CHAP. I.
SECT. I.

THat they had Sacred Places known by the name of the Houses of God, the Presence of God, &c. is plain from Gen. 28. 17, 22. This is none other but the House of God: meaning the place of the Al­tar which his Grandfather Abraham had Erected at his first arrival in Ca­naan, where his and Lot's Families used to call upon the Name of the Lord, Gen. 12. 8. And he removed thence unto a Mountain on the East of Bethel, and Pitched his Tents, having Bethel [Page 4] on the West, and Hai on the East: and there he builded an Altar unto the Lord, and called upon the Name of the Lord. And Chap. 13. 3. And he went on his Journey from the South, even to Bethel, unto the Place where his Tent had been at the beginning, between Bethel and Hai, unto the place of the Altar which he had made there at the firct: and there Abraham called upon the Name of the Lord. In both these Texts the Place appears to be the very same where Jacob had the Visions of God, to wit, Bethel, betwixt Ai and Bethel, (that is) the House of God betwixt the Ci­ty Ai and the City Luz: for so was that City called at the first ( Gen. 28. 19.) and afterwards, Bethel, from the House of God adjacent: as the Towns Kirby Kendal, Kirby Lunsdal, Kirby Steven, have their Names from the Churches there built. Now that Abraham solemnized Publick Divine Worship here, ut Familiam suam in Pi­etate instrueret, that he might edifie his Family in Piety (to use the words of Batablus) may be rationally con­cluded [Page 5] from hence, that he did not only Pray there (as our English Trans­lation seems to limit it) but also Preach, or call to the Audience in the Name of the Lord; for both the Heb. and Septuag. lead to that sense, Voca­vit in Nomine Domini, he Called or Preach't in the Name of the Lord: that is, he profest the true Worship of God. (So Maluenda) Predicavit de Nomine Jehovae; he Preach't of the Name of God. (So Piscator and Ains­worth (Charah Clamare, to call to God, is to Pray: to call to Men, is to Preach, saith Ainsworth: and from Charah seems to be derived [...], to Preach or Proclaim. Hence Jacob promised, that at his return, that should be to him the House of God; that is, there he would worship God, as the Cald. Paraphrase, and Ainsworth explain that Text. Briefly, how could Jacob so readily have hit upon this name [ House of God] if there had not been such things in being, as Houses of God. It is further observable here, as Ains­worth notes, that such separate Places were stiled [ the Presence of God] and [Page 6] that it was from the Presence of God in this sense, that Cain was thrust: and Satan went out, Job. 2.

SECT. II.

That the Patriarchal Church had Publick Ministers separated by calling to officiate in these Publick Places de­dicated to Divine Worship, with pub­lick allowance of Tithes for their Main­tenance, is manifest;

1. From Abraham's paying Tithes to Melchisedeck the Priest of the High God, who blessed him, Gen. 14. 18.

2. From Jacob's Vow to give God, at his return, the Tenth of all that God should give him ( Gen. 28. 22.) for he was Priest himself to his own Fami­ly, and therefore must have been both the Paymaster and Receiver of the Vowed Tithes (and what would this have been but a plain mocking of God under a splendid shew of Devotion) except he had in his Eye an order of Priests of the High God to pay them unto, whose Office it was to Serve at [Page 7] the Altar, and whose Priviledge it was to live of the Altar. That is a wild conceit of Oleaster, that he either meant to consume the Tithes in Sacri­fice, or that his Posterity should pay them to the Priests in the time of the Law. This last is ridiculous, for how could Jacob's Posterity (so many Ge­nerations after) pay the Tithe of what God had blest Jacob with: and the first is not much better; for the di­stinction of Beast and Fowl into Clean and Vnclean, could have no other ground before the Flood (seeing all were prohibited as to Man's Eating, till after the Flood) but God's com­manding some kinds of them to be of­fered in Sacrifice, and prohibiting other kinds: which declaration of God's Will was so manifest to the Patriarchs before the Flood, as Noah knew every particular kind, both of Clean and Vn­clean, and therefore took to him into the Ark, of the Clean by Sevens, of the Unclean by Pairs (Gen. 7. 2.) and Sacrificed of every Clean Beast and Clean Fowl at his coming out of the [Page 8] Ark (Chap. 8. 20.) It had been therefore an abomination to God for Jacob to have offered the Vnclean in Sacrifice. Now it is apparent that God gave him Unclean as well as Clean: if he himself hath given a true Inventory of his Goods: for he not only sends his Brother Esau word, that he had Asses, but sends him a Present of twenty She-Asses (Gen. 32. 5, 15.) And Chap. 30. 42. we find Camels and Asses that God had blessed him with: yea, that in his whole Flock he had not one that he would own for his, but confest it stollen from Laban, that was not spot­ted and speckled, &c. Gen. 30. 33. [ Every one that is not speckled and spot­ted among the Goats, and brown among the Sheep, shall be accounted stollen with me.] The Tithe of these being all Vnclean, Jacob could not offer in Sa­crifice: it remains therefore that he paid them to the Priests of the High God. And such Priests could not be wanting in the time of Jacob; for we find them in being many hundreds of years after, and yet before the giving [Page 9] of the Law; witness Jethro, Moses's Father in Law, who was Priest of Mi­dian (Exod. 3. 1.) and a Priest of the High God, to whom he offered a Burnt-Offering and Sacrifices, inviting Aaron and the Elders to eat Bread with him be­fore the Lord, Exod. 18. 12. Where, before the Lord, can signifie nothing else, but in the Place appointed for Di­vine Worship: Moses being now in­camp't at the Mount of God, so called from the House of God, there Erected for the Worship of God, the Tabernacle not being yet Built.

3. That the Patriarchal Church had such Priests who had Publick Mainte­nance, may be also proved from Gen. 47. 22. The Priests Lands were not sold in the Famine; but they had Portions al­lowed them out of the Kings Store-houses. Potiphara, Joseph's Father in Law, was one of those Priests, and had for his Province, On, that is, Heliopolis (Gen. 41. 45. and was probably a Worship­per of the True God, seeing it is hard to conceive that so Religious a Man as Joseph would have married his [Page 10] Daughter if he had been an Idolater; considering how dear such unequal Matches of the Sons of God to the Daughters of Men had cost the Old World: (which Joseph could not be ignorant of) and how careful his Great Grandfather Abraham, and Grandfather Isaac were to provide Wives for their Sons out of Religious Families. Yea, if Joseph was the Egyptian Ox, their most Antient and Chief Deity, as the most Learned conceive: Egypt was not so over­whelmed with Idolatry at this time, but that there might be many Priests and Servants of the True God there­in. For that Pharaoh who took Sarah into his House, seems to have had a Religions Sense of the True God, by his Expostulating with Abraham (Gen. 12. 18.) And which is most strange, Abimelech King of Gerar, the Metropo­lis of Palestine, in the Tribe of Simeon, in the very heart of those seven Nati­ons whose Sins were ripe so long be­fore others, seems in his Discourse with Abraham touching Sarah, to give [Page 11] great proof of the Uprightness of his heart towards God, and did under­stand the benefit of Intercession made for him by the Prayer of a Prophet, for otherwise God would not have urged him by that argument to re­store Sarah to Abraham. Now how could he have understood that, if the distinction of Prophets by Calling, and the Custome of Persons separate by Calling, to put up Prayers for the People, had not been in use in his Kingdom, which he therefore stiles a Righteous Nation, because the Fear of God (that is, the True Worship of God, saith Grotius) was there, contra­ry to Abraham's uncharitable and rash Censure (Gen. 20. 9, 10.) Nay from this instance of the King of Gerar and his People, it is more than probable, that the King of Egypt forementioned, and his People were at that time the Worshippers of the True God. And though perhaps part of the Aegyptian Priests were in that degenerate Age imployed in the Service of Idols, yet the Institution of the Calling it self, [Page 12] and the Publick Maintenance annex'd thereto, was truly Patriarchal, as ap­pears,

4thly. From Cain and Abel bring­ing their Oblations ( Gen. 4. 3.) And it came to pass, that in process of time Cain brought of the fruit of the ground, an Offering unto the Lord, &c. Where I note,

1. That they brought their Oblati­ons to Adam, who was Priest, that he might offer them to God, as the He­brew Doctors teach, (saith P. Fagius.) And the Text makes for this: for it is not said that they themselves offered them, but that they brought them to be offered to the Lord; that is, by the hands of Adam, the Priest of the Lord.

2. That they brought them to the Place appointed for Prayer, as Aben Ezra observes, from whence it may be infer'd, that they met together to worship God in a Place destined there­unto, and that there were always So­lemn Meetings of Pious Men for the Worship of God; and from Cain's not [Page 13] having that due reverence to this Sa­cred Assembly which he ought to have had, the Hebrew Doctors conclude, That he who has not a due regard to Church-As­semblies, shall have no part in the Age to come, (P. Fagius.) And that those Oblations of Cain and Abel were offer'd in a Publick Assembly, is apparent from the dejection of Cain's Countenance upon Gods rejecting his Offering: for if God had declared his acceptance of Abel's Offering before Cain's, only in private to his own Conscience, what offence could Cain have taken there­at? Nay, if God by some visible to­ken of his displeasure, had not shamed him before the Assembly, he would have been no more affected with a private Check, then he was with that which God gave him afterwards, notwithstanding which he slew his Brother: besides, the Apostle's Ex­pression is a confirmation of this, Heb. 11. 4. [ [...]] God testifying of his Gift; for to what pur­pose is giving his Testimony, if it be not in publick. Hereunto assent the [Page 14] most Judicious Divines, who conceive that God gave open Testimony of his acceptance of Abel's Offering, by con­suming it with Fire sent down from Heaven; so Fagius, Lyra, &c. so al­most all the Fathers, says Mede, Turi­nus, &c. and Ainsworth observes, that it was usual for God to declare his ac­ceptance of Mens Offerings, or reject­ing of them; the first, by sending Fire from Heaven to consume them to ashes; the other by leaving the Sa­crifice untouch't. We have Instances of the first, Levit. 9. 24. when Aaron made the first Oblation. 1. Chron. 21. 26. when David Sacrificed on the Threshing-Floor of Ornon. 2 Chron. 7. 1. when Solomon Dedicated the Temple. And of both, 1 Kings 18. in the Contest betwixt Gods Prophets and Baals. And in this Case of Cain and Abel▪ where Cain's Sacrifice was not toucht by that Fire that consumed Abel's: See Mede, Turinus, &c. See Viccars his Decupla, Psal. 20. 4. Nay, some Hebrew Doctors, saith Fagius, tells us, that in that Fire falling from [Page 15] Heaven, and consuming those Sacrifices that God accepted, there was the appear­ance of the Face of a Lion, God thereby signifying that Mens Persons and Obla­tions are acceptable to Him only through Christ, that Lion of the Tribe of Ju­dah. ( See Fagius.)

3. The third Observation I make from this Text, is, That Cain and Abel had Families and Substance distinct from Adam's; for Abel is commended for bringing the Firstlings and Fat of the Flock; but it would have been no thanks to him to have cut large shives out of his Fathers Loaf. Which is ano­ther argument that this was a Publick Church-Assembly, consisting of many Families.

4. The fourth and last Note I make upon this Text, is this: Seeing Cain's Oblation was not consumed by Fire, which way could it be disposed of, but to the use of the Priest that officiated. For it having been once dedicated to God, could not be alienated, without Sacriledge; and therefore must fall to the Portion of him that served at the [Page 16] Altar, that he might live of the Altar, having nothing else of the Altar to live upon, but the Remainder of Ob­lations of the Fruit of the Ground. Seeing all Oblations of Beasts and Fowl were whole Burnt-Offerings: (and therefore by the way, it is a vain Question to ask, what became of the Re­mainder of such Sacrifices) and seeing also that Man was then confin'd to the Fruit of the Ground for his Food. To conclude, we see the Patriarchs had stated Publick Religious Assemblies, Celebrated in Stated Places, separate to that use, and guided by Persons se­parate by Special Calling to that Work, and maintained by Tithes, Oblations, &c. Now it is against all Reason, to think that the Faithful paid Tithes to their Priests upon any other account than that of their Sowing Spirituals in the Assemblies of the Faithful, whose Temporals they reaped.

SECT. I.

FOr the Proof of this, let it be ob­served,

1. That the Computation of Time by Weeks, is common to all Ages, for it was in use in the Patriar­chal [Page 20] Age, long before Moses, as is ma­nifest from that Speech of Laban to Ja­cob, Gen. 29. 27. [ Fulfil now her week] Some Learned Men, to evade that Mortal Stroak which this Text giveth the Prolepsis, are pleased to say, that by Week is here meant Seven Years, which Jacob was to serve after his Marriage to Leah, before he had Rachel given to him for Wife: and that the Inter­pretation of a Seven days Nuptial Feast, was invented by later Jews, and is a manifest Violation of the Text, and Contradictory in it self. I shall there­fore in vindication of that sense of this Text that I give (to wit, that by her Week, is meant the seven days of Leah's Nuptial Feast) offer these things to Consideration.

1. [Fulfil her Week, and we will give thee this also] Here her and this are contra-distinguish't. And by this is meant Rachel, as is manifest of it self; and therefore by her, must be meant Leah; and by her Week, Leah's Week. Which can be nothing else but her Nuptial Feast of seven days: [Page 21] for Jacob never served seven years for Leah. Nay, he would not have served seven days for her, if it had not been for the love he bare to Rachel.

2. [ And Jacob did so: he fulfilled her Week; and he gave him Rachel al­so to Wife] This answers exactly to Laban 's Proposal: so that her Week, both here and there, is Leah 's Week: and, the this also, there, is Rachel also, here. The meaning therefore of La­ban 's Proposal, can be no other but this, Fulfil her Week; that is, the seven days of Leah's Nuptial Feast: Do not disturb the Marriage Feast by renouncing Leah, and we will give thee Rachel also at the end of the seven Nuptial days, up­on condition that thou shalt serve me yet other seven Years; for seeing I have cheat­ed thee of thy Wages for one seven Years, I cannot think thee so great a fool, as to trust me for one seven Years more: and therefore consummate thy Marriage with Leah by a voluntary lying with her the remaining Nights of the Marriage Festi­val (for it was against thy Will that thou lay with her this Night) And I [Page 22] will cast Rachel into thy Arms, and thou shalt have thy Wages in hand, before thou begin thy service of other seven Years.

3. They that are for this Interpre­tation, are the Cream of Criticks, who, for Illustration, alledge that Parallel Text, Judg. 14. 12, 15, 17. concern­ing Sampson's Nuptial Feast of seven days, as the Custom of those Eastern Countries. See Munster, Vatablus, Gro­tius, Lyra, Estius, Junius and Trem. Syriach, Aben Ezra, David Kimhi, Je­rome Ainsworth, Cornel. a Lapide, Bon­frerius, Malvenda, Menochus, and Paul Fagius in his Collation of Translations. But the reasons they bring against the other Interpretation, sway more with me, than the authority of their great Names; from the rest I shall Cull this one of Tirinus and Ainsworth, Viz. ‘That it is utterly inconsistant with Scripture Chronologie. For Jacob lived only twenty years with Laban (Gen. 31. 41.) The first seven where­of he served before he Married Leah, and if he had served other seven be­fore he Married Rachel, the six re­maining [Page 23] years would prove too short a space of time for the Conception, Birth, and Suckling of the Children that were born to him after his Mar­riage of Rachel.’ For the evincing of this, note,

1. That it was the Custome of Patriarchal Matrons to Nurse their Children. ( Gen. 21.)

2. That Reuben, Leah's First Born, was not conceived till some conside­rable time after the Marriage of Ra­chel: for it was in pity of Leah that God opened her Womb ( Gen. 29. 31.) [And when the Lord saw that Leah was hated, he opened her Womb, but Rachel was Barren] A Barren Virgin sounds harshly in Physicks; and Jacob's loving Rachel before he was Married to her, more than his Wife Leah, sounds worse in Morals.

3. After Reuben, Leah bears three Sons more, and then ceaseth Child­bearing, while Bilha, Rachel's Maid bare Jacob two Sons, and while Zilpa (after Bilha had given over Child­bearing) bare two Sons: after all [Page 24] which Leah bears two Sons and one Daughter: and after that Rachel bears Joseph, Gen. 30. and is so far gone in Child with Benjamin before she left her Father's Country, as in her Jour­nying thence she was Brought to Bed, Gen. 30. So that after Rachel's Mar­riage, Jacob had twelve Children born unto him at single Births, and in seve­ral years; for the Bearing and Suck­ling whereof, thirteen years space is little enough. The Week therefore that Jacob fulfil'd, before Laban gave him Rachel to Wife, and he went in unto her (which was the Consum­mation of Marriage) cannot, without manifest Contradiction of Scripture, be expounded a Week of Years, but of Days; and that Week of Days can be no other than the seven Days of Leah's Nuptial Feast: and this fulfilling of Leah's Week, did both sute Labans co­vetous humour, who by this means put off two Daughters with the Ex­pence of one weeks Feasting; and se­cure Jacob from being defrauded of Rachel, after other seven Years Ser­vice, [Page 25] as he had been the first seven years. And lastly, secure Leah's Mar­riage, whom Jacob might have re­nounced in the Morning, if his lying with her that night in-voluntarily, had not been seconded with his voluntary lying with her the succeeding Nights of the Feast: No Evasion here but the Sanctuary of a Prolepsis, Jacob got Children by Anticipation.

This argument is so cogent, as to make room for these so many Births. From the Premises it is apparent, that the distinction of Time by Weeks, was in use in the Patriarchal Age, long be­fore Moses.

SECT. II.

And as this Computation of time by Weeks was common to all Ages, so al­so to all Nations; witness the Tran­scendent Encomiums given by Gentiles to the Seventh Day. Hesiod. stiling it, [...] the Sacred Day: which Title Homer also gives to it more than once, and saith, that on that day all [Page 26] things were perfected: With whom concurs Linus, affirming that [ On the Seventh Day all things were brought forth Perfect, that it was the World's Birth-day, the chief of Days, and perfectly good] as Gataker quotes them at large: From whence may be Col­lected,

1. That it is the only certain Com­putation of Time wherein all Nations unanimously agree. For though the division of Time into Months & Years, be universally embraced, yet, about the Compution of both, there have been as many different Practises al­most, as Nations; some reckoning to a Month more, some fewer days, some reckoning to a Year more, some few­er Months; as the Romans before Ju­lius Caesar, had but ten Months in their Year; and even his emendation of the Kalendar was not exact. But for this, see Scaliger, De Emendatione Temporum.

2. That which I infer from the Premises in the next Place, is this, That the Calculation of Time by [Page 27] Months and Years was of humane In­vention, as being perfected by degrees; and though the Patriarchs before the Flood, in respect of their Longevity, had a very great advantage of observ­ing the Course of Sun and Moon, yet they attained not to so perfect a know­ledge thereof, as to settle and fix an Astr onomical Canon, but left that to the Industry of future Ages: for otherwise Noah would have commu­nicated that Canon to his Posterity, and some of them would have kept in memory, and have delivered down by uninterruped Succession, a Tradition so universally advantagious to Man­kind.

3. That the Computation of Time by Weeks was of divine Institution, as being perfect at first (as all God's Works are, Deut. 32. 4.) communi­cated to, and received of the whole Race of Mankind without dispute, or least difference in Practice: till God was pleased to appoint the Jews ano­ther beginning of Weeks (as also of Years) than he had instituted at the [Page 28] beginning. Now it is not imaginable how the whole World could thus una­nimously agree in this division of Time by sevens of Days, if they had not received it by uninterrupted tra­dition from the Patriarchs; nor from whence the Patriarchs could derive it but from God's resting upon, and san­ctifying the Seventh Day: Of the sence of which Text, we cannot pos­sibly have a better Interpreter than this universal Practice of all Nations,

SECT. III.

Except what the sacred Text gi­veth, to which I shall now apply my self, and begin with Gen. 4. 3. [and in process of time] or, as the Hebrew hath it, Milkits Jamim, [at the end of Dayes.] Many Learned men, follow­ing the Hebrew Doctors, understand by dayes, a year of dayes; others un­derstand by dayes, years. They that by days understand a year of dayes, conceive these Oblations brought by Cain and Abel, to have been brought [Page 29] at the end of the year, when they had gathered the Fruits of the Earth; that being a time when even the Gentiles celebrated the divine Goodness by Sa­crifices and Praises, as Ainsworth ob­serves out of Aristotle, Homer, Pliny, and the twelve Tables. But I must crave leave to dissent, not so much upon the account of the authority of judicious Mr. Gataker, as of the strength of the reason he brings for his Opini­on. At the end of dayes, (i. e.) saith he, that is, on the Sabbath Day, which concludes the days of the Week. For no other distinction of days had hi­therto been mentioned by Moses, than that which comprehends the Septi­mane, Gen. 2. 2, 3. An Argument of more weight, if seriously considered, than it seems to have at a transitory Glance, for

1. It is very probable, that Adam was so taken up with the Contempla­tion of Gods Mercy to him, in Re­deeming him by the Blood of the Pro­mised Seed, that he greatly minded not any other Computation of Time, but [Page 30] that which God had appointed him, in Commemoration of his Perfecting the Work of Creation, by making Adam a New Creature; (of which, more in the Sequel of this Dis­course)

2. However, most certain it is, that hitherto no Division of Time but that, is mentioned; and if Moses had in­tended here to express another Com­putation (as suppose, that, by Years) Years had as soon been said as Days: and afterwards he Computes the Ages of the Patriarchs by Years: if such a Computation of Time had been now in use, as a Year, why did not Moses mention Years here as well as after­wards.

