The Morality of the Fourth Commandment Still in Force, Consideration of lecture · Section 1 – Section 2
FIrſt, I come to the Doctrine of the Sabbath tranſlated by the Prefacer; I nothing doubt but the Author thereof will take in good part my paines in the diſcuſſion of it, conſidering the preſent occaſion urging mee hereunto; Out of the variety of his reading, hee obſerves many wild derivations of the name Sabbath, and out of his judgment doth pronounce that the Jewes by their Bacchanalian rites gave the World juſt occaſion to ſuspect, that they did conſecrate the Sabbath unto Revells rather then Gods ſervice. As for the rigorous keeping of the day in ſuch ſort; as neither to kindle fire in the Winter-time wherewith to warme themſelves: or to dreſſe meat for the ſuſtentation of themſelves; I am ſo farre from juſtifying it, that I willingly profeſſe I am utterly ignorant, where any ſuch Chriſtians live, that preſſe any ſuch rigorous obſervation of it. The Jewes were bound to obſerve the reſt on that day for a myſterious ſignification ſake, and thereupon depended their rigorous obſerving of a reſt, as many thinke, and not Lyra alone. We muſt know (ſaith hee) that reſt from manuall works is not (now) ſo rigorouſly obſerved as in the old Law, becauſe meate may be dreſſed, and other things done on the Lords Day, which were not lawfull on the Sabbath: becauſe that reſt was in part figurative, as was the whole ſtate under the Law, 1 Cor. 10. All things befell them in figure; Now in that which is figurative, if you take away never ſo little; (that is, if that which is figurative bee not exactly obſerved) the whole and intire ſignification faileth, like as if you take away but one letter from the name of Lapis, the whole and intire ſignification is deſtroyed. To deale plainely, my opinion is, that all ſports, and paſtimes on the Lords Day, are a breaking of the reſt belonging to it, and a profanation of that day which ought to be ſanctified; And I truſt, herein I differ not one jot from the whole Parliament, 1o. Caroli; wherein was expreſſely prohibited, that any man ſhould goe out of his owne Pariſh to any ſports, and paſtimes on the Sabbath day; and this is done to prevent the profanation of it, as appeares clearely by the reaſons of that Act; which Parliament was held certaine yeares after this Lecture, concerning the Doctrine of the Sabbath was read in the Univerſity. And I nothing doubt but the cenſure of a Zelote will paſſe upon mee for this, though wee ſhew no more zeale in ſaying, that The Lords Day is by ſome licentiouſly profaned, then others doe in profeſſing that the Lord Day is by us ſuperſtitiouſly obſerved; nay who are the greateſt zelotes in their cauſe, let the Chriſtian World judge by the effects; This is all I have to note concerning the firſt Section. I come unto the ſecond.
Secondly, and here in the firſt place concerning the inſtitution of it; let mee take leave to profeſſe, that the queſtion it ſelfe is not indifferenly ſtated, when it is ſtated thus, whether before the publiſhing of Moſes Law, the Sabbath was to be obſerved by the law of Nature. For I am verily perſwaded, that the Doctor himſelfe will not affirme, that after the publiſhing of Moſes law, it was to be obſerved by the law of nature; underſtanding by the law of nature (as I preſume he doth) ſuch a law as is knowne by the very light of nature. Ariſtotle hath taught us in generall, that morall duties are rather wrought upon a ſober conſcience by perſwaſion, than doe carry with them any convincing evidence of demonſtration. Yet it is confeſſed, that by the light of nature, ſome time ought to be ſet apart, even for the publike ſervice and worſhip of God, and not onelyonly ſo, but alſo it is nothing leſſe cleare, that a ſufficient proportion of time muſt be alloted to the profeſſed ſervice of our Creator. But wherein this ſufficient proportion of time doth conſiſt, we are to ſeek, being left unto our ſelves, and in my judgement, conſidering what we are, it is very fit we ſhould be to ſeeke in this; that ſo our eyes may wait upon the direction of our Maker. For, is it fit that ſervants ſhould cut out a proportion of ſervice to their Maſter at their owne pleaſure, and not rather be guided herein by their Maſters pleaſure, eſpecially by ſuch a Maſter, to whom wee owe not onelyonly all that wee doe enjoy, but our ſelves alſo; who holdeth our ſoules in life, and in whoſe hands is the breath of all man-kinde. The queſtion thus untowardly propoſed, it is ſubjoyned that, They commonly which are more apt to ſay any thing, than able afterward to prove it, maintaine affirmatively that it was. Doctor Rivet having propoſed this, addeth, that if it be ſpoken of the law of nature, properly ſo called, ſcarce any one will be found to maintaine any ſuch thing. And indeed, the queſtion in hand, is of the inſtitution of the Sabbath: Now, no wiſe man uſeth to inquire of the inſtitution of that which is written in our hearts, and knowne unto us by the very common light of nature. It is true, ſome fetch the originall thereof from the beginning of the world, when God firſt bleſſed the ſeventh day and ſanctified it: And what other ſenſe this can have, than that God commanded it to be ſet apart for holy uſes, wee cannot deviſe; For ſeeing Gods bleſſing and ſanctifying of it doth undoubtedly denote ſome act of God, this muſt be either an immanent act, or an act tranſient; Not an act immanent, for all ſuch are eternall, but