The Morality of the Fourth Commandment Still in Force, Answer to prefacer · Section 4

The Morality of the Fourth Commandment Still in Force · Answer to prefacer · Section 4

p. 38Preface.The fourth Section.

NEither was hee the onelyonly one, that hath ſo determined. For, for the firſt, that to keepe holy one day of ſeven, is not the morall part of the fourth Commandement, our p. 39Doctor hath delivered in the third ſection, that not Toſtatus onelyonly, but even Aquinas, and with him all the ſchoolemen have decreed upon it. Nor was there any that oppoſed it in the ſchooles of Rome, that I have met with, till Catarinus tooke up Armes againſt Toſtatus: affirming, but with ill ſucceſſe, that the Commandement of the Sabbath was impoſed on Adam in the firſt cradle of the World, there where the Lord is ſayd to bleſſe the ſeventh Day, and to ſanctifie it.

22 As for the Proteſtant ſchooles, beſides what is affirmed by Calvin, and ſeconded by the Doctor in this following diſcourſe, this ſeemes to be the judgement of the Divines in the low Countries. Franciſcus Gomarus, one knowne ſufficiently for his undertakings againſt Arminians publiſhed, An. 1628. a little treatiſe about the originall of the Sabbath, and therein principally canvaſed theſe two queſtions. Firſt whether the Sabbath were ordained by God immediately upon the Creation of the World? Then whether all Chriſtians are obliged by the fourth Commandement, alwayes to ſet a part one day in ſeven to Gods holy worſhip? both which he determines negatively.

3And Doctor Rivet one of the foure profeſſors in Leyden, although he differs in the firſt, yet in the ſecond, which doth moſt concerne us Chriſtians, they agree together: affirming alſo joyntly that the appointing of the Lords Day for Gods publique ſervice, was neither done by God himſelfe, nor by his Apoſtles, but by the authority of the Church? For ſeconds, Gomarus brings in Vatablus, and Wolfgangus Muſculus; and Rivet voucheth the authority of our Doctor here. For ſo Gomarus, in the aſſertion and defenſe of the firſt opinion againſt this Rivet. De quibus etiam cl. & doctiſſ. Doctor Prideaux in oratione de Sabbato conſenſionem extare, eodem judicio (by Rivets information) libenter intelleximus.

4I will adde one thing onelyonly, which is briefely this. The Hollanders when they diſcovered Fretum le Morire An. 1615. though they obſerved a moſt exact accompt of their time at Sea; yet at their comming home they found, comparing their accompt with theirs in Holland, that they had loſt a day; that which was Sunday to the one, being Munday to the p. 44other. Which of neceſſity muſt happen as it is calculated by Geographers, to thoſe that compaſſe the World from Weſt to Eaſt, as contrary, they had got a day, had they ſayled it Eaſtward. And what ſhould theſe people doe when they were returned? if they muſt ſanctifie preciſely one day in ſeven, they muſt have ſanctified a day a part from their to her Countreymen, and had a Sabbath by themſelves; or to comply with with others muſt have broken the morall Law, which muſt for no reſpects be violated. See more hereof at large in Carpenters Geogr. p. 237.

Exam.

That Calvin hath any where ſo determined this Prefacer hath not prooved, but ſhamefully diſmembred him, thereby to make him to deliver ſomething abſolutly which he delivers onelyonly conditionally, and that in oppoſition unto Papiſts, who will have the Lords Day to be kept not onelyonly for order and policy ſake but by reaſon of ſome myſtery; and this Calvin profeſſeth to be Jewiſh. Aquinas his words are theſe, Habere aliquod tempus deputatum ad vacandum Divinis, cadit ſub praecepto morali: ſed in quantum in hoc praecepto determinatur ſpeciale tempus in ſignum creationis Mundi, ſic eſt praeceptum ceremoniale. To have ſome time deputed (wherein) to reſt for. things Divine, falls under the morall precept. But for as much as in this precept is determined a ſpeciall time in ſigne of the Creation of the World, ſo it is a praecept ceremoniall. Where I doe obſerve firſt, that this ceremoniality is apparently aſcribed to the ſeventh day, and that conſidered as a ſigne of the Creation, and not to one day in ſeven. And this indeed may well be the concurrent opinion of Schole Divines. As for Abulenſis, of what authority is he to preponderate any one of our Divines? nay, I appeale to every humane conſcience, whether no more be morall in this precept, then to ſet ſome time apart for Gods ſervice. For what? is it nothing materiall, whether we ſet apart for divine Service, one day in a weeke, or one day in a month, or one day in a yeare, or one day in twenty yeares, or one day throughout the whole courſe of a mans life? what conſcience can be found ſo cauteriate as to juſtifie this? If ſo, then let him proceed and ſay, it is nothing materiall whether wee conſecrate unto God one houre in a day, or one houre in a weeke, or one houre p. 45in a month, or one houre in a yeare, or but one houre throughout the whole courſe of a mans life. So that I preſume every ſober man by the very light of nature, will be driven to confeſſe that not only ſome time ought to be ſet apart for Gods worſhip (as the Schoolemen commonly teach) but that a convenient proportion of time ought to be deſtinated unto this. Now let reaſon itſelfe judge, whether any more convenient proportion of time can be deviſed for this then the proportion of one day in ſeven. And herein let us oppoſe Azorius to Toſtatus (if Toſtatus doe oppoſe the morality of one day in ſeven, which is more then I finde) a Papiſt to confront a Papiſt; who plainly affirmeth, Rationi maximè conſentaneum Inistitut. part. 2. l. 1. cap. 2.eſſe, that it is moſt agreeable to reaſon, that after ſix workedayes one day ſhould bee conſecrated to the ſervice of God; Eſpecially ſince God hath diſcovered unto us that this is his good pleaſure, namely that one day in ſeven ſhould be conſecrated unto his ſervice. Firſt, that we might not be left at large to our own hearts, to proportion out the time for Gods Service. Secondly, for the maintenance of uniformity herein amongſt his people; who being left unto themſelves might, and in all likelyhood would have run different wayes. And that God hath from the beginning manifeſted as much, Wallaeus hath ſhewed out of Chryſoſtome in his 16. Homily upon Geneſis. Now even from the beginning God inſinuates unto us this Doctrine, teaching Wallae, diſſert. de Sabbato.that in the cirole of the neeke, one intire day is to be ſegregated and ſet apart for ſpirituall operation, and to the ſame purpoſe are Clemens Alexandrinus, Euſebius, Theodoret, and Auguſtine alledged by him. Catarinus is in this place brought in quite againſt the hayre; ſeeing it is not herein, that he is ſo much as pretended to oppoſe Toſtatus, but rather as touching the originall inſtitution of the Sabbath. Yet why he ſhould ſay that Catarinus hath herein had ill ſucceſſe, I know no reaſon (neither doth this author once offer to give any) eſpecially conſidering that the very Romiſts doe acknowledge, that the Sabbath was inſtituted immediately from the Creation. Their words are theſe; The Apoſtles and faithfull abrogated In Apoc. 1. 10.Rev 1:10the Sabbath which was the ſeventh day and made holy-day: for it the next day following being the eighth day in compt from the Creation—not onelyonly otherwiſe then was by the Law obſerved p. 46but plainely otherwiſe then was preſcribed by God himſelfe in the **They meane the third, but indeed it is the fourth.ſecond Commandement, yea and otherwiſe then he ordained in the firſt Creation, when hee ſanctified preciſely the Sabbath Day, and not the day following. Rivetus cites diverſe Popiſh authors affirming the ſame with Catarinus, contrary to the opinion of Toſtatus, and notwithſtanding Pererius his concurrence with Toſtatus; no leſſe then ſix Papiſts of note, Steuehus Eugubinus in Coſmopaea ad cap. 2. Gen. Gilbert Genebrard in his chronology at the firſt yeare of the World. Jacobus Salianus in his Annalls of the old Teſtament at the firſt yeare of the World, and the ſeventh day. Who expounds alſo Tertullian, who is pretended to be of the contrary opinion. Cornelius a lapide on the 2. cap. of Geneſis. Emanuel Sa. And laſtly Ribera on the Epiſtle to the Hebrewes cap. 5. Num. 8. So that it ſeemes Catarinus did on this point oppoſe Toſtatus with very good ſucceſſe. Neither doth the Doctor on whom this Prefacer relies, ſhew any ſufficient cauſe of rejecting Catarinus, or bring ought ſufficient to juſtify Toſtatus. It is true, Toſtatus brings divers reaſons for the confirmation of this opinion, and I have no cauſe to doubt but they were anſwered by Catarinus who oppoſeth him herein; neither doe I finde any exception taken againſt his anſwer, either by the Prefacer or by Doctor Prideaux himſelfe. And therefore I might content my ſelfe, ſeeing nothing but Toſtatus his authority is propoſed, to anſwer authority with authority: yet I am content alſo to conſider his reaſons as they are propoſed by Pererius.

p. 47THE FIRST DIGRESSION, WHEREIN, I. Anſwer is made to Toſtatus his arguments propoſed by Pererius, to proove that the obſervation of the Sabbath was ordeyned by God immediately from the Creation. II. Herewithall the queſtion is diſputed, whether Adam fell the firſt day wherein he was Created.

