QUESTION 1
Whether the seventh day sabbath is of, or made known to, man by the law and light of nature?
Something must be here premised before I show the grounds of this question. First then, by the law or light of nature, I mean that law which was concreate with man; that which is natural to him, being original with, and essential to, himself; consequently, 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 according 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 itself, without the help of revelation, that the seventh day of the week is that time sanctified of God, and set apart for his worship, that is the question; and the grounds of it are these:
First, Because the law of nature is antecedent to this day, yea completed as a law before it was known or revealed to man, that God either did or would sanctify the seventh day of the week at all.
Now this law, as was said, being natural to a man, for man is a law unto himself (Rom 2), could only 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 belongs not to a man as a man; and the seventh day sabbath, as yet, was such. For Adam was completely made the day before; and God did not sanctify 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.
Second, To affirm the contrary, is to make the law of nature supernatural, which is an impossibility. Yea, they that do so make it a predictor, a prophet; a prophet about divine things to come; yea, a prophet able to foretell 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 into a grievous error; for this doth not only make the law of nature the first of prophets, contrary to Genesis 3:10 compared with John 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 foretell God's secrets, and that before he reveals them, and this law of nature is universal in every individual 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 itself 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 worshiped in the church on earth.
Third, If it be of the law of nature, then all men by nature are convinced of the necessity of keeping 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 under the power and command thereof; yet we find not that they are by nature under the 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 never had, as such, a reverence of a seventh day sabbath, but rather the contrary.
Fourth, If therefore the seventh day sabbath is not of the law of nature, then it should seem not to be obligatory to all. For instituted worship, and the necessary circumstances 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 circumcision, the passover, and other parts of instituted worship was enjoined but to some.
Fifth, I doubt the seventh day sabbath is not of the law of nature, and so not moral; because though we read that the law of nature, and that before Moses, was charged upon the world, yet I find not till then, that the profanation of a seventh day sabbath was charged 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 Genesis 4:8, 6:5, 9:21, 22, 12:13, 13:13, 18:12-15, 19:5; (Eze 16:49,50[6]); Genesis 31:30, 35:2, 40:15, 44:8-10; Deuteronomy 8:19, 20, 12:2; Psalm 106:35-37 and Romans the first and second 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,[7] in old time kept it better, than in after ages did the church of God with better assistance by far. For they are there yet found fault with as breakers of the sabbath (Eze 20:13).
It follows therefore, that if the law of nature doth not of itself reveal to us, as men, that the seventh 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 concluded, 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 choose. 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 sabbath; unless any will say, and by sufficient argument prove, that an ordinance for divine worship receiveth greater sanction from the law of nature than from a divine precept: or standeth stronger when it is 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 controversy 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 completed; God rested the seventh day and sanctified it (Gen 2:3). Sanctified 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 essential necessary to the instituted worship of God, then itself 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.