The Divine Appointment of the Lords Day, Chapter 3
CHAP. III.
Whether the seventh day Sabbath be part of the Law of Nature; or only a Positive Law?
IT is but few that I have any Controversie with on this point: But yet one there is, who objecteth and argueth as followeth.
God hath put this into nature, Ex. 20. 10. Thy Stranger. Deut. 5. 14. The three first Chapters of Romans. Particularly Chap. 2. 14, 15, 26, 27. & 3. 9. 21. 1 Cor. 11. 14. Nature hath its teachings. The humane Nature in the first Adam was made and framed to the perfection of the ten words; some Notions whereof are still retained, even in the corrupt state of fallen man. Gen. 1. 26, 27. Eccl. 7. 29. Eph. 4. 20. Col. 3. 10. The Law of the seventh day Sabbath was given before the ten words were proclaimed at Sinai, Exod. 16. 23. Even from the Creation. Gen. 2. 2, 3. Given to Adam in respect of his humane nature, and in him to all the world of humane creatures, Gen. 1. 14. Psalm 104. 19 Lev. 10. 23. Numb. 28. 2, 9, 10. 'Tis the … word in the Original. Se… times of Divine appointment f…r solemn asse…ing, and for Gods instituted service are directed to and pointed at, by those great Lights which the Creator hath set up in the Heavens, Psal. 19. with Rom. 10. 4, 5, 6, 7. 8, 18, 19, 20. Deut. 30. 10, 15. John 1. 9. Every man hath a Light and Law of Nature which he carrieth about him, and is born and bred together with him: These seeds of truth and light, though they will not justifie in the sight of God, and bring a soul throughly and safely h…me to glory, Rom. 1. 20. Yet there are even since Adams fall, those reliques and dark Letters of this holy Law of the ten words, to preserve the memory of our first created dignity, and for some other ends, though these seeds are utterly corrupted now, Titus 1. 15. Natural reason will tell men, that seeing all men in all Nations, do measure their Time by Weeks, and their Weeks by seven dayes, they should (besides what of their time they offer up as due to God every day) give one whole day of every Week to their Maker, who hath allowed them so liberal a portion of time, wherein to provide for themselves and their families. There being no other proportion of time that can so well provide for the necessities of families, as six dayes of every Week, and that is so well fitted to all Functions, Callings and Employments. And the light of Nature (when cleared up) will tell men, that all labour and motion being in order to rest, and rest being the perfection and end of labour, into which labour work and motion doth pass, that therefore the seventh day which is the last day in every Week is the fittest and properest day for a religious rest unto the Creator, for his Worship, Gen. 2. 1, &c. Exod. 20. 9. Deut. 5. 13, 14. Heb. 4. 1. 11. Exod. 31. 17. Rom. 14. 13. Exod. 23. 12. & 34. 21.
Answ. How far a day is of Natural due, I have shewed before: In all the words of this reason (which I set down as I received them) there is much which is no matter of Controversie betwen us; As that there is a Light and Law of Nature (which few men doubt of, who are worthy to be called men) And that by this Law of Nature God should be solemnly worshipped, and that at a set or separated time. I hope the Reader will not expect that I weary him with examining the Texts which prove this before it is denyed. But the thing denyed by us is, that the seventh day Sabbath as the seventh, is of Natural Obligation. The proofs which are brought for this I must examine: For indeed this is the very hindge of all our Controversie: For if this be once proved, we shall easily confess that it is not abrogate: For Christ came not to abrogate any of the Law of Nature (though as I have said, such particles of it may cease, whose Matter ceaseth, by a change in Nature it self.)