THE firſt agrument of Toſtatus propoſed by Pererius is to this effect, the obſervation of the Sabbath had been ſuperfluous to Adam and Eve, ſeeing nothing then could have called them away from the ſervice of God, to wit, they being then in the ſtate of innocency. To which I anſwer, firſt that herein is ſuppoſed ſomewhat wherabout there is much queſtion, namely that Adam fell not before the ſeventh Day. Yet Pererius profeſſeth that it was an opinion well knowne, and confirmed by the conſent of many and thoſe noble and illuſtrious authors, that Adam fell the firſt day wherein he was oreated. This ſayth he, ſeemes to have been the opinion of Irenaeus; and Cyrillus and Epiphanius are cited as approovers of it. He addes, that Moſes Baroephas in his booke p. 48of Paradice both prooves it, and avoucheth it as the opinion of many others, and eſpecially of Philopenus in his oration, which he wrote of the tree of Life, and of Ephrem in his Commentaries upon Geneſis, and of Jacobus Sabugenſis in his oration of Chriſts Paſſion. To whom may bee added, ſaith Pererius, Diodorus the Biſhop of Tharſis, as he is cited in the chaine of interpreters upon Geneſis, upon thoſe words of the third chapter, we do eate of every tree in Paradiſe. Toſtatus himſelfe as this author writes, was ſometimes of the ſame opinion, though afterwards he changed his minde; and conceaved as more likely, that Adam fell on the Sabbath Day; which Pererius approves not, though that was the opinion of the author of the Daraſh amongſt the Jewes, as David Kimchi writes upon that Pſalme, whoſe title is, A pſalme for the Sabbath; and that ſo by ſinning he profaned the Sabbath. This opinion of Toſtatus and the Jewes, Pererius doth not approve: but the reaſon he gives for his diſſenting from them, in my judgement is very weake. For that it runnes, becauſe the Lord bleſſed that Sabbath Day and ſanctified it, reſting from all his workes which he had made, therefore it was not agreeable, that on that day, ſo ſevere a judgement of the Divine vengeance ſhould be exerciſed. Now I ſay, this reaſon is very weake. For we commonly ſay, the better day, the better deed; and undoubtedly the Lord is holy, as in all his workes, ſo in the execution of condigne vengeance. In this he delights, as in the execution of Ier. 9. 24.Jer 9:24mercy. And it is uſually the Lords courſe, even on the Lords Day, to recompence the wayes of the wicked upon their own heads, in the profanation of his Sabbaths. Secondly, it may ſeeme ſtrange, that Pererius ſhould ſerve himſelfe with this reaſon, namely, of the Lords bleſſing the ſeventh day and ſanctifying it, ſeeing he profeſſeth himſelfe to be of Toſtatus his opinion, interpreting theſe words by way of anticipation, and referring them to the giving of the Law upon Mount Sina. Others were of opinion, that Adam continued is long in Paradiſe, as Chriſt lived here on Earth. But this opinion Pererius thinkes no way probable. Others deviſed a continuance of Adam in Paradiſe for the ſpace of forty dayes, anſwering to our Saviours faſting forty dayes; but this he ſayth hath no ſhew of probability. His own conjecture is, that p. 49Adam fell, and was turned out of Paradiſe that day ſenight after he was created: and the grounds of his conjecture are in my opinion, as frivolous as any. As firſt, when he ſaith that eight dayes ſpace was ſufficient to have experience of the happineſſe of that ſtate. For why not as well ſome dayes more or ſome dayes leſſe? nay rather, by continuance in the ſame ſtate, we grow leſſe and leſſe ſenſible of the happineſſe thereof. And the happineſſe of a ſtate is beſt known by the contrary, according to that rule, Carendo magis quàm fruendo quid quidque ſit cognoſcimus. As for the agreement herein which he conceites between Adam and Chriſt, as who is thought of many to have been conceaved in the Virgins wombe on the ſixt day of the weeke, and on the ſame day of the weeke was indeed crucified upon the croſſe; who ſeeth not that this conveniency had been found as well on that day fortnight, or on that day three weekes, and ſo in Infinitum, as on that day ſenight? As ridiculous appeares to be his pretence of complying thus with the antients, whoſe opinion was, that Adam fell the ſame day wherein he was created, which he would apply to that day ſenight after. For why not as well to that day three weekes after, or that day a month after, and ſo in Infinitum? But let us conſider Pererius reaſons whereby he undertakes to ſhew the unlikelihood of Adams falling the firſt day. The firſt is drawn from the forme of Adams temptation, thus, why doe you not eate of every tree of paradiſe? which ſuppoſeth as he ſaith, that they had already eaten of every other Tree in Paradiſe; and Eves anſwer, he ſaith, ſeems to confirm this in ſaying, we eate of the fruit of the Trees in the Garden. But of the fruit of the Tree which is in the mids of the Garden, we eate not; what is the meaning of we eate, but this, we are wont to eate, quoth Pererius. Yet forthwith he himſelfe enervates this interpretation, confeſſing that the meaning may be this, It is lawfull for us to eate. And I willingly confeſſe, that no argument appeares to me ſo plauſible as this, namely that they had formerly taſted of every fruit of the Garden beſides this: for it ſeems very likly, that not till then they were wel prepared for ſatans temptation. And it ſeemes unlikely they would offer to taſte of the fruit forbidden untill they had taſted of all the reſt; then indeed and not til then, the commendation of that as of a p. 50more excellent fruit then any of the reſt, might the better allure them both to touch and taſte. But as Pererius propoſeth it, it hath no force; for as much as he corrupteth the Text, the Divells words being not ſuch as theſe, why doe yee not eate of every tree of paradiſe? but running thus; Yea? hath God ſayd yee ſhall not eate of every tree in the Garden? or as Piſcator takes it for a concluſion of a larger diſcourſe; yea in as much as God hath ſaid, ye ſhall not eate of the fruit of every tree in the Garden, ſo giving a reaſon to proove what he objected, namely that God envyed their happineſſe. As for the reaſons which before I have given, they may be anſwered thus. If the benefit of this fruit had been of the ſame kinde with the benefit of others, and onelyonly in degree of excellency above them, then were it no way likely they ſhould begin with this. But ſeeing it was pretended to be of a farre different kinde by Satans ſuggeſtion, not ſo much for ſatisfying the appetite of ſenſe, as for ſatisfying the ſpirituall deſire of the ſoule in knowing good and evill, which the very denomination of the Tree given by God himſelfe did fairely intimate; and this being cunningly improoved by Satan to be a Divine condition, in making them like unto God; this conſideration might well allure forthwith without all further ſtay to have experience of other fruit. Secondly why might they not have taſted of the fruites of other Trees, without any neceſſity of nature urging them, and yet without any luxury at all, but only to acquaint themſelves with the condition of thoſe good Creatures which God had provided for them? Yet again conſidering that this experience made to no other end, ſhould ſo ſenſibly have brought home unto them the goodneſſe of God, in that ſtate of holineſſe and integrity, that it would have exceedingly confirmed them in their obedience to God, and made the motion of the Serpent at firſt hearing diſtaſtfull, and to chooſe to be like unto God in obedience, and thereby in conformity to his holy will, then in forbidden knowledge. And beſides, the taſting of all ſo ſoone, can hardly be juſtified from Luxury or waſt: therefore I reſt in my firſt anſwer. Pererius his next reaſon caryeth a great deale of ſhew, but in ſubſtance leſſe forcible. Certainly the making of the beaſts of the Earth, and of man, might be done in as ſhort a time as it p. 51pleaſed God to have it; eſpecially conſidering the opinion of ſome antients, that all things were made together, and that in a ſhort ſpace; ſo mans placing in Paradiſe, and the beaſts brought unto him by God, might be ſoone diſpatched: and ſurely Adams naming of them coſt him no ſtudy; and undoubtedly all this was done before the creating of Eve; ſo that all this might be done before noone, and ſpace enough allowed for the Divells conference with Eve, and his ſeducing her, and her ſeducing Adam. The making of them aprons to hide their nakedneſſe caryeth the greateſt ſhew of requiring longer time; but he who wanted not wit to name the beaſts ſo congruouſly to their natures, wanted not underſtanding to cover themſelves with fig-leaves. As for the Doctors alleaged by him for his opinion; I doe not finde that any of them is expreſſe, or by conſequent direct for that, whereunto they are alleaged; but the inferences made from their wordes are meerely conjecturall. For when hee writes, that Ioſeph in the firſt booke of his antiquities; and Baſil in his Homily of Paradiſe; and Damaſeen in his ſecond booke of orthodox faith and 10. Chapter. ſeeme to be of this opinion; his ground is only this, becauſe as he ſaith, they write that the Serpent in paradiſe did often come to our firſt parents and converſe with them very gently and familiarly, and that thereupon the Divell tooke hint to inveagle the Woman. Now this is but a conjecture of theirs; neither doe they ſay that he was wont to conferre with them; yet all that they ſpeake of may very well be fulfilled in a few houres. That which to this purpoſe he alleageth out of Auſtin de civit. dei lib. 11: c. 21. is onelyonly this, The Apple on the tree forbidden, we are to believe it to be ſuch, as the reſt of other trees, which now they had found to be without hurt; hence it ſeemes Pererius would inferre, that before the Divells temptation they had taſted of them all; but Auſtins ſpeech is indefinite, and verified, in caſe they had taſted but of ſome; and Eve might have taſted of ſome, Adam of other ſome; If it be further urged, that Auſtin delivers it as a reaſon to ſhew how hereby they were made more pliable to yield to Satans temptation: I anſwer that by taſting ſome, yea and without taſting any, they might be well aſſured they might be taſted of without hurt, excepting p. 52that which God had forbidden them; and the taſting of all without hurt was no tolerable reaſon to perſwade that in like manner they might taſt of the forbidden fruit without hurt; the Lord having profeſſed unto them, that In the day they did eate thereof, they ſhould die the death. Pererius addes that Auſtin in his twentieth Booke of the City of God, and 26. Chapter, doth not obſcurely give to underſtand, that albeit he thought Adam continued not long in paradiſe, yet that he continued there longer then one day. But I finde no ſuch thing in the place quoted by him. But I gueſſe the paſſage he aimes at, is that wherein hee diſcourſeth of thoſe words of the Prophet Malachy Mal. 3. And the ſacrifice of Iudah and Ieruſalem ſhall pleaſe the Lord as in the dayes of old, and in former yeares; and he inquires, what time that is, which is ſignified by this phraſe, as in the dayes of old, and in the former yeares. And firſt he ſaith, that perhaps thereby may be ſignified, the time wherein our firſt parents were in Paradiſe. And to this he referres that of Eſay Eſ. 65. According to the dayes of the Tree of life, ſhall be the life of my people. And who ſaith hee, knowes not, what that place was where the Lord planted the Tree of life? But then to the contrary he diſcourſeth thus, If a man ſhall ſay thoſe dayes of the Tree of life to be the dayes of the Church of Chriſt which are now current, and