Exercitations concerning the name, original, nature, use, and continuance of a day of sacred…

An. It doth not appear, it cannot be proved, that the Sabbath either as to its first Original, or as to the substance of the Command of it in the Decalogue, was Typical, or instituted to prefigure any thing that was future. Yea, the contrary is evident. For the Law of it, was given before the first Promise of Christ, as we have proved; and that in the state of Innocency, and under the Covenant of Works in perfect force, wherein there was no respect unto the Mediation of Christ. I do acknowledge that God did so order all his Works in the first Creation, and under the Law of Nature, as that they might be suitable Morally to represent his Works under the New Creation, which from the Analogy of our Redemption to the Creation of all things is so called. And hence according to the Eternal Counsel of God, were all things meet to be gathered into an Head in Christ Jesus. On this account there is an Instructive Resemblance, between the Works of one sort and of the other. So the Rest of God after the Works of the old Creation, is answered by the Rest of the Son of God, upon his laying the Foundation of the New Heavens and New Earth in his Resurrection. But that the Sabbath Originally, and in its whole nature, should be a free Institution to prefigure, and as in a shadow to represent any thing Spiritual or Mystical, after wards to be introduced, is not, nor ⟨p. 210⟩can be proved. It was indeed originally a Moral Pledge of Gods Rest, and of our Interest therein, according to the Tenor of the Covenant of Works; which things belong unto our Relation unto God, by virtue of the Law of our Creation. It continueth to retain the same nature, with respect unto the Covenant of Grace. What it had annexed unto it, what Applications it received unto the state of the Mosaical Pedagogy, which were temporary, and umbratile, shall be declared afterwards.

An. It doth not appear, it cannot be proved, that the Sabbath either as to its first Original, or as to the substance of the Command of it in the Decalogue, was Typical, or instituted to prefigure any thing that was future. Yea, the contrary is evident. For the Law of it, was given before the first Promise of Christ, as we have proved; and that in the state of Innocency, and under the Covenant of Works in perfect force, wherein there was no respect unto the Mediation of Christ. I do acknowledge that God did so order all his Works in the first Creation, and under the Law of Nature, as that they might be suitable Morally to represent his Works under the New Creation, which from the Analogie of our Redemption to the Creation of all things is so called. And hence according to the Eternal Counsel of God, were all things meet to be gathered into an Head in Christ Jesus. On this account there is an Instructive Resemblance, between the Works of one sort and of the other. So the Rest of God after the Works of the old Creation, is answered by the Rest of the Son of God, upon his laying the Foundation of the New Heavens and New Earth in his Resurrection. But that the Sabbath Originally, and in its whole nature, should be a free Institution to prefigure, and as in a shadow to represent any thing Spiritual or Mystical, after wards to be introduced, is not, nor