SECT. IV.

The next Text I urge for Proof of this Branch of my Discourse, is Job. 1. 6. and 2.

1. There was a Day when the Sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord. And, Again there was a Day, &c. Or, the Day came about [Page 31] again, when the Sons of God, &c. I wonder to find so many Learned Men Interpreting [ Sons of God] in this Text, by [ Angels] herein following the Septuagint [caterva Angelorum] But the best is, it will not go down with the most Judicious of them, without the Salvo of a Prosopopeia; for when this question is put, How is this Place according to this Exposition [the Sons of God, that is, the Angels] to be taken? Literally, or Figuratively? Tirinus indeed answers, Literally: from the authority of Athanasius, Sal­vian, and Lactantius. For Lactantius, I think it not strange that he should interpret [ Sons of God] by [ An­gels] in this Text of Job, seeing I find him expounding that Text, Gen. 6. 2. by Good Angels, as being of opi­nion that the Good Angels, who were set to guard them, sell in Love with the Daughters of Men. The other Opinion mentioned by Lyra and Esti­us, were more tolerable than this of Lactantius, to wit, That the Sons of God, that is. Daemones Incubi, the Un­clean [Page 32] Angels committed with the Daugh­ters of Men: but that it will be hard to find a Text where Devils are called the Sons of God: and yet I am perswad­ed, we may as soon find a Text where that bad, as where good Angels are stiled the Sons of God in the Patriarchal Idi­ome; as will be cleared by and by: for though Tirinus be for the Literal sense of this Text, yet the rest who concur with him in their expounding [ the Sons of God] to be [ Angels] will by no means allow that this Text be ta­ken Literally. Others (saith Emm. Sa) accipiunt Parabolice, interpret it Parabolically. This thing was not done as is here reported, but there is in the words a Prosopopeia or Hypo­typosis, saith Mariana, Haec non crasse & ad Literam gesta. So Grotius, Per Prosopopeian vel [...] indicat haec omnia, &c. So Scultatus: the Divine Providence is here explained under the Form of humane Judgements, So Cocceius. And though Pinda and Sanctius say, That no Inconveniency or Absurdity is Intail'd upon the Literal [Page 33] sense. Yet Mercer flys to the subter­fuge of the Figurative Sense, from those Absurdities that follow from the Lite­ral: Satan (saith he) cannot proper­ly be said to come into the Presence of God (for in God's Presence is Fulness of Joy) nor can the good Angels be said proper­ly to present themselves before the Lord, one day rather than another, for they con­tinually are before him, beholding his Face.

But let them that expound, the Sons of God, Angels, agree the matter among themselves how they please: I demand in the mean time a solid rea­son, or but the shadow of one; why I must be tyed to that Exposition of one Phrase, that renders the whole Con­text absurd and unintelligible without the help of a Figure, when I have an Interpretation at hand of that Phrase that renders the whole Sentence, in every Letter of it, every way conso­nant to right Reason, and the Analo­gy of Faith, and is not incumbred with any absurd consequence: for Satan might come into the Presence of God, [Page 34] in this Sense, as he entred into Judas while he was celebrating the Passover with our Saviour and the rest of the A­postles, John 13. 27. And God might discourse with him in this Assembly of God's People without disturbing the Congregation, as well as he discours'd with Moses while he stood before Pha­raoh. Divine Revelations may well be communicated to faithful men, even in the presence of bad men ( Mede upon Exo. 11. 1.) and why may not God as well discourse with Satan in the presence of good men? Why therefore should we recede from this literal sence? especially when we have the onely Text besides this appertain­ing to the Patriarchal Age, where the same Phrase occurs intire, without addition or diminution, to warrant me to make that interpretation, from the plain and indubitable sense of that Phrase in that parallel Text.

To explain my self more particularly; the only Text relating to the Patriar­chal Age, where this phrase, the Sons of God, occurs intire, is that, Gen. 6. 2. the [Page 35] Sons of God saw the Daughters of men that they were fair, and they took them Wives of all that they Chose. I know some of ours are so inamour'd of Rabbinical Whimsies as to follow the Hebrew Doctors in their interpreting [ Sons of God] here to be as Angels. But it's strange how any man not prejudic'd, and in his Right wits, can put that Sense upon the Text; seeing the good Angels neither marry nor are given in Marriage ( Mar. 12. 25.) And though we have stories not altogether improbable, of Incuby and Succuby, yet a man may look his Eyes out, before he find a text where evil Angels are called, the Sons of God. I therefore▪ expect the assent of all pious and sober-minded men to the common exposition of these Words, to wit; That by the Sons of God were meant the Posterity of Seth, the members of the Patriarchal Church: And by Daughters of men, the female Offspring of Cain, the members of that Synagogue of Satan, which he erect­ed after his Apostacy and Departure from God's presence: why then [Page 36] should not this text in Job be so inter­preted the Sons of God, that is the pro­fessors of the true Religion, the mem­bers of the true Church, came to pre­sent themselves before the Lord, to tender their Homage, and bring Pre­sents, the Presents of themselves, and Devout Services into the Court of the Lord, into the Lord's House: seeing this is exactly after the Patri­archal style, and is not attended with any absurd consequence, as that In­terpretation ( by Angels) is, why should we not to choose expound one Patriarchal Text by another, ra­ther then by Texts relating to after­times? The Jewish Church might, for Reasons then emerging, give An­gels the Title of the Sons of God. It's no new thing, for various Ages to vary Phrases: But what is that to the Patriarchal Churches style, e­specially seeing that in the verse im­mediatly preceding, there is menti­on made of Job's Sacrificing for his Sons, of his sending for them after their Feasting, and Sanctifying; them that is, [Page 37] saith, Grotius, celebrating a Fast, and praying for them, that the Sacrifices of attonement which he offered for them might be accepted of God. So that we have here, the Sons of God, that is,

1. The members of the Church conven'd to present themselves before the Lord with fasting, prayer and ob­lation of Sacrifices, and all represented as Job's contiutal Custome. Thus was Job accustomed to do all those dayes, to wit, after their Feastings; Also we find here stated dayes where­on they presented themselves before God, for [...] in [...], supplies the place of a Pronoun demonstrative, saith Cocceius. And then immediatly followes [ and there was a day when the Sons of God]: can this day be any o­ther than one of those dayes foremen­tioned, whereon Job conven'd his Sons by Nature (who were also God's Sons by Grace) before the Lord: Or this Convention to any other purpose then that, viz. to worship God; or they that here came to present themselves [Page 38] before the Lord any other then they who presented themselves before the Lord on those dayes. He must be ob­stinate that will not be convinc'd with what has already been offered to Con­sideration.

SECT. V.

There is indeed one Text in Job, where this phrase occurs, with the Addition of one word, where Angels seem to be called, the Sons of God, Chap. 28. 4. where God thus chal­lengeth Job. Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the Earth? Declare if thou hast Vnderstanding, who hath laid the Measures thereof, if thou knowest; or, who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the Foundations thereof fastned? Or, who laid the Corner-stone thereof? When the Morning-stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for Joy? For the removal of this Remora, which at first did very much retard my mind in coming to a positive con­clusion; let it be observed,

[Page 39] 1. That a twofold Ground of sing­ing and Adoring God is here laid down.

1. His laying the Foundations of the Earth, his laying the Measures thereof, his stretching the Line upon it.

2. His laying the Corner-stone there­of, whereupon its Foundations are fastned.

3. That it was at the laying of the Foundations of the Earth, &c. that the Morning-stars sang together; by which Phrase nothing else can be meant, but the Angels. For the Stars in these vi­sible Heavens were not then created: and though those Stars of Light are said to praise God; that is meant only of their praysing him objectivè, as oc­casioning rational and intellectual creatures to praise the Maker of such resplendent Creatures. But the Angels of Light, those Morning Stars, being created with the Emperial Heaven, though they did not assist God (as the Hebrew Doctors fancied) yet they stood by, and looked on the production of each Creature, adoring God's Work­manship [Page 40] therein, and sounding out their own Joy and his Praises at the laying of the Foundations of the Earth.

4. But the chief Corner-Stone up­on which the Foundations thereof were fastned, was neither its Center, nor the Waters, nor whatever else hath either been fancied to be its Foun­dation, or comprehended in that noti­on: but the Foundation of its Founda­tions, that Stone that bears up all things, which was then laid when Christ was tendered to fallen Adam, in the Promise of the Womans seed; which Promise our first Parents em­bracing by Faith, were, as Living-Stones, built upon that sure Corner-Stone, that tried Corner-Stone, &c. Names appropriated to Christ and him only, through the whole Volume of Gods Book, at the laying whereof (when he was to be exhibited in the Flesh) Zech. 4. 7. it was prophe­sied there should be Shoutings [ He shall lay the Head-Stone thereof with shoutings, Grace, Grace unto it] It was at the laying of this Corner-Stone in [Page 41] the Promise of the seed of the Woman, that the Sons of God shouted for Joy. ( i. e.) in the strict literal Sence, our first Parents, now made the Children of God by Adoption. If you Object, That here was but one Son of God. I answer, both our first Parents are com­prehended in this Term, Eve being reckoned with Adam, who was the more worthy Gender. Thus Lucan, speaking of the Entertainment that Ptolemy and Cleopatra gave Caesar, saith, Discubuere Toris Reges at summa Potestas Caesar: Meaning by Reges both the King and Queen of Egypt. This is so pat as there needs no further Illustra­tion of this Answer. But you will say, this was a poor All to make a Chorus. I answer.

1. However these two Persons were all the Adopted Children that God then had.

2. If we take the Natural Son of God into the Chorus (who doubtless re­joyced with our first Parents, as well as with Jerusalem) Isa. 65. 19. How many may we reckon him for?

[Page 42] 3. We may take Angels into the Chorus without prejudice to our Cause, and include them within the Denomi­nation of the Sons of God, considered as imbodied in the Chorus, with the Adopted Sons of God in propriety of speech. As the whole Church of Co­rinth is denominated Saints, from the better part, though that probably was the far less part. Or as we call a Bay of Wheat unthrashed, or an Heap of Wheat unwinnowed, a Bay or an Heap of Wheat: though there be in the one incomparably more straw, in the other more Chaff, than Wheat. Even so Men and Angels making up one Quire, to sing the praises of God, Redeemer, at his first Appearance in the Promise, the whole Quire is denominated, from the most chief and nobler part, the Sons of God. Yet I would not hear be misun­derstood as if in respect of their Na­tures I prefer'd Men before Angels (no such arrogance ever entred into my Soul) but only in regard of the Office and Part they bare in this Doxologie. Men (for whose Salvation Christ was [Page 43] manifested in the Promise) leading the Chorus, and Angles condescending to follow them as Ministring-Spirits. Briefly we have here the General As­sembly of the First-Born (though but two) attended with an innumerable Company of Angels, shouting to see the Cornor-Stone laid. And because the First-Born are in the Propriety of the Patriarchal Language, styled, the Sons of God: Therefore the whole Quire is denominated from them, the Sons of God. So that we are to seek for a Patriarchal Text, where Angels, when they are distinctly spoken of, are stiled, the Sons of God.

SECT. IV.

For the more manifest Proof of this, that the Text, Gen. 6. 2. [The Sons of God saw the Daughters of Men, &c.] is the only text in the whole Bible whereby this Text in Job ought to be interpreted.

Let us consider the Proximity of the Stories. The first beginning 120. [Page 44] years before the Flood. (Gen. 6. 3.) and the latter not much above 100. years after the Flood, the Flood happening Anno Mundi, 1657. and Phaleg, in whose days the Earth was divided, being born, Anno Mundi, 1757, as the learned Usher Computes. Now I humbly conceive Job was contempora­ry with Phaleg, or not long after him, which I gather, first from the length of Jobs Age, compared with Phalegs, and ground that Collection upon that common observation, that the Age of Arphaxad, and those after him till Phaleg, reached but to the half of the Age of the Fathers before the Flood, and the Age of Phaleg scarce to the half of the years of the Patriarchs after the Flood, that lived before him: which was the common standard of the Age of Plalegs Posterity, unto Nahor, who attained to little more then half of the years of his fore-fathers. Now we may calculate Job's Longavity to have exceeded Phalegs: If we consider,

1. That all his Sons were married, and had Familes of their own, before his trial; say then he was thirty at [Page 45] birth of his first Child, he could not in reason but be well towards fifty at birth of his last: Considering he had them all by one Wife ( Job. 19. 17.) [intreated my Wife for the Childrens sake of mine own Bodie] this had been a weak Argument if the Chil­dren of his Loins had not been the Children of her Womb: and that she gave them suck her selfe; and before the last of ten could reach to that ma­turitie as to have a Familie of his own, Job must be towards fourty more; So that Job could be no less then ninety at his trial.

2. After his trial the time wherein his Children were born to him, and disposed of to Inheritances, could not be so few as fourty.

3. And after this disposal of his Children, at what time he was an hundred and thirty Years old, he lived an hundred and fourty Years, and saw his Sons, and Sons Sons, even four Generations. ( Job. 42. 15, 16.) So that Job lived, 270 Years; where­as Phaleg lived but, 239. The Jewes [Page 46] say God doubled Job's Age beyond the time that Men then lived. But Mercer hath sufficiently confuted that Con­ceit, and proved that God's giving Job twice as much as he had before, hath not respect either to his own Life, or the number of his Children, but onely to his Possessions.

2. The Antiquity of Job may be in­ferred from hence, that the Sons of Joctan were the Conducters of several Colonies at what time the Earth was divided. Now Joctan was Phaleg's Brother, and which of them was the Eldest is disputed, but it is most proba­ble to be Joctan, because it is said, the Earth was divided, in the dayes of Phaleg: So that it seems Joctan's thir­teen Sons were grown to Mans estate, and fit to be Captain's of Colo­nies in the time of Phaleg: The youngest whereof, Jobab, I take to be Job. Scultetus indeed fancies that Jobab (one of Esau's posteritie) men­tioned, Gen. 36. 33. to be Job: I am glad I have the suffrage of so learned a man in this particular, that Jobab is [Page 47] Job. But Scultetus was led to this opi­nion of the later Jobab as himself confes­seth, by the Authority of those Learn­ed men, who think Job to have been an Idumean, because his Country Vz, or Vts, is said to be the Land of the Daughter of Edom (Lament. 4. 21.) Rejoice, O Daughter of Edom, that dwellest in the Land of VZ, the Cup also shall pass to thee. I answer in this last Clause, there is a manifest Allusion to Jer. 25. 7. Then took I the Cup at the Lord's hand, and made all the Nations drink it, &c. But in that Context, Vz is clearly di­stinguish'd from Idumaea. vers. 20. All the Kings of the Land of Vz, and all the Kings of the Philistines, &c. Edom, Moab, and Ammon. Who sees not that the Land of Vz and of Edom are different? the meaning therefore of ( Daughter of Edom that dwellest in the Land of Vz) is this, that a Colony of Edom, expelling the old Inhabitants thence, f [...]xt their Habitation in the Land of Vz. Now the Arguments whereby I am induced to believe that Jobab the youngest Son of Joctan, is Job, are these;

[Page 48] 1. The Main Current of the most Judicious Expositers are of Opinion that Vz, Job's Countrie, was Arabia Petraea. Now Arabia, saith Bochartus, is the Countrie where the Sons of Joctan at the division of the Earth, planted themselves. Mihi Certum est hos Arabie faelicis, intima insedisse: I am sure, saith he (in his Phaleg) that these Colonies sate down in the very heart of Arabia felix, for proof here­of he shew's that the Arabians say their first Founder was Joctan; and produceth Memorials of the names of all his Sons retained in the names of Arabian Cities, Rivers, Hills or In­habitants. That of Jobab for Instance, in Ptolomies, [...], or as Sculte­tus corrects it [...]. But per­haps Ptolomi's Text needs no Cor­rection, seeing that People of Arabia might be so called from Job, the abbre­viation of Jobab, and he being the youngest, his Brethren might abbre­viate his Name.

2. He is said to dwell in the East, which if it be meant East from Judea [Page 49] it can be no other then Arabia Petrea, which standeth East-ward of Judaea; whereas Arabia Felix standeth full South. But seeing the Jewes did not inhabit Palestine till above 500 years after Job, his Countrie is here styled the East, in respect of Arabia Felix, which lies West of Arabia Petrea.

3. According to this Situation of Vz, it hath the Sabeans, a People of Arabia Felix, on one hand, and the Chaldeans on the other hand: The one whereof Drove away Jobs Oxen and Asses, the other his Camels.

4. Job was the greatest of all the men of the East (that is the most Eastern part of Arabia, which denotes Arabia Petrea) and he being the grea­test there, must in reason be judged to have been the Captain of the Colonie there seated.

5. Job or Jobab being the youngest brother, his elder brethren might more then probablie seat themselves in the Richest part of Arabia, famous for the plenty of Gold, Frankincense, &c. and he be forc't to sit down in Arabia the [Page 50] Stony, or perhaps chose that for his seat, as fittest for the breed of Cattel, wherein lay his wealth. The Arabians, saith Aristotle—(Hist. 9. 50.) have some of them 3000 Camels apiece; and from them they compute their Wealth (saith Leo Affrican Lib. 9.) For when they would express their Riches, they use to say, He possesseth so many thousand Camels. And this is another Argument that Job's Coun­try Vz, is Arabia, where the thirteen Sons of Joctan seated their Families.

3. That Job lived very early after the Flood, is, I think, demonstrable from that Text, Job 31. 26. If I beheld the Sun when it shined, &c. and my heart hath been secretly enticed, or my Mouth hath kissed my hand, this were an Iniqui­ty to be punished by the Judge. Whence it appears that Idolatry was in Job's time, accounted by the Law of Man, criminal and punishable in the Hu­mane Court, which in the Days of Te­rah was set up by a Law, from the Ef­fect whereof Terah fled (saith Jose­phus) from his Native Country, Vz, [Page 51] of the Caldees, being condemned to be burnt for refusing to worship the Sun. From the Premises we collect, that Job was the most antient Practitioner of the Patriarchal Religion after the Flood, that we read of (except Noah) and lived two hundred years before the death of Noah; what then can be more incredible, than that so pious a Person could so soon forget what the Patriarchal Church before the Flood meant by this Phrase, [ the Sons of God.]

SECT. VII.

I have weighted all the Arguments produced for the Proof of the contra­ry opinion, Viz. That Job lived not thus early in the New World as I affirm him to have done. But there is not one of them worth answering, but that drawn from Job 36. 14. They dye in Youth, and their Life is amongst the Un­clean (the Sodomites) according to the Marginal reading, Innuit his Sodo­mites, saith Grotius; he means here the Sodomites and their Destruction: [Page 52] intimating that Job's Friends had heard of Sodoms Destruction., and therefore were younger than Abra­ham. But if it had been Sodomites in the Text (as it is not) that would have been no Argument that Job had heard of Sodoms destruction. For Sodom migh the infamous for its Uncleanness many Ages before its destruction: see­ing men do not arrive at such an height of impudent sinning, but by degrees: neither doth God inflict such strange and exemplary Judgments, till his Long suffering be tired out. Besides that, their Luxury and beastly Lusts might bring the Sodomites one by one to an untimely Death, might fall under the observation of their Neighbours, long before Fire and Brimstone from Heaven sell upon them all toge­ther.

