but as it is moral, that is natural; and they mean that materially the decalogue containeth the same law which is the law of nature, and therefore is materially still in force: but they still except certain points and circumstances in it, as the prefatory reason, "I am the Lord that brought thee out of the land of Egypt," &c. And especially this of the Seventhday Sabbath.

Quest. 1. 'How far then are we bound by the decalogue ?'

Answ. 1. As it is the law of nature: 2. As it is owned by Christ, and made part of his law. Therefore no more of it bindeth directly, than we can prove to be either the law of nature, or the law of Christ. 3. As it was once a law of God to the Jews, and was given them upon a reason common to them with us, or all mankind, we must still judge that it was once a Divine determination of what is most meet, and an exposition of a law of nature, and therefore consequentially, and as that which intimateth by what God once commanded, what we should take for his will, and is most meet, it obligeth still. And so when the law of nature forbiddeth incest, or too near marriages, and God once told the Jews what degrees were to be accounted too near, this being once a law to them directly, is a doctrine and exposition of the law of nature still to us; and so is consequently a law, by parity of reason. And so we shall shew anon that it is by the fourth commandment.

IV. The law of Christ bindeth us not to the observation of the Seventh-day Sabbath. Proved.

1. Because it is proved that Christ abrogated Moses's law, as such, and it is no where proved that he reassumed this, as a part of his own law. For it is no part of the law of nature (as is proved) which we confess now to be part of his law.

Object.Christ saith, that he came not to destroy the law and the prophets, but to fulfil them, and that a jot or tittle shall not pass till all be fulfilled.'

Answ. "He is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth." (Rom. x. 4.) The law was a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ." (Gal. iii. 24.) He hath therefore fulfilled the law according to his word, by his incarnation, life, death, and resurrection. It is passed away, but not unfulfilled and fulfilling it, is not destroying it.

:

The ends of it are all attained by him: 2. And though having attained its end, it ceaseth formally, as Moses's law; yet materially, all that is of natural obligation continueth under another form; that is, as part of his perfect law. Therefore as our childish knowledge is said, as knowledge, to be increased, and not done away, when we come to maturity; but as childish, to be done away; so the Mosaical Jewish law, as God's law in general, is perfected by the cessation of the parts which were fitted to the state of bondage, and by addition of more perfect parts (the natural part of it is made a part of a better covenant or frame) : but yet as Mosaical and imperfect, it is abolished.

Briefly this much sufficeth for the answer of all the allegations, by which any would prove the continuation of Moses's law, or any part of it formally as such. I only add, That all Moses's law, even in the decalogue was political, even God's law for the government of that particular theocratical policy, as a political body. Therefore when the kingdom or policy ceased, the law as political could not

continue.

2. It is proved that Christ by his Spirit in his apostles did institute another day. And seeing the Spirit was given them to bring his words to remembrance, and to enable them to teach the churches all things whatsoever he commanded them, it is most probable that this was at first one of Christ's own personal precepts.

3. And to put all out of doubt, that neither the law of nature, nor any positive law, to Adam, Noah, or Moses, or by Christ, doth oblige us to the Seventh-day Sabbath, it is expressly repealed by the Holy Ghost, "Let no man therefore judge you in meats or in drink, or in respect of an holy-day (or feast), or of the new moon, or of the Sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ." (Col. ii. 16.) I know many of late say, that by Sabbath here, is not meant the weekly Sabbath, but only other holy days, as monthly or jubilee rests: But, 1. This is to limit without any proof from the word of God. When God speaks of Sabbaths in general, without exception, what is man that he should put in exceptions without any proof of authority from God? By such boldness we may pervert all his laws. Read Dr. Young upon this text. 2.

Yea, when it was the weekly Sabbath, which then was principally known by the name of a Sabbath, above all other festivals whatsoever, it is yet greater boldness without proof to exclude the principal part, from whence the rest did receive the name. 3. Besides the feasts and new moons being here named as distinct from the Sabbath, are like to include so much of the other separated days, as will leave it still more unmeet to exclude the weekly Sabbath in the explication of that word Sabbaths when so many feasts are first distinguished: op rai' inquit Grotius, hic sunt Azyma, dies omer, scenopegia, dies iλaous.

Object. But the Sabbath mentioned in the decalogue could not be included.'

Answ. This is spoken without proof, and the contrary is before proved.

Object. By this you will make the Christian Sabbath also to be excluded. Is not the Lord's-day a Sabbath?'

