law of our creation we are to attend to in this world, that we may attend and apply ourselves to the worship of God, and solemnly express our universal dependence upon him in all things; a rest representing the rest of God in his covenant with us, and observed as a pledge of our entering into his rest by virtue of that covenant, and according to the law of it; such as is the rest here enjoined, is a part of the worship of God. This is the rest which we are directed unto by the law of our creation, and which by the moral reason of this command is enjoined unto us, on one day in seven; and in these things consists the morality of this precept, on account of which it hath a place in the decalogue, which on all the considerations before mentioned, could not admit of an association with one that was purely ceremonial.

66

3. Granting the dedication of some time, or part of time, to the solemn worship of God to be required in this command, as is by all generally acknowledged; and let a position be practically advanced against this, which we insist on, namely, that one day in seven" is the time determined and limited for that purpose, and we shall quickly perceive the mischievous consequents of it. For when men have taken out of the hand of God the division between the time that is allowed unto us for our own occasions, and what is to be spent in his service; and have cast off all influencing direction from his example of working six days, and resting the seventh; and all guidance from that seemingly perpetual direction that is given us, of employing ordinarily six days in the necessary affairs of this life; they will find themselves at no small loss what to fix upon, or wherein to acquiesce in this matter. It must either be left to every individual man to do herein as seems good unto him; or there must an umpirage of it be committed to others, either to the church or to the magistrate. And hence we may expect as many different determinations and limitations of time, as there VOL. II. C c

are distinct ecclesiastical or political powers amongst Christians. What variety and changeableness would hence ensue, what confusion this would cast all the disciples of Christ into, according to the prevalence of superstition or profaneness, in the minds of those who claim this power of determining and limiting the time of public worship, is evident unto all. The instance of holy days as they are commonly called, will farther manifest what of itself lies naked under every rational eye. The institution and observance of them was ever resolved into the moral part of this command, for the dedicating of some part of our time unto God; but the determination hereof being not of God, but left to the church, as it is said, one church multiplies them without end, until they grow an unsupportable yoke unto the people; another reduceth this number into a narrower compass, a third rejects them all; and no two churches that are independent ecclesiastically and politically one on the other, do agree about them. And so will, and must the matter fall out, as to the special day whereof we discourse, when once the determination of it by divine authority is practically rejected. As yet men deceive themselves in this matter, and pretend that they believe otherwise than indeed they do. Let them come once soberly to join their opinion of their liberty and their practice together, actually rejecting the divine limitation of one day in seven, and they will find their own consciences under more disorder than yet they are aware of.

Again, if there be no day determined in the fourth command, but only the seventh precisely, which is ceremonial, with a general rule that some time is to be dedicated to the service of God, there is no more of morality in this command, than in any of those for the observance of new moons, and annual feasts with jubilees and the like; in all which the same general equity is supposed, and a ceremonial day limited and determined. And if it be so, as far as I can understand, we may as lawfully observe new moons and jubilees, as a weekly day of rest, according to the custom of all churches.

$58. The words of the apostle Paul, Col. ii. 16, 17. are at large insisted on to prove that the Sabbath was only typical, and a shadow of things future. "Let no man therefore judge you in meat or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, (ʼn σaßßarwv) or of the Sabbaths, or Sabbath days; which are a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ." For hence they say it will follow, that there is nothing moral in the observance of the Sabbath; seeing it was a mere type and shadow, as were other Mosaical institutions; as also that it is absolutely abolished and taken away in Christ.

Answ. This place must be afterwards considered, I shall

here only briefly speak unto it. And, 1. It is known and confessed, that at that time all Judaical observances of days, or the days which they religiously observed, whether feasts or fasts, weekly, monthly, or annual, were by themselves and by others, called their Sabbaths, as we have before evinced. And that kind of speech which was then in common use, is here observed by our apostle. It must therefore necessarily be allowed, that there were two sorts of Sabbaths amongst them. The first and principal was the weekly Sabbath, so called from the rest of God upon the finishing of his works. This being designed for sacred and religious uses, other days separated unto the same ends in general, came from their analogy thereunto, to be called Sabbaths also, yea, were so called by God himself, as hath been declared. But the distinction and difference between these Sabbaths was great. The one of them was ordained from the foundation of the world, before the entrance of sin, or giving of the promises, and so belonged to all mankind in general; the other were appointed in the wilderness, as a part of the peculiar church worship of the Israelites, and so belonged unto them only. The one of them was directly commanded in the decalogue, wherein the law of our creation was revived and expressed; the other have their institution expressly among the residue of ceremonial temporary ordinances. Hence they cannot be both comprised under the same denomination, unless upon some reason that is common to both sorts alike. So when God saith of them all, "You shall observe my Sabbaths," it is upon a reason common to them all, namely, that they were all commanded of God, which is the formal reason of our obedience, of what nature soever his commands are, whether moral or positive. Nor can both these sorts be here understood under the same name, unless it be with respect unto something that is common to both. Allow therefore the distinctions between them before mentioned, which cannot soberly be denied, and as to what they agree in, namely, what is or was in the weekly primary Sabbath of the same nature with those days of rest which were so called in allusion thereunto, and they may be allowed to have the same sentence given concerning them. That is, so far the weekly Sabbath be said to be a shadow, and to be abolished.

may

2. It is evident, that the apostle in this place dealeth with them who endeavoured to introduce Judaism absolutely, or the whole system of Mosaic ceremonies into the observance of the Christian church. Circumcision, their feasts and new moons, their distinctions of meats and drinks, he mentioneth directly in this place. And therefore he deals about these things so far as they were Judaical, or belonged unto the economy of Moses,