The first proof is Exod. 20. 10. The stranger. To which I answer, Our question is not whether the Sabbath was to be rested on… by Strangers that are among the Jews, but, Whether it was part of the Law of Nature? If it be intended that [whatever such strangers were bound to, was of the Law of Nature: But strangers were bound to keep the Sabbath—Ergo—] I deny the Major, which they offer not to prove: And I do more than deny it: I disprove it by the Instances of Ex…d. 12. 19. Was eating leavened bread forbidden by the Law of Nature? V. 48. 49. One Law shall be to him that is home-born, and to the stranger that sojourneth among you: Circumcision was not of the Law of Nature. Lev. 16. 29. Resting from all work on the tenth day of the seventh MonethMonth, was not of the Law of Nature, though made also the strangers duty. So eating blood, and that which dyeth, or was torn, Lev. 17. 12, 15. So Lev. 25. 6. Numb. 15. 14, 15, 16, 26. 29. & 19. 10. & 35. 15. Deut. 31. 12. Jos. 8. 33, 34, 35. & 20. 9, &c.
The next pretended proof is, Rom. 2. 14, &c. where there is not one syllable mentioning the Decalogue as such, but only in general, The Law, so far as it was written in the Gentiles hearts. But where is it proved, that the Law or the Decalogue are words of the same signification, or extent; any more, than the whole and a part are? Or where is it proved, that none of the rest of the Law is written in Nature, but the Decalogue only? Or else that every word in the Decalogue it self is part of the Law of Nature, (which is the question.) I shall prove the contrary anon: In the mean time, the bare numbring of Chapters and Verses is no proof.
3. It is next said, that [Adam was made and framed to the perfection of the ten words.] Answ. Adam was made in the Image of God, before the ten words were given in stone: But so much of them as is of the Law of Nature, and had matter existent in Adams dayes, no doubt, was a Law to him as well as it is to us. But that's nothing to the question, Whether all things in the ten words are of Natural Obligation?
4. It is said, that the Law of the seventh day Sabbath was given before the ten words were preclaimed in Sinai. Answ. So was Circumcision; and so was sacrificing: yea, so was the Law about the dressing of the Garden of Eden, and about the eating or not eating of the fruit thereof, even in innocency; which yet were no parts of Natures duplicate page duplicate page Laws, but Positives which now cease.
5. It is said, that it was given to Adam in respect of his humane nature, and in him to all the world of humane creatures. Answ. So was the Covenant of Works, or Innocency, which yet is at an end. But what respect is it (to his humane nature) that you mean. If you suppose this Proposition, [Whatever Law is given with respect to humane nature, and to all men, is of natural and perpetual Obligation] I deny it. The Law of S…crinces and Oblations was given with respect to humane nature, that is, in order to its reparation, and it was given to mankind, and yet not of natural perpetual obligation. The Law of distinguishing clean Beasts from unclean, and the Law against eating blood, were given to Noah and to all mankind, with respect to humane nature. Gen. 8. 20. & 9. 4. and yet not wholly of natural or perpetual obligation. All common Laws have some respect to humane nature. But if your meaning be, that this Law was given in and with the Nature of Man himself, or that it is founded in, and provable by the very essentials of mans nature, or any thing permanent, either in the nature of man, or the nature of the world, I still deny it, and call for your proof. Positives may have respect to humane Nature as obliged by them; and yet not be written in humane nature, nor provable by any meer natural evidence.
6. It is said [Set times of Divine appointment for solemn assembling, &c. are directed to by the great Lights, &c. Psal. 19. Rom. 10, &c.] Ans. But the question is not of set times in general (that some there be) But of this set time, the seventh day in particular. It will be long before you can f…tch any cogent evidence from the Lights of Heaven for it. Nor do any of the Texts cited mention any such thing, or any thing that can tempt a man into such an opinion. It must be the Divine appointment and institution (which you mention,) that must prove our obligation to a particular day, and not any nature within us or without us.
7. The only appearance of a proof is at the end, that time being measured by Weeks, and the end of the Weeks being fittest for Rest, therefore nature points us to the last day.
