Of the morality of the fourth commandment as still in force to bind Christians…Of the morality of the fourth commandement as still in force to binde Christians…

The first argument of Walaeus is this, if by the force and analogy (of the fourth Commandment) it be not rightly collected that one day of seven is to be consecrated to Divine worship, then no certain number or circle of days can be limited (to the foresaid purpose) by any Divine precept, seeing in no other precept ⟨p. 67⟩is found mention of any other number; and therefore it shall be lawful 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 between 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 householder expects that his servant should be profitable unto him, and accordingly he expects a certain proportion of service to be performed by him; as namely a good days work for every day; a good weeks work for every week. And in every trade it is well known by them that are seen therein, wherein consists a good days work, whereof whosoever fails, he is accounted but an idle and unprofitable servant; but so the work of the day be done, whether he laboureth more in one hour, then in another, he regardeth not. Such in like manner is every ones consideration of a weeks work. So likewise as touching the service of God, it is nothing material as touching the substance of Gods service what day of the week is set apart for that. For whether we consider the advantageous 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 supreme efficient being ever of duty the supreme end; or whether we consider the profitable nature of it to our own souls in coming acquainted with him, both touching his nature, touching his counsel concerning us, and touching his will. For when we despise him, we despise him against our selves; and when we provoke him, we provoke him to the confusion of our own faces; himself being nothing profited by our service, but our own souls rather, though he be pleased to account himself glorified thereby: it being his glory to do us good. This advancement of his glory and our good is no more promoted by setting one day in a week apart for this then another.

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. 67⟩is 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 between the proportion of one day in a week, or one day in a month, or one day in a year, there is a vast and momentous difference. For we come to the knowledge of God, and of the mysteries of godliness by small degrees; ⟨p. 68⟩and in the ways of holiness we clamber as it were up an high and steep hill; and our life is a wayfare, our condition is the condition of travellers; nay our life is a warfare, and the Devil and his angels of darkness go about continually like so many roaring Lyons, and hungry Bears, seeking whom they may devour; So that we travel to Heaven as it were by dens of Lyons, and over mountains 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 week, or one day in a month, or one day in a year to arm our selves against such ghostly and watchful enemies? Secondly, considering that it was never known 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 thinks fit, wherewith to satisfy 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 he makes unto it proceeds not in his own name, but in the name of another, to wit, in the name of Gomarus, and such as concur with him.

But betweene the proportion of one day in a weeke, or one day in a moneth, 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. 68⟩and 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 moneth, 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 certain number or circle of days defined for Gods service by any precept. It is enough that the nature of public worship, in general comprehended in the fourth Commandment, doth require that not only certain days 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 do require, and that God by not defining it, hath not left unto us a wild licentiousness but a prudent liberty. And therefore that it cannot be differed to one day in twenty, or thirty, much less to one of a thousand.

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.

3. Doctor Rivetus adds this of his own, that Whereas this also is moral that some rest be granted to servants and labourers, in charity the labour for so many days cannot be exacted of them without some rest.

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 ¹also a sufficient proportion of time is to be set apart for Gods public service, and that by the very light of nature; for that I conceive to be his meaning, and not with reference to the precise Commandment commanding it but with reference unto it as it is moral, and so acknowledged by light of nature. For it is apparent that the Commandment in requiring a seventh doth therein require one day in seven, and not leave it at random, what proportion of time, but defines it. 2. I appeal to every mans conscience, and that as guided by the very light of nature so far as it may be justly thought to be incorrupt, whether it be not more fit the Lord himself should set down what proportion of time he thinks 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 concur in judgement, and if they do 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 holidays. 2. If it be left to man, it is very likely that little enough will be thought sufficient, so burdensome unto flesh and blood 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. For as our Saviour tells us though many be called yet but few ⟨p. 70⟩are chosen. 3. upon this he concludes it may not be differed to the twentieth day; yet it is well known that Brentius hath professed it may be differed to the fourteenth upon Leviticus. 25. 8. as Doctor Bound allegeth him. Now if so great a writer hath been of opinion that from the seventh it may be put off to the 14th. why may not another rise up and maintain that from the fourteenth it may be 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 counsels of our own hearts. In the light of my conscience it seems most absurd, that it should be left to the servant to cut out what proportion of service he thinks good unto his master.

2. It is well that both he and Gomarus think we are bound to cut out a better proportion of Gods Service then was prescribed to the Jews rather then a worse: yet Brentius as great a writer as any of these, thinks otherwise, as we have heard. 3. doth only our freedom from the yoke of ceremonies requires this? and not much more. 1. the love of God revealed unto us in Christ in the days of the Gospel. 2. the encumbrance of Gods Truth with errors, and heresies, and those very dangerous ones. 3. and in a word the strong opposition that in these days of the Gospel is made, and will be made more and more as the end of all things doth approach, both unto faith and holiness. It is noted to be the sin of Christendom not to receive 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 far convicted of truth in this argument as to profess, that we ought to keep holy rather more days then fewer; But why then do 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 only to serve turn, and help at a dead lift, when no other way is open to shift off the Argument?