that Chriſt himſelfe is prophetically called the Tree of life—and that theſe firſt men lived not any yeares in paradiſe, from whence they were ſo ſoone ejected, that they begate no ſonne there, and that therefore that time cannot be underſtood by this phraſe of Malachy (as in the dayes of old and former yeares)—I paſſe by this queſtion: to wit, of the meaning of the Prophet Malachy. Now had Auſtin ſimply ſayd that our firſt parents continued not many yeares in Paradiſe, there had beene ſome colour, as if he thought, Adam had continued ſome few yeares, or one yeare at leaſt, in Paradiſe. But neither doth Auſtin deliver this as his owne opinion, but as the diſcourſe of others; and that to proove that the words mentioned in Malachy, cannot denote the time of Adams being in Paradiſe; for as much as they ſpeake of many yeares; but Adam continued not yeares in Paradiſe, which is proved by this, that he was driven from thence before he had begotten any ſonne; which p. 53if it be referred to the conception of a child, as in reaſon it ſeemes to be, who ſeeth not that one day, or a night might have ſufficed for that? So that all things conſidered, this place rather makes againſt Pererius then for him. In like ſort, that which he alleageth out of Gregory is onelyonly this, that Man in paradiſe was accuſtomed to the words of God, and converſed with the ſpirit of the bleſſed Angells; ſuppoſe it were ſo, and with God himſelfe, ſo long as he continued in the ſtate of integrity (yet I hope they will give way to the temptation of Satan) yet how little or how long that time continued is not ſpecified. Conſider we now the reaſons to the contrary, delivered partly by Pererius himſelfe, partly by Doctor Willet upon Geneſis. Who on the third Chapter of that booke propoſeth them in this order. Firſt, the Angells that fell, preſently after their Creation ſinned, as our Saviour ſaith, that the Divell did not ſtand or continue in the truth Iob. 8. 44. Hereunto Auſtin conſenteth, Factus continuò ſe à luce veritatis avertit, as ſoone as he was made, preſently he turned aſide from the light of the truth: So it is likely that man alſo—And indeed the inference from Angels to men in this particular, ſeemes to proceede from that which is leſſe likely to that which is more likely. If the angells of themſelves fell ſo ſoone, how much more likely is it, that both Satan would ſet himſelfe with the firſt, to tempt them, and being tempted leſſe ſtrange it is that they ſhould fall. But concerning the angells defection, it doth not follow, either by our Saviours phraſe, or Auſtins phraſe that either of them believed they fell ſo ſoone. But whenſoever that was propoſed unto them, which was the triall of their obedience; had they approoved of it and ſubmitted unto Gods Will, that had beene or thereupon undoubtedly had followed their confirmation, as it was u…no them that ſtood; and their not approoving it, their not ſubmitting unto it was their ſinne in part, though according to their ſpirituall nature, it might be in the higheſt degree of ſtomach and pride; like as their approbation thereof who obeyed was in an high degree of zeale and humility. Aquinas profeſſeth it to be more profitable, and more agreeable to the ſayings of the Saints; that the Divell ſinned anon Sum Pt. 1. q. …2. art. 6. in. corpor.after the firſt inſtant of his Creation. Secondly, Doctor p. 54Willets ſecond argument is this; Our Saviour ſaith that the Iob. 8. 44.Job 8:44Devill was a murtherer from the beginning, not of the World, but of mans Creation, therefore at the very firſt he ſet upon them. But that phraſe from the beginning doth not tie us to any ſuch exact calculation. Thirdly, the ſubtilty of the Divell doth inſinuate as much, who would then aſſault them, when they were leaſt able to reſiſt, before they by experience were confirmed iu their obedience. In this I confeſſe there are two particulars of very momentous conſideration. Firſt, the Devills ſubtilty to ſet upon them, before they were poſſeſſed and taken up with an holy walking with God. Secondly, that continuance in an holy walking with God could not but confirme them, and make them more ſtedfaſt therein, having as yet no principle of the fleſh in them to make reſiſtance, and to ſuſpect every motion that ſhould ariſe to withdraw them from it. Fourthly, and it was fit, ſaith he, that man ſinning ſhould be caſt out of paradiſe before he had fully taſted of the pleaſure thereof, leſt he afterward might be tormented with the loſſe, and attemted to returns. This reaſon my palate doth not reliſh ſo well; the more Adam ſhould be tormented with the loſſe of paradiſe, the better it ſhould be for him in my judgement, rather then worſe. And as for attempting to returne, I cannot conceave how he ſhould be ſo vaine as to preſume to evacuate Gods judgements, and then againe of any ſuch paradiſe after Adams baniſhment therence, wee read nothing. Fiſtly, And it is cleare (ſaith Doctor Willet) by the Serpents firſt on ſet, hath God ſayd ye ſhall not eate of every Tree? that they had not yet taſtea of any fruit, but at the very firſt the forbidden fruit was offered, before their appetite had beene ſerved with any other. But firſt I doe not finde, that the Text mentioned hath any ſuch importment; Secondly, this ſuppoſeth, that the taſt of other fruits would have beene apt to hinder the courſe of Satans temptations; but how? in reſpect of giving ſo good content and ſatisfaction, yea but this ſatisfaction was no other then to the ſenſuall appetite; but the Tree forbidden in the very name of it (whence Satan tooke advantage to promote his temptation) ſeemed to promiſe ſatisfaction in a far different kinde, namely to the ſpirituall appetite of the minde. 6. Adam (ſaith he) had not yet eaten of the Tree of life, as it p. 55is evident verſe 21. But if they had ſtayed any time in paradiſe it is not unlikely, but they ſhould have taſted of the tree of life, it being in the heart of paradiſe. This at firſt ſeemed to me very conſiderable; but upon after thoughts not ſo. For certainly it aſſured not life, but upon obedience and therefore without obedience the taſting thereof (if acceſſible in that caſe) would have ſtood him in ſmall ſtead. 7. Likewiſe, ſaith he, ſeeing preſently after the Creation they were bidden to encreaſe and multiply, it is no other like but the man ſhould have known his wife in paradiſe, if they had ſtayed there ſo long, and ſo they ſhould have gotten children without ſin. This reaſon is not to be deſpiſed; although to ſtay a day or two in Paradiſe was not to ſtay there long. But conſidering that then they might company together without all ſinne ſo much as in thought, or circumſtance of act, (the want whereof makes even acts naturall in this condition of ours, ſhamefull unto us) why ſhould they deferre the propagation of mankinde; eſpecially conſidering that the child conceaved in the ſtate of innocency ſhould have beene without ſinne. 8. The eighth reaſon is in effect the ſame with that of Broughtons; If Adam had not ſinned the firſt day, the Lion had eaten Graſſe; this in my judgement is a moſt inſipid reaſon. Firſt, becauſe God had ordained, that all beaſts at the firſt ſhould live by Graſſe Gen. 1. 30. Secondly, In the arke of Noah, Lions muſt have eaten Graſſe or Hay, or elſe have ſtarved, they had no power to prey upon their fellow paſſengers. Thirdly, if Lyons and Beares at firſt had lived by pray, even after Adams fall, what had become of the reſt of Gods Creatures, Imbelles damae quid niſi praeda ſumus? Laſtly it is well knowne that in theſe dayes, in new England, Beares doe live by Graſſe, and their fleſh for mans meate is accompted better then Veniſon 9. Never any man on Earth, Chriſt only excepted, kept the Sabbath without ſin: the Apoſtle ſaith, he that is entred into his reſt hath alſo ceaſed from his own works, as God did from his, Hebr. 4 10. It is the reſt only of Chriſt, where there ſhall be a ceſſation from all the works of ſin. But that reſt which Adam ſhould have kept in paradiſe was not Chriſts reſt: therefore he kept no reſt there without ſin, he fell then before the Sabbath. This argument I confeſſe ſeemes to be very ponderous and ſavoury, as built upon the Apoſtles p. 56diſcourſe Heb. 4. But the propoſition is not ſufficiently proved. For to ceaſe from a mans owne workes (as they are taken from ſinnes) is evidently competent to none but ſuch as have formerly ſinned, which cannot agree to Adam in the ſtate of innocency. Yet it cannot be denyed, but that Adam continued in innocency and without ſinne untill his fall. And ſo long reſted from ſinne, though not in Chriſt, ſave that to reſt from ſinne ſuppoſeth the precedency of ſinne. But albeit this were granted, it followeth not that he fell before the Sabbath; for he might fall on the very Sabbath, which was the opinion of the author of the Jewes Daraſh, mentioned by Rabbi David Kimchi on the 92. Pſalme. 10. That place laſtly makes to this purpoſe, Pſalme 49. 13. Adam lodged not one night in honour; for ſo are the words if they be properly tranſlated; the word is foreign which ſignifies to lodge or ſtay all night: and thus diverſe of the Rabbins doe expound this place of Adam; and be quotes Rabbi Nathan. R. Menachem, and Midras Tehillim. It cannot be denied but this place is very pregnantly appliable unto Adam, as the firſt and chiefeſt object on whom this truth is verified; as being in the chiefeſt honour that ever man had on Earth, Lord of all the World, and the Father of mankinde, and placed in Paradiſe; and the verbe properly ſignifies pernoctare, to continue a night. OnelyOnly it is of the future tenſe, which yet to beare the ſignification of the time paſt is nothing ſtrange in the Hebrew, though it hath not alwayes Vau converſivum, the ſigne of ſuch converſion. And the very word Adam is here expreſſed, and we are very apt uſually to accommodate unto Adam without all reference to this queſtion, or conſideration of the propriety of the Hebrew word ſignifying pernoctare. But let us returne to that from whence we have digreſſed. Be it ſo that Adam continued in his integrity untill the end of the ſeventh day; doe we not read expreſſely, Gen. 2. 5. that God tooke the man and put him in the Garden of Eden, that he might dreſſe it and keepe it; therefore God had worke for him to doe, even in things of this World as well as hee hath for us. And Martin Luther profeſſeth as much; It followes from hence Tom 6. in Gen. c. 2. v. 3.Gen 2:3ſaith he, that if Adam had stood in his innocency, yet he ſhould have kept the ſeventh day holy, that is, on that day he ſhould have p. 57taught his children, and childrens children, what was the will of God and wherein his worſhip did conſiſt, he ſhould have prayſed God, given thanks and offered. On other dayes he ſhould have tilled the ground, looked to his Cattell. And Selneccerus treads in Luthers ſteps, treating upon the Commandement of the Sabbath. Why then ſhould it be thought ſuperfluous to ordaine ſome dayes for the works of this World, and one day for the ſervice of God? And is it likely that Eve was about the ſervice of God, when the Divell aſſaulted her? was ſhee not too neare the forbidden Fruit? it was within her ſight, and the Fruit within her reach. 2… They urge that Vacation from ſervice workes was then in vaine, ſeeing nothing could then be laborious and troubleſome unto him. I anſwer; though it were no paine to him to keepe the Garden and dreſſe it; yet this muſt needs take up his thoughts while hee was about it, and many a Gentleman in theſe dayes finds leſſe imployment then Adam had; will it therefore follow that the obſervation of the Sabbath is ſuperfluous?