Answ. But 1. You do not at all prove, that nature teacheth all men to measure their time by Weeks. 2. Nor is your Philosophy true, that all motion is in order to rest. Indeed all Labour is, that is, all the Motion of any Creature which is out of its proper place, and moveth towards it. But if you will call the Action of Active natures, such as our souls are, by the name of spiritual motion, or Metaphysical motion, as many do, then no doubt but cessation is as contrary to their nature, as corporal motion is to the nature of a stone: And the Rest, that is, the perfection, pleasure and felicity of Spirits, consisteth in their greatest activity in good; They rest not saying, Holy, Holy, &c. 3. You transfer the case from a day of Worship to a day of Rest. And so make your cause worse: Because nature saith much for one stated day of Worship; but not for one stated day of Rest from labour, further than the Worship it self must have a vacancy from other things. For reason can prove no necessity to humane nature of Resting a whole day, any more than for a due proportioning of Rest unto Labour every day. The Rest of one hour in seven, is as much as the Rest of one Day in seven. Or if some more additional conveniences may be found for Dayes than Hours, there being no convenience without its inconvenience, this will but shew us, that the Law is well made when it is made, but not prove a priore that there is or must be such an universal Law. As you can never prove, that Nature teacheth men the distribution of Time by Weeks (1. It being a thing of Tradition, Custom and Consent. 2. And no man naturally knoweth it, till others tell him of it. 3. And many Nations do not so measure their time. 4. And no man can bring a Natural Reason to prove that it must be so, which they might do if it were a Law of Natural Reason) so also that every Family, or Countrey at least, should not have leave to vary their dayes of Rest, according to diversity of Riches and Poverty, Health and Sickness, Youth and Age, Peace and War, and other such cases, you cannot prove necessary by Nature alone, though you may prove it well done when it is done. 4 You cannot prove the last day more necessary for Rest, than the first, or any other. For there are few Countreys, where Wars, or some other necessities, have not constrained them sometimes to violate the Sabbaths Rest: which when they have done, it is as many dayes from the third day to the third, as from the seventh to the seventh. 5. If Time were naturally measured by Weeks, yet it followeth not, that Rest must be so: some Countreys are strong and can labour longer, and others tender and weak, and can labour less. 6. And seeing that the Reason of a day for worshipping Assemblies, is greater and more noble, than the Reason of a day for Bodily Rest, Nature will rather tell us, that God should have the first day, than the last; A Jove principium: As God was to have the first born, the first fruits, &c. 7. If we might frame Laws for Divine Worship by such conceits of convenience, as this is of the last day in seven as fittest for Rest, and call them all the Laws of Nature, what a multitude of additions would be made, and of how great diversity? whilst every mans conceit went for Reason, and Reason for Nature, and so we should have as many Laws of Nature, as there are diversities of conceits. And yet that there is such a thing as a Law of Nature in which all Reason should agree, we doubt not. But having in vain expected your proof, that the seventh day Sabbath is the Law of Nature, or of universal natural obligation, I shall briefly prove the Negative (that it is not)
1. That which is of natural obligation may be proved by Natural Reason (that is, by Reason arguing from the nature of the thing) to be a duty. But that the seventh day must be kept holy as a Sabbath, cannot be proved from the nature of the thing. Therefore it is not of Natural obligation. He that will deny the Minor, let him instance in his natural proof.
2. That is not an universal Law of Nature, which Learned, Godly men, and the greatest number of these, yea, almost all the world, know no such thing by, and confess they cannot prove by Nature. But such is the seventh day Sabbath—&c. It is not I alone that know nothing of any such Law, nor am able by any Natural Evidence to prove it, but also all the Divines and other Christians that I am or ever was acquainted with: Nay, I never knew one man that could say, that he either had such a Law in his own nature (unless some one did take his conceit for a Law) nor that he could shew such 3 Law in natura rerum. And it is a strange Law of Nature, which is to be found in no ones Nature, but perhaps twenty mens or very few in a whole age; nor is discerned by all the rest of the world. If you say, that few understand nature or improve their reason: I answer 1. If it be such a Law of Nature as is obliterated in almost all mankind, it is a very great argument that nature being changed, the Law is changed. How can that oblige which cannot be known? 2. Are not we men as well as you? Have not several Ages had as great improvers of nature as you? If grace must be the improver, are there, or have there been none as gracious? If Learning must be the improver, have there been none as learned? If diligence or impartiality must be the improvers of nature, have there not been many as diligent, studious and impartial as your selves? Let all rational men judge which of these is the better argument, [I and twenty men more in the world do discern in Nature an universal obligation on mankind to keep the seventh day Sabbath: Therefore it is the Law of Nature.] Or [The world of mankind, godly and ungodly, learned and unlearned, discern no such natural obligation, except you and the few of your mind: Therefore it is no Law of Nature.]
