The Christian Sabbath defended against a crying evil in these times of the antisabitarians…

If Zanchy hath no better argument to prove that the Decalogue as given by Moses to the Israelites doth not pertain to us but only so far forth as it agrees with the Law of nature; then by instancing in the Sabbath, which the Gentiles were not bound to sanctify: it stands Rivetus upon to oppose him as much as any, who maintains 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 speak 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 moral Law shall be sufficient to bind us Christians if no other way, yet by this argument of proportion. If God required of the Jews under the Law that one day in seven should be 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 Gospel? This I say shall suffice until Rivetus answereth 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 clear us from Judaism 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 Commandment, we would not stick to yield unto it. And whereas Rivetus adds that the argument which he annexeth seems to him of great weight, namely that he who sticks to the Commandment must exactly observe it: And that therefore into the place of the seventh from the Creation, no day is to be substituted. But this argument I have answered before, all for the most part grant some ceremoniality in that Commandment; now if rest on the seventh be found to be ceremonial, but not the rest of one day in seven in an indefinite consideration; it will follow herehence, that the seventh must not be observed as ⟨p. 83⟩accomplished in Christ; and that the proportion of time is still to continue, as indeed by experience we find 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.

If Zanchy hath no better argument to prove that the Decalogue as given by Moses to the Israelites doth not pertaine to us but onely 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 consideration; it will follow herehence, that the seventh must not be observed as