To the extent possible under law, the Text Creation Partnership has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above, according to the terms of the CC0 1.0 Public Domain Dedication (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/). This waiver does not extend to any page images or other supplementary files associated with this work, which may be protected by copyright or other license restrictions. Please go to http://www.textcreationpartnership.org/ for more information.
SOmething must be here pre∣mised, before I shew the grounds of this Question.
First then, By the Law or Light of Nature, I mean, that Law which was concreat with man; that which is natural to him, being Original
with, and Essential to himself; con∣sequently that which is invariable and unalterable, as is that Nature.
Secondly, I grant that by this Law of Nature, man understands that there is one eternal God; that this God is to be worshiped accor∣ding to his own will; consequently that time must be allowed to do it in: But whether the Law or Light of Nature teacheth, and, that of it self, without the help of Revelati∣on, that the Seventh day of the week is that time sanctified of God, and set apart for his Worship, that's the Question; and the grounds of it are thefe:
First, Because the Law of Nature is anticedent to this day▪ yea com∣pleated as a Law before 'twas known or revealed to man that God either did or would sanctifie the Se∣venth day of the week at all.
Now this Law, as was said, be∣ing natural to a man, (for man is a L••m unto himself, (Rom. 2.) could
onely teach the things of a man, and there the Apostle stints it, 1 Cor. 2. 11.)▪ But to be able to determine, and that about things that were yet without being either in Nature, or by Revelation, is that which be∣longs not to a man as a man; and the Seventh-day-Sabbath as yet, was such: For Adam was compleatly made the day before; and God did not sanctifie the Seventh day before it was, none otherwise than by his secret Decree. Therefore by the Law of Nature Adam understood it not, it was not made known to him thereby.
Secondly, To affirm the contrary, is to make the Law of Nature Su∣pernatural, which is an impossibili∣ty. Yea, they that do so, make it a Predictor, a Prophet; a Prophet a∣bout divine things to come; yea, a Prophet able to foretel what shall be, and that without a Revelation; which is a strain that never yet Prophet pretended to.
Besides; to grant this, is to run in∣to a grievous errour; for this doth not onely make the Law of Nature the first of Prophets; contrary to Gen. 3. 10. compared with Joh. 1. 1. but it seems to make the will of God, made known by Revelation, a needless thing. For if the Law of Nature, as such, can predict, or fore∣tel Gods Secrets, and that before he reveals them, and this Law of Na∣ture is universal in every individal man in the world, what need is there of particular Prophets, or of their holy writings? (and indeed here the Quakers and others split themselves:) For if the Law of Nature can of it self reveal unto me one thing pertaining to instituted Worship, for that we are treating of now, and the exact time which God has not yet sanctified and set apart for the performance thereof, why may it not reveal unto me more, and so still more; and at last all that is requisite for me to know, both as
to my Salvation, and how God is to be worshipped in the Church on Earth.
Thirdly, If it be of the Law of Nature, then all men by nature are convinced of the necessity of keep∣ing it, and that though they never read or heard of the revealed Will of God about it; but this we find not in the world.
For though it is true that the Law of Nature is common to all, and that all men are to this day un∣der the power and command there∣of, yet we find not that they are by nature under a conviction of the necessity of keeping of a Seventh-day-Sabbath. Yea, the Gentiles, though we read not that they ever despised the Law of Nature, yet ne∣ver had, as such, a reverence of a Seventh-day-Sabbath, but rather the contrary.
Fourthly, If therefore the Se∣venth-day-Sabbath is not of the Law of Nature, then it should seem not
to be obligatory to all. For institu∣ted Worship, and the necessary cir∣cumstances thereunto belonging, is obligatory but to some. The Tree that Adam was forbid to eat of, we read not but that his Children might have eat the fruit thereof: and Cir∣cumcision, the Passover, and other parts of instituted Worship was en∣joyned but to some.
Fifthly, I doubt the Seventh-day-Sabbath is not of the Law of Na∣ture, and so not moral; because though we read that the Law of Nature, and that before Moses, was charged upon the world, yet I fi••d not till then, that the prophanation of a Seventh-day-Sabbath was char∣ged upon the world: and indeed to me this very thing makes a great scruple in the case.
A Law, as I said, we read of, and that from Adam to Moses (Rom. 5. 13, 14.) The transgressions also of that Law we read of them, and that particularly, as in Gen. 4. 8. ch. 6. 5.
ch. 9. 21, 22. ch. 12. 13. ch. 13. 13. ch. 18. 12, 13, 14, 15. ch. 19. 5. (Ezek. 49. 50.) ch. 31. 30. ch. 35. 2. ch. 40. 15. ch. 44. 8, 9, 10. Deut. 8. 19, 28. ch. 12. 2. Psal. 106. 35, 36, 37. and Romans the first and se∣cond Chapters.
But in all the Scriptures we do not read, that the breach of a Seventh∣day-Sabbath was charged upon men as men all that time. Whence I gather, that either a Seventh-day-Sabbath was not discerned by the Light of Nature, and so not by that Law imposed; or else, that men by the help and assistance of that (for we speak of men as men) in old time kept it better, than in after A∣ges did the Church of God with better assistance by far: For they are there yet found fault with as brea∣kers of that Sabbath (Ezekel 20. 13.)
It follows therefore, that if the Law of Nature doth not of it self reveal to us, as men, that the Se∣venth
day is the holy Sabbath of God. That that day, as to the sanction of it, is not Moral, but rather Arbitrary, to wit, imposed by the will of God upon his people, until the time he thought fit to change it for another day.
And if so, it is hence to be con∣cluded, that though by the Light of Nature men might see that time must be allowed and set apart for the performance of that Worship that God would set up in his House, yet, as such, it could not see what time the Lord would to that end chuse. Nature therefore saw that by a positive Precept, or a Word revealing it, and by no other means.
Nor doth this at all take away a whit of that Sanction which God once put upon the Seventh-day-Sab∣bath; unless any will say, and by sufficient Argument prove, that an Ordinance for divine Worship recei∣veth greater Sanction from the Law
of Nature than from a divine Pre∣cept: or standeth stronger when 'tis established by a Law humane, for such is the Law of Nature, than when imposed by Revelation of God.
But the Text will put this con∣troversie to an end. The Sanction of the Seventh-day-Sabbath, even as it was the Rest of God, was not till after the Law of Nature was com∣pleated; God rested the seventh day, and sanctified it, (Gen. 2. 3.) San∣ctified it; that is, set it apart to the end there mentioned, to wit, to rest thereon.
Other grounds of this Question I might produce, but at present I will stop here, and conclude, That if a Seventh-day-Sabbath was an essen∣tial necessary to the instituted Wor∣ship of God, then it self also as to its sanction for that Work, was not founded but by a positive Precept; consequently not known of man at first, but by revelation of God.