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…

But I have observed some to deny any thing in the Jewish Sabbath to have been ceremonial, yet will not have that fourth Commandment moral, but positive rather, as touching both the observation of one day in seven, and as touching the particularity of the day. And therefore they deny it to be moral, because it hath not evidence by light of nature. But was it evident to the Jews by light of nature, that the God of their Fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and that brought them out of the land of Egypt, was the true God of the world, and that therefore they ought to have no other gods but him? Is it evident by the light of nature that God is not to be worshipped by an Image? Or if natural evidence hereof fail us in this state of corrupt nature wherein we are, shall these laws be denied to be the moral Law of God? yet I nothing doubt but the proportion of time allowed for Gods service, much more the particularity of the day appointed thereunto, is alterable at the pleasure of God. And ceremonials, I confess, are in such a sense positive, or rather more than positive; namely, such as not only may, but must like shadows fly away when the body of them comes in place. And yet I find that Cajetan in this point confounds ceremonial with positive; though I think he would not call it ceremonial, unless he conceived, that this which he calls positive, had some ceremoniality in it. But their reason whereupon they deny the ceremoniality of it, in my judgment is not sufficient. 1. Because they ground it upon a supposition very questionable, namely, that the Sabbath was instituted before the fall, which some deny, and that with very great probability in my judgment. 2. Their consequence is not good. For though it were no ceremony at the first; yet others say it might be afterwards, and give instance in the rain-bow, which though in course of nature extant before, yet was not a sign till after the Flood: and though I know some who would not admit of this instance, yet the ⟨image 10⟩Thesis seems very possible; and clearly of such a condition was matrimony, ordained without all question before the fall. 3. What is that which they say is not ceremonial? is it the service of the day in the sanctifying of it? None that I know, maintains that to be necessarily ceremonial. Or is it the rest of the day?

But I have observed some to deny any thing in the Iewish Sabbath to have been ceremoniall, yet will not have that fourth Commandement morall, but positive rather, as touching both the observation of one day in seven, and as touching the particularity of the day. And therefore they deny it to be morall, because it hath not evidence by light of nature. But was it evident to the Jewes by light of nature, that the God of their Fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and that brought them out of the land of Aegypt, was the true God of the world, and that therefore they ought to have no other gods but him? Is it evident by the light of nature that God is not to be worshipped by an Image? Or if naturall evidence hereof faile us in this state of corrupt nature wherein we are, shall these lawes be denied to be the morall Law of God? yet I nothing doubt but the proportion of time allowed for Gods service, much more the particularity of the day appointed thereunto, is alterable at the pleasure of God. And ceremonials, I confesse, are in such a sense positive, or rather more than positive; namely, such as not only may, but must like shadowes fly away when the body of them comes in place. And yet I find that Cajetan in this point confounds ceremoniall with positive; though I think he would not call it ceremoniall, unlesse he conceived, that this which he cals positive, had some ceremoniality in it. But their reason whereupon they deny the ceremoniality of it, in my judgment is not sufficient. 1. Because they ground it upon a supposition very questionable, namely, that the Sabbath was instituted before the fall, which some deny, and that with very great probability in my judgment. 2. Their consequence is not good. For though it were no ceremony at the first; yet others say it might be afterwards, and give instance in the rain-bow, which though in course of nature extant before, yet was not a signe till after the Flood: and though I know some who would not admit of this instance, yet the