3. The third reaſon is, that if this Commandement were then given, it ſhould oblige all men; but it is plaine that the Gentiles never obſerved it, neither doe we reade the Patriarchs did. I anſwer, there is no ſoundneſſe in all this. For touching the Gentiles, we have no Hiſtory before the Flood, nor till a long time after; in which ſpace of time, this Doctrine of the inſtitution of the Sabbath being carried onelyonly by tradition, might eaſily bee obliterated. The Scriptures Divine are the moſt ancient Records in the World; but it followes not, that becauſe the Scriptures doe not Record how the Patriarches did obſerve the Sabbath, therefore they obſerved it not; but much rather, becauſe, the Scriptures Record, that The Lord bleſſed the ſeventh Day, and ſanctified it, therefore the Patriarches did obſerve it. And the truth is, untill the comming of the Iſraelites out of Egypt, wee reade not of the Church of God any where but in ſingle Families. Neither doe wee reade of the Patriarches before the Flood or a long time after that they kept any Day conſecrate to GODS Service; will it therefore follow, that thoſe holy Patriarchs p. 58did ſet no time at all apart for Gods ervice? yet is it generally acknowledged as by the light of nature, that ſome time ought to be ſet apart for Divine ſervice. And formerly I have ſhewed out of Manaſſes Ben Iſrael, that whereas the Lord enjoyning to the Iſraelites the obſervation of the Sabbath, bids them remember that they were ſervants in Egypt; this the antient wiſe men among the Jewes doe aply in this manner, Cogita in Egypto ubi ſerviebas, etiam ipſo Sabbato per vim te coactum ad labores; thinke with thy ſelfe, how that in Egypt where thou ſervedſt, that by force thou waſt conſtrained to worke, even on the Sabbath. So that the obſervation of the Sabbath was a duty even in thoſe dayes. Obſerve farther that in the fourth Commandement, the Jewes are charged to looke unto it, not onelyonly that their children and their ſervants did obſerve the Sabbath, but alſo, the ſtranger that was within their gates. Now theſe kinde of ſtrangers commonly called Strangers of the gate, and thereby diſtinguiſhed from Strangers of the Covenant; were ſuch as were not circumciſed, though accompted Proſelytes in the firſt degree. And on them was uſually impoſed no other burthen, beſides the obſervation of the ſeven precepts of Noah, as Schindler obſerves upon the roote foreign. Which ſeven precepts of Noah are alſo reckoned up by the ſame Schindler in the roote foreign; and albeit the obſervation of the Sabbath were none of them expreſſe; yet in as much as the Lord gives expreſſe charge that the ſtrangers within their Gates ſhould obſerve the Sabbath, it ſeemes it was comprehended under one of them; And therefore ſome thinke it was comprehended under that which was called foreign Benedictio Dei; that is, the worſhip of no other God, but the Creator of Heaven and Earth; and by name, my worthy friend Maſter Joſeph Mede; as I have ſeene in a Manuſcript of his touching the interpretation of the word foreign in the Acts; and hereof he gives this reaſon; namely that the obſervation of the ſeventh day was the badge of this, namely of worſhioping the Creator of Heaven and Earth, according to that, the Sabbath is a ſigne between me and you, that I Jehovah am your God becauſe in ſix dayes the Lord made Heaven and Earth, the Sea and all that in them is, and reſted the ſeventh. Now if the obſervation of the Sabbath were p. 59comprehended under the ſeven precepts of Noah, undoubtedly it was in force, and practiſe amongeſt the Patriarchs, and that not only after, but before the flood; for undoubtedly they all worſhipped the Lord God Creator of Heaven, and Earth. 2. We have notable evidence for the obſervation of the Sabbath Day, even among the Gentiles. And firſt, the diſtinction of the whole courſe of time into weekes, for the antiquity thereof is remarkable, and now lately juſtified by Rivetus againſt Gomarus with great variety of learned obſervation, and that eſpecially by Claudius Salmaſius that renowned Scholar and Antiquary, one of them who with great inſtance urged Rivetus not to ſuffer Gomarus to paſſe unanſweared in this point. It is true, as Rivetus obſerves, that Cauſabon writing upon Suetonius l. 3. 52. and upon theſe words, Diogenes the Grammarian was wont to diſpute at Rhod…s on the Sabbath, profeſſeth his opinion, that the obſervation of weekes now a dayes generally receaved, was not commonly receaved before the dayes of Theodoſius, though he confeſſeth, that long before it was in uſe among the Grecians, eſpecially thoſe of Aſia. Yet Rivet makes it good, and that out of Tertullian, that long before it was in uſe among the Latines. Ioannes Philoponus in his Commentary upon the Hiſtory of the Creation, a book commended by Photius in his Bibliotheca lib. 7. cap. 14 and lately ſet forth at Vienna in Auſtria, writes thus; All men doe agree in this, that there are ſeven dayes only, which by revolution in themſelves doe complete whole time, whereof what reaſon can wee give, but that which Moſes gave? to wit, that in ſix dayes the Lord made the World, and reſted the ſeventh. And Clemens Alexandrinus and Euſebius prove the ſame out of Homer, foreign, The ſeventh day was that, wherein all things were finiſhed; and out of Callimachus, and out of Linus in diverſe paſſages to the ſame purſe, as Rivetus hath ſhewed in his anſwer to Gomarus. And further, that in the French Kings library, there is a Chronology of George Syncellus, from Adam to Diocleſian; wherein Salmaſius obſerves, that the computation of times by weekes was before the computation of times by moneths and yeares was found out by Aſtrologers; and that the ancient fathers diſtinguiſhed the ſpaces of times p. 60only by weekes: and that the Caldean Aſtrologers having obſerved the courſe of the Sunne, Moone, and other planets were the firſt that beſtowed on the ſeven dayes of the weeke the names of the planets; and that by the teſtimony of an antient author Manuſcript. Zoroaſtres and Hyſtaſpis were the authors of theſe demonſtrations. But that this circuit of ſeven dayes was in uſe before Zoroaſtres and the firſt authors of Aſtrology. But the Jewes kept themſelves as to the diſtinction of times by weekes, ſo to call the dayes by their order, the firſt, the ſecond; and that the Pythagoreans did the like—and called the firſt day of the weeke foreign like as the Helleniſts called it foreign. In the yeare, 1627. There was ſet forth a book at Venice (as the ſame Doctor Rivet writes) intitled Theſaurus praeceptorum Iſaaci Atiae Iudaei; in the firſt part whereof and 157. praecept touching the Sabbath, he writes to this effect, that the holineſſe of that ſacred day is ſo well known, that it were ſuperfluous to uſe many words in the explication thereof; ſeeing it is found to have impreſſion in the very hearts of the Heathens themſelves; becaaſe there is none that knoweth not, that when his highneſſe to whom none can approch, built this wonderfull frame, he reſted on the ſeventh day. 2. And thus ere I am aware, I am fallen upon the holineſſe of the day, acknowledged generally by the Heathens themſelves as this Jewiſh writer conceaved. Theophilus Antiochenus an antient Father in his ſecond booke written to Autolycus, acknowledgeth the celebrity of this day amongſt all men, though the reaſon thereof was not ſo well known to moſt; to wit as drawn from Gods reſt on that day after he had created the World. Tertullian alſo acknowledged the Heathens to ſolemnize the ſeventh much after the ſame manner that the Jewes did; confirmed by the learned obſervation of Iacobus Godefridus, notwithſtanding ſome exceptions made againſt it. And that this was the practiſe of the Romans he proves farther out of Tibullus and Ovid, namely that they did feriari reſt on the Saturday as the Jewes did. And Manaſſes Ben Iſrael in his 35. queſtion upon Exodus writes thus, Ne Agareni quidem, Veneris diem religioſiſſimè colentes quem Algama vocant, Sabbato nomen, ſuum eripuerunt: hauddubiè ita providente Deo, ut omnium animis aeternitas ejus imprimeretur. The very Agarenes, moſt religiouſly obſerving p. 61the Friday, which they call Algama, have taken from the Sabbath its name: doubtleſſe God ſo providing, that the eternity thereof ſhould be imprinted in the minds of all men; Belike as a teſtimony of Gods reſt from his workes in the Creation, therewithall to maintaine an acknowledgement of God the Creator. More then this, Salmaſius acquainted Rivetus with ſome collections made by the forementioned Georgius Symellus out of certaine apocryphall bookes, one whereof is called foreign, the litle generation, the other foreign, the life of Adam, in which the author obſerves through many weeks, that the ſeventh day was a day of reſt; and that he conceaved the author of that booke to have been a Iew, tranſlated by ſome Helleniſt, who makes mention of the Lords Day: And Doctor Willet alleageth Philo calling the ſeventh day foreign, a feſtivall of all Nations. So little neede have wee to ſticke upon that in Heſiod, foreign, the ſeventh is an holy day; which ſome obſerve to have beene ſpoken, not of the ſeventh day of the weeke, but of the ſeventh day of the monethmonth rather, wherein Apollo was borne (which yet is alleaged by Clement and Euſebius as for the ſeventh day of the weeke) what is wanting herein, being ſo plentifully ſupplyed other wayes.) And whereas Gomarus being convicted of the evidence of this truth, betakes himſelfe to a new courſe, as to ſay that this practiſe of Heathens was taken from the Jewes, and not from the ancient Patriarchs; Doctor Rivetus brings a manifeſt place out of Ioſephus to refute that conceite of his; As who profeſſeth that this cuſtome of the Gentiles had beene foreign long agoe. And how unlikely is it, that either the Egyptians, or the Nations bordering upon the Jewes ſhould take this from the Jewes, when we conſider Solitum inter accolas odium, as Tacitus obſerves, the accuſtomed hatred between borderers; eſpecially between the ſeed of the Woman, and the ſeed of the Serpent **1. Cor. 2. 14.1 Cor 2:14; and how diſtaſtfull Hiſt. lib. 1.the things of God are unto naturall men, even foliſhneſſe unto them, neither can they know them, becauſe they are ſpiritually diſcerned. And Homer, and Linus, and Callimachus, fetch the ſeventh day from the very Creation, as whereon the making of all things was finiſhed. I come at length to the fourth Argument.