I have but one Note more to evince that the Text, Gen. 6. 2. is the most proper Text to expound this of Job by, Viz. That the best account I find given of the Penman of this Book of Job, is that which is grounded upon Job 32. [Page 53] 15. they were amazed, they left of speaking they answered no more. When I had wai­ted (for they speak not, but stood still, and answered no more) I said, I will an­swer also my part, I will shew mine Opini­on. Can any thing be more apparent than that Elihu doth not speak here to Job and his three Friends, but of them; Who then can he speak to, but the Readers of this Book of Job? It is certain, the Dialogue is here inter­rupted, For Jobs Words were ended (Chap. 31. ult.) Causa perorata tacet; he having said what he could in his own defence, held his peace. And Elihu here declares the Issue of his Reproof of Jobs three Friends, to wit, their being silent as well as Job, to whom then doth he make this Declara­tion? Not to Job, that had been su­perfluous, for he himself was both an Ear and Eye witness of their being silent by Elihu's precedent speech to them: and besides he does not apply his speech to Job till (c. 33. 11.) [ Where­fore Job I pray thee hear my speeches, &c.] not to Job's Friends, for he saith, [Page 54] they were amazed; which is not the form of speech wherein we speak to men that are present; It must be there­fore to them that should read this Book that he here speaks. Again it is in answer to Job's wish, that he offers himself to him in God's stead ( Ch. 33. 6.) it is probable therefore that in or­der to the gratifying of another, as an earnest wish of Jobs, he might write Job's words, and by Consequence this whole Historie of his trial in a Book: ( Job. 19. 23.) O that my Words were Written, that they were Printed in a Book; that they might remain for ever. And such a wish as he had re­newed with very passionate expostula­tions, immediatly before Elihu began his speech to Job's friends, and Job himself, Chap. 31. 3, 5. 10. That one would hear me, behold my desire is that the Almighty would answer me, and that mine Adversary had written (or as it is in most Translations) would write a Book surely I would take it upon my Shoulders, and bind it as a Crown to me, as a Prince would I go near unto him. [Page 55] Well, saith Elihu I am here in Gods stead according to thy wish. Now if Elihu had onely discours'd with Job in God's stead as his adversary, and not written that discourse in a Book, this had not been according to Job's wish, who with the same breath requests that God would answer him, and record that answer in a Book. Briefly, I cannot imagine how Elihu could more plain­ly have intimated himself to have been the Penman than he doth here. And indeed, who more fit to write this Book then Elihu, who was pre­sent at the whole discourse, an Interlo­cutor therein; an unbiast person, whose discourse God was so far from blam­ing as he pursues Elihu's last argument to convince Job. And besides all this, a person divinely inspiried. It was God's Spirit, the Inspiration of the Al­mighty that gave him understanding, chap. 32. 8. and, vers. 17. I will answer also my part: I also will shew my Opinion (or, rather my Wisdom, or my Science as Pagnine renders it; and the following words enforce, for I am [Page 56] full of matter, the Spirit within me con­straineth me, &c. Jeremie expresseth the prophetick Spirit in like terms, chap. 20. 9. I said I would not speak any more in his Name: but his Word was in my heart as a burning Fire, shut up in my bones. And I was weary with forbear­ing; I could not stay. Now if Elihu was the Penman of this Book. It cannot be imagined but that he would keep exactly to the propriety of the Patri­archal Idiome; and therefore cannot mean any other by [ the Sons of God] then are meant, Gen. 6. 2.

SECT. VIII.

The reverence I bear to the memo­rie of those worthy persons who in­interpret hat Convention in Job a Contention of Angels, hath forc't me to this expence of time and pains, for the vindication of my leaving such good companie. For I thought it not good manners to answer so many men of so great and deserved a Name as that [Page 57] Scolist did Bellarmine with a bare [ Bel­larmin thou lyest] but that I was bound to give reasons of my departure from them, and such reasons as I hope will, upon second thoughts, satisfie sober and serious thinking Persons. But the richness of the Mine will, I doubt not, counterballance the labour I have be­stowed in baring the ground to it, by removing the rubbish that lay up­on it. I will therefore now proceed to shew what this Text in Job contri­butes towards the proof of the Point in hand. In order to which,

1. I observe, that here is mention of a Publick Church-Assembly, a Convention of the Sons of God before the Lord. That being the Patriarchal Phrase whereby they exprest the professors of the true Religion: Gen. 6. 2. as all Christians confess, except such as are led by the Nose to follow the Jewish Rabbies: whom God hath so infatua­ted since their shutting out the true Light, as of all men living, they are most ignorant of their own Law.

2. That this Convention before the [Page 58] Lord consisted not of Job's Family and his Sons alone, but of the Religious also of Neighbouring Families; as Liban is said to call the men of the place to celebrate Jacob's marriage (Gen. 2. 9. 22.) for before the se­cond convention Job was stript of his Sons.

3. I note that in these Publick-As­semblies Job did not officiate as Priest, though he did in his own Family: for this second convention before the Lord falling out in the Days of his Mourning, makes it very probable that he did not manage the Ministerial Work of that day; yea it seems more then probable, that Job was not pre­sent at that convention: from chap. 2. 7. so went Satan forth from the presence of the Lord, and smote Job, &c. Had Job been there, he would have smote him there. But more clearly from the verse following; And he took a Potsherd to scrape himself withal, and sat down a­mong the Ashes.] This last clause is bet­ter renderd in most other Translati­ons, as Vatablus, Junius and Tremol. [Page 59] &c. by sitting among the Ashes. And the plain sense of the whole verse, is this; Job sitting among the Ashes (when Satan smote him) took what was next at hand, a Potsherd to scrape himself withal. So that Satan found Job not in the Church-Assemblie, but on the Ashes-heap (the usual posture of men deeply touched with the sense of Af­fliction.) And therefore the sacred Of­fices in that, and by consequence in o­ther publick Assemblies, were admi­nistred by Publick Persons, assigned to that holy Function.

4. We find here certain stated times for celebrating Religious Worship, A day when the Sons of God presented them­selves before the Lord, and that day oc­curring again: and how could several Families convene (as I have proved there did here) if they had not had Set Times for those Conventions.

5. As to our third Proposition now before us, let it be considered,

1. That seeing in Job's Time there was no other stated Dayes for Divine publick Worship save weekly, and [Page 60] those weekly Days instituted by God himself. What Time for sacred Con­ventions can we imagine the Sons of God could pitch upon, but that which their Heavenly Father had prescribed them by his example and precept?

2. Had these Dayes of the Sons of God, their appearance before the Lord, not occurred in a less space of time than either a Year or a Moneth, it is very improbable that Satan would have had so much patience at Jobs pa­tience as to have deferred his making an Address to God for the enlarge­ment of his Commission, before this second Church-Assembly. Could that malitious Adversary, who had, after the obtaining of his first commis­sion stript Job naked in one day; whose finger did so itch to be scratch­ing Jobs Body, that as soon as ever the word [ he is in thy hand] was gone out of God's Mouth, immediatly goes out of God's Presence, and smites Job's bodie; could he (I say) forbear to make suite for that Commission be­yond the least division of time by [Page 61] Days, seeing Job's Heroical patience could not but make every hour of that forbearance a greater torment to Satan than he could inflict upon Job.

3. Origen from this very Text (in his Homilies upon Job. Chap. 1. vers. 5, 6. &c. draws the same Inference. Those things (saith he) that were af­terwards commanded in the Law con­cerning the Sabbath, Job before the give­ing of the Law, did both observe himself, and taught his Children to observe. R. Abraham also, as he is quoted by Gene­brard, affirmeth, that Job observed the Sabbath. And therefore Dr. Heylin might have spared his Exclamations against Beza, for saying that Job did sanctifie every seventh day at least: as if in so saying he had only vented his own humor, and opposed the An­tient Fathers, from which latter Cal­lumny I shall clear Beza in the next Chapter.

SECT. 9.

And now having shewed that the Patriarchs had stated Times for sacred [Page 62] Assemblies, and that the Church in the time of Job, did in all probability celebrate such Assemblies weekly. I may venture, with this Light in my hand, to proceed without fear of stumbling, or straying, to that fa­mous Text, Gen. 2. 3. And God blessed the seventh Day, and sanctified it, because that in it God rested from all his Works which he created and made. For the un­derstanding whereof, and applying it for the support of a weekly Patriarchal Sabbath: Let it be observed,

1. That the conceit of a Prolepsis in these words of Moses, is clearly o­verthrown by the Premises; for if the Patriarchs had stated dayes of Pub­lick Worship, so long before Moses, that practice of theirs could not possi­bly be grounded upon any other bot­tom, but God's resting upon the Se­venth-day, and therefore sanctifying it to be a day of Rest, by his Precept to Adam. Seeing that their appointing stated dayes for such Worship on their own heads, would have been no better than Will-Worship, and such as God [Page 63] might justlie have expostulated with them about, saying, Who hath required this at your hands? and so much a great­er affront to the divine Majestie, as they were further off from all possibi­litie of Ignorance of God's resting the Seventh day. Nay what presumption had it been in the Patriarchs to have expected God's blessing upon their ce­lebrating other stated Days than God had sancti [...]ed? And sure none can im­agine but that they waited upon God for his blessing upon their sacred con­ventions. Thus the practice of the Pa­triarchs is a full Comment on this Text.

2. It being granted, that this Text is to be understood according to the plain literal sense; then it will cast light upon those Patriarchal Texts, that have been alledged, concerning their stated times for sacred Assem­blies, and clearly discover those Sons of God in Job, to have presented them­selves before the Lord on that Day which God had sanctified at first to that end. Let this at present suffice for the proof of this third Proposition, [Page 64] which will be further cleared in the handling the fourth, viz.

SECT. I.

IN order to the vindication of this point from the charge of Novelty and singularity; I shall first shew from the Testimonies of Heathens and Fa­thers, as well as from Reasons deduced from Sacred Writ; That the Jewish Sa­turday-Sabbath was not the Seventh-day Sabbath of the Patriarchs.

SECT. II.

But that which makes the greatest difference betwixt these Sabbaths, is this, The Sabbath of the fourth Pre­cept, and that commanded the Jews, are grounded upon different Reasons. [Page 78] The first in commemoration of the Creation, which is common to all persons in all ages and places. The other,

1. That it might be a sign to discri­minate the Jews from all other Nati­ons, Exod. 31. 13. [It is a sign between me and you that I am the Lord your God▪] that is, That I have taken you to be unto me a People and an Inhe­ritance. ( Deut. 4. 20. [...]. I am the Lord your God which have separated you from all other Nations, ( Lev. 20. 24.) Now if other Nations had cele­brated Saturday as their weekly Sab­bath, and not another day of the week, the Jews could not have been discriminated from them by their ob­serving the same day, this would have been no part of the Wall of Parti­tion.

2. The Jews weekly as well as their monthly Sabbaths, were Shadows of good things to come, the Body where­of is Christ, ( Col. 2. 16.) If therefore the Sabbath of the fourth Precept had [Page 79] been the Jewish Sabbath, it ought to have been abolished when Christ the Substance is come, as well as other Ceremonial Laws. But this is contrary to the sense of the Universal Church, which reckons this one of the ten Com­mandments: And our Church hath appointed this Precept, with the rest of the Decalogue, to be pronounced at the Lord's Table, and enjoyned her Children to beg pardon for the breach of this, and Grace to encline their Hearts to keep it; which would be the putting of a Cheat upon them, if that Precept in the plain Letter of it were not still in force: and the put­ting a figurative sense upon it would make it as unintelligible to vulgar ca­pacities as if it were in Latine: And so much the more hard to be under­stood as the Church in her Liturgies and Catechisms (wherein she pro­pounds Milk to Babes) affects the greatest plainness of Speech. Upon which account most serious Persons have been prejudic'd against Calvin's Interpretation of Christ's descent into [Page 80] Hell: that being an Article of the common Faith, and therefore to be interpreted in the plain literal sense. Let me add, that the Church no where declares her Sentiments more plainly, than in publick Liturgies: upon which Consideration St. Austin so of­ten appeals from those Testimonies of Fathers, which Pelagius urged, to the forms of Common-Prayer. And there­fore tho a thousand private Doctors Opinion should thwart me, yet I hav­ing the Opinion of the whole Church, declared in her Liturgies, for me; if not in so many words, yet in her ge­neral practice, unavoidably inferring what I maintain, to wit, that the fourth Precept of the Decalogue is still in full force; this is sufficient to acquit my Assertion from the imputation of No­velty or singularity, as being no other but what I drew from my Mother's (the Church of England's) Breasts, not only by good consequence, as hath been shewed, but in plain words: for in the Homily of the time and place of Prayer she tells us, that [God ex­presly [Page 81] in the fourth Precept command­eth the celebration of the Sabbath, which is our Sunday. But I have greater Authority than this of the Church, even Christ himself: who could not endure that he should be thought to come to destroy the Law; and assures us that not one jot or tittle should fall from the Law, Mat. 5. 17. which all interpret to be meant of the Decalogue, whose fourth Precept must therefore be concluded to have no­thing in it that is ceremonial, typical, and upon that account to be abolish­ed, as instituting a Sabbath to be a shadow of good things to come.

3. The Sabbath appropriate to the Jews, was commanded them to be a Memorial of God's giving them rest from Egyptian Servitude, Deut. 5. 15. Remember that thou wast a Servant in the Land of Egypt, and that the Lord thy God brought thee out thence—: therefore the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the Sabbath Day. Observe here the difference betwixt the Law of the Sabbath given on Mount Sinai, [Page 82] and this in Deuteronomy, tho it be re­peated in the Decalogue. For this Book containing an explanation of the Law, (whether Moral, Ceremoni­al, or Judicial) and application of it to the particular state of the Jews: Moses in this Text Judaizeth the fourth Precept, and therefore assigns, as the reason of its institution (thus applied and limited) not God's resting on the Seventh Day from his Work, which is common to all Mankind, but his causing them to rest from their ser­vil work under the Egyptians: which was peculiar to the Jews. Which is a manifest Argument that the Sabbath of the Decalogue, engraven in the Tables, was of larger extent than this mentioned in Deuteronomy; or else why should the Reason of the one be universal, of the other particular? As also that the Jews were obliged to the observation of their Sabbath, not from the literal and primary sense of the fourth Precept, (as all Mankind are, and always were, except the Jews, to whom God appointed another Sab­bath) [Page 83] but only from the equity of it: For seeing God had sanctified the pre­cise Seventh Day, whereon he had rested, to be observed by all Men; it was meet that the Jews should keep holy one Day of seven, and that Day which God had peculiarly enjoyned them, viz. Saturday, tho that was not the Sabbath of the fourth Precept, the Lawgiver having Right to dispense with his own Law. And this is clearly the plain meaning of Moses his insert­ing ( vers. 12. [as the Lord hath com­manded thee] or rather [...], had commanded thee] viz. before the publishing of the Decalogue on Mount Sinai: and of his leaving out [ [...] remember] the first word of the fourth Precept, as it was delivered on Sinai; by which word, mankind was called upon to call to mind the Patriarchal Sabbath: or rather his transferring it to his mentioning their Egyptian bon­dage, vers. 15. [ [...], and re­member that thou wast a Bonds­man, &c.] As if Moses had said, per­haps you may interpret the fourth [Page 84] Precept (repeating the Law of the Patriarchal Sabbath) as either vacat­ing that Law of the Sabbath he gave you a little before the promulgation of that on Mount Sinai, viz. at the first gathering of Manna, or as laying an obligation upon you to observe that also, so as you must keep two Sabbaths in a week: for the preventi­on of either of which mistakes, now that I am come to the mentioning of the fourth Precept, I will let you know, that though indeed as you are Men, you are obliged to keep in me­mory the Rest of the Creation; yet as you are Jews, a Nation separated to God from all Nations, God hath dispensed with you as to the precise day, and expects; that you should keep that day which he hath peculiarly appointed you to celebrate in com­memoration of his giving you rest from Egyptian Bondage, which was so severe and afflicting, that in regard thereof it had been better for you that you had not been created, or died as soon as you were born. Note from [Page 85] hence that the fourth Precept, when applied to the Jews, ought to be in­terpreted, as commanding one day of seven. But as it stands in the Deca­logue, and appertains to all Nations and Ages, it commands the celebration of the precise Seventh day, whereon God rested: So directly contrary to Moses his Exposition of this Law, does the common cry of modern Exposi­ters go, who make it command A se­venth day to all, and The seventh day to the Jews. Observe how unaccounta­ble these Expositors make the Christian Practise of keeping Sunday, if that be not the seventh day of the fourth Pre­cept, but only one of the seven: see­ing that Precept enjoyns the seventh on which God rested and, that upon this reason, because God rested there­on: And how justifiable the Jewish practise was of keeping Saturday, though that was not the seventh day whereon God rested, for they had for their so doing a plain Divine Precept of their Ceremonial and peculiar Law, dispencing in respect of the day [Page 86] with the Law of the Sabbath, which was given to Adam and his whole Po­sterity from the beginning. Let it be noted in the next place, that all the other nine Precepts, repeated here by Moses, are the very same verbatim with those that were writ on the two Tables, as they were spoken on the Mount: but the fourth Precept, as it is repeated here, is not the same fourth Precept that was spoken by God's Mouth and writ by God's Finger, but vastly different from that, both in its form and reason: and both peculiar to the Jews, but neither of them ap­plicable to other Nations. Not the for­mer: for as the Jews were a part of the Patriarchal Church (seeing God had for that time of their Separation from other Nations assigned them another day than that of the fourth Precept as it stands in the Decalogue) it was ve­ry requisit that a Memento should be presixt before that Command to san­ctifie the Patriarchal-Sabbath, which was to take place again when the Par­tition-Wall should be broken down, [Page 87] that they might then after so long an intermission call to mind, or remem­brance, God's primitive Seventh-day to sanctifie it: And therefore the fourth Precept in the Decalogue be­gins with Remember. But there is no Remember prefixt before this Pre­cept, as it is here repeated by Moses, and adapted to the Jewish state, be­cause as such they were to sanctify Sa­turday, and to observe the Precept, as enjoining to them the Sanctification of that Day as their peculiar Sabbath, only till the time of Reformation, and then they were to forget it thus Ju­daiz'd, as well as the rest of their Ce­remonial Laws. At which time of Re­stauration this their new Saturday-Sabbath would be grown old, and must come no more in remembrance, Isa. 65. 17. And then the Covering of the Ark, where the two Tables of the everlasting Law was laid up, being taken away, the Jews might reade the fourth Precept, as it was uttered from the Lord's Mouth, vvith a Memento be­fore it, to put them in remembrance of [Page 88] that seventh day whereon God rested. I would thank that Man who will give me any better, or indeed any other Reason than this, why a Me­mento should begin this Precept and none of the rest; seeing we ought as well remember to observe them as this: or why Moses should prefix Re­member before the fourth Precept as it stands in the Decalogue, and not as he repeats it here. Or why he should assign God's resting as the ground of the fourth Precept there, and the Is­raelites resting from Egyptian Bon­dage, as the reason of it here. Or lastly, how Moses can be acquit­ted from self-contradiction, from adding to, and taking from the words of the Law, when in the twentieth of Exodus, he saith, God spake thus, [ Remember, &c. for in six days the Lord made, &c. wherefore the Lord blessed, &c.] And yet in this 5th of Deut. he not only leaves out the [Re­member] and the Reason of the fourth Precept in the Decalogue, but assigns another reason, and yet after all tells [Page 89] them, [ These words the Lord spake unto all your Assembly in the Mount, and he added no more, and he wrote them in two Tables of Stone.] How can Moses his Fidelity in this case be vindicated but by this Salvo, That the other nine do indifferently appertain to Jew and Gentile, and therefore they are re­peated intirely as they came from God's Mouth. But the fourth Precept for that time did not appertain to the Jews (either as to the Day command­ed to be sanctified, or the reason for its Sanctification, but only in regard of its equity, in respect of the propor­tion of time) but to all Mankind, save the Jews, at all times, and would ap­pertain to the Jews when Christ had made of that twain (Jew and Gentile) one: and therefore Moses, to secure that entirely against that time, sets it down in the Decalogue word by word as God spake it: But when he applies that Precept to the peculiar state of the Jews at that present, to whom God had (before the promulgation of the Law on the holy Mount) appointed [Page 90] another Day for their weekly Sabbath, than that whereon God had rested; it had been ridiculous to have menti­oned God's finishing his Work of Cre­ation in six Days, and his resting on the seventh, as the reason why the Jews should rest on that Day where­on God wrought: and therefore he omits that, and assigns another reason most proper and cogent, and repeats no more of the Precept, but what was common to them and other Nations. And thus it's true what Moses saith, These words the Lord spake in the Mount unto your whole Assembly, and he added no more; that is, that you are at pre­sent concern'd in. And as to the words expressing the reason, God spake them in the Preface to the whole Decalogue as the reason of your being obliged, above other Nations, to keep all and every one of those Laws; and my ap­plying them to the Law of the Sab­bath, is a faithful exposition of both the Laws concerning the Sabbath; to wit, the Ceremonial, which concerns you alone, and the Moral so far as it [Page 91] concerns you, that is, in the equity of it. He spake indeed more words, but not unto your whole Assembly in its present Constitution, but as you shall be at the rending of the Vail; he would have you hear that which I o­mit to repeat, for that time to come, seeing the pressing of you upon that reason, to keep that Sabbath-Day God hath commanded you to observe, would be a strong Argument against your keeping it.

SECT. III.

I could name other differences the Sacred Scripture makes betwixt the Patriarchal and Jewish Sabbath: but these already mentioned are sufficient to convince rational Men that the Jewish Saturday-Sabbath was not the Patriarchal Sabbath commanded in the fourth Precept.

I come now to shew that the Pa­triarchs celebrated Sunday for their weekly Sabbath.