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 onely 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. 71⟩so many days (to wit after six, for no other number was specified) rest must be granted to servants on the seventh; doth not this evidently convince that that day must be our Christian Sabbath? For what? shall the masters keep 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 works of their proper callings? observe I pray how at every turn the light of Gods direction doth meet with us, to keep us in the good ways 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 find by experience, that hardly are men able to maintain a poor living by labouring hardly six whole days in the week. I come to the second which Rivetus recapitulates in brief thus.

3. And lastly whereas he grants (with Calvin) that after ⟨p. 71⟩so 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 days allowed for work, which number cannot consist, unless it be terminated in rest, and in cessation on the seventh. To this Rivetus answereth, that the six days of labour are in reference to the seventh of rest; the determination of which seventh day being now taken away a man may work 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 days shall be left for work. But consider.

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 ¹which is conformable to constitution Divine? now it is apparent that God required of the Jews one day in seven; neither was it ever known to be 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 think any man set his wits on work to devise a ceremonialitie of one day in seven.

What more reasonable disposition humane, then that ¹which 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.

1. 1Respon. 1.

2. But what? shall the morality of rest granted to servants, be altered also under the Gospel? did Calvin any where teach this? may not masters exact as many days work of their servants under the Gospel as under the Law? hath not ⟨p. 72⟩Christ deserved at the hands of servants to be as serviceable to their masters as ever? Lastly are those days of the World such as wherein a labouring man may maintain himself, by the labour of five days in a week as well as by the labour of six? A long time I have found it observed by traffickers in the World, that nothing is more cheap then mens labours; a notable evidence how unprofitable servants we have been unto God, and therefore he makes the labour of our hands and sweat of our brows 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 servants rest, and for one in seven allow them one in three, or four, or five; their masters will be the more easily brought to entreat their consciences to condescend. Or if Kings had power to make the commodities of their own Country more worth, and the commodities of other Countries less worth (which upon due consideration will be found as needful equally) then place might be made for this. Till then let us be content with Calvins morality of the fourth Commandment in reference to servants rest, namely one day after six; and therewithal consider whether our Christian Sabbath must not be confined to that day as the only day of rest for servants; and I hope we shall not think it fit to allow one Sabbath for the masters, and another for the servants.

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. 72⟩Christ 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 onely 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 drawn from the examples of the Apostles and the apostolical Church, who in place of the (Jews) Sabbath, observed the first day of the week without variation: therefore by force of the precept, one day in seven is to be observed still. Never any hath been found to change this; therefore that which hath been kept from the beginning of the World, and shall continue to the end, is to be taken for such as by the Analogy of Gods Commandment binds all men.

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. 73⟩firm; for as much as Christians observed the Lords Day not of necessity by reason of any binding precept, but of free choice. Yet was it wisely done of them, lest by a greater change they might offend the Jews. And that it might be a free monument of their maintaining the weekly remembrance of Christs Resurrection.

To this Rivetus answereth, that the consequence is not ⟨p. 73⟩firme; 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.

He sayeth they did it freely; but of things freely ¹done without any conscience of duty obliging, it was never known that so universal a concurrence was found as the observation of the Lords Day. Nay Philosophers observe that things freely done as often come to pass to the contrary. Again then it was free for them to observe one day in fourteen 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 universal and perpetual practise might be 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 Gospel was and still is one Day in seven. And both himself and Gomarus are driven to profess, that we may not allow a less proportion then one in seven to Divine worship. And I appeal to every conscience, to judge by the very light of nature; whether the Lord requiring of the Jews one day in seven to be consecrated unto him, it doth not manifestly follow that we Christians can allow no less then one in seven; and whether it be not fit that the Lords Day should be our holy Day; and as for the allowance of more in a week then one, let them persuade their own Churches thereunto first, and then it will be 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 yearly memorial (if at all they observed any such) of his Nativity, Passion and Ascension, and sending down of the Holy Ghost. Why doth he not consider that the day of the week only whereon Christ rose is called the ⟨p. 74⟩Lords Day in Scripture, whereon John the beloved Disciple received from his loving Lord, and master, that Divine revelation of his concerning things to come.

Hee sayeth they did it freely; but of things freely ¹done 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 onely whereon Christ rose is called the

4. If the number of seven, (that is, the observation of one day in seven) in this Commandment be changeable; then as ceremonial, or as political: not as ceremonial; for then the Church ought not to observe it. Nor as political; for in the moral Law precepts political are not given. And to this Rivetus answereth, that the observation of the seventh day is ceremonial: and that the Primitive Church kept it not, neither did the Primitive Church keep it, nor do we keep it as ceremonial; but another seventh day, for Ecclesiastical policy sake, not civill.

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.