p. 62If the Patriarches had obſerved the Sabbath, Moſes would 4.have mentioned the religious obſervation thereof by their anceſtors, to encourage them. I anſwer 1. it is not likely they were ignorant of the practiſe of their anceſtors. The Chaldee paraphraſe upon the Pſal. 92. ſuppoſeth Adam to have beene the author of the Pſalm that is intitled for the Sabbath. 2. If for Gods ſake who delivered them out of Egypt, they would not obſerve it, neither would they obſerve it for their anceſtors ſake. 3. Moſes makes no mention of their anceſtors practiſe in ſetting apart any time for the ſervice of God; ſhall we therefore deny that by the ſuggeſtion of light naturall ſome time is to be ſet apart for this?

The Fathers profeſſe that no other poſitive precept was given to Adam then to abſtein from the Fruit of a certaine Tree. I anſwer, 5.Chryſoſtome profeſſeth expreſſely, that from the beginning God hath ſhewed that one day in the circle of the weeke is to bee ſet apart for ſpirituall operation; Likewiſe the teſtimonies of Athanaſius and Epiphanius are expreſſe for the acknowledgment of the inſtitution of the Sabbath immediately from the Creation, as before hath beene ſhewed. Indeede both as touching the ſetting apart of ſometime in generall for Gods ſervice, and the proportion of one day in ſeven in ſpeciall, is more then poſitive.

Divines teach that before Chriſts comming the Gentiles might 6.obtaine ſalvation by obſerving the morall Law, and the Law of nature, with ſome light of Divine faith, and ſupernaturall aſſiſtance of God. I anſwer. 1. of what reputation thoſe Divines hee ſpeaks of, deſerve to bee with us, let every Proteſtant judge. 2. yet wee know that the Gentiles might have evidence enough of the holineſſe of the ſeventh day; and that God left not himſelfe without witneſſe in this, even to Heathens is ſo notorious, that we may juſtly wonder, to obſerve how the monuments of the dignity of the ſeventh day were ſo ſtrangely preſerved among them. 3. Yet where teſtimony ſufficient was wanting not onelyonly for the particularity of the day, but for the proportion of time; wee doe not hold theſe to be morall ſo abſolutely, and in ſuch a degree, as to ſay that failing in this alone in ſuch a caſe ſhould prejudice any mans ſalvation; though we ſay with Chryſoſtome that God p. 63by the ſtory of the Creation hath ſufficiently manifeſted that one day in the weeke ought to be ſet apart for Gods Service; and with Azorius the Jeſuite, that it is moſt agreeable to reaſon, that after ſix worke dayes one day intire and whole ſhould bee conſecrated to divine worſhip.

2. From Papiſts this Prefacer proceedes to Proteſtants, and 2tells us that this ſeemes to be the judgement of the Divines in the Low-Countries; for proofe whereof he produceth none but Gomarus and Rivetus; both which are well knowne to be oppoſite in the point of the originall inſtitution of the Sabbath. And as touching the morality of one day in ſeven, both Wallaeus and Thyſius two profeſſors of Divinity in the Univerſity of Leyden, are well known to differ from them both; and Hyperius a low Countreyman too. As for Calvin, I have already ſhewed how he makes nothing for this Prefacer; and that they catch advantage from him moſt unreaſonably by diſmembring him. Wallaeus ſhewes the ſame to be the judgement of Martin Luther, namely, that one day in the weeke at leaſt ought to bee conſecrated to Divine Service; and out of Melancthon, that all the ceremoniality in the fourth Commandement is reſtrained to the obſervation of a certaine day, that which remaines beſides therein commanded continuing morall. **In Apoc. 1. 10▪Rev 1:10Beza likewiſe affirmes that the ſanctifying of every ſeventh day as touching the Service of God, is of morall obligation and unremoveable. The like Wallaeus ſhewes to have beene the judgement of Bucer, Peter Martyr, Zanchy, Iunius, Viretus Calvins Colleague, Danaeus, Antonius Fayns, Matthias Martinius, and in a manner all that have written upon their Belgick Catechiſme. By this, the Reader may conſider the modeſty of this Prefacer, when hee profeſſeth that it ſeemes to bee the judgement of the Divines in the Low-Countries, that one day in ſeven to be ſet apart for Gods ſolemn worſhip is not of the morality of the fourth Commandement. But Wallaeus proceeds and ſhewes the ſame to have been the judgement of Urſinus, and Paraeus of the Palatinate; of Alſtedius Profeſſor at Herborne; together with Lansbergius and Feſtus Hommius, all maintaining the morality of one day in ſeven, to bee conſecrated to Divine Service. And in the cloſe profeſſeth, hee could adde the teſtimonies of many Engliſh p. 64and Scottiſh Divines, who ever have beene accompted Orthodox, concurring in judgement with the former on this point.

Laſt of all conſider, what is Gomarus his owne opinion; …nveſtig. … ab. cap. 5. ſect. 4.to wit, that we are not ſo preciſely bound to this proportion of time, but that wee may allow a better. The condition of Divine worſhip (ſaith he) commanded in the fourth Commandement requires that not only certaine dayes (for order and for Gods better ſervice ſake) be obſerved, but alſo that ſufficient dayes be obſerved; it cannot be inferred from this that God hath not defined a certaine day to us, that it is indifferent whether we make choyce of one in fifty, or in an hundred, or one in a thouſand. Then proceeding to define what are ſufficient, hee Sect. 5.acknowledgeth that the dayes ſet apart for this muſt bee either as frequent or more frequent, then one day in ſeven. And in this anſwer of Gomarus to an argument of Wallaeus made for the morality of one day in ſeven doth Rivetus reſt; namely Explicat. de calog P. …4. 86.that to us who are eaſed of the burthen of Iewiſh ceremonies, the dayes conſecrated to Divine Service may be more, they may not be fewer. And addes of his own, that we cannot in charity require of our ſervants the labour of ſo many dayes (to wit of ſix) without ſome reſt. As for the ſeconds which this Prefacer ſaith Gomarus brings, to wit Vatablus, and Wolfgangus Muſculus, this is nothing to the preſent purpoſe. For theſe are not brought in by him in the point of the morality of one day in ſeven, but onelyonly in the point of the originall inſtitution of the Sabbath; but this is his jugling courſe to mendicate ſome ſhew of authority to ſerve his turne where ſubſtance faileth him.

33. As for the Hollanders who in travailing about the World Weſtward had loſt a day, that is, came to obſerve our Chriſtian Sabbath one day too late; when this Prefacer askes hereupon, what ſhould thoſe people doe when they were returned; I will not anſwer by adviſing them to travaile the World over againe Eaſtward, that they may finde the day which they had loſt, by travailing round the World Weſtward; much leſſe that they ſhould renew their travailes the ſame way till they had loſt ſix dayes more, that ſo their Sabbath might concurre with the Sabbath of their Countreymen p. 65at home: but according to the particulars propoſed by him; namely to concurre now with their Countrymen a day before their time, that ſo they might make amends for that time which they had loſt, if any neede of amends, and not rather for uniformities ſake. For when in the dayes of Joſhuah the Sunne ſtanding ſtill one day was as long as two dayes, yet this was nothing materiall to the altering of their Sabbath, much leſſe when the Sunne went backe, 10. degrees in the diall of Ahaz, while King Hezechiah reigned. No ſober man I thinke will ſay, the morall Law was broken by this, though one weeke in Joſuahs dayes contained more time by 1 2. houres, then any former weeke, and another weeke in King Hezechiahs dayes was found to bee many houres longer then his fellowes.

p. 66THE SECOND DIGRESSION CONSISTING OF TWO PARTS.

I. In making good Doctor Wallaeus his arguments for the morality of one day in ſeven, againſt the anſwer of Doctor Rivetus.

II. In anſwering of Doctor Rivetus his arguments directed againſt the morality of one day in ſeven.

NOW whereas Doctor Rivetus about the obſervation of one day in ſeven as neceſſary, differeth in opinion from his two Collegues Doctor Thyſius, and Doctor Walaeus, and not ſo onelyonly, but directs himſelfe (after Gomarus) to take into conſideration the arguments propoſed by doctor Walaeus for the morality of one day in ſeven, and to accommodate an anſwer thereunto: I thinke it fit, not to omit the diſcuſſion of that anſwer of his; and that in ſuch ſort that I may carry my ſelfe correſpondently to his ingenuous behaviour herein.

The firſt argument of Walaeus is this, if by the force and analogy (of the fourth Commandement) it be not rightly collected that one day of ſeven is to be conſecrated to Divine worſhip, then no certaine number or circle of dayes can be limited (to the foreſaid purpoſe) by any Divine precept, ſeeing in no other precept p. 67is found mention of any other number; and therefore it ſhall be lawfull to chooſe either a thirtieth day, or a fiftieth day without tranſgreſſion of any Divine precept. But this is abſurd. This argument is of great force; conſidering the difference betweene proportion of time allowed unto Divine Service; and the difference of the day, keeping ſtill the ſame proportion. For every maſter, from the greateſt Prince to the meaneſt houſholder expects that his ſervant ſhould be profitable unto him, and accordingly hee expects a certaine proportion of ſervice to bee performed by him; as namely a good dayes worke for every day; a good weeks worke for every weeke. And in every trade it is well known by them that are ſeene therein, wherein conſiſts a good dayes worke, whereof whoſoever failes, he is accompted but an idle and unprofitable ſervant; but ſo the worke of the day be done, whether he laboureth more in one houre, then in another, he regardeth not. Such in like manner is every ones conſideration of a weekes worke. So likewiſe as touching the ſervice of God, it is nothing materiall as touching the ſubſtance of Gods ſervice what day of the weeke is ſet apart for that. For whether we conſider the advantagious nature of it for ſetting forth the glory of God who is our maker; and as we came from him ſo we muſt be for him, Rom. 11. & Heb. 2. The ſupreame efficient being ever of duty the ſupreame end; or whether we conſider the profitable nature of it to our owne ſoules in comming acquainted with him, both touching his nature, touching his counſaile concerning us, and touching his will. For when we deſpiſe him, we deſpiſe him againſt our ſelves; and when wee provoke him, wee provoke him to the confuſion of our owne faces; himſelfe being nothing profited by our ſervice, but our owne ſoules rather, though he be pleaſed to accompt himſelfe glorified thereby: it being his glory to doe us good. This advancement of his glory and our good is no more promoted by ſetting one day in a weeke apart for this then another. But betweene the proportion of one day in a weeke, or one day in a monethmonth, or one day in a yeare, there is a vaſt and momentous difference. For we come to the knowledge of God, and of the myſteries of godlineſſe by ſmall degrees; p. 68and in the wayes of holineſſe we clamber as it were up an high and ſteepe hill; and our life is a wayfare, our condition is the condition of travellours; nay our life is a warfare, and the Divell and his angells of darkneſſe goe about continually like ſo many roaring Lyons, and hungry Beares, ſeeking whom they may devoure; So that we travell to Heaven as it were by dennes of Lyons, and over mountaines of Libbards. And will any wiſe man ſay that it matters not much in this caſe, whether we acquaint our ſelves with the Armour of God one day in a weeke, or one day in a monethmonth, or one day in a yeare to arme our ſelves againſt ſuch ghoſtly and watchfull enemies? Secondly, conſidering that it was never knowne that any maſter from the higheſt to the loweſt, was ſo fooliſh to leave it to his ſervant to cut out what proportion of ſervice he thinkes fit, wherewith to ſatisfie his maſter for his keeping, and for the wages which he expecteth at his hands. Theſe things conſidered; I ſay this firſt argument of Doctor Wallaeus is of great evidence and force, and therefore it is to be well weighed and conſidered what anſwer either Doctor Rivetus or any other doth make unto it, and what ſatisfaction it gives. Now the anſwer that hee makes unto it proceeds not in his owne name, but in the name of another, to wit, in the name of Gomarus, and ſuch as concurre with him.