[Page 92] Arg. 1. And here first I urge the Premises. If Saturday was not the Patriarchal Sabbath, either Sunday must be it, or it will follow that there have been three several Sabbaths, one of the Patriarchs before the Law, ano­ther of the Jews under the Law, and a third of Christians under the Gospel. A consequence which a Mahometan may perhaps not disgust, but I am sure it will sound harsh in a Christi­ans Ear.

Arg. 2. There can no other justi­fiable account be given of Christians celebrating Sunday, but this. That the Jewish Saturday-Sabbath was Ce­remonial and Temporary, and there­fore to give place to that day that was sanctified from the beginning by God's Example and Precept; gave place, I say, to that at the expiration of the Mosaical Law without any new Pre­cept.

1. For if Saturday-Sabbath had been the day on which God rested, and commanded Adam to rest on, and [Page 93] keep holy, it could not have been unsanctified but by a Precept as ma­nifest and of as great Authority as that was whereby it was instituted, which I am confident can never be made to appear in the translation of the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday. And that which is alledged for this comes far short: For what Argumen­tative force can there be in Christ's rising, his appearing after his Resur­rection, and celebrating religious As­semblies with his Apostles ordinarily on Sundays, in the Apostles assembling on that day for religious Worship; what force, I say, can there be in all this for the unsanctifying of Saturday, and giving its Crown to Sunday, comparable to the express Command of God grounded upon his own Ex­ample to sanctifie Saturday? Nay, what are Mens pleading such things as these for the change of the Sabbath (upon supposition that Saturday was God's day of rest, and commanded by him to be kept) but a setting up of their own conceits, and miscollected con­clusions [Page 94] (that because Saturday was instituted in memory of the Creation, and Sunday was the day wherein Christ perfected Man's Redemption by his Resurrection, &c. therefore Saturday must give place to Sunday) in direct opposition to God's express precept; If Saturday be the day in­tended in the fourth Precept, or Gen. 2.

2. But then I would not have the Saturday-Sabbatarians crow as if I ad­judged the victory to them. For upon the ground that I have laid the Jewish Saturday-Sabbath, being calculated particularly to that Nation, and there­fore Temporary and Ceremonial, must with other Mosaick Ceremonies be abrogated by Christ's Death, and give place to the Antient Patriarchal Sab­bath on course without any new Pre­cept. And here now our Saviour's rising from the dead, his frequent appearing to his Disciples on Sundays, the pra­ctise of the Apostles and primitive Church, come in seasonably with their Auxiliary force to support the divine Institution of the Lords-day—. For [Page 95] though as to the first Consecration thereof, their Examples signifie no­thing, nor are able to stand their ground against the Assaults of God's both Example and Precept: yet upon that ground I have laid they are sub­stantial and strenuous Seconds to prove the Restauration of the Anci­ent Patriarchal Sabbath by the Anti­quation of the Judaick. What grea­ter influence could our Saviour's rising on Sunday have upon that day to the sanctifying thereof, than his suffering on Friday, or his Ascension on Thurs­day could have upon either of those days to sanctifie either of them for the weekly Sabbath?

3. But yet Christ chose to rise on Sunday, because God had sanctified that day from the beginning. And therefore his Resurrection, and the Apostles celebrating Church-Assem­blies on that day, though they are not of Authority sufficient to appoint a new Lord's-Day, yet they are safe Guides to point us to that old Patriar­chal Lord's-Day whereon the Lord [Page 96] rested, and therefore commanded the Patriarchal Church Catholique to sanctifie it—in Conformity to, and Communion with which Church, ex­tending to all Ages and Places (save Judea, which never was any other but a particular Church, God having in all Nations some that feared God and wrought Righteousness, and therefore were accepted of him.) Our Saviour after the rending or the Vail, and removal of the Partition-Wall, rose upon that Day, and upon that Day celebrated Religious Assem­blies, &c.

And this was sufficient to revoke the Sabbath to its first beginning (to which all things were revoked by Christ, saith Tertullian (in Monogamia) and to intimate that Sunday was the Patriarchal Sabbath. It being manifest that the Jewish Sabbath instituted not only four hundred, but three thousand years after the institution of the Pa­triarchal, could not make that void, any more than the Mosaick Law could vacate the Promise made to Abraham [Page 97] before that Law was given, according to the Apostles way of Arguing, ( Gal. 3, 17.) [The Covenant that was be­fore confirmed of God to Abraham, the Law which was 430 years after, could not disanul, that it should make the Promise of none effect.] And that therefore that Mosaic Law of the Sab­bath being made void, the Patriarchal must of course take effect without any new Injunction. The necessity of which Cousequence will be made more apparent by the next Argument. Viz.

SECT. IV.

Arg. 3. That the Patriarchs did ce­lebrate the Sunday-Sabbath before the Institution of Saturday-Sabbath, may be proved, if not demonstrated, from Scripture-Instances.

It were indeed unreasonable to ex­pect Mathematical Demonstrations in this case, seeing Moses his History of the Patriarchal Religion is so exceed­ing concise, as his Narrative thereof for above two thousand years may be [Page 98] in a manner comprised in a Nut-shell. Yet if we diligently search, I doubt not but we shall find Instances next to Demonstrations, in two places, viz. Exod. 12. & Exod. 16. I will begin with the last, because it leads to the change of the Patriarchal Sabbath to the Jewish: which seeing we all know to be Saturday, by reckoning back­ward till we come to the day on which that general Church-Assembly, men­tioned ver. 2. was kept, we may cer­tainly find on what day of the week it fell.

Inst. 1 The first Instance therefore that I shall give of a Religious week­ly Assembly kept on course by the Pa­triarchs, on Sundays, is from Exod. 16. 1, &c. And they took their Journey from Elim, and all the Congregation of the Children of Israel came into the Wil­derness of Sin, which is between Elim and Sinai, on the fifteenth day of the second Month after their departure out of the Land of Egypt. And the whole Congre­gation of the Children of Israel murmured against Moses and Aaron.] For the [Page 99] right stating of the sense of this Text, I must crave leave to rectify the Point­ing, which, as it stands, refers the sif­teenth day to their marching, which ought to be referred to the time of this Assembly: For of what use ima­ginable could it be to know the day of the Month when they took their Journey, any more than the rest of their Journeyings, except that from Mount Sinai (Numb. 10. 11.) for the space of forty years? But as God at the Institution of the Passover had changed the beginning of the Year, and appointed that Month to be the first to the Israelites, which was not the sirst in respect of the Creation. So when he was purposed to change the beginning of Weeks to the Isra­elites, and appoint that Day their se­venth which was the sixth in the Pa­triarchal Account, and of the whole World beside the Jews: It was expe­dient to leave some plain Note and Character of Time, whereby it might be known on what day of the Week the Sabbath was kept before that [Page 100] change. Now this misapplication of the fifteenth day may easily be amen­ded, by having recourse to the Origi­nal, and the Septuagint, thus,— and they journeyed from Elim. And the whole Congregation of the Children of Israel came into the Wilderness of Sin, which is between Elim and Sinai, ver. 2. [...], [ And] or [ But] on the fifteenth day of the second Month after their departure out of the Land of Egypt, the whole Congregation of the Children of Israel murmured, &c. This is therefore the first Collection I make from this Text.

That the whole Congregation are not said to March but to Murmur, on the fifteenth day, their Sabbath Songs were turned into Howlings, like those, Amos 8. 3.

As to the Reason I assign why the day of the Month is named here, and not in any of their Marching saving that from Mount Sinai; a Person eminent for Learning and Place in our Church is pleased to except against it, by giving this as the Reason why [Page 101] the day of the Month is here named, viz. lest the first part of the verse should be mistaken as if they had gone from Elim, and come to Sin the same day. Whereas they departed from Elim to the Red-Sea, and came from the Red-Sea, into the Wilderness of Sin, Numb. 33. To this exception therefore I here humbly offer these two things to con­sideration.

1. Moses, in Numb. 33. (where he purposely Records their Marchings in order, and mentions that by the Red-Sea immediately before their coming into the Wilderness) doth sufficiently prevent all possibility of mistaking the sense of Ex. 16. except by such negligent Readers as in their reading his Writings, slip over that Chapter in Numbers, which kind of Persons I suppose Moses was not very careful to gratifie.

2. This Reason is so far from pre­venting the supposed mistake, as it necessarily leads to it: For read the Text thus: They departed from Elim, and came into the Wilderness of Sin the [Page 102] fifteenth day: and this pointing makes their departure from Elim, and coming into the Wilderness, to have been on the same day. The first being the ter­minus a quo, the other the terminus ad quem of their motion: Except we fancy they came into the Wilderness the fifteenth day from no place. But refer the fifteenth day to their Mur­muring, not Marching, and both the extream tearms of their March stand firm, and there is space enough betwixt them left for their intermediate en­camping at the Red-Sea. As if a Man should say, I removed from London, and came to York the 15th day of April: we would conclude that he came to York the same day he removed from London. But if he should say, I came from London to York without specify­ing the time, none would imagine but that he had lodging-places betwixt London and York. So that this Excepti­on furnishes me with one Argument more for my applying the 15th day to their Murmuring not Marching.

The same eminent Person adviseth [Page 103] me to consider whether the Septuagint can weigh down the Hebrew, Samaritan, Syriac, Arabick, Targum, &c. all which refer the 15th day to their Marching.

I have considered this, and am very apprehensive what a difficult and en­vious Task I undertake, if I should prefer the Septuagint above the Hebrew. I remember how angry Jerom was with St. Austin, for preferring it be­fore his Hebraica Veritas, and what opposition the late attempt of Vosius hath met with: And yet I cannot but retain a singular honour in my heart for it.

1. As being better secured from be­ing corrupted by the faithless Jews; when the Hebrew, by reason of its be­ing communicated many hundred years before the Christian Aera to the Gentile World, and deposited in Pto­lomies famous Library, whither the Philosophers flocked from all parts of the World, saith Elian; the di­vine Providence foreseeing what un­faithful Keepers of the divine Oracles, that People to whom they were first [Page 104] committed would prove [when for their rejecting Christ they became Lo­ammi] provided that the Gentiles should come to the light thereof by means of the Septuagint, so long before our Saviour's coming, the contempti­bleness of whose appearance so enra­ged the Learned Party of the Jews, who had the Hebrew Copies in their custody, (for the vulgar Jews under­stood not Hebrew in our Saviour's time) as in revenge they defaced his Image drawn by their own Prophets, for representing him such as the Apo­stles proclaimed him to be: whence proceeded those numerous Corrupti­ons, mentioned by Vossius and others.

2. The Apostles making so fre­quent, if not constant use of it in their quotations of the old Testament, seems to me a Canonization of the Transla­tion, and a commending it above the Hebrew.

3. If the Hebrew be to be suspect­ed, where it affronts the Septuagiut, it ought to be so, especially in such Texts as have relation to their Sabbath. Their [Page 105] idolizing of which might prompt them to disturb the Pointing of this Text, Exod. 16. which according to the Sep­tuagint, speaks it to be a younger Bro­ther to Sunday-Sabbath.

4. And for my preferring the Sep­tuagint before the Hebrew in those Texts that have relation to the Sab­bath, I have the example of our own Church to be my warrant; which ad­heres to that Version in the Transla­tion of thef ourth Precept, both in the Catechism, where she feeds her Babes with Milk, and in the Office of Com­munion, where she reminds her adult Members of that part of their Baptis­mal Vow, whereby they stand obliged to keep God's holy Will and Com­mandments. Altho the Hebrew, Ge­neva, Spanish, and that of Jerom, and all I have perused, saith L'Estrange, render it [ wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath-Day] except the Septuagint, which renders it, [ The Seventh Day,] altho our last Translation of the Bible follows the Hebrew. Altho the Puritans (as they were called) have called long [Page 106] and loud to our Church to rectify the Reading, and conform it to the He­brew, as knowing that their opinion of the fourth Precept commandeth [a] Seventh, not [the] Seventh Day, is utterly overthrown by rendring it, Wherefore the Lord Blessed [the] Seventh-day. And altho our Church hath gratified their Clamours, in con­forming the Epistles and Gospels to our last Translation, yet in the fore­named versions of the fourth Precept she adheres still to the Septuagint, and persisteth in teaching her Chil­dren, young and old, that the Sabbath of the fourth Precept in the plain li­teral sense of it, is the Seventh day, wherein God rested, and therefore sanctified, and separated to be obser­ved by us Christians in obedience to that Precept, and in conformity to God's Example. Or, to give her sense of this Precept thus translated in her own words, ( Homilie of the time and place of Prayer ‘[God expresly in the fourth Precept commandeth the ob­servation of the Sabbath, which is our [Page 107] Sunday: And not only commandeth it, but also by his own example doth stir and provoke us to diligent keeping of the same.] And a little after [this Example and Command of God, the Godly Christian People began to follow immediately after the Ascension of our Lord Christ.]’ It was, you see, in obedience to this Command, urged by this Example, that the Christians began to celebrate Sunday in our Churche's Judgment. In Obedience (I say) to this Precept, in the plain literal sense of it: For sure the Church of England is a more in­dulgent Mother, than to teach her Babes by Tropes and Figures, and far­fetch'd Consequences, what that holy Will of God is, to the keeping whereof their Baptismal Vow obligeth them, or to oblige them to say, Lord have Mercy upon us, and incline our hearts to keep this Law, after the pronounc­ing of the fourth Precept at the Lord's Table, if that did not stand intirely in every tittle of it, according to its plain and primitive sense, in as full force [Page 108] now under the Gospel, as any of the rest. Moses was faithful in God's House, and therefore at his repeating of the Decalogue, and applying it to the Israelites, he lets them know that they were not concerned in that Rea­son for sanctifying of that Sabbath which God published on the Mount, to wit, [ because God rested on the Se­venth-day] but urgeth the keeping of their Sabbath, by another Reason pe­culiar to themselves, to wit, their rest­ing from Egyptian Bondage, Deut. 5. which very Reason is an Argument that their Saturday-Sabbath was not the day on which God rested, but local and temporary. And God's urging the sanctifying of the Sabbath of the fourth Precept from his own Example, argues the day therein commanded to be the day whereon God rested, and to concern all Ages and Nations. The reason of it being common to all, and therefore to be our Sunday. And this speaks the faithfulness of our Church, viz. her informing her Chil­dren that the whole and intire both [Page 109] Precept and Reason, appertains to us Christians, and therefore we are bound to beg pardon for the breach thereof, and Grace to observe it.

I had never much Artificial, yet have so much Natural Logick, as to think this a very strange Inference: God rested the Seventh-day, that is, Saturday: wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, that is Sunday; and the common Opinion to be void of Reason, viz. That the day command­ed in this Precept is gon, but the Pre­cept remains: seeing all that's com­manded is the sanctifying of the day whereon God rested.

It may with every whit as much reason be said, the honouring of Fa­ther and Mother is gone, but the Law commanding that Honour is still in force, as that the day whereon the Command bids us rest, is gone, but the Precept commanding that Day of Rest remains; as if that day injoyned belonged to the Jews, and the Pre­cept enjoyning, to us. My resentment of such horrible absurdities unavoida­bly [Page 110] issuing from the common Opinion, that Saturday is the Day whereon God rested, and that Day which he commanded the Jews to sanctifie, in the fourth Precept: And yet that the Precept is still in force to us Christi­ans, obliging us to sanctifie another day, Sunday; in Conjunction with the reverence I bear to the sounder Do­ctrine of the Church of England, viz. That the fourth Precept commands us to celebrate Sunday, upon the Account of God's resting on that day, first put me upon that enquiry, whereof my Treatise of the Sabbath is the result, viz. whether that Hypothesis could be proved from Scripture and Reason; and if proved, whether it would se­cure unto us our Sunday-Sabbath, without any new Institution by Christ's Precept, upon better grounds than can be laid by the vulgar opini­on; and such as free our Necks from the yoak of those carnal austerities which attend the Jewish Temporary and Ceremonial Saturday-Sabbath.

This Design I confess affronts the [Page 111] whole World of private modern Writers: but I have standing on my side the Church of England which carried on the Reformation of Chri­stian Religion from Papal Innovati­ons more pecately, regularly, cauti­ously, and with a greater respect to Catholick Antiquity, than any other Reformed Church did. And that which inclined me the rather to follow her Conduct through my whole Tract of the Sabbath, was this; because I ob­served that the Writers upon the fourth Precept have fallen into inex­tricable perplexities, meerly through this one mistake, That the Sabbath in­joyned in that Precept is Saturday, and not (as our Church teacheth) Sunday. And that if they had followed our Churches Clew, they would have found the way out of those Laby­rinths, wherein they have lost them­selves.

For if Sunday be the Day whereon God rested, and therefore commanded in that Precept to be sanctified after God's Example (and unless it be that [Page 112] day wereon God rested, that Precept does not command the sanctification of it) how naturally will these Con­sequences follow;

1. That Adam and the Patriarchs could not be ignorant of that Exam­ple of God, which was laid down in the Precept, as the Reason why we are to sanctifie it: for if that reason oblige us who only hear it; It must much more oblige Adam who after a sort saw it.

2. That the Law of the Saturday-Sabbath is not expresly commanded in that Precept, but only reducible to it in regard of its equity and propor­tion of time, viz. one of seven. And therefore Saturday-Sabbath may de­part, and the Precept continue in full force. Nay, that Sabbath, together with the Ceremonial Precepts con­cerning it, must (as the rest of Mosaick Ceremonies) depart at the rending of the Vail, and give way to the Sunday-Sabbath. And thus the Christian Church is disburdened of those Austerities, about which there hath been so much [Page 113] wrangling amongst Modern Wri­ters.

3. That there was no need of a new Gospel-Precept for the first In­stitution of Sunday-Sabbath; and that therefore Christ's Resurrection, his Converse with his Disciples, and their celebration of holy Assemblies on Sun­days, do warrant us to keep that day as sure and infallible Guides to the Old Patriarchal Sunday-Sabbath, mentioned in the fourth Precept; which was to take place again on course at the expiration of the Tem­porary and Ceremonial Sabbath, en­joyned the Jews for a time, as a badge to difference them from other Nations; but is too sandy a ground whereon to build the Institution of a new Sab­bath-day, in direct opposition to the express Precept and example of God: And thus the mouth of the Saturday-Sabbatarians is stopt.

But tho I might without deserved blame (being back'd with so great Authorities) prefer the Septuagint be­fore the Hebrew, Exod. 16. 1. yet I [Page 114] presume not to prefer the Text of the Septuagint before the Text of the He­brew, but only compare the Text of the Septuagint (which is utterly inca­pable of any other pointing than what I urge) with the pointing of the Hebrew, which referrs to the 15th day of their coming into the Wilderness.

And here the preference may, with­out disparagement to the Hebrew Text, be given to the Septuagint; consider­ing,

1. That it is a question amongst the Learned, whether the Pentateuch had any Vowels, or so much as distin­ctions of Words, but was all as one word before the Masorites.

2. That it is not agreed who those Masorites were that distinguish'd the Old Testament into Sections and Ver­ses, whether the wise Men of Tiberias, or those of Ezra's Synagogue, &c.

3. And that the Hebrew Text with­out distortion is capable of the same pointing that I urge, but the Septua­gint capable of no other. And there­fore [Page 115] to ask whether the immoveable pointing of the Septuagint should yeild to the moveable point of the Hebrew, is to question whether the Mountain should come to Mahomet, or Mahomet to the Mountain.

4. I have the Suffrage of Learned Men to stand by me, in asserting that the Quails fell and were gathered on the fifteenth day. For Bochart in his Hierozoicon, Cornelius a Lapide, Meno­chius, &c. on Numb. 11. affirm that the Quails mentioned, Exod. 16. fell on the fifteenth day of the second month, and it is certain from the Text that the Quails fell on that day they mur­mured.

SECT. V.

The next Inference I draw from this Text is this, That this Assembly hath all the Characters of a Church-Assembly.

1. It is called [...], the whole Congregation, or Church of the Children of Israel; to difference it [Page 116] from the People or mixt multitude that murmured at Marah: Chap. 15. 24. that marched in one Body with the Israelites, and are implied in the first clause of verse 1. They took their Journey from Elim. And in that Chap­ter 15. 27. and they came to Elim, meaning the Israelites, with the mixt multitude. And as they came to Elim: so here the same [they] are said to journy from Elim; but when Moses gives an account of what fell out when they came into the Wilderness of Sin, he shakes off the mixt multitude, and leaves them out of his Discourse, by changing the phrase he used, when he speaks of their Journeying, and saying, The whole Congregation of the Chil­dren of Israel came into the Wilder­ness. And the whole Congregation of the Children of Israel on the fif­teenth day murmured. By which he intimates this Assembly to have con­sisted wholly and solely of Israelites, and to have been of the same make with that which St. Stephen calls the Church in the Wilderness, consisting [Page 117] of our Fathers, as he stiles them, he, and those he spake to, being Jews, Act. 7. 28. Briefly, this was not a murmur­ing in their Tents, like that, Psal. 106. 25. and that Numb. 14. 2. at the re­turn of the Spies; or that through their Families, every Man at his own Tent­door, ( Numb. 11. 10) where we have the mixed multitude represented as the fomenters thereof: And therefore if they had been of this Murmuring. Assembly in my Text, they would have been mentioned here as well as there.