this was temporall, following upon Gods reſt on the ſeventh: For therefore (it is ſaid) God bleſſed the ſeventh day, and ſanctified it; and being an act tranſient and temporall, it muſt declare his will to have it ſanctified, that is (by the generall notion of the word) ſet apart, that is, from profane and ſecular, to holy uſes; And how could this will of God be manifeſted but by commandement, ſeeing it is a will of God not ſo much concerning what ſhall be done, as concerning what ſhall be mans duty to doe? And this hath both Walaeus, and after him Rivetus juſtified, and this latter againſt Gomarus, once and againe, and that by divers arguments. And thus, as we have expreſſe Scripture for it, ſo we have as evident reaſon to juſtifie it: For, no other ground can be deviſed for the dividing of the whole courſe of time into weeks, each conſiſting of ſeven dayes, than as it ſtands in congruity to Gods making the world in ſix dayes, and reſting on the ſeventh. Which diviſion of time was undoubtedly obſerved by the Iſraelites, and received by them from their forefathers, yea, and from the Patriarches of old, who lived before the flood, and that continued without alteration even from the Creation of the world; For otherwiſe they could not have diſcerned what days had been anſwerable to the firſt ſix of the Creation, and what day to the ſeventh, wherein God reſted, having finiſhed the creation. But this was well known unto them, as appears by their gathering Manna, and promulgation of the 4th Commandement, together with the reſt on Mount Sinai; Nay, this diviſion of time into weeks, was generally obſerved among the heathens, as hath been ſhewed by great variety of reading, and that this hath beene the moſt ancient diviſion of time, thoſe other diviſions into moneths and into yeeres, comming in place long after, according as the motion of the Moone and of the Sunne were found out by Aſtrologers, not till then, like as the denomination of the ſeven dayes of the weeke by the ſeverall names of the planets, was not brought in, untill the ſeverall motions of all the Planets, come to be diſcovered. As for the ſecond reaſon propoſed thus on our part; If all the reſt of the Commandements flow from the principles of nature, how is this excluded? It is not fit that any man ſhould take upon him the ſhaping of his adverſaries arguments; That this Commandement ſhould be taken for a part of the morall Law, I wonder that any man ſhould be ſo unreaſonable as to deny; but that this Commandement ſhould flow from the Principles of nature; and that delivered without diſtinction, I know no man that affirmes. But let us diſtinguiſh, and I make no doubt, but there will be found no difference of moment betweene Doctor Prideaux and us: For, I find no man to deny, but that ſome time in generall is to be ſet a part, as well for Gods publique worſhip and ſervice, as for private, and that this is acknowledged by the very light of nature; Only as touching the proportion of time that is to be ſet apart for Gods ſervice, herein we are to ſeeke; yet herein alſo the light of nature doth advantage us, and that ſufficiently in two particulars: For the truth whereof, I dare appeale to the judgement of Doctor Prideaux himſelfe. 1. The firſt is this, that not onelyonly ſome time, but a ſufficient proportion of time is to be conſecrated to the exerciſes of piety, both publique and private. Gomarus and Rivetus are driven to acknowledge this, in anſwer to Walaeus about the proportion of one day in ſeven. And whereas we may be to ſeeke of agreement about what is ſufficient: 2. Therefore in the next place, the very light of nature doth ſuggeſt unto us; that it is farre more fit that the Maſter ſhould preſcribe unto the ſervant, what proportion of ſervice he expects from his hands, than that the ſervant at his pleaſure ſhould cut out what proportion of ſervice he thinks good unto his Maſter; how much more fit that the Creator ſhould preſcribe unto his creature, then that the creature ſhould preſcribe unto his Creator; conſidering, 1. how the dominion of God over his creature is incomparably greater than that which any other Maſter hath over his ſervant. 2. That man may become unreaſonable in his demands and commands, God cannot. 3. God can give ſtrength to his creature to performe what he commands, man cannot. 4. The more cleare and expreſſe the Commandement is, the more comfortable to the creature, being hereby aſſured, the ſervice hee performes is in the way of obedience, not unto his owne will, but to the will of his Maſter. 3. May I not adde a third? namely, that by the very equity of a naturall conſcience, it is more fit to apportion unto Gods ſervice one day in a weeke, rather than one day in a monethmonth; eſpecially conſidering that originally time hath beene divided into weekes, and not into moneths, untill a long time after. In all which, I am content to appeale to the judgement of Doctor Prideaux himſelfe. Yet we have not done in this argument; For in the fourth Commandement, there is enjoyned, not onelyonly the ſetting apart of ſome time in generall for Gods ſervice; and the proportion of one day in ſeven in ſpeciall, but alſo the particulating of a certaine day under this proportion; and who ſeeth not, that ſo many different things (though one in ſubordination to another) being duly conſidered, it is no way fit to confound them, and to ſpeake hand over head of the fourth Commandement without diſtinctions?