To this they anſwer (ſaith he) that it is no inconvenience that there is no certaine number or circle of dayes defined for Gods ſervice by any precept. It is enough that the nature of publique worſhip, in generall comprehended in the fourth Commandement, doth require that not only certaine dayes be obſerved, but that the number of them be ſufficient alſo, nor fewer then the right inſtitution of the Church, the ſalvation of men, and glory of God doe require, and that God by not defining it, hath not left unto us a wild licentiouſnes but a prudent liberty. And therefore that it cannot be differred to one day in twenty, or thirty, much leſſe to one of a thouſand.

22. Over and above they note (ſaith he) that from the morall reaſon of precept it is gathered what number of dayes is ſufficient for Divine Service; namely that ſeeing we are eaſed p. 69of the burden of ceremonies, whereof the Iewes were not, and yet God required one day in ſeven to be kept holy by them, we may be more frequent in Divine offices, but ought not to be leſſe: but yet that GOD hath not preciſely tied Christians to any, that is (as I take it) to any day in the weeke, whereas it ſhould be to any proportion of time, otherwiſe it is nothing to the preſent purpoſe.

3. Doctor Rivetus addes this of his owne, that Whereas this alſo is morall that ſome reſt be granted to ſervants and labourers, in charity the labour for ſo many dayes cannot be exacted of them without ſome reſt.

To this I reply.

Here we have acknowledged, that not only ſome time, but Reſp. 1.alſo a ſufficient proportion of time is to be ſet apart for Gods publique ſervice, and that by the very light of nature; for that I conceave to be his meaning, and not with reference to the preciſe Commandement commanding it but with reference unto it as it is morall, and ſo acknowledged by light of nature. For it is apparent that the Commandement in requiring a ſeventh doth therein require one day in ſeven, and not leave it at randome, what proportion of time, but defines it. 2. I appeale to every mans conſcience, and that as guided by the very light of nature ſo farre as it may be juſtly thought to be incorrupt, whether it be not more fit the Lord himſelfe ſhould ſet downe what proportion of time he thinkes ſufficient, then that the definition hereof ſhould be left to the ſervant, and that for theſe conſiderations. 1. If it be left unto man, how improbable is it that all the Nations of the World (as Chriſtians are or may be found in all) will concurre in judgement, and if they doe not, who ſeeth not what a way is hereby opened to miſerable diſtraction and confuſion, conſider what Socrates hath written of different rites in keeping Lent, and in obſerving holydayes. 2. If it be left to man, it is very likely that little enough will be thought ſufficient, ſo burthenſome unto fleſh and bloud is Gods ſervice; and the major part in moſt Nations (if not in all) even of the beſt (as is to be feared) is not truly regenerate. Foras our Saviour tells us though many be called yet but few p. 70are choſen. 3. upon this he concludes it may not be differred to the twentieth day; yet it is well knowne that Brentius hath profeſſed it may be differred to the fourteenth upon Leviticus. 25. 8. as Doctor Bownde alleageth him. Now if ſo great a writer hath beene of opinion that from the ſeventh it may be put off to the 14^th. why may not another riſe up and maintaine that from the fourteenth it may bee put off to the twentieth, ſo dangerous it is to forſake that light which God hath given us in his Word; and by way of divination, hunt after a new light of evidence in the counſailes of our owne hearts. In the light of my conſcience it ſeemes moſt abſurd, that it ſhould be left to the ſervant to cut out what proportion of ſervice he thinkes good unto his maſter.

2. It is well that both he and Gomarus thinke we are bound to cut out a better proportion of Gods Service then was preſcribed to the Iewes rather then a worſe: yet Brentius as great a writer as any of theſe, thinkes otherwiſe, as wee have heard. 3. doth only our freedome from the yoke of ceremonies requires this? and not much more. 1. the love of God revealed unto us in Chriſt in the dayes of the Goſpell. 2. the encombrance of Gods Truth with errors, and hereſies, and thoſe very dangerous ones. 3. and in a word the ſtrong oppoſition that in theſe daies of the Goſpell is made, and will be made more and more as the end of all things doth approach, both unto faith and holineſſe. It is noted to be the ſinne of Chriſtendom not to receave the love of the truth. 2 Theſſ. 2. And of theſe latter times Paul hath propheſied, that men ſhould be lovers of pleaſures more then lovers of God. 3. as for this opinion of Gomarus and Rivetus; I am glad they are ſo farre convicted of truth in this argument as to profeſſe, that we ought to keepe holy rather more dayes then fewer; But why then doe not the ſtates of Holland under whom they live (if they be of the ſame opinion) make it good by practiſe? And the French-Churches alſo; But they want example in antiquity for this. Who ſeeth not that this is delivered onelyonly to ſerve turne, and helpe at a dead lift, when no other way is open to ſhift off the Argument?

3. And laſtly whereas he grants (with Calvin) that after p. 71ſo many dayes (to wit after ſix, for no other number was ſpecifyed) reſt muſt bee granted to ſervants on the ſeventh; doth not this evidently convince that that day muſt bee our Chriſtian Sabbath? For what? ſhall the maſters keepe one, and the ſervants another? or ſhall the ſervants not give themſelves to the ſervice of God on the day of their reſt, but rather on the day of their labour in the workes of their proper callings? obſerve I pray how at every turne the light of Gods direction doth meete with us, to keepe us in the good wayes of the Lord, if we will not wilfully ſhut our eyes againſt it. Now let that ſeventh day which is our Chriſtian Sabbath be well obſerved, firſt; and then let the ſtates take what order they ſhall ſee good, for the obſervation of another day alſo. Yet we finde by experience, that hardly are men able to maintaine a poore living by labouring hardly ſix whole dayes in the weeke. I come to the ſecond which Rivetus recapitulates in briefe thus.

2. It is drawn from the number of ſix dayes allowed for worke, which number cannot conſiſt, unleſſe it be terminated in reſt, and in ceſſation on the ſeventh. To this Rivetus anſwereth, that the ſix dayes of labour are in reference to the ſeventh of reſt; the determination of which ſeventh day being now taken away a man may worke on any day, ſo long as ſome day be choſen (whether by Divine conſtitution or humane, and reaſonable diſpoſition) for Divine Service, which may be in ſuch ſort, that fewer dayes ſhall be left for worke. But conſider.

What more reaſonable diſpoſition humane, then that Reſpon. 1.which is conformable to conſtitution Divine? now it is apparent that God required of the Jewes one day in ſeven; neither was it ever knowen to bee abrogated; the particularity of the day is abrogated, not the proportion of time; ground we have for the one by the ceremoniality of it, no colour of ground for the other; nor did ever I thinke any man ſet his wits on worke to deviſe a ceremonialitie of one day in ſeven.

2. But what? ſhall the morality of reſt granted to ſervants, be altered alſo under the Goſpell? did Calvin any where teach this? may not maſters exact as many dayes worke of their ſervants under the Goſpell as under the Law? hath not p. 72Chriſt deſerved at the hands of ſervants to be as ſerviceable to their maſters as ever? Laſtly are thoſe dayes of the World ſuch as wherein a labouring man may maintaine himſelfe, by the labour of five dayes in a weeke as well as by the labour of ſix? A long time I have found it obſerved by traffiquers in the World, that nothing is more cheape then mens labours; a notable evidence how unprofitable ſervants wee have beene unto God, and therefore hee makes the labour of our hands and ſweate of our browes to afford very unprofitable ſervice unto us. Can theſe Divines make the World more favourable to crafts-men, and bring their commodities in better requeſt then they are; if they could, let them then change the morality of fervants reſt, and for one in ſeven allow them one in three, or foure, or five; their maſters will bee the more eaſily brought to entreat their conſciences to condeſcend. Or if Kings had power to make the commodities of their owne Country more worth, and the commodities of other Countries leſſe worth (which upon due conſideration will bee found as needfull equally) then place might bee made for this. Till then let us bee content with Calvines morality of the fourth Commandement in reference to ſervants reſt, namely one day after ſix; and therewithall conſider whether our Chriſtian Sabbath muſt not bee confined to that day as the onelyonly day of reſt for ſervants; and I hope wee ſhall not thinke it fit to allow one Sabbath for the maſters, and another for the ſervents.

3. The third is drawne from the examples of the Apoſtles and the apoſtolicall Church, who in place of the (Iewes) Sabbath, obſerved the firſt day of the weeke without variation: therefore by force of the precept, one day in ſeven is to be obſerved ſtill. Never any hath beene found to change this; therefore that which hath beene kept from the beginning of the VVorld, and ſhall continue to the end, is to bee taken for ſuch as by the Analogy of Gods Commandement binds all men.

To this Rivetus anſwereth, that the conſequence is not p. 73firme; for as much as Chriſtians obſerved the Lords Day not of neceſſity by reaſon of any binding praecept, but of free choiſe. Yet was it wiſely done of them, leſt by a greater change they might offend the Iewes. And that it might be a free monument of their maintaining the weekly remembrance of Chriſts Reſurrection.