3. That is not like to be an Universal Law of Nature, which no one man since the Creation can be proved to have known and received as such by meer natural reasons without tradition. But no one man since the Creation can be proved to have known and received the seventh day Sabbath by meer natural reason without tradition: Therefore it is not like to be an Universal Law of Nature. If you know any man, name him and prove it; For I never read or heard of such a man.
4. If the Text mention it only as a Positive Institution, then it is not to be accounted a Law of nature. But the Text mentioneth it only as a Positive institution—As is plain, Gen. 2. 3. God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because that in it he had rested from all his work, &c. If it had been a Law of nature, it had been made in Nature, and the making of Nature would have been the making of the Law. But here are two arguments against that in the Text.
1. Blessing and sanctifying are positive acts of supernatural institution, superadded to the works of nature: They are not Divine Creating acts, but Divine instituting acts.
2. That which is blessed and sanctified, Because God rested in it from all his works, is not blessed and sanctified meerly by those works or that Rest: And if neither the works of Nature, nor the Rest of God from those works did sanctifie it, then it is not of natural sanctification, and so not of natural obligation.
5. If the very Reason of the day be not of natural, but of supernatural Revelation, then the sanctification of the day is not of natural, but supernatural revelation and obligation. But the former is certain. For no man breathing ever did or can prove by Nature, without supernatural Revelation, that God made and finished his works in six dayes, and rested the seventh. Aristotle had been like to have escaped his Opinion of the worlds eternity, if he could have found out this by nature.
6. The distinction of Weeks is not known by nature, to be any necessary measure of our time; Therefore much less, that the seventh day of the Week must be a Sabbath. The Antecedent is sufficiently proved, in that no man can give a cogent reason for the necessity of such a measure. And because it hath been unknown to a great part of the world. The Peruvians, Mexicans, and many such others knew not the measure of Weeks. And Heylin noteth out of Jos. Scaliger de Emend. Temp. li. 3. & 4. and Rossinus Antiq. and Dion, that neither the Chaldees, the Persians, Greeks, nor Romans did of old observe Weeks; and that the Romans measured their times by eights, as the Jews did by sevens. Hist. Sab. P. 1. Ch. 4. p. 83, 84. And p. 78. he citeth Dr. Bounds own words, p. 65. Ed. 2. confessing the like, citing Beroaldus for it as to the Roman custom. Yea, he asserteth that till near the time of Dionys. Exig. an. 500. they divided not their time into Weeks as now. In which he must needs except the Christians and consequently the ruling powers since Constantine. And if they were so unsetled through the world in their measure by Moneths, as Bishop Vsher at large openeth in his Dissert. de Macedonum & Asianorum Anno solari, (see especially his Ephemeris in the end, where all the dayes of each MonethMonth are named without Weeks) the other will be no won-wonder.
I conclude therefore 1. That one day in seven, rather than in six or eight, may be Reason be discerned to be convenient when God hath so Instituted it: But cannot by Nature be known to be of natural universal obligation.
2. That this one day should be the seventh, no Light of Nature doth discover: Therefore Dr. Bound, Dr. Ames, and the generality of the Defenders of one day in seven against the Anti-sabbatarians, do unanimously assert it to be of Positive supernatural institution, and not any part of the Law of Nature: Though stated dayes at a convenient distance is of the Law of Nature.