2. Here is the whole Church of Israel assembled on course before the Lord; for Moses did not call them, but finds them together. Aaron indeed bids them come near before the Lord, [...], before the face of the Lord: but all he meant by that, was, that they should turn their faces to­wards the Pillar, the then token of God's special Presence: for that was all they did in compliance with that Injunction, ver. 9. [And as Aaron spake unto them they looked toward the [Page 118] Wilderness, and the Glory of the Lord appeared in the Pilar of Cloud.] And that is an Argument they were already before the Lord, though not so as to face the cloudy Pillar as they did in their Journyings, yet they were assembled before, or about the Taber­nacle, the ancient token of God's Pre­sence. I mean that little Tabernacle which they had, before the erecting of that which Moses received the Pat­tern of in the Mount; and therefore brought with them out of Egypt, to which they had used to repair for Di­vine Worship, for the sake of publick Prayer, so Mede, Rivet, Willet. It was, saith Vatablus, a little portable Chap­pel; this was it that Moses, after they had worshipped the Golden Calf, took and pitched far off from the Camp, to which every one that sought the Lord went out, Num. 33. 7. this was cal­led the Tabernacle of the Congrega­tion, of the sacred Convention, so Junius and Tremelius: of the Church, Pagn. The Hebrew word is Mogned, whence is derived Lemognedim, Gen. 1. [Page 119] which signifies solemn stated Assem­blies, as hath been observed before. Towards this they directed their Faces in their sacred Assemblies: and there­fore Aaron withdraws their Faces to­wards the Pillar of Cloud, vers. 11. where Moses stood praying, while Aaron was speaking to the Congrega­tion, saith Mr. Mede upon the place.

3 This Assembly hath this Cha­racter of a Religious Convention, that it was instructed by an Ecclesiastical Minister, Aaron the Priest; for Moses commanded Aaron expresly that he should speak to them, ver. 9. Now if this had not been Coetus Ecclesiasticus, a Church Assembly, it had been more proper for Moses himself to have come with his Rod in his hand, and have spoken to them: for he might with Authority have silenced their mur­muring, as he did Numb. 11. 24. when they murmured for want of Flesh: And as Caleb and Joshua stilled them, Numb. 14. 6. after the return of the Searchers. It is said indeed vers. 6. that [Page 120] Moses and Aaron spake to them, but the meaning of that is no more than thus, that Moses spake mediately and Aaron immediately, Moses by putting words into Aarons mouth, and Aaron by conveying those words into the Peoples Ears, according to the in­struction given, Exod. 4. 15. Thou shalt speak to Aaron the Levite, and put words into his Mouth, and I will be with thy Mouth, and with his Mouth: and he shall be thy spokesman unto the People. It is also said vers. 8. That Moses said, &c. but that must have the same interpretation, or be rendred by the Preterpluperfect tense [Moses had said] that is, had instructed Aaron what he should say; and so must vers. 11. And the Lord had said to Moses; for it is manifest that God had said that to Moses before: And the reson why it is repeated over and over, that the Lord had said, and Moses had said, is to shew what part of that Revelation of his mind that God made to Moses, vers. 4, 5. was communicated at that time by Moses to Aaron, and by Aaron [Page 121] to the Assembly, and what part of it was not then, but afterwards commu­nicated; It being manifest that Moses did not acquaint them with the reason of God's precept to gather a double portion on the Sixth day till they had gathered it. It remains therefore, that seeing Aaron was not a Prophet, who received Revelations immediatly from God, but published Divine Revela­tions received by Moses unto the People, (which is the proper Work of an Ecclesiastical Minister in a Church-Assembly, 1. Cor. 14. 23, 24.) his being appointed by Moses to speak, argues this Assembly to have been a Church-Assembly.

Howbeit, if what hath been offer'd for the proof of this second Inference, shall upon serious ponderation seem too light, the main Cause will suffer no other detriment than the loss of one peice of an Argument; And in­deed my main aim in urging this Text was to find sure footing for calculat­ing the time backward unto the tenth day of the first month, Exod. 12. [Page 122] whereon undoubtedly the Israelites kept a religious publick Assembly on course. And that tenth day will be demonstrated to have been Sunday. If it be made apparent that the fif­teenth day of the second month, where­on the Quails were gathered, be to be reckoned the first of the six gathering dayes. And that is,

SECT. VI.

The third Inference I draw from this Instance, viz. that the fifteenth day of the second month, whereon this solemn Church-Assembly conven'd on course, was Sunday. And that it was so, will appear by computing the six gathering dayes immediately prece­ding the Jewish Saturday-Sabbath, concerning which there is this only Question, viz. Whether the fifteenth day be to be brought into the Ac­count of those six gathering days. For the resolution of which doubt, let the divine Oracle be consulted, vers. 4. [I will rain Bread for you from Heaven, [Page 123] and you shall go out and gather it—. And the sixth day you shall gather twice as much.] and vers. 12. [ ye shall eat Flesh to the full this day at even] intor duas vesperas, betwixt the two Evenings, i.e. betwixt three a Clock in the after­noon, and the shutting in. This is that very time of the day wherein our Sa­viour was Crucified, Dead, and Bu­ried: and therefore their gathering, dressing and eating their Belly full of Quails does as properly belong to this fifteenth day, as our Saviour's Death and Burial unto Friday.

2. Observe, That the Precept to ga­ther twice as much the Sixth day was given before any mention was made of Flesh and Bread distinctly, and be­fore Moses knew what they were to gather, any further than was exprest by [ Bread rained down from Heaven.] Now Bread implies ( ver. 4.) all kind of Victuals, as every one knows that can say the Lord's Prayer, except such profound Clerks as are of that Boy's humour, who when he came to the Petition for daily Bread was wont [Page 124] to add [ and Butter too good Mother] And what satisfaction could it have been to Moses to hear God promise Bread, when the People murmured for want of Flesh, as well as Bread, if he had not conceived that both were comprehended under the name of Bread. Besides, David, Psal. 105. 40. called the Quails the Bread of Heaven, which Psal. 78. 27. he saith God rain­ed upon them from Heaven, the very word that God useth, vers. 4. I will rain Bread from Heaven. Add to all this that our Saviour, ( Joh. 6. 55, &c.) alluding to this very History of Quails and Manna, useth the same form of expression, [ The Bread that I will give is my Flesh,] Bread therefore as well here as there includes flesh, and Bread, Quails and Manna. And to put this beyond all possibility of doubt, the Septuagint and vulgar Latin express what they gathered on the sixth day, [...], cibos duplices: double necessaries, double Victuals.

Lastly, It was not for all kind of [Page 125] Flesh that they murmured; for tho their Provision of Bread might possibly be spent, yet that they should consume the Herds and Flocks they brought out of Egypt (where they left not one Hoof behind) Exod. 10. 26. in one months space, is utterly incredible; or that in that space they were grown so lean as to be unfit for Food, seeing they had for that forty years long, Oxen, Sheep, and Goats, fit for Sa­crifice, Act. 7. 42. But for want of pot­ted Flesh, and such potted Flesh as they had plenty of in Egypt; And that was no other than Quails, which were so plentiful in Egypt, that the Inhabi­tants could not consume them while they were fresh, (tho Josephus affirms that Egypt was so populous as it con­tain'd 750 Myriades, besides the In­habitants of Alexandria) and there­fore they potted them up for the whole year, as saith Atheneus, l. 1. c. 11. de Coturnicibus. Now can it in reason be imagined that the Jews should make no account of that day, where­on they gathered Quails, their beloved [Page 126] and longed for Flesh, that was Judaeis in deliciis, saith Phavorinus.

From all which it is manifest that the fifteenth day on which the Quails were gathered, was the first of the six gathering days: The last whereof be­ing Friday the Eve of their Saturday-Sabbath, vers. 22. the first must needs be Sunday, the fifteenth day of the second month whereon this Assembly before the Lord was kept. And there­fore before this following Institution of the Jewish Saturday-Sabbath, Sun­day was their weekly Sabbath. For the clearing of which, I shall draw,

SECT. VII.

This fourth Inference from this In­stance, viz. That the Saturday after this fifteenth day was the first Satur­day Sabbath that ever was kept.

This is apparent from ver. 22. [On the sixth day they gathered twice as much: And all the Rulers of the Con­gregation came and told Moses.] Now there cannot be imagined any other [Page 127] reason of their acquainting Moses here­with, but that they might understand by him what was to be done with the overplus, and to what purpose they were ordered to gather that propor­tion that day, seeing what had been kept over-night stank the next mor­ning, vers. 20. Vt ex eo cognoscerent quorsum hoc fuisset Jussum; neque enim adhuc Dominus declaraverat se ob Sabbati Religionem id praescripsisse, quod statim Moses explicat, as Mr. Mede and Cor­nelius a Lapide observe: [They came to Moses to know of him wherefore this was commanded, for the Lord had not as yet declared that he had prescribed this double portion with a religious respect to the Sabbath, which Moses forthwith explains] vers. 23. [To morrow is the rest of the holy Sab­bath, &c.] and vers. 29. [ See because the Lord hath given you this Sabbath, therefore he hath given you on the sixth day the Bread of two days.] Philo Ju­daeus saith, that the Hebrews were taught by this, which was the birth­day of the World, whereof their [Page 128] Forefathers were ignorant; a very likely thing! that Abraham should not know the Patriarchal Sabbath. L'E­strange will have it thus: That the Elders made not strange at the Sab­bath, but at the strictness of the Rest now commanded; But he should have called to mind that nothing was spo­ken of that till after the Elders were come to Moses. And if we duly weigh the Story, the Elders will be found to have thought it strange, why the Peo­ple gathered this double portion on Friday, for the Elders knew that a double portion was to be gathered on the sixth day, six days before: And therefore would doubtless have appli­ed themselves to Moses before now, for a resolution, if they had then que­stioned for what end they were to ga­ther double on the sixth day; and no other reason can be imagined of that delay, but that their thoughts were suspended all that while upon the sixth day of the Patriarchal-week, which is Saturday, till they saw the People gather on the sixth day in the [Page 129] order of the gathering days; and then and not till then they came to Moses, that he might resolve them whether the Precept was to be inter­preted of the sixth day in the order of the Creation, which had hitherto been the preparation for the Sabbath, or whether it was God's purpose to alter the Sabbath, and transfer it from Sunday to Saturday, and that there­fore Friday now must be their pre­paration day, or (which comes all to one) whether the six days were to comense at the first gathering-day, or the first of the Patriarchal week. And this seruple propounded by all the Elders, that is, all the grave men of the Congregation, who had been longest acquainted with the Ancient Sabbath; for Elders in the Text does not im­ply a name of Office but of Age, El­ders by Office not being constituted till Jethro had advised Moses to con­stitute them, Exod. 18. 21. These it seems had not themselves gathered a double portion, but thought the youn­ger sort timerarious in their account [Page 130] of days, and therefore acquaint Moses with it, whom Moses thus resolves: [This is that the Lord hath said, to morrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath un­to the Lord.] When did God say this, but in his Precept to gather twice as much on the sixth day? So that here Moses comments upon the Precept, telling them that thereby God appoin­ted to the Jews the morrow following to be thence-forward their weekly Sab­bath. Whereas if they had been used before to keep Saturday-Sabbath, the Rulers needed not to have applied themselves to Moses for the resolution of such a question, as a Child might have unriddled: for it cannot be imagined but the day before the Pa­triarchal Sabbath was from the begin­ning, a preparation to it: whereon Reason would tell Men that they ought to set their secular Affairs in such good order, as they might not be di­stracted by them in the sacred exer­cises of the Sabbath, which from the first was so to be sanctified, as no ser­vile work was to be done thereon. [Page 131] And seeing the Israelites at this time had no other servile work to do but gathering, and dressing of Manna; if they had not been restrained from that on the Sabbath, there would have been no difference betwixt that and other days in respect of cessation from common work. And therefore upon that supposition that Saturday was their ancient Sabbath, the Elders must have been Children in understanding, if they perceived not the reason of the Precept, for gathering twice as much on Friday. To sum up the whole of this Argument: This is the first Saturday-Sabbath we find cele­brated in the Wrold for 2453 Years at the lowest account, and that the whole World should live to that age without a Sabbath, is the most incre­dible of Incredibles. In order to the vindication of the Patriarchal-Church from so black a Crime, I have endea­voured to shew that Sunday-Sabbath was observed before the Institution of the Jewish Saturday-Sabbath, from the first instance: And I shall give [Page 132] more clear and unexceptionable proof thereof in the other forenamed in­stance, drawn from Exod. 12. 3. Speak ye unto all the Congregation of Israel, saying, On the tenth day of this mouth they shall take to them a Lamb, &c.

SECT. VIII.

2d Instance. If we reckon backward from the 15th day of the second month, which we demonstrated to have been Sunday, till we come to the tenth day of the first month, we shall find that tenth day to have been Sunday, and to have been celebrated by the Israelites, (and by consequence the E­gyptians also) their keeping thereon a solemn, religious, stated Assembly on course.

1. That this tenth day fell on Sun­day, may be thus collected by a re­trograde calculation of days, from the fifteenth of the second month to the tenth of the first.

Second month: Days 15, 8, 1.

First month; days, 24, 17, 10: were [...].

[Page 133] For the proof of this Account, wherein I assign 30 days to a month, I have the plain testimony of Moses, Gen. 7. 24. compared with Chap. 8. 4. where the beginning of the 150 days of the Waters prevailing above the Earth, is said to be the 17th day of the month, and the end of those days the 17th of the 7th month, that is, just five months, if we assign to each month 30 days. And Deut. 12. 13. [She shall be­wail her Father and Mother a month of days.] This would have been a Lesbian Rule, if their months had not consisted of an equal number of days. And if the days of every of those months wherein the Waters prevailed, had not been thirty, the space from the 17th of the second to the 17th of the se­venth month, would not have amoun­ted to 150 days.

These Texs are so plain, as I won­der how so many Men of great and deserved name came to be lulled (ex­cept by Rabbinical Sorcery) into so deep a sleep, as to dream of the Jewish months having assigned to them, alter­natim, [Page 134] 30 and 29 days; and to for­sake Moses his conduct in so plain a path. An Errour which the industri­ous and learned Vsher gives his Testi­mony against, in the Preface to his An­nals: The Year (saith he there) of the Patriarchs, Egyptians, and Hebrews, consisted of twelve equal months of thirty days aepiece. For that the Hebrews u­sed Lunary months before the Baby­lonish Captivity, is more than can be proved from this so infallible an Evi­dence, that the Patriarchs reckoned thirty days to the month, (what ever Innovation after-Ages introduc'd is not here material.) A demonstrative proof may be drawn of the truth of the first Instance also: that the 15th of the second month, ( Exod. 16.) fell on Sunday. Thus, the first month days, 10, 17, 24. The second month days, 1, 8, 15, were Sundays. And thus these Instances will mutually illustrate one another, as we shall see in the remai­ning Inferences, also which we shall make from the second instance of a Sunday-Sabbath

[Page 135] 2. The next thing I infer hence is this, That on this Sunday, falling on the tenth of the first month, Moses and Aaron spake unto the whole Con­gregation, concerning the Ceremonies and institution of the Passover, Exod. 12. 1, 2, 3. [Speak ye unto all the Con­gregation, (the whole Church of the Israelites, so Ainsworth) saying on the tenth day, that they take up a Lamb, &c.] So Ainsworth (verbatim) after the He-Hebrew; saying that the Hebrew re­fers the 10th day to Moses and Aaron's speaking to them more distinctly, [ Speak ye—on the tenth day. And they shall take up a Lamb.] And vers. 21. where Moses speaks then to the El­ders, saying, [ Draw you out a Lamb.] And vers. 22. Where the Text saith, [ They went and did as Moses and Aaron had commanded them.] From these Texts it is clear as day, that it was the tenth day whereon this Speech was made to the Church-Assemhly. For this term [ Then] can speak nothing less: and the sequel implies, that at the breaking up of the Assembly they [Page 136] went immediately and took up their Lambs the same day for the Passover, that was to be kept the 14th day. Be­sides, seeing the taking up the Paschals on the tenth day, was peculiar to this first Passover (as also were several other Ceremonies of it) as the after­practice of the Jews, and of our Savi­our himself, evinceth. It had been mad­ness to have bid them, on the 14th day, take up Lambs on the tenth fore­going. And therefore I wonder to see wise Men, like so many Geese in a mist, straggle in so much light, from the plain path of most obvious truth, into that maze of vulgar errour, viz. that Moses spake to the Congregation on the 14th day, touching the Insti­tution of the Passover: especially when I consider the weakness of the Argument inducing them into that opinion, this being their Herculean; because it is said [ This night will I pass through Egypt, and stay, &c.] But who, save one that hath his Eyes in the ends of the Earth, can over-look this easy answer; that that is spoken [Page 137] of the night of that day, whereof there he speaks, not of that whereon he spake.

From the Premises also appears the over-sight of them, who prolong the three days darkness, unto the 14th day, dreaming (as if they had been frighted out of their Senses, by some of those Hob-Goblins which they fan­cy appear'd to the Egyptians during that darkness) that the Israelites took that opportunity, to provide them­selves for their Journey, of Egyptian Jewels and other necessaries. This in­deed had been a robbing of the Egy­ptians with a witness. But they must have had Cats Eyes, if they could see where their Prey lay in that palpable darkness. For, though the Israelites had light where they dwelt, yet I do not think that they could find, in the dwellings of the Egyptians, light e­nough to pilfer by, if they did not bring it with them, in their Eyes or Cloakbags, from Goshan.

Lastly, How opposite is this to the whole series of the History, which [Page 138] tells us that the Egyptians lent them freely, what they had occasion for: That Moses was in high esteem of Pharaoh's Servants and all the Egyp­tians, who would have lent, or given, the Israelites the Shirts off their backs, to have been quit of them and their Plagues together.

3. From the foresaid Texts, and the circumstances of the story, it appears, that this Assembly was not called to­gather, by special Summons upon an extraordinary account; but met upon ordinary course. For

1. How could Moses (or any body else) convene them on such a sudden, who were scattered throughout all the Land of Egypt to gather stub­ble?

2. Or is it probable that their Taskmasters would have permitted them to leave their work, to assemble on such a Summons?

3. Or if the Israelites had obtain'd a play-day of their Taskmasters, is it like they would have met together, upon the Summons of Moses, whom [Page 139] they look'd upon as a Person that came to make their bondage more heavy? Exod. 5. 21. and to whose pro­mises they gave no heed, the last time before this he had occasion to speak with them? Exod. 6. 9. They must therefore either be assembled now upon course, or by immediate inspiration of them, one by one, for there can be no other subterfuge here. And there is no disputeing with Men that betake themselves to such fast­ness.

Briefly, the matter stands thus: The tenth day, being the weekly Sabbath, whereon they usually met to worship God; Moses and Aaron are command­ed by God, to take the opportunity of that Convention to speak unto them. And considering the Circumstances the Jews were then in, it is more then pro­bable, that these Conventions were of the like nature, when they met with Moses, to chide and curse him: And when Moses applied himself to them, with promises of a good issue to his Message, and they regarded not; As [Page 140] also, that the Egyptians (and by con­sequence all other Nations) celebra­ted the same day of the week, Sun­day.

For can it be imagined, that the Jews in Egypt, who were kept so close to their work, as to have their task set them, day by day [...], (which the Samaritan Translation renders, Pensum quotidianum, their daily Task; Targum Dnhelos, per singulos dies, every several day. And the Hebrew opus diei, in die suâ: the work of eve­ry day, in its proper day) would be allowed to rest from their daily work on Sundays; if their Taskmasters, and the rest of the Egyptians, had not themselves also rested on that day?

On the other hand, it was as much the interest of the Egyptians to have the Israelites rest on Sunday, as it was to the Jews to have the Stranger with­in their Gates rest on Saturday; be­cause if the Strangers might have fol­lowed their ordinary Callings on those days whereon the Natives rested from theirs, they would have diverted the [Page 141] gain of that work from the Natives. Grotius in exp. Decalogue.

4. The last Inference I draw from this second Instance, is, that this so­lemn Assembly was for Religious Worship. Which the Premises, duly considered, evince: For it was an As­sembly upon course, celebrated by the Israelites, at what time the Egyptians also rested: for what else can we ima­gine they met together but to worship God?