Hee ſayeth they did it freely; but of things freely Reſp.done without any conſcience of duty obliging, it was never knowne that ſo univerſall a concurrence was found as the obſervation of the Lords Day. Nay Philoſophers obſerve that things freely done as often come to paſſe to the contrary. Againe then it was free for them to obſerve one day in fourteene as well as one in ſeven, as Breatius profeſſeth, and conſequently as well one in twenty, which Rivetus denies. Nay it ſtood them upon to change the obſervation, leſt men by univerſall and perpetuall practiſe might bee confirmed in an opinion of the neceſſity of that which is not neceſſary. It is apparent that as the Lords Day under the Law was one day in ſeven; So the Lords Day in the Goſpell was and ſtill is one Day in ſeven. And both himſelfe and Gomarus are driven to profeſſe, that we may not allow a leſſe proportion then one in ſeven to Divine worſhip. And I appeale to every conſcience, to judge by the very light of nature; whether the Lord requiring of the Jewes one day in ſeven to bee conſecrated unto him, it doth not manifeſtly follow that wee Chriſtians can allow no leſſe then one in ſeven; and whether it bee not fit that the Lords Day ſhould bee our holy Day; and as for the allowance of more in a weeke then one, let them perſuade their owne Churches thereunto firſt, and then it will bee time enough for us to hearken unto them. And what ſhould move them to illuſtrate the memory of Chriſts Reſurrection weekly? whereas they contented themſelves with a yearely memoriall (if at all they obſerved any ſuch) of his Nativity, Paſſion and Aſcenſion, and ſending downe of the Holy Ghoſt. Why doth hee not conſider that the day of the weeke onelyonly whereon Chriſt roſe is called the p. 74Lords Day in Scripture, whereon Iohn the beloved Diſciple received from his loving Lord, and maſter, that Divine revelation of his concerning things to come.

4. If the number of ſeven, (that is, the obſervation of one day in ſeven) in this Commandement be changeable; then as ceremoniall, or as politicall: not as ceremoniall; for then the Church ought not to obſerve it. Nor as politicall; for in the morall Law precepts politicall are not given. And to this Rivetus anſwereth, that the obſervation of the ſeventh day is ceremoniall: and that the Primitive Church kept it not, neither did the Primitive Church keepe it, nor doe we keepe it as ceremoniall; but another ſeventh day, for Eccleſiaſticall policy ſake, not civill.

When hee ſaith we keepe another ſeventh day; he implieth Reſpon.that by the ſeventh formerly mentioned hee meant that particular day of the weeke which the Iewes kept; and that wee indeed acknowledge to bee ceremoniall; but in this interpretation of Wallaeus, hee manifeſtly corrupts his adverſaries argument, which is plainly directed againſt the ceremoniality of one day in ſeven indefinitly conſidered, and not againſt the ceremoniality of the Iewes ſeventh. Yet when he ſaith the Primitive Church did, and we doe keepe a ſeventh, but not as ceremoniall; hee ſpeaks to the point; but his words following have no coherence herewith: ſo that hee may ſeeme to ſhuffle miſerably in this, affecting to decline that which he is not able to anſwer. But take wee him at the beſt, he muſt ſay that the obſervation of one day in ſeven was ceremoniall, if hee ſpeakes to the purpoſe. Now let him ſhew us if he can, the ceremoniality of one day in ſeven, and how Chriſt was the body of it; nothing more common then to affirme that the Iewes Sabbath was ceremoniall hand over head, without any diſtinction of the ſanctification of the day, and the reſt; much leſſe diſtinguiſhing betweene the reſt of one day in ſeven, and the reſt of the ſeventh. At length I found a faire way opened for the explication of the ceremoniality found in the reſt on the ſeventh day. But as for any ceremoniality in the reſt of one day in ſeven; never (I thinke) any man ſet his wits on worke to deviſe that. Laſtly, p. 75after ſuch a ceremoniality is deviſed, wee will conferre whether in reaſon ſuch a thing ought to bee ſtill obſerved as was ceremoniall unto the Iewes; and why may wee not as well obſerve circumciſion with the Ethiopians, who obſerve it only in conformity to Chriſt, who was circumciſed?

Now becauſe Rivetus brings arguments alſo to the contrary, to prove that the obſervation of one day in ſeven, under the Goſpell is not neceſſary, but free: it is fit we ſhould conſider them alſo to prove what force is in them.

Rivet. 1.If by force of the Commandement a ſeventh day is to be kept, then that day is to be kept which the Commandement hath defined, which is the Sabbath of the Iewes.

To this I anſwer by denying the conſequence, and not contenting Reſpon.my ſelfe with a bare deniall, I prove it to bee inconſequent. For whereas God in commanding the ſeventh hath therewithall commanded one in ſeven, and withall ſpecified which of the ſeven ſhall bee reſted on and ſanctified unto his ſervice: If it may bee made appeare that the particularity of reſt on the ſeventh day be abrogated; and no colour can be brought for the abrogation of the proportion of time; to wit, of keeping one day in ſeven; it will evidently appeare herewithall, that this conſequence of Doctor Rivetus is unſound. Now this wee prove to bee moſt true; foraſmuch as the Jewes reſt on the ſeventh day was ceremoniall profiguring Chriſts reſt on that day in his grave; as both the fathers of old and moderne Divines both Papiſts, and Proteſtants, both Lutheranes, and Calviniſts have acknowledged; but never any man was found to deviſe a ceremoniality of reſting one day in ſeven; they may as well give themſelves to deviſe a ceremonality in the ſetting apart of ſome time in generall for Gods holy worſhip and ſervice.

2. Now this puts me in minde of another way clearely to demonſtrate the inconſequence of Rivetus his argument thus. If it will follow that in caſe wee are bound to ſuch a proportion of time by vertue of this Commandement, therefore wee are bound alſo to keepe the ſeventh day: Then it will follow as well, that becauſe wee are bound to ſet apart ſome time for the ſervice of God by vertue of this Commandement p. 76(as all confeſſe) therefore we are bound alſo to keepe ſuch a proportion of time as is here ſpecified, and the ſeventh day alſo which is here particulated; For like as God doth not command ſuch a proportion of time in ſpeciall, but by commanding the obſervation of the ſeventh day; in like ſort neither doth God Command a time in generall to bee ſet apart for his ſervice, but by commanding of ſuch a proportion of time in ſpeciall, and ſuch a Day in particular.

Rivet. 2.2. His ſecond argument runnes thus: if the obſervation of every ſeventh day bee morall it muſt bee knowne by light of nature, but ſo it is not. Therefore it is not morall; and ſeeing it is not politicall, it muſt bee ceremoniall; and therefore doth nor oblige by force of Law morall. To this I anſwer firſt.

Let but Doctor Rivetus ſtretch his wits to deſcribe unto Reſp. 1.us what ceremoniality can poſſibly bee deviſed in the obſertion of one day in ſeven; and when hee hath deviſed it, I dare appeale to his owne judgement and conſcience for the appobation of it. For I doe not thinke it poſſible for the wit of man with any colour of reaſon, to deviſe a ceremoniality to be conſtituted in the obſervation of one day in ſeven, ſpeaking of it indefinitly as wee doe, the body whereof can bee found in Chriſt; for of ſuch ceremonies wee ſpeake, that as ſhadowes are to flee away when the body comes in place.

2. Neither doth it follow that becauſe it is not morall nor politicall, therefore it is ceremoniall; for ſome will ſay that it is poſitive as touching the defining of ſome particular neceſſarily required to the performance of a morall duty. As for example, not to go further then the matter in hand for inſtance; it is generally confeſſed, to be a morall duty by naturall inſtinct, that ſome time is to bee ſet apart for Gods ſervice; but of our ſelves wee are to ſeeke of the proportion of time; it is fit for none ſo much as for God himſelfe our Creator, and conſequently our great Lord and maſter to define what proportion of time ſhall be allowed for his ſervice; now this they call poſitively morall, as belonging to the execution p. 77of a morall duty. Yet indeed not ſo much a circumſtance thereof in proper ſpeech as the ſpecification of the generall concerning the circumſtance of time.

3.3. Yet to draw nearer to the morality of it; what? ſhall nothing bee morall that is not knowne to bee ſo, by light of nature, for what I pray? is not our nature now corrupt? nay hath not Ariſtotle profeſſed that matter of morality is not capable of demonſtration, but onelyonly of foreign perſwaſion? Nay how is it knowne by the light of nature, that ſome time is to bee ſet apart to the worſhip of God that made us; but upon preſuppoſition that God is knowne to bee our Creatour? and is this knowne by the light of nature? How came Ariſtotle then the greateſt Philoſopher that ever was, and his whole ſchoole, how I ſay came they to be ignorant of it? but upon preſuppoſition of the Hiſtory of the Creation knowne unto us, Doctor Feild ſpares not to profeſſe as Maſter Broad reportes him, that by light of nature it is known that one day in ſeven ought to bee conſecrated to Divine Service? Yet I am not forward to ſay ſo much, but rather with Chryſoſtome, that now from the Creation God hath manifeſted that one day in a weeke is to bee appōrtioned for his ſervice; and with Azorius that it is moſt agreeable to reaſon, Inſtitut. par. 2. l. 1. f. c. 2.after ſix dayes of worke, to ſet apart one to his ſervice. And ſeeing God did require ſuch a portion of time to bee conſecrated unto him under the Law. Undoubtedly and by the very light of nature it is cleare and evident, that no leſſe proportion of time can wee in conſcience allow unto him under the Goſpell.

33. I come to his third argument which is this, the neceſſity of one day in ſeven cannot conſiſt with that liberty which the Apoſtle intimates, Col. 2. 16. Let no man judge you in meate and drinke, or in the part of a day, or of Sabbaths, which are ſhadowes of things to come. Which they explicate by a ſimilitude. As nature requires meates and drinke, but Chriſtian liberty is not tied to choiſe of meates according to Moſes his Lawes: ſo reaſon dictates that ſome time is to be ſet apart for Gods publique worſhip, but the Goſpell freeth us from the neceſſity of the Iewiſh Sabbath.

p. 78To this I anſwer.

