Sabbato-Dominica. OR, A FEW PROPOSITIONS tending to reoncile the seeming Difference, between the letter of the Law and Christian liberty, in the Doctrine of the Sabbath and Lords day, briefly propounded, explained, and confirmed.  
Together with an Appendix, unto the same Propositions, tending to satisfy some exceptions likely to be taken to them.  
By Irenaeus Philalethes. OR, One, that unfeignedly desires to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, and speaking the truth in love, to grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ.  Many shal run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased. Dan. 12.4. 
LONDON: Printed by T.P. and M.S. for Phil. Stephens, at the golden lion in Pauls Church yard. 1643.   

TO THE honourable house OF COMMONS now assembled in PARLIAMENT.  
WHen public report, the great Intelligencer of the world, had filled almost all mens minds with an earnest expectation, that by the advice and order of this Honourable House a national Synod would be shortly assembled, or at least a choice number of the best Divines selected to assist the high Court of Parliament, in ordering the affairs of Religion in this Land; some( who had seen these little Treatises, and thought there might some good use be made of them, as aiming, in a moderate way, at the discovery of that common Truth, which all men ought to seek, and that in some particulars of importance, which have of late been much disputed) did not onely, as formerly they had done, move me to permit the publication of them, but likewise to premise, by way of Preface, something with relation to the expected Synod or Assembly Which unless that course were settled already, I know not how to do better, then by craving leave of this Honourable House( as the great hinge upon which that heavenly motion hangs) to cast these little Treatises, as the poor widow did her two mites, into the treasury of the Temple: and humbly to profess, that my intent is not, in any thing wherein I vary from others, to engage either them or myself in the maintenance of our own opinions, but with willing submission unto better judgements, onely to offer occasion of consideration unto all, in some particulars, which otherwise perhaps might lie below their thoughts. Truth drops not always from the clouds, but sometimes springs out of the earth, and at a little spark of fire on the hearth( if it be not with too strong a breath blown out at the first) a candle may be lighted for the use and benefit of all that are in the house. That I conceal my name is rather out of conscience of mine own unworthiness, and a desire I have to avoid the very show of affectation, then fear to fall under the censures of any. For private imputations, I shall let them pass, as going but on equal ground: but if public authority, either in the voice of this honourable House, or otherwise, shal stoop so low, as to interpret it a fault, I shall willingly submit myself to censure, thankfully receive, and patiently undergo deserved punishment, and still continue to pray, as I do, that the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and might, the Spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord may rest, and be so multiplied upon you all, that the issue of all your consultations may be such, as may give all men just occasion to ioyn in consort with the Angel and the heavenly host in praising God and saying, Glory unto God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will towards men: that our eyes may see the King in his beauty, and jerusalem a quiet habitation, a Tabernacle that shall not be taken down, nor any of the stakes thereof removed, neither any of the cords thereof broken. Which he that hath so long ago promised will certainly at length in his good time perform, if men have but faith enough to wait with patience, that after they have done the will of God, they may receive the promises, which in Jesus Christ are, yea, and Amen, unto the glory of God, who is the blessed, and onely Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords, to whom he honour and power everlasting. Amen.   

TO ALL THAT SEEK THE truth so, as becomes the Friends of Peace and Holinesse.  
ALthough the Sabbath be a day of rest, yet the questions, that have been moved about it, I doubt not, will be restless, until that truth be brought to light, wherewith, if not all, yet moderate minded men at least, may rest themselves satisfied. Some of that truth I think I have found, and that appertaining to the very foundation, upon which the religious observation of the Christian Sabbath or Lords day is grounded, viz. the perpetual morality of the fourth Commandment. Which whilst some have openly set themselves of purpose, with all their might and main, not onely to deface, but also to demolish utterly, crying, Down with it, down with it, even to the ground: they have been much encouraged, on the one side, by those, who, thinking to settle it surer, have onely cemented with sand, or daubed it over with untempered mortar; by the weakness of their evidence brought the strength of their cause more in question, and made it seem less defensible to them, that had a mind to bend their force against it, when they saw the defendants so poorly provided, disdaining them as goliath did David, and triumphing before the victory, as if they would have said, Videas ante delectet contra retiarium ferula: on the other side by those, who presuming it capable of such superstructions, have raised a vast pile of rigorous impositions upon it, enough almost to crush it to pieces. So that the Christian Sabbath or Lords day began to be crucified between Superstition and profaneness, as Christ himself, the Lord of the Sabbath, was between two thieves: and they, that had a mind to try their strength, in restoring it unto its ancient right, found their passage unto their adversaries such, as Jonathan and his Armourbearer had to the garrison of the Philistines, between Bozez and Zenah, a sharp rock on the one side, and a sharp rock on the other side, which to climb up they had need to make use both of their hands and feet. This consideration, together with the solicitations of some private friends, about five yeers ago, set me on work, to search about