And seeing their Bondage was so hard, that their Taskmasters would not let them rest, while themselves were at their daily labour, it may be safely concluded that on whatsoever day they had remission from their daily Tasks, so as to meet together, the E­gyptians also ceased from their works. I cannot see what possibly can invali­date this Consequence, but the Dream of this Assembly's being kept during the time of Darkness, when the Egy­ptians could not stir from the place where they sate down: upon which supposition, indeed, the Israelites [Page 142] might have had a conveniency of meeting without check. But how weak their Arguments are, who are of that Opinion, hath been shewed al­ready: And I will now shew the Im­possibility of it, from the plain order of the sacred History. For it is thence manifest, that what passed in the whole 11th Chapter, was after the end of the Darkness, and before Moses went from Pharoah's presence. That is, as soon as Moses (Chap. 10. ult.) had answered Pharoah, [Thou shalt see my face no more.] God tells Moses, while he yet stood before Pharoah, that he would bring one Plague more upon Egypt that would force Pharoah to dis­miss them, not only with their own Goods, but with the Jewels, Silver, and Gold, &c. of the Egyptians also. And Moses reports this Message to Pharoah; and then, and not till then, Moses goes out from Pharoah in a rage ( Chap. 11. 8.) Now it was after all this that God commanded Moses and Aaron to speak to the whole Congregation (that should be assembled then) on the 10th day.

[Page 143] Besides, God's bidding both Moses and Aaron speak to the Congregation, argues it to have been a Church-As­sembly: Chap. 4. 15. Thou shalt speak to Aaron the Levite, and put words in his mouth; and I will be with thy mouth, and his mouth. And he shall be thy Spokes­man unto the People: And ( Chap. 7. 1.) Aaron thy Brother shall be thy Prophet.

The meaning therefore of [ Speak ye, &c.] Chap. 12. 1. is, That Moses should speak to Aaron, and Aaron speak to the People. Now why must Aaron speak to the People, if they had not been a Church-Assembly; seeing he was not a temporary, but standing Prophet; nor a Prophet who received Revelations from God, but publish'd to the People divine Revelations re­ceived by Moses? which is the pro­per work of an Ecclesiastical Minister in a Church-Assembly, (1 Cor. 14. 23, 24.) But what is reported of this As­sembly, Exod. 12. 27. that at its break­ing up [the People bowed the head and worshipped] puts it beyond all doubt, that it was conven'd for Reli­gious [Page 144] Worship. And yet let me add, as a joint-confirmation of the whole premises, that it is scarce conceivable whence, in more likelihood than from the Patriarchal Custom of celebrating Sunday-Sabbath, could flow that most ancient and universal Idolatry of wor­shipping the Sun; as the most gene­rally beneficient and salvifick Deity? Or, from whence else could proceed the change of the Name of the City On (where Joseph's Father-in-law the Prince-Priest, or Metropolitan of all Egypt had his residence) into that of Heliopolis, or the City of the Sun, but from the abuse and misinterpretation of the Patriarchal Sabbath? conceiv­ing that Planet, whose name that Day bore, which was celebrated as the chief Day of the Week, to be the chief God. For that the Sun was worshipped of the Egyptians, and all Nations, as the general all-healing all-saving Deity, is affirmed by Diodorus, Macrobius, Agel­lius, and all the Ancients, with unani­mous consent, A quovis salubris subvenit animis corporibusque mortalium. Macrob. [Page 145] Saturnal. l. 1. c. 20. And so decry the Opinion of the Heathen, that the Sun was a God, because the Day called by his Name was dedicated, of all the Days of the Week, to divine Worship: it seemed good to the Christian Church, to give it a new name [ the Lords Day] as being celebrated in memory of our Lord's Resurrection, who on that Day entred into his Rest, and ceased from his Works, as God did from his. So that we have in these two Instances, which fell within the space of five Weeks, an account given of the Pa­triarches keeping two Sunday-Sab­baths: whereas we hear not of two Saturday-Sabbaths kept either by the Patriarchs or the Jews, in the whole Old-Testament, though that contains an History of the Church, for above 3500 years: I mean Saturday-Sabbaths circumstanced, as these Sunday-Sab­baths are, with the nomination of the day and month whereon they were celebrated.

SECT. I.

FOR the proof of this in general, let us consider the order of Time respecting Moses his Narrative of Man's Creation Male and Female, and the immediate Consequents thereof till they were turned out of Para­dise: and thence we may certainly collect, that Adam fell, and was resto­red on the sixth day.

1. That Eve was formed the sixth day, is without all doubt: And there­fore the History in the whole second [Page 147] Chapter from the end of vers. 3. in order of time immediately follows the mention of God's creating them Male and Female, Chap. 1. 27. and pre­cedes what is recorded from the be­ginning of Vers. 28. Chap. 1. [And God blessed them, and said unto them, be fruit­sul and multiply] though in the order of narration it be set after: because Moses would not interpose so long a Parenthesis in his breviate of the Creation, as the manner of creation and disposal of the Female makes.

2. The whole third Chapter touch­ing the Temptation, Fall, Promise of Christ, and turning out of Eden, in time, precedes God's Grant to Adam and Eve, made, Chap. 1. vers. 29. Behold, I have given you every Herb up­on the face of the whole Earth, and every Tree, &c. For while they were in Eden, they had leave only to eat of the Trees of the Garden, and not of all them neither, Chap. 2. 17. They must therefore have starv'd after they were turn'd out of Paradise, if God had not enlarged their Charter: And to find [Page 148] what that was, and when granted, we must recur back from the end of the third Chapter (where God takes away the Table he had furnish'd for them in Eden) unto the forequoted chap. 1. 29. where he spreads a larger Table for them, furnish'd with every Herb and Tree upon the face of the whole Earth. For it is to be noted, that al­though Beasts, and Birds, and Fishes, fall to't without saying Grace; and those that live by prey sustain them­selves, not only with Vegitables but Animals, without asking other leave than their own natures give them— yet Man as he had not right to feed on Animals till God granted him that power after the Flood, Gen. 9. 3. Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you, even as the green Herb have I given you all things. So neither could he de­prive Vegitables of life, for the suste­nance of his own, till God granted him liberty.

3. From this Grant therefore ( Chap. 1. 29.) we must continue the Story, [Page 149] if we will bring it into due order of time, unto the end of vers. 3. chap. 2. [ And God blessed the seventh Day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested, &c.] And thence pass over the remaining part of the second and the whole third Chapters, unto chap. 4. which from ver. 3. ( And in process of time they brought Offerings unto the Lord) shews how the Patriarchs san­ctified that Day that God had sancti­fied.

It is most manifest from this plain Chronological account of the sacred History, that Man fell, was restored, and thrust out of Paradise, the sixth day. Cherubims being plac'd with flaming Swords to guard the Tree of Life, leaving Adam no hope of life by the first Covenant: whither then could he look for Life Eternal, but to the promised Seed in Faith, of whose Blood, and acknowledgment of his own Sin, he offered by God's ap­pointment, those Beasts in Sacrifice, of whose skin's God made him and Eve Coats: that they appearing before [Page 150] God in that, which was a Type of the Robes of Righteousness, and pleading the Blood of the Covenant, might be found and accepted in Christ: in whom alone God is well-pleased, and smelleth a sweet savour of Rest. Up­on which account he rested the seventh day, and Adam with him, in Christ.

To Adam' s celebrating the praises of his Redeemer on this Sabbath Day, the Chaldee Paraphrase, or Targum of Jonathan ( who was fellow-disciple to Hillel with good old Simeon, fourty years before our Saviour's incarnation, saith P. Fagius ( on Gen. 1.) seems to have respect: for thus that renders the title of Psalm 92. [An Hymn which the first man Adam said for the Sabbath-Day] as Ainsworth observes: Dicunt Rabboth quod Adamus hunc psalmum pro­tulit quando creatus, erat vesper Sabbati, & postea peccavit, & erat maledictus, & in hora duodecima diei sexti, crat ex­pulsas ab Edene. Deus benedictus venit ad judicium mortis; Sabbatum super ve­vit. Et Adam Eucharistias quia erat li­beratus a judicio mortis, profert (Da­rash. [Page 151] R. Arama. Vicars decupla) carti­cum Adami dicitur ab Hebraeis, quod talia dicere potuit. Adamus cum res adeo primum conditas aspexit. Grot.

The Rabbins say that Adam made this Psalm on the Eve of the Sabbath, at twelve of the Clock of the Day wherein he was created, and after­wards sinned, and was accursed, and driven out of Eden. The blessed God came to pass the Sentence of Death upon him; the Sabbath came upon him. And Adam because he was set free from the Sentence of Death, brought forth thanksgiving Offerings. That is, saith Grotius, because Adam may be supposed to have said such like words, when he beheld the things that God created in the beginning.

SECT. II.

But all this together may perhaps seem too great a weight to hang upon the single Pin of this one Argument, drawn from the Chronology of the History. I will therefore more distinct­ly [Page 152] shew the truth of each particular.

1. That Adam fell on the sixth day, seems evident from that Greek Pro­verb, grounded upon the almost u­niversal Consent of the Fathers: [...], Adam was formed and deformed the same day; quoted by Hamond L' Estrange, p. 8. Which universal Consent took its rise from Psal. 49. 12. Hinc Colligunt He­braei (in Berescit Rabba) gloriam primi hominis cum eo non per noctisse. (Cartw. Mell.) Broughton most confidently af­firms that Adam did not continue in his Integrity one hour, and affirms that all Jews are of that opinion (from the Authority of Maimonides, and from that Proverb of modern Jews above-said.) He also saith that all the Greek Fathers are of the same opinion: Vna nocte integritate non permanebat Adam, saith Vicars; for which he quotes the Arabick and Persic, Pentateuch. The Septuagint indeed renders the above-quoted Text ( Psa. 49 12) thus: Man being in honour, understandeth not. As if it were the same with vers. 23. The [Page 153] Syr. Arab and Simmachus follow the Septuagint, but this reading contra­dicts all Hebrew Copies, and the best Hebrew Doctors, David Kimhi, Aben Ezra, &c. and antient Fathers, as Je­rom, &c. who render it thus [ Adam (or Man) being in honour did not lodg there a Night] or [ Adam did not lodg one Night in Honour] non per­noctavit] did not stay one Night in that Estate, for [...], Jalin, the He­brew Word here used, signifies pro­perly to lodg or stay for a Night, Gen. 31. 54. [Laban and Jacob tarri­ed all Night in the Mount, and early in the Morning departed] Gen. 32. 21. [Jacob himself lodged with the Company that Night.] I might add that the Targum interprets Gen. 2. 15. [And the Lord took the Man and pla­ced him in the Garden of Eden] by a Syriack Word [ Sharah] which in Hiphil signifies to place in a lodg­ing for a Night; thus is this word used in the Syriack New Testament, Acts 20. 15. [And the next day we came to Samos and lodged at Trogilli­um; [Page 154] and the next day, &c.] Luke 9. 12. [ When the day begun to wear away, the Disciples said, Send the Multitude away, that they may lodg in the Villages,] Luke 2. 7. [ There was no place for them in the Inn] in the Room they had taken up to lodg in for that Night, ( Shindler Pentaglot.) So early began our Saviour to have the Chastisment of our Sin laid upon him in a way pa­rallel to Adam's Fall; he with his blessed Mother being thrust out of the Inn the Hour he was born; as Adam was thrust out of Paradise the day he was created.

Thus our Saviour gives his Suffrage to John 8. 44. where he stiles the Devil [ a Murderer from the beginning:] for this term [ in the beginning] de­notes the six days of the Creation, and precisely terminates where God finish­ed that Work, as is apparent from Gen. 1. 1. [In the Beginning God made Heaven and Earth]; that is, in the space of six days, wherein the whole Species of things in Heaven and Earth had their beginning: Or, as our Savi­our [Page 155] explains it, Mark 13. 19. [In those days shall be Afflictions, such as was not from the beginning of the Creation which God created;] the whole frame whereof, speaking of the same thing he calls [ the World,] and the space wherein it was made [ the beginning of the World] Mat. 24. 21. or, as it is rendred John 9. 33. [since the World began, was it not heard, that, &c.] that is, since God finished the Work of Creation: Thus [ the beginning] cir­cumscribed the whole Work of Crea­tion, Heb. 1. 10. [Thou, Lord, in the be­ginning founded the Earth, &c.] And though sometimes it may seem to de­note the Duration before, when it is spoken of God, Prov. 8. 22. [The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his Works of old] yet it no where extends its Signification beyound the six days Work, when it is applied to the Creature: It was therefore within the compass of the six days that this Murderer slew our first Parents.

2. That Adam was restored through the Promise of the Woman's Seed the [Page 156] same day whereon he fell, is apparent from our Saviour his being stiled, Rev. 13. 8. [the Lamb slain from the Foun­dation of the World]; for this is of the very same Latitude with [ the begin­ning] Heb. 1. 10. and Heb. 4. 3. [ Though the Works were finished from the Founda­tion of the World]; that is, in the sixth day distinguished from the seventh day, vers. 4. [For he spake of the seventh day on this wise; and God rested the seventh day from all his Works]: so that the time specified by [ from the Foun­dation of the World] vers. 3. concludes with the sixth day, before the seventh whereon God rested. Now, Christ cannot be said to be slain then actually (for so he was not slain till the fulness of Time, till the Hour appointed of the Father); nor in the divine Decree (for so he was slain before the Foundation of the World) but only in respect of the Promise then made to Adam: In which Promise he was exhibited as God-man; as Man, in regard of the Serpent's bru­sing his Heel; as God, in regard of his breaking the Serpent's Head. This [Page 157] leads me into a Flowry Field of Medi­tation; wherein I must crave leave to expatiate and refresh my self after my tedious Walk through dark and controverted Texts, in the pursuit of Truth; I shall therefore offer here these things to Consideration.

1. When things are once put into a divine Promise, they are then in Scrip­ture Language said to be; for tho they attain not to actual Existence till long after, yet the Promise gives them a real being, or metaphysical Essence, as rosa in Hieme. Hence God saith to Abraham, Gen. 17. 15. [ I have made thee a Father of many Nations] when as yet Isaac (through whom he was to be the Father of many Nations) was not yet con­ceived in the Womb, nor in human pro­bability ever like to be conceived in Sa­rah's Womb. From which Instance the Apostle draws this Inference, that God calls things that be not (as to actual Existence) as if they were (in real Essence) because he that promised was able to perform it, and was then engaged to perform it upon the ho­nour [Page 158] of his Veracity; Rom. 4. 17. so that it was as impossible that it could miscarry, or prove abortive, as that God can lye. From which Promise we have a thousand times greater As­surance to say the Lamb was then slain, then we have to say (while the Fruit is only in the Root, and not brought forth) this is a Pippin, this a Pear­main, &c. For this latter is grounded on a Lie, upon the immutability of God's Covenant with Day and Night, &c. which though we cannot, yet God can break, yea hath broke, as when he made the Sun stand still in the days of Joshua; go back at Hezekiah's Prayer, and suspended its Light at our Savi­our's Passion; as the Fire did also its burning property in the Case of the three Children: but the former is grounded on the Immutability of God's Promise by Oath, and the most sacred Oath, even by Himself, than whom he hath not a greater to swear by. In respect of this Immutability the He­brew Doctors, upon Gen. 15. 18. have this Observation [He saith not, I will [Page 159] give, but, I have given; and yet Abra­ham had now begotten no Children, because the Word of the holy blessed God is a Deed; therefore he so speak­eth Ainsworth. Thus the Son of God was tendered to fallen Man, as the Lamb slain; he was in this Promise as manifestly held out to Adam, as crucified, as making an Atonement for Sinners, by the Oblation of his Blood, as he was, after his actual Crucifixion and Ascention held out to the Galati­ans, (Chap. 3. 1.)

2. The Son of God in the Virtue of this his future Oblation of himself, and Mediation by Merit, entred upon the Exercise of his Mediatory Office, by Intercession, immediately upon Adam's Fall; he did not suffer the mortal Wound to fester, but applied the healing Balm (flowing from his bruised Heel) to it, while it was green: as soon as ever he saw Adam naked and in his Blood, he poured clean Water upon him, cast his Gar­ment over him, and entred into a Co­venant with him, and said unto him, [Page 160] Live. No sooner had Man made a League with the Serpent and proclai­med War against God; but God was in Christ reconciling the World to himself. In the Cool of the day (that is, in the Evening of that Day whereon he fell) Adam heard the Voice of the Lord God (that is, the Word or Son of God, as both Christians and Jews expound that place, Gen. 3. 8. See Dr. Owen's Exercit. 10. 2.) calling him to Repentance by Arraignment; to Faith, by the Promise of the Woman's Seed; yea, to Glory, by presenting himself in the Form of an human Bo­dy, and that glorious Body, such as he shewed himself in at the Transfigura­tion, and hath now at the Right-hand of the Father. Dr. More Append. to Mystery of Iniquity. As when Job had wish't ( Chap. 9. 34.) Let him take his Rod away from me, and let not his Fear terrifie me: Then would I speak and not fear him.] Elihu (according to Job's wish) makes him this Offer [ Behold, I am in God's stead, I also am formed out of the Clay. Behold, my Terror shall [Page 161] not make thee afraid, neither shall my Hand be heavy upon thee; If thou canst answer me, set thy words in order before me, stand up, &c.] Job 33. 5, 6, 7. So the Lord pleaded with Adam by his Son in the Form of God manifest in the Flesh.

I doubt not but the Son of God in human shape was all this seventh Day busied in most holy Colloquies with Adam; but that he fully revealed him­self to him and Eve, shewed him how and in what order he created all things, wish'd him to meditate upon these Works, and in them to praise and ac­knowledg the true God, his Creator; and taught him that after his Example every seventh Day all Labour set aside, he should spend in the Exercise of Piety: Zanchy de Creatione Hom. l. 1. Fuller upon these words [ They heard the Voice of the Lord God walking in the Garden.] Gen. 3. 8. hath this Obser­vation, [By this Voice I understand certain Words which God spake with himself walking] Christ appearing to them in human shape.

[Page 162] 3. This his mediating to reconcile Man to God, argues he had upon the instant of Adam's Fall, so far recon­ciled God to Man (by becoming his Surety, by giving Bond to make Satis­faction, pay Man's Ransome at the day appointed, at the fulness of Time) as the Father (upon Consideration there­of) would not take the Forefeiture, but delegated the Son to treat with his Rebels, and offer them Pardon (and a better State than that they were fallen from) on the Condition of their accepting the Covenant of Grace.

For Christ did not take this Honour (of the Melchisedochian Priest-hood) upon himself, but was called of God an High-Priest after this order. Heb. 5. 10.) and made a Priest by Oath, by him that said unto him, The Lord sware, and will not repent, thou art a Priest for ever, &c. Heb. 7. 21. He was sworn to this Office of Mediation, and sent to manage it by blessing Adam, in turning him from his Iniquity, before the beginning of Days (natural) [Page 163] on the sixth Creating-Day, and will continue the Exercise of it to the end of Days (natural) otherwise he would not be a Priest without beginning and end of Days. Heb. 7. 3.

4. That Adam did not defer his Re­pentance, but forthwith complied with the gracious Terms that were tendred him, cannot be doubted, if we seriously consider how utterly incredible it is, that he who was so ashamed of him­self and his Nakedness, should refuse to beg (at any rate) Raiment of Christ to cover his Nakedness, Rev. 3. That he who was so confounded in himself, as he ran to hide himself in the Bushes from the Presence of God, should stand consulting whether he should accept or refuse Mercy offered. That he whose own Conscience, and God greater than his Conscience, had condemned, so as he saw his Soul drawing nigh unto the Grave, and his Life to the Murderers; should, when God, not by a Servant, but his Son, sent this Message to him [ I have re­ceived the Atonement, I have accepted [Page 164] the Ransom] Job. 33. reject the Be­nefit of that Atonement, the Fruit of that Ransom. That he who had known what it was to have Commu­nion with God, should under the deepest and most deplorable sense of its loss, not be ready to imbrace the means of recovering that Communion. Especially if we duly ponderate to what end those Beasts were slain, of whose Skins God made them Coats of Honour, seeing Adam and Eve could not slay them for Food; for the Flesh of Animals was not allowed Mankind for Meat till after the Flood.

That their Flesh was offered in Sa­crifice, is the common Tenet of most judicious Divines; and that partly it was disposed of that way, seems very probable; but the Scripture does more than hint two other ends of slay­ing those Beasts, (which I wonder have not been taken notice of). The first for the striking of the Cove­nant betwixt God the Father and the Son, when that Oath which the Sa­cred Scripture so frequently mentions, [Page 165] past betwixt them; Psalm 110. 4. [The Lord sware, and will not repent.] This Oath past at Christ's Initiation in­to his Mediatorship; [ Forasmuch as that was not without an Oath, &c.] Heb. 7. 20. By this Oath Christ became, or was made the Surety of that better Covenant, and more antient than that of Moses.