1. By granting the concluſion; for the Iewiſh Sabbath Chriſtians obſerve not. 2. but one day in ſeven they alwayes Reſpon.have obſerved, a manifeſt evidence that they never conceaved this to be any impeachment to their Chriſtian liberty. And no marvell; for they manifeſtly perceaved that God required this proportion of time under the Law, and from the beginning of the World; how much more ſhould we be carefull to performe no leſſe under the Goſpell? And indeed reſt on the ſeventh day did pregnantly repreſent before hand Chriſts reſt that day, and that day alone full and whole in the grave. But as for any ceremoniality to be found in the ſpeciall proportion of time, to wit, as one day in ſeven, never any man deviſed any ceremoniality therein more then in the time in generall, which all confeſſe by the very light of nature is to be conſecrated unto God. So that we have no need of Doctor Rivetus, his anſwer to helpe us in the ſolution of this his argument. And whereas he conceaves our Chriſtian liberty to be impeached if any proportion of time be obſerved of neceſſity by force of precept, and of free choiſe. 1. This is as much as to ſay that our liberty is impeached, if we ſuffer our Lord and maſter, to preſcribe unto us his ſervants what proportion of ſervice we ſhall performe unto him, and not rather have him leave it to the ſervant to cut out unto him as little, or as much as he thinkes good, yet we do not deny but he may allow unto him more; all that we ſtand for is that we ought not to allow him leſſe under the Goſpell, then he required under the Law; and then he required from the beginning of the World. 2. I marvell that Doctor Rivetus doth not obſerve how herein he contradicts himſelfe; for hath he not formerly reſted in this anſwer of Gomarus, that by vertue of the fourth Commandement, we muſt allow unto him dayes ſufficient for his ſervice; and that theſe dayes muſt be rather Frequentiores then Rariores, more rather then fewer; and if it be no prejudice to our Chriſtian liberty to be tyed, and that by vertue of the fourth Commandement, to allow unto him a better proportion of time, for his ſervice, then that of one day in ſeven, how can it bee prejudiciall to our p. 79Chriſtian liberty to allow unto him this, and that by vertue of the fourth Commandement.

Now whether Doctor Rivetus his anſwers to the arguments of Wallaeus, or his owne arguments to the contrary bee Rivet explicat. dec. p. …86. col. 2.of any force to hold him to that opinion which he conceaves to bee Calvirs in oppoſition to the Doctrine delivered by Wallaeus, I am conſent the indifferent may judge; as alſo whether the two cauſes mentioned by him for the obſervation of the Sabbath contained in the Commandement, doth not infer the third alſo which Rivetus oppoſeth, namely the proportion of one day in ſeven. And that this is as free from all colour of ceremoniality as any of the other two. The firſt was that ſome time is to be ſet apart for Gods Service; now this generall is not commanded there but as contained in the ſpeciall, to wit, the proportion of one day in ſeven. Both of them being equally contained in the particularity of the ſeventh day in that Commandement expreſſed. And as for the morality of reſt to bee allowed to ſervants after ſix dayes of labour; this doth clearely draw with it the confinement of the time appointed for Gods Service to the proportion of one day in ſeven; unleſſe the day of reſt for ſervants ſhal not be the day conſecrated to the exerciſes of piety. And I much wonder that Doctor Rivetus a man of ſuch judgement, and perſpicacity doth not obſerve this. The only way to helpe this anomaly is in plaine termes to profeſſe that ſome reſt is to be allowed to ſervants by their Maſters, but in what proportion, that is not defined, but left at large to the pleaſure of their Maſters. And as for ceremoniality in the proportion of one day in ſeven, never any man deviſed any ſuch thing more then in the ſetting apart of ſome time in generall for Gods Service, all confeſſing this to be a duty known by the very light of nature. But I doe not finde that Calvin hath any other meaning then that we are not ſo tied to one day in ſeven, but that more time then this may be conſecrated to Divine Service; which as I have diſputed before, ſo now I am the more confirmed herein, Doctor Rivetus manifeſting this to be his opinion alſo, as well as it was the opinion of Gomarus; For in this he reſts, as may appeare by his p. 80anſwer to the firſt argument of Doctor Wallaeus. Neither is it true that Calvin did cenſure them who ſimply maintained, that the obſervation of one day in the weeke doth ſtill remaine as morall; but that ſo maintained it as in reference to ſome myſterious ſignification; as Doctor Wallaeus hath manifeſted, and the words immediatly following in Calvin doe evince, which are theſe; but this is no other thing then in contumely of the Jewes to change the day, and in heart to retaine the ſame holineſſe of the day. Here commonly the alleagers of Calvin to the ſame intent that Doctor Rivetus doth, uſe to make a period; as if Calvin delivered this abſolutely; whereas Calvin propoſeth it onelyonly conditionally, as appeares by the other halfe of the ſentence thus. If ſo bee there remaine yet unto us a ſignification in the dayes equally myſterious, to that which had place among the Iewes. And though I marvell not at others who dealing in this argument diſmember Calvins ſentence, ſo to make him to deliver that abſolutely which hee delivers onelyonly conditionally; yet I cannot ſufficiently marvell that Rivetus of rough improvidence ſhould do ſo too, eſpecially conſidering the good paines that Doctor Walaeus hath taken to cleare Calvins meaning in this point.

Neither is Maſter Robert Low, in his effigiation of the true Sabbatiſme, of any ſuch authority as to counterpoiſe the concurrent teſtimonies of ſo many of our Engliſh Divines to the contrary; not to ſpeake of the multitude of outlandiſh Divines whom Doctor Walaeus muſtereth up, concurring in the ſame opinion, and whereas hee ſaith as Doctor Rivetus reports him, that ſome great men, who vehemently contend, that the perpetuall ſanctity of manners doth require, that one day in ſeven ſhould be celebrated, have more authority then reaſon; I may bee bold to ſay that they who with him have hitherto oppoſed the Doctrine we maintaine, what authority they have I know not, but as for their reaſons, they are of ſo hungry a nature; that hereby they manifeſt that nothing but affection and their private ends they have, to beare them out in this. And whereas I doubt not but Rivetus hath brought on the Stage the beſt reaſons hee could picke both out of p. 81maſter Robert Low, and out of Gomarus; let every indifferent perſon judge of them as they deſerve; though I verily thinke that nothing but his affection to Calvin, to hold up his credite, and reputation hath carried him all along; and yet either my ſelfe, and Walaeus myſtake Calvin, or Rivetus miſerably myſtaketh him.

But as for our reaſon, we call all the World to judge of it; God did require one day in ſeven to be ſet apart for his publique ſervice under the Law; how much more doth he require as good a proportion of time under the Goſpell? Nay from the beginning of the World he hath required it, and to this day both Iewes, and Chriſtian Gentiles have obſerved the ſame proportion. Againe God in his morall Law hath required this, and that not as ceremoniall, never any man hitherunto having ſet his wits on worke to deviſe any ceremoniality herein; neyther was it ever knowne that God abrogated this proportion of time to be allowed unto him for his ſervice; therefore it continueth ſtill as a morall Law to bind us, and ſhall continue untill God himſelfe ſet an end unto it: now let maſter Lowes reaſons be compared with theſe in every indifferent conſcience, and let them have that authority which they deſerve, becauſe being well conceited of the ſtrength of his reaſons, hee ſenſibly complaines of his want of authority. It ſeemes Pope Alexander the third was a man of more authority then reaſon. For hee maintaines in Cap. licet. de feriis, as Doctor Rivetus relates it, that both the old and new Teſtament have in ſpeciall manner appointed the ſeventh day for man to reſt thereon, and hee takes it out of Suarez. de relig. l. 2. c. 2. but Rivetus cannot aſſent unto him, if he delivers this of any morall inſtitution; yet that it was ſo appointed by the fourth Commandement unto the Iewes it cannot bee denied; and that not as ceremoniall; for we have ſeene how odly Rivetus hath carried himſelfe in comming to ſpeake of the ceremoniality. For to make this good hee flyes to the particularity of the ſeventh day; and if the ceremoniality thereof, bee enough to inferre the ceremoniality of ſuch a ſpeciall proportion of time as of one day in ſeven; it may ſuffice as well to conſtitute a p. 82ceremoniality in the generall, namely in this that ſome time is to be ſet apart for Gods Service, which yet all account to bee morall by the very light of nature.

If Zanchy hath no better argument to prove that the Decalogue as given by Moſes to the Iſraelites doth not pertaine to us but onelyonly ſo farre forth as it agrees with the Law of nature; then by inſtancing in the Sabbath, which the Gentiles were not bound to ſanctifie: it ſtands Rivetus upon to oppoſe him as much as any, who maintaines that the Law concerning the ſanctifying of the Sabbath was given to Adam, and who brings diverſe authorities to prove the obſervation of it generally by the Gentiles; This I ſpeake upon conſideration of his reply to Gomarus taking exception againſt ſomewhat in this argument delivered by him in his explication of the Decalogue. But I hope the morall Law ſhall be ſufficient to binde us Chriſtians if no other way, yet by this argument of proportion. If God required of the Iewes under the Law that one day in ſeven ſhould bee ſet apart to his ſervice: how much more doth it become us Chriſtians to allow as good a proportion of time for his ſervice under the Goſpell? This I ſay ſhall ſuffice untill Rivetus anſweareth it, which never will be, for he as good as confeſſeth that we are bound to allow God for his ſervice, rather a better proportion of time then a worſe. And as for Doctor Prideaux, I nothing doubt but he will cleare us from Judaiſme in arguing thus; as who Sect. 7. profeſſeth that if they (againſt whom he diſputes) required no more, but the Analogy, the equity or the reaſon of that Commandement, we would not ſticke to yeeld unto it. And whereas Rivetus addes that the argument which hee annexeth ſeemes to him of great weight, namely that hee who ſtickes to the Commandement muſt exactly obſerve it: And that therefore into the place of the ſeventh from the Creation, no day is to bee ſubſtituted. But this argument I have anſwered before, all for the moſt part grant ſome ceremoniality in that Commandement; now if reſt on the ſeventh be found to bee ceremoniall, but not the reſt of one day in ſeven in an indefinite conſideracion; it will follow herehence, that the ſeventh muſt not be obſerved as p. 83accompliſhed in Chriſt; and that the proportion of time is ſtill to continue, as indeed by experience wee finde it verified in each. For the obſervation of the ſeventh is ceaſed as prefiguring Chriſts reſt in his Grave, but the obſervation of one day in ſeven ſtill continueth unto this day.