Answ. I am here to speak but of the name; of which I say, that the common sense of the word Sabbath was, a day so appointed to rest, as that the bodily rest of it, was a primary part of its observation, to be kept for itself; and such the Jewish Sabbaths were. Though spiritual worship was then also commanded, yet the corporal rest was more expressly or frequently urged in the law, and this not only subordinately as an advantage to the spiritual worship, but for itself, as an immediate and most visible and notable part of sabbatizing. Even ás other ceremonies under the law were commanded, not only as doctrinal types of things spiritual, but as external acts of ceremonious operous obedience suited to the Jews' minority, which is after called the "yoke which they and their fathers were unable to bear." (Acts 15.) Whereas the Lord's-day is appointed but as a seasonable time subservient to the spiritual work of the day; and the bodily rest, not required as primary obedience for itself, but only for the spiritual work sake: ́and therefore no bodily labour is now unlawful, but such as is a hindrance to the spiritual work of the day (or accidentally a scandal and temptation to others), whereas the breach of the outward rest of the Jews' Sabbath, was a sin directly of itself, without hindrance of, or respect to the spiritual worship. So that the first notion and sense of a Sabbath

in those days being (in common use) a day of such ceremonial corporal rest, as the Jewish Sabbath was, the Lord'sday is never in Scripture called by that name; but the proper name is, The Lord's-day. And the ancient churches called it constantly by that name, and never called it the Sabbath, but when they spake analogically by allusion to the Jews' Sabbath; even as they called the holy table, the altar, and the bread and wine, the sacrifice. Therefore it is plain, that Paul is to be understood of all proper Sabbaths, and not of the Lord's-day, which was then, and long after, distinguished from the Sabbaths.

And this ceremonial sabbatizing of the Jews, was so strict, that the ceremoniousness made them the scorn of the heathens, as appeareth by the derisions of Horat. lib. i. sat. 9; Persius, sat. 5; Juvenal. sat. 6; Martial, lib. iv., and others: whereas they derided not the Christians for the ceremonious rest, but for their worship on that day. The Lord's-day being not called a Sabbath in the old sense, then only in use, but distinguished from the Sabbath, cannot be meant by the apostle in his exclusion of the Sabbath. Object. But the apostles then met in the synagogue with the Jews on the Sabbaths; therefore it is not those days that he meaneth here.' (Col. ii. 16.)

Answ. 1. You might as well say, That therefore he is not for the cessation of the Jewish manner of worship, or communion with them in it, because he met with them.

2. And you may as well say, that he was for the continuance of circumcision and purification, because he purified himself and circumcised Timothy.

3. Or that he was for the continuance of their other feasts, in which also he refused not to join with them.

4. But Paul did not keep their Sabbaths formally as Sabbaths, but only took the advantage of their assemblies, to teach them and convince them; and to keep an interest in them and not scandalize them by an unseasonable violation and contradiction.

5. And you must note also, that the text saith not, 'Observe not Sabbath-days,' but "Let no man judge you;" that is, let none take it for your sin, that you observe them not; nor do you receive any such doctrine of the necessity of keeping the law of Moses. The case seemeth like that of "things strangled and blood," which were to be forborne

among the Jews while they were offensive, and the use of them hindered their conversion.

Object.' But the ancient Christians did observe both days.'

Answ. 1. In the first ages they did as the apostles did; that is, 1. They observed no day strictly as a Sabbath in the notion then in use. 2. They observed the Lord's-day, as a day set apart by the Holy Ghost for Christian worship. 3. They so far observed the Jews' Sabbath materially, as to avoid their scandal, and to take opportunity to win them.

2. But those that lived far from all Jews, and those that lived after the law, was sufficiently taken down, did keep but one day, even the Lord's-day as separated to holy uses: except some Christians, who differed from the rest, as the followers of Papias did in the Millenary point.

3. And note that even these dissenters, did still make no question of keeping the Lord's-day, which sheweth that it was on foot from the times of the apostles. So Ignatius (whoever it was, and whenever he wrote) saith that After the Sabbath we keep the Lord's-day.' And Pseudo Clemens, Can. 33, saith, Servants work five days, but on the Sabbath and Lord's-day, they keep holy day in the church, for the doctrine (or learning) of godliness.'

The text of Gal. iv. 10. is of the same sense with Col. ii. 16. against the Jews' Sabbath, and therefore needeth no other defence.

And I would have you consider, whether as Christ's resurrection was the foundation of the Lord's-day, so Christ's lying dead and buried in a grave on the Seventh-day Sabbath, was not a fundamental abrogation of it: I say, not the actual and plenary abrogation; for it was the command of Christ by his word, Spirit, or both, to the apostles before proved, which fully made the change: But as the resurrection was the ground of the new day, so his burial seemeth to intimate, that the day with all the Jewish law, which it was the symbolical profession of, lay dead and buried with him. Sure I am that he saith," when the Bridegroom is taken from them, then shall they fast and mourn; but he was most notably taken from them, when he lay dead in the grave: and if they must fast and mourn that day, they could not keep it as a Sabbath, which was a day of joy. Therefore as by death he overcame him that had the power of death, (Heb. ii. 14,) and as he nailed the hand-writing of