These Covenants by Oath, for the greater solemnity thereof, were made thus: Beasts being cut in twain, and the parts laid a sunder one against another, as Shoulder against Shoulder, and Leg against Leg, with a space to go be­tween. The Parties covenanting pas­sing betwixt the Pieces, made Oath, Gen. 15. 18. Jer. 24. 18. [The Co­venant which they made, when they cut the Bullock in twain, and passed between the parts of it] saying, Let me be struck, as this Beast is struck, if I break this Covenant: whence came the Phrase of ferire foedus, to strike or smite Covenant. Now this Oath was given and taken betwixt God the Fa­ther and the Son, before Christ called [Page 166] to Adam, saying [ Where art thou?] for otherwise he would have entred upon his Mediatory Office without an Oath; And it is very probable that the Voice of God walking in the Garden, which Adam heard before that Call, was the Voice of the Son of God passing through the Parts of the divided Beasts.

The Second end of slaying Beasts, was for the striking of the Covenant betwixt God and Adam, a thing usual in the Ratification of all other Cove­nants betwixt God and Man; as that with Abraham, Gen. 15. 18. That with the Jews, Exod. 24. 5. [half of the Blood ( of the Sacrifices) was sprink­led upon the Altar] which represen­ted God [and the other half upon the People]; or the twelve Pillars, repre­senting the twelve Tribes, after they had consented to the Covenant at the reading of the Book, saying, [ Behold the Blood of the Covenant which the Lord hath stricken with you concerning all these Words.] See Ainsworth on Psal. 50. 5. [My Saints that have stricken a Cove­nant [Page 167] with me by Sacrifice:] But the A­postle's Argument, Heb. 9. 16. [Where a Testament is, there must of necessity be the Death of the Testator: For a Testa­ment is of no force at all while the Testa­tor liveth] from whence he inferreth that [therefore the first Testament was not without Blood] will with equal Firmness support this Inference.

That the first Covenant of Grace with Adam, was ratified by Blood: And that the Testator must of necessi­ty be dead in Type and Effigy as well at the sealing of that as this.

And now in the third place, comes in that other use of the Flesh of these slain Beasts, to wit, Adam's offering them in Sacrifice, as a Burnt-Offering for the Lord. Thus at that mutual Stipu­lation betwixt God and Israel, (Ex. 24. 5.) They offered Burnt-Offerings and Sa­crifices of Peace unto the Lord. And at God's covenanting with Noah he offer­ed Burnt-Offerings, ( Gen. 8. 20.) in all likelihood of the Beasts that had been first cut in twain: For this was a Co­venant by Oath, Isa. 54. 9. [I have [Page 168] sworn that the Waters of Noah shall no more go over the Earth]: and therefore struck, not only by God's stretching out his Right-hand and swearing (as the Hebrew Doctors con­ceive) but by passing between the pieces of the Bullock, &c. that being the most ancient Patriarchal Mode of ratifying a Covenant by Oath; and taken up from this Primitive Example of God's Covenanting with Adam. Here we have an account of the dispo­sal of the Flesh of those Beasts, with whose Skins God apparell'd Adam and Eve, fully consonant to the holy Scrip­tures, and such as speaks Adam to have consented to the Covenant upon its first proposal, and the New Crea­ture (Man restored by Faith in Christ) to have been brought forth into actu­al Existence before that Seventh Day, whereon God rested.

5. And now, and not till now, the Heavens and the Earth were finished; and all the Hoast of them, when this Captain of the Lord's Hoast, had his Commission sealed, had mustered [Page 169] his Army, and administred Sacramen­tum Militare, the Military Oath to his holy Elect, and faithful Ones; his Army on Earth was but a small Compa­ny (consisting but of two) but it was terrible with Banners (the Banner of Love over it, the Banner of defiance against the Enemy) who took this Captain of their Salvation for so ma­ny, and beheld in these two such a Troop coming (tho but of Sheep, yet led on by the Lion of the Tribe of Judah) as at its first looking out in this Morning of the day of Grace, the ramping and roaring Lion was Thunder-strook, prostrate, laid flat upon the Ground, and made to creep upon his Belly; had none to side with him ever since save his own profliga­ted Angels, (that had forsaken their first Station) and a cripled crew of Kaitiffs that were bowed together by Satan, and could not stand upright; a Company of Monsters in human shape with two-legg'd Bodies, and four-footed Souls; and had nothing left for Forrage to himself and's Army, [Page 170] nothing to feed on, but Dust (the carnal, sensual, devilish part of Man­kind). Now, and not till now, every Tree brought forth Fruit in its kind; when the true Vine began to flourish, when the Tree of Life had thus put forth its Leaves and Fruit for the heal­ing of Mankind: Till God thus shined in Man's Heart to give the Light of the Knowledg of the Glory of God in the Face of Jesus Christ, he had not commanded the Light to shine out of Darkness, out of that more dismal Darkness then sate upon the Face of the unformed Earth, even that where­with Adam's Sin had invelop'd the whole Creation, and made it a more confused Chaos than that rude and in­digested Lump, out of which it had been reduced. For hereby Adam de­fac'd the Image of God; so far lost the the Dominion of the Creature, as he retained not so much thereof as the Rule over himself. Nay, the whole Fabrick of the World was loosned and ready to fall (this Keistone of the Arch being crumbled into Dust) If [Page 171] Christ had not sustained the Weight of that ruinous Building upon his own Shoulders▪ while it was a repairing, by God's making Adam anew, and build­ing him upon a new Foundation, even the Rock of Ages, that precious and elect Corner-Stone, at the laying whereof the Morning Stars sang toge­ther, and all the Sons of God shouted for Joy. Job 38. 6, 7. [Wast thou by when he laid the chief Corner-Stone there­of, when the Morning Stars sang toge­ther? &c.] Gen. 2. 4. [These are the Generations of Heaven and Earth, in the day that Jehovah made the Earth and the Heavens.] The name of Jehovah is here first given to God; which Name the Cabalists observe to imply the Mer­cy of God; as Elohim▪ signifies his Justice; P. Fagius in locum; who observes also that the word [ Tholed­hoth] Generations, is no where writ perfectly but here, and Ruth 4. 18. be­cause these Generations only, to wit, of the World and the Messias (of whose Family the Book of Ruth trea­teth) are perfect. Now was Man [Page 172] twice formed, as is implied, vers. 7. And the Lord God formed Vai-jitzer, duplex hic est, Jod ad significandum (inquit) R. S. duplicem hominis formationem, hujus & futuri seculi post Resurrectionem. P. Fagius. Here is a double Jod, to signi­fie the two-fold Generation of Adam; the first relating to this World; the second to the World to come; that is, his Formation as Man, his Refor­mation, as a new Man: And these Ge­nerations thus perfected, are said ( vers. 4.) to be made in one day; because the whole Creation was perfected by Man's new Creation at the entrance of the seventh day.

6. Till all the Host of Heaven and Earth was thus finished, by the For­mation of the new Creature, and In­troduction of the second Adam, God had not made sufficient Preparation for his resting in his Works, as very good and altogether adequate to the bringing about of his own glorious and gracious ends: But now this Workmanship of God created in Christ for good Works: Eph. 2. 9. being made, [Page 173] Christ's personal being exhibited in the Promise, as adopted into Man's Fami­ly, and Christ mystical being born of the immortal Seed of that Word of Promise, and by Faith adopted into the Family of God; the Pleasure of the Lord thus prospering in the Medi­ator's Hands, and Christ's seeing and reaping the Fruit of the travel of his Soul; what could the issue of this be but Satisfaction, Acquiescency, & Rest? Man renewed and restored into Com­munion with God, through the Medi­ation of the Son of God, was in the fore-Appointment of it, the mutual Pleasure of God the Father, and God the Son, from all Eternity, ( Prov. 8. 29, 30, 31.) [When he appointed the Foundations of the Earth, then was I by him—. I was daily his delight, rejoycing always before him, in the habitable Parts of the Earth, and my Delights were with the Sons of Men.] The Son's delight was among the Sons of Men in the habi­table parts of the Earth, before Man was created, or the Foundations of the Earth laid, save only in the Decree [Page 174] and Appointment of God. And this rejoycing of the Son was the Father's delight: And for this Pleasures sake, Heaven and Earth, and the whole Furniture of both were created. [ Rev. 4. 11. Thou hast created all things, and for thy Pleasure they are and were cre­ated.] The whole World (say the Jewish Doctors) was created for the Messias; and the Messias (say all Chri­stians) was exhibited for the Redemp­tion of Mankind, from that state of Sin and Misery, into which we fell through the Transgression of the Pro­to-plast. This Redemption was ten­dred to Adam in the Promise of the Woman's Seed, and accepted by Adam through Faith in that Promise, and that acceptance ratified by a Cove­nant of Salt, by a Sacrifice salted with Fire, the Sacrifice of a whole Burnt-Offering; which burning upon the Altar all Night unto the Morning. (Lev. 6. 9.) And figuring the Oblation of Christ's Body, and Adam's Oblation of his Bo­dy, as a living Sacrifice, holy and ac­ceptable to God through Christ, must [Page 175] needs come up with Acceptance be­fore God, and send forth a sweet Sa­vour of Rest unto God at the dawn­ing of the seventh Day. The Talmu­dists say, that God created Fire on the seventh day: I suppose they mean that Fire that came down from Hea­ven on Adam's Sacrifice in token of God's Approbation. So that God having perfected his Work on the seventh Day, even all the Work that he had made, Gen. 2. 2. Or, all the Work that he created to make, vers. 3. Rested on the Seventh Day, and sancti­fied it.

The Hebrews distinguish betwixt creating, forming, and making, thus; To create, is the Production of any thing out of nothing; to from, is the bestowing of Form and Shape upon a­ny thing created; to make, is to perfect, finish, and to adapt to its proper use, that that is created and formed. They are all three used to this sense in one Verse, ( Isa. 43. 7.) I have created him for my Glory, I have formed him; yea, I have made him; that is, every way [Page 176] fitted him for the attaining that end for which I created and formed him. ( P. Fagius in Targ. Onkelos). Now Adam, being created to bring forth good Works in Christ Jesus: was not God's [...], his Workmanship fitted for the Production of the end of his Creation, while he was either in a state of Innocence or of the Lapse; which alone is sufficient to prove that Adam fell and was restored by Faith in the promised Seed the day of his Creation: for otherwise, God could not have rested; that is, have taken Delight and Complacency in all the Work he created to make as very (that is, per­fectly) good and compleated for the effecting the end of Creation, to wit, the glorifying of God by good Works done in Christ. And therefore that seventh Day's rest on Sunday (where God saw all very good, as good as Heart could wish) was the Rest of Redemption: And the Jewish Satur­day-Sabbath, the rest of the Creation uncompleated on the sixth day, before Man was capacitated by Faith in Christ, [Page 177] to glorify God through his Redeemer. Saturday and Sunday-Sabbath came into the World, not like Esau and Ja­cob, but like Phares and Zara. The Jewish Saturday-Sabbath was not born first, and afterwards the Christian Sun­day-Sabbath, catching the Jewish by the Heel, supplanted it, and obtained the Blessing of Primogeniture: But the Christian Sabbath, like Zara, first put out its Hand, and upon Sunday's Wrist was tied the Thred, the Bond of God's Injunction to sanctify that Day; and the Scarlet-Thred, the Bond of the Covenant of Grace, sealed in the Blood of the promised Seed: for by binding is signified the imposing of the Law of hallowing the Sunday-Sabbath; whence God's Laws are called Bonds and Cords [ Let us break their Bonds asunder, and cast their Cords from us] that is, the Laws of God and of his Christ ( Psal. 2. 2, 3.) And a Bond or Cord of Scarlet Thred was to Ra­hab a sign of the Covenant, confirmed by the Blood of Christ, Josh. 2. 18. compared with Heb. 11. 31. [By Faith [Page 178] the Harlot Rahab perished not.] And the Patriarchal Church unto the Flood (and all since the Flood, who adhered to that Church) in their Sunday-Sab­bath Celebrities had an Eye of Faith upon that Scarlet-Thred bound to the Wrist of that Day. But when the vil­lanous Subtilty of such Politicians, as designed to make themselves absolute Soveraigns over the Nations inde­pendent from God, had perverted that custom of worshipping God in publick Assemblies on Sundays, by inacting the Worship of the Sun on that day that bare the name of that Planet, (making that Hand which God had set at the end of the Volumn of his Book, as the Index pointing to the chief Contents of that Volumn, the eternal Word making Propitiation through his Blood) to point the contrary way, to the Worship of the Creature: Then the Scarlet-Thred was drawn back out of the Jews sight, till the fullness of time; and now comes forth the Jewish Saturday-Sab­bath, more than 2400 Years after the [Page 179] Patriarchal Sunday-Sabbath; which Saturday-Sabbath was not imposed upon any Nation but the Jews; nor upon them in room of the Patriarcal, but upon other accounts, as will be shewed in the handling of the sixt and last Branch of our Discourse upon the Sabbath.

SECT. I.

THat Saturday-Sabbath (as well as the rest) was appointed the Jews to be a Ceremonial Badg to diffe­rence them from all other Nations, who celebrated Sunday as their week­ly Sabbath, is so frequently affirmed [Page 180] in Sacred Scripture, in these, or equi­valent Terms, [ It is a sign between me and you throughout your Generations, that you may know that I am the Lord that sanctifieth you.] As all that is requisite for the proof hereof, is to shew that in those places by God's sanctifying of them is meant, his visible separating them, from all other People for his own Inheritance by a Covenant of Peculiarity. For evincing of which, let it be considered, that in Ezek. 20. God's giving them Statutes and Judg­ments (that is, Moral and Judicial Laws) is not said to be to this end, that they might know that he was the Lord that sanctified them; as his giving them his Sabbaths to be a sign be­tween him and them, was, vers. 11, 12. and vers. 19, 20. [I am the Lord your God; hallow my Sabbaths, and they shall be a Sign between me and you, that ye may know that I am the Lord your God]: That is, [That I have taken you to be unto me a People and an Inheri­tance, as ye are at this day.] Deut. 4. 20. Levit. 20. 24. And yet more plain, [Page 181] Exod. 31. 13. it is affirmed of all the Sabbaths Indefinitely, that the keeping of them is a sign between God and the Jews, That he is the Lord their God, &c. and vers. 16. The Children of Israel shall keep my Sabbaths through­out their Generations, by an everlasting Ordinance. It is a Sign betwixt me and the Children of Israel for ever.

2. The reason why God would not have the Jews to celebrate the Sunday which the Patriarchs and themselves, till the Institution of the Saturday-Sabbath celebrated as the week­ly Sabbath, but appointed them ano­ther day, was to secure them from idolizing the Sun with the Heathens, who had perverted Sunday-Sabbath from the Worship of God to the Wor­ship of the Sun; from the Guilt of which Idolatry in celebrating the Pa­triarchal Sabbath, Job purgeth him­self; Job 31. 26, 27, 28. [If I beheld the Sun when it shined, and my Heart hath been secretly enticed, or my Mouth hath kissed my Hand; this also were an Iniquity to be punished by the Judg: For [Page 182] I should have denied the God that is above.] That is, if I had worship'd the the Sun secretly in my Heart, it would have been a denying of God: But if I had worship'd it openly, by kissing my Hand at the sight of it, I had be­come obnoxious to the sentence of the Judg; where note, that in Job's time (who lived some Generations before Abram) the World grew propense to this idolizing of the Sun; but hither­to the Noachal Religion was so pre­valent, as the publick Law of the Na­tions opposed its Incroachment, ( Mer­cer in locum) Vnde videatur Jobi con­terraneos tum non fuisse idolatras, quia dicit se non clam id fecisse nedum palam, non prodit statim in publicum ista temeri­tas, nisi postquam cor plane occaecatum fuerit & consensus favor (que) plurium ac­cesserint. Job's Contemporaries and Country-men were not Idolaters; be­cause he saith, he did not worship the Sun either secretly or openly: such Temerity as this doth not forthwith appear in publick, but after that the Heart is altogether blinded and com­mon [Page 183] Consent and Favour come to take its part. However in Moses's time this idolizing of the Sun had u­niversally prevail'd; and even in Abra­ham's time was back't by the secular Law in Vr of the Chaldees, for the Con­tempt whereof in his refusing to wor­ship the Caldean Emblem of the Sun, Abraham, with his Father Terah, found Vr of the Caldees too hot for them. By the way observe that the word which in this place of Job is transla­ted the Sun, [ [...]] is that from whence Vr of the Caldees deriv'd its Name; and the Egyptians the Name they give the Sun, [...], ( Macrob. Saturnal. 1. 21.) Hence Moses so frequently reneweth this Caution, that the Jews should take heed of making any Representations of the Sun, or any of the Host of Hea­ven, ( Deut. 4. 19.) and ( Chap. 7. 3.) in special to the Sun and Moon, that they should not inquire after the Na­tions way of Worship, [saying, How did those Nations serve their Gods? even so will I do:] that is, after that man­ner will I serve God. And in parti­cular, [Page 184] not after their burning of their Sons and Daughters in the Fire to their Gods: Deut. 12. 30, 31. Now the God to whom the Gentiles sacrificed their Children was the Sun, whose Idol was called Moloch and Milchom; Amos 5. 26. 1 Kings 11. 5, 7. as being Molech, or King of all the Planets; and therefore by the 70 translated [...], the Prince; and by the Phoenicians (Door-Neighbours to the Jews) called Beel-Samen, the Lord of Heaven (as Sanchoniatho witnesseth in Euseb. Evang. Prep. l. 1.) And yet notwithstanding all these Prohibitions, and God's discharging them from the publick Worship of himself on that day whereon the Heathens in their A­postacy from the first Institution wor­shipped the Sun; the Jews imitated the Heathens in this most barbarous Custom of burning their Sons and Daughters in the Fire, the Represen­tation of the Sun: Jer. 7. 31. & 19. 5. Psal. 106. 37, 38. So exceeding prone was that People to imbrace strange Gods: And therefore they stood so much more in need to have all Occa­sion [Page 185] thereto removed from them; and especially such as God had instituted at first for the securing his own, but were in process of Time perverted to the Introduction and countenancing of the Worship of false Gods, as was the fate of the Patriarchal Sunday-Sab­bath. Upon the like account the Jews were prohibited very many other Customs, if not of divine Institution, yet of Patriarchal Practice; yea, some of them seeming to be the natural Re­sults of the Law of Humanity: such was mourning at the Funerals of dear and near Relations, wherein the Pa­triarchs exceeded even to the Admira­tion of other Nations; Gen. 50. 10, 11. [And they wailed there with a very great and heavy Wailing; and he (Joseph with his Brethren) made a mourning for his Father seven days: And the Ca­naanites saw the Mourning, and they said, This is an heavy Mourning to the Egy­ptians; therefore the name of that Place was called, The Mourning of the Egypti­ans.] Yet this so natural a Duty was prohibited the High-Priest, for he must [Page 186] not mourn for his Father or Mother; (Levit. 21. 11.) and that because he had the holy Anointing, and the holy Garments upon him, which were holy only in Type. So that here the Law of Nature must yield to the Levitical in this particular Case, where the High-Priest's honouring of Father and Mother could do the Dead no good, but might be an occasion of Evil to the Living; (by the way, this makes the Case of the High-Priests wholly different from the Pharisees pleading Carban). But where lay the Danger? Answer, in drawing the Jews to Con­formity to the idolatrous Heathens in their manner of mourning. Baruch 6. 31, 32. [And the Priests sit in their Temples, having their Cloaths rent, and their Heads and Beards shaven, and no­thing upon their Heads: They roar and cry before their Gods, as Men do at the Feast when one is dead.] Hence all Communion with the Nations is so pathetically forbidden the Jews, lest they should by that means be drawn to Idolatry. So much less reason have [Page 187] we to wonder that God should ap­point the Jews another Day for their weekly Sabbath, than that which was instituted at first to all Mankind, when the Gentiles had perverted the Celebration of that Day to the insti­tuting the Worship of the Sun. Up­on the like reason at the Restitution of Sunday-Sabbath (upon the expi­ring of the Ceremonial Saturday-Sab­bath) the Christian Church changed the name of Sunday into that of the Lord's-Day, that she might secure her Children from the Opinion of the Heathen World, that it was in honour of the Planet of the Sun, that that day of the Week which bore its name was separated for holy Assembles.

3. And now we need not go far to seek for a Reason why God appointed Saturday to be the Jewish Sabbath; for that being the week-day immedi­ately preceding Sunday, and the whole Oeconomy of Moses's Law, as of a thing imperfect, pointing to good things to come: (Heb. 10. 1.) It was necessary that [Page 188] their typical Day of Rest should be so placed in the order of the Septiman, as from thence they might look imme­diately unto that Day of true Rest that was to come at the rising of the Sun of Righteousness out of the Grave. But besides this, the more special Rea­son of God's appointing them Satur­day for their Sabbath, was, because Saturday was the first day of Rest they had from Egyptian Bondage; for they marched from Rameses on Friday, the 15th day of the 1st Month, and set up their Booths at Succoth on Saturday, where they stayed two days, according to the common Opinion of Learned Men, on the latter whereof Sunday, the Premises considered, it may be presumed that they kept an holy Rest unto the Lord according to the Patriarchal Custom; and that it was in that Assembly that Moses re­peated the Ordinances of the Passo­ver, and separated the first-born of Males and Firstlings of the Flocks and Herds to be holy to the Lord.

SECT. II.

And that this Precept for Saturday-Sabbath did not vacate the Patriarchal, either to all Nations, or to the Jews themselves for ever; but was only imposed upon them as a Carnal Ordi­nance of divine Service until the time of Reformation; (Heb. 9. 10.) Or until the Seed should come; (Gal. 3. 19.) and those good things, the Body whereof is Christ, whereof it was a Shadow; God gave the Jews many plain Intimati­ons.

1. In his assigning their Delive­rance from Egypt, and their resting from their hard Labour in that Bon­dage, as the peculiar Reason of his commanding the Jews to celebrate his Sabbaths; Deut. 5. 15. That thy Man-Servant, &c. may rest as well as thou; and remember that thou wast a Servant in the Land of Egypt; and that the Lord thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty Hand, and by a stretch­ed-out Arm: Therefore the Lord thy [Page 190] God commanded thee to keep the Sabbath-day; whether weekly, monthly, or yearly, as also the Sabbaths of Years and Jubilees; which Reason cannot reach other Nations, but is wholly accommodated to the Jews, and to them only till the time of Restaura­tion.

2. In his suspending the Raigning of Mannah on their Sabbaths, and let­ting it fall on Sunday's Manna, being reputed by those that could not look under the Vail, Angels Food, the Bread of Heaven ( Psal. 105. 40.) its not falling on their Sabbath was interpre­ted, that the giving of true Manna (that of which whosoever eateth shall live for ever) was reserved for Gospel­times, and the Restauration of the Pa­triarchal Sabbath; when he whom the Father sealed, would give his Flesh for the Life of the World, that true Bread of Life (Joh. 6.) that spiritu­al Food which was the desire of all that hungred after Righteousness; of the Distribution whereof in the Ordi­nances of the Gospel, when they heard [Page 191] Christ discourse, they cried out [ Lord, evermore give us of this Bread:] Not so much as the Type of that Bread, which can give Satisfaction and Rest to the Soul, was communicated on their Sab­bath; and that was a plain enough Indication that their Sabbath was not the true Rest.

3. In the very form of its first Insti­tution, Exod. 16. 23. the Imposition of the Name bewrays the nature of the thing [is the Rest of the Sabbath, Sabbathon, Sabbath, the Sabbatism, the Sabbath holy to the Lord] so Ains­worth reads it. But he is exceeding wide of the sense of the Hebrew Word [ Sabbathon] in translating it [ Sab­batism,] except he takes Sabbatism for a Diminitive; for Schindler in his Pen­teglot, and P. Fagius on the Chaldee Paraphrase, Exod. 31. 15. affirm that Sabbathon hath the form of a Dimini­tive, which, saith he, the Hebrews form by adding [ on] to the end of the Primitive, as Isch, viz. Ishcon viruncu­lus; so of Sabbath comes Sabbathon, Sabbatulum: And Fagius observes, [Page 192] that the Hebrew Doctors do thus di­stinguish these two words, that Sab­bath signifies the whole day from be­ginning to end; Sabbathon, that part of the Eve before the just beginning of the Sabbath, which was taken from the prophane, and added to the sacred Time, by such as chose rather to over­do than to come short. The Name therefore given Saturday-Sabbath at first was the [ Puny Sabbath] [the de­my-Rest] or the [ Eve-rest of the true Sabbath.] A Diminitive Rest for Chil­dren under Age, preparative to that holy Rest suitable to Men which was to succeed.

4. David speaking of another day of Rest than that which Moses had instituted the Celebration of, and of another Rest than that which Joshua brought them into the Possession of, made so clear a Comment upon the Precept of the Sabbath, as well as of their Rest in Canaan, as from thence the Jews might have collected, that both were but shadows of a better Rest, and better Day of Rest ap­proaching, [Page 191] by the same way of Ratio­cination that the Apostle useth in the 3d and 4th Chapters to the Hebrews. Touching the Rest of Canaan, it is not material to my Business, and therefore I shall not speak of that but occasio­nally. But what the Author of that Epistle argueth, from David's speaking of another day, so long a time after the giving of the Precept touching Saturday-Sabbath, is of such moment towards the right Perception of the Strenuousness of his Arguments for both, and of so great Concernment towards the Illustration of that Point I am now handling, as I shall for the clea­ring of the Apostle's Discourse on that Subject, commit to the Censure of the pious and learned these Annotations.

1. The Rest of Joshua and the Sab­bath of Moses, as reflected on by Da­vid, are that Yoke of Heifers where­with the Apostle plows to find out the Riddle of the Lord's-day-Sabbath, and the not making them to draw equally, is the main reason why Commentators make no better Work of St. Paul's [Page 192] Arguments touching another Day; and why they make a balk or a bun­gle of the Christian Sabbath; though all the Texts alledged, not only in their own most natural Tendency, but in the Apostle's express Application of them, look directly thitherward. I will begin with that which Beza con­fesses to be a most obscure place; Heb. 4. 3. [For we which have believed do enter [...], into that Rest, as he said, [as I have sworn in my Wrath, if they shall enter into my Rest,] although the Works were finish­ed from the Foundation of the World.] It is the Mis-translation of this last Clause makes this Text unintelligible; but if Men did not shut their Eyes, for fear of seeing the Light of the Christi­an-Sabbath dart in upon them from hence; or cast the Vail of their own Pre-occupations upon the face of it, there would be no Obscurity at all in it; for, take it as the Apostle gave it (if it were writ by him in Greek) and it is as light as Day; [...], [ If they [Page 193] shall enter into my Rest, [...]] equidem, scilicet, nempe, I mean, or, that is to say, or [to wit, in the Works when they were finished from the Foundation of the World.] (i. e.) They shall not enter into that Rest I took on the se­venth Day, when I saw all things that I had made, and lo it was very good: [For he speaks in a certain place of the se­venth Day, on this wise, [ And God did rest the seventh Day▪ from all his Works,] as it immediately follows ( vers. 4.) by which Quotation of what is said ( Gen. 2. 2.) the Apostle proves, that he hath given a right Explanation of David's Words, when he saith, the Rest of God there meant, is God's resting in the Contemplation of the Perfections of his Works on the se­venth Day; upon the account where­of he blessed the seventh Day, [be­cause it is there said of the seventh Day, that God rested from all his Works.] And that he had rightly concluded from God's swearing Unbelievers out of his Rest, that Believers, that is, Christians, had entred into it, seeing the only [Page 194] Bar put in against entering is Unbe­lief; he proves ( vers. 5.) from that place of David which the Apostle had taken for his Text, Chap. 3. and in this place again, (that is, he speaks again of the seventh Day on this wise) [ If they shall enter into my Rest.] The reason of which Consequence the A­postle gives, vers. 6.] Seeing then, some must enter in,] (for to what purpose else serves the Promise of entring) [ and they to whom it was first preached entred not in, because of Vnbelief.] The Consequence is so plain, that it needs not be repeated, to wit, that therefore they that have believed, are entred. And again, or furthermore, vers. 7. [He limiteth a certain day, [...], saying to David, to day, after so long a time, it is said, To day, if you will hear my Voice:] That is, the Day that David speaks of cannot be the Jewish Saturday-Sabbath, for the Jews were very zealous in keeping that carnal Commandment (insomuch as he that did but gather a few Sticks was stoned to death); and in recompence thereof [Page 195] had bodily Rest given them by Joshua in Canaan; but it was many hundreds of Years after that, that David spake of another Day and another Rest; which he would not have done, if that had been God's seventh Day's Rest, con­ducting them to the true Rest, [ For if Jesus, (i. e.) Joshua, had given them Rest, then would he not afterwards have spoken of another Day] vers. 8. From all which Premises the Apostle draws this Conclusion; [ There remaineth there­fore a Rest to the People of God:] ver. 9. [...], &c. [there­fore the Sabbatism remains, or is left, or falls to the share of the People of God] ( i.e.) to the Christian Church; according to that ( Rom. 9. 25.) I will call them my People that were not my People. And now Sabbatism is not so hard to be understood, but that the Signification thereof might easily be found out, if Men could digest it as Platonism, Latinism, Graecism, signifies the pure, natural, and genuine Imitati­on of Plato, of the Latine or Greek Tongue; so Sabbatism is nothing else [Page 196] but the genuine Imitation of the Sab­bath; and (according to the Tenor of the Apostle's Discourse) of that complacential Rest which God took on the seventh Day. It remains there­fore, that the Christian, or Lord's-day-Sabbath, is the most natural and genu­ine Copy of God's Rest: But it is be­yond my Intention to make a just Comment; I intended these short Notes as Instances only to shew how Men's disgusting the Notion of a Christian-Sabbath, makes them cast up from their nauceating Stomacks, the Apostle's Ar­guments undigested.

2. The next Bugbear that frights Men out of the plain way of Truth, is a Conceit, that when they hear the sound of a seventh-day Sabbath, they think they hear the Man-drakes Voice of the Jewish Sabbath: I need not here give Instances of this, for they occur every-where in all Men's Wri­tings concerning the Sabbath: And it is too too common an Opinion, that the Jewish Sabbath is the seventh Day in the order of the Creation, and our Christi­an [Page 197] Sabbath the First [ de Die autem primo Mundi constat inter omnes illum fuisse Diem Dominicum,] Gregor. de Valentia, Tom. 1. Disp. 5. Quest. 3. Pun. 1. Quando quidem Dies septimus ab eo fuit Dies Sabbati: Concerning the First Day of the World it is agreed amongst all Men, that it was the Lord's-day, seeing the Seventh from that was the day of the Sabbath: yea, his Conceit is, that it was called Sunday from the beginning, because the Light created on the first Day was the Light of the Sun, not yet endowed with its pro­per Motion, North and South, which it received the fourth Day, but only with that of the Primum mobile, from East and West. But I have sufficiently proved the contrary, to wit, that the Jewish Sabbath was not the seventh, but sixth Day in order of the Crea­tion, but only of gathering Quails and Mannah. And that our Lord's-day, tho according to the Jewish Idiom it be called the First Day (the first Day of their Week after that God had ap­pointed them to observe another be­ginning [Page 198] of their Work as well as Year then was in use before) yet it is in reality the Seventh Day of the Week, commencing that Account from the Creation, and the same Day of the Week whereon God rested.

3. The last thing I shall name here, is as a remora to Mens arrival at the true meaning of the Apostle's Discourse is a Tincture with that Spirit which Luther's Aerij Daemones were of; or with that wherein they in the Corin­thian Church were immerst, who would be of Christ in opposition to Paul, and Apollos. These Men's high-flown Minds will not stoop to the Contemplation of any Sabbath-Day, to be celebrated under the Gospel, in the visible Communion of Saints; but hang hovering in the Clouds about a Day of Rest, purely spiritual; nor of any Rest but everlasting; and in this humour so spiritualize the Apostle's Arguments, as they leave nothing in them, after their Chymical Operations, but thin etherial Vehicles, or flitting Elizian Shades. But can a certain [Page 199] Day limited to the seventh, be an in­dividuum vagum? or a limited Day be the eternal Sabbath? What ever mean Thoughts such Men may have of the Christian, or Lord's-Day-Sabbath; the divinely inspired Pen-man had such an high Esteem of it, as he thought it a Subject worthy to be treated on, as be­ing a very sovereign means to prevent Apostacy, and to hold Christians to their Profession: For that's the mark he aimed at, and concludes his Dis­course of the Sabbath with the menti­on of that as his aim, ( Chap. 4. 14.) as he had begun that Discourse with an Exhortation of the same Tendency, viz. To hold fast their Profession: Yea, it is the main Scope of the whole Epi­stle, to disswade the Hebrew Christians from forsaking Church-Assemblies, as some had done, and drawn back to the Perdition of their Souls; and to per­swade them to a firm adhering to Chri­stian-Fellowship in the Administra­tion of Sabbath-Ordinances. On which Days also he strictly chargeth the Mi­nisters to be instant in preaching; cal­ling [Page 200] that a Preaching in Season; and with the same Breath, stiling Preaching in the Synagogues of the Jews on their Saturday-Sabbath, Preaching out of sea­son, (2 Tim. 4. 2.) That I do not by this Exposition of them pervert the Apostle's Words, will be manifest, if,

1. We consider, that the Precept for Preaching presupposeth an Audience of Men. I think none will imagine that Timothy was bound by this In­junction to preach to Stones, as they say Venerable Bede did once, nor to Sheep, Hogs and Birds, as that goodly Saint (of the Pope's making) An­thony is fabled to have done frequent­ly.

2. That a publick Audience could not be had, but upon stated Days of meeting, either upon a civil account, as in Markets, &c. or upon a religious account, as in the Jewish Synagogues every of their Sabbath-Days, and in Christian Churches on the Lord's-Day (the first Day of the Week in the Jewish Reckoning.

[Page 201] 3. That the Apostles took all Occa­sions of such publick Assemblies to preach the Gospel, besides their teach­ing from House to House.

4. That their Attendance upon the Administration of Gospel-Ordinances to the Church, would not permit them on the Lord's-Days to preach to Forreign Assembles either of Jews or Gentiles, and therefore preaching to them was out of season, being per­formed on Week-Days; Days that were not then, appointed of God to be Seasons for sacred Solemnities; for even the Jewish Sabbath, though it had been appointed to that Nation, for a time, to be their weekly Sabbath; yet not it's grown out of Season, and the Patriarchal Sunday-Sabbath came into season, whence Preaching on that day is stiled Preaching in Season.

How much Light this Observation casts upon the Apostle's Discourse, and what Darkness the vulgar Opinion, viz. (that the Apostle speaks of a spiritual and eternal Rest) hath drawn-over the Hearts of Men, in their reading this [Page 202] part even of the New Testament, is apparent from this one Instance, vers. 10. [For he that is entred into his Rest, hath ceased from his own Works as God did from his.] Learned Men are puz­led how to give such a Sence of this Clause, as is coherent with the Context: But understand the Apostle to speak here of the Christian Lord's-Day-Sab­bath, and the sence is as clear as the Sun at Noon-day, and that sence ad­mirably consonant with what precedes and follows, thus. It remains there­fore, that the Church in sanctifying the Lord's-Day doth most properly imitate God's seventh Day Rest [ For he that is entred [...], into the Rest of that same People of God to whom the Sabbatism appertains (for [...] not [...], is the Antecedent to [...],) [ he also hath ceased from his own Works, as God did from his.] For as God rested on the seventh Day from his proper Works as Creator, that be­ing the proper Work of God the Fa­ther (who made me and all the World) though as to other kind of Works the [Page 203] Father worketh hitherto. Even so he that is entred into the Rest of the People of God (the Christian-Sab­bath) doth therein most genuinely imitate God, in that he also hath ceased from his Works; that is, the Works of the Law of Moses, that being the pro­per Notion of [Works] in St. Paul's Sence, whensoever he makes Compari­son betwixt the Law and the Gospel. And the Works of the Law, being the proper Works of the Hebrews, to whom this Epistle was directed, as differencing them from all other Na­tions: He hath cast off that Yoak of Ceremonies, which neither we nor our Fathers could bear, and hath taken the easy Yoke of Christ upon him, that he may find rest to his Soul. And what an apt Introduction is this to what is immediately subjoyned, vers. 11. [Let us therefore strive to en­ter into this same Rest, lest any Man fall after the same Example of Vnbelief.] Let me therefore perswade you to imitate God in his Seventh-Day's Rest, lest you imitate your fore-Fathers in [Page 204] Unbelief, and be excluded from eter­nal Rest: From which fearful State, the best way to be secured, is to attend upon Christian Lord's-Day's Assem­blies and Administrations, where you shall hear Moses in the Newness of his Spirit, not in the Oldness of the Letter; you will see that Vail that Moses put upon his Face done away, if you will turn unto the Lord; and will find the Word of God, as a sharp two-edged Sword, drawn out of the Scabbard of Types and Ceremonies (wherein it could not do any Execu­tion upon the Soul) and so weilded, [as it shall pierce even to the dividing asunder of the Soul and Spirit;] which is the plain Importance of vers. 12. [For the Word of God is quick, &c.] that is, as it is dispenc'd in Christian-Assembles; into which if an Unbelie­ver should come, while they are pro­phesying (1 Cor. 14. 24.) that is, ap­plying Old-Testament Prophesies unto Christ, and proving thence that Jesus is the Christ [ he is judg'd, convinc'd of all] convinc'd of the Sin of Unbe­lief, [Page 205] ( Joh. 16. 8.) convinc'd and judg'd of all; that is, all that prophesy one by one (1 Cor. 14. 31.) not only by the prophesying of such as like Apollos are mighty in the Scriptures, ( Act. 18. 28.) but is so mightily convinc'd that Jesus is the Christ, even of the weakest of them that have the Gift of Prophesy­ing, that is, of applying the Old-Te­stament for proof of the truth of the Gospel; he is, I say, by this powerful Word so convinc'd, as the Secrets of his Heart are made manifest, and so falling down on his Face, he glorifieth God, and confesseth that God is in you of a Truth. (1 Cor. 14. 25.) By the Premises it appears, that the Apostle's scope in his Discourse of the Sabbath, is to with­draw the Jews from the Celebration of their Fruitless Sabbath, to the Ob­servation of the Christian-Sabbath: As also how well God provided for the Settlement of publick-stated As­semblies in the Church, when the Jew­ish Sabbaths were antiquated, by letting the Apostles see, that though the Law for that was out of date, ( Col. 2. 16.) [Page 206] yet there remained a Sabbath to the People of God, viz. That which was instituted from the beginning, and commanded in the Decalogue. Had the Apostle indeed only decried that, and not establish'd this; it might have been thought, that the Church had been left to her choice, what Day of the Week to have celebrated, as Calvin and the Prolepsarians conceive: But as if the holy Ghost had purposely in­tended to obviate that Errour, the admitting whereof would unavoida­bly bring Confusion into the Christian World; he was pleased to direct the same Apostle, whose Pen had cancel'd the Jewish, to write in Vindication of the Christian-Sabbath; and to inform him, that seeing the Partition-wall was taken down, there was a plain and o­pen way made, for the Restauration of the Patriarchal Sunday-Sabbath, that Sabbath in the sanctifying whereof the greatest part of those Worthies men­tioned ( Heb. 11.) had received Grace to offer acceptable Sacrifices to God by Faith in the promised Seed, to walk [Page 207] with God, to be upright before him in the most general Apostacies; to o­bey his Call unreservedly, though they knew not whither. To exert such He­roick Acts of Faith, Patience, Con­tempt of the World, Dependance on God, &c. as made them the Wonders of that World which was unworthy of them, and Paterns to the best of Chri­stians. That Sabbath in the Celebra­tion whereof, the Christian-Church forsook the Jewish Synagogue, (then became the Synagogue of Satan) and betook themselves to the Communion of the General-Assembly and Church of the First-born, consisting of all those who from the Publication of the Promise of Christ to Adam, had been begotten again of the immortal Seed of that ever-induring Word admini­stred to the Patriarchs, and all that adhere to the Patriarchal Religion in all Nations and Ages; and admini­stred without those carnal Ordinances and unprofitable bodily Exercises, wherewith the Jews Sabbath was in­cumbred, if not wholly taken up [Page 208] therewith. For the Jews that out­went the Ox and Ass in keeping the Mosaical Sabbath as such, did not go be­yond them in the Strength of the Ser­vices thereof, which could not perfect them that frequented them, as touch­ing Conscience; but in the strength of the Ordinances of the Patriarchal Sabbath; so that it was their doing Sunday's Work on their Saturdays, that sanctified the Jews as to Consci­ence. Their own Sabbath's Rest from Work sanctifying them only by the external visible separating of them from other Nations; to the end that our Saviour's Descent from Abraham might be more conspicuous. And therefore as their fore-Fathers sell short through their looking no fur­ther than Canaan; so those then Mo­derate Jews, to whom he writes, would also fall short of Eternal Rest, if they did not look forward beyond their Sabbath-Day to Sunday, or the Lord's-Day-Sabbath; in the Ordinances whereof Saving Grace is so plentifully dispenc'd, as the Eunuch, shall have no [Page 209] cause to say, I am a dry Tree; nor the Sun of the Stranger to complain, I am utterly cut off from God's People. If they take hold of God's Covenant, and keep his Sabbaths now under the Gospel, tho they were excluded from the Congregation of the Lord, under the Mosaical Sabbath; ( Isa. 56. 4, &c.) but their Sacrifices shall be accepted upon his Altar, and he will make them joyful in his House of Prayer. To this God of all Grace, who deals thus bountifully with us Gentiles; even to the Father, Son, and Holy-Ghost, be given all Praises, and Adoration, now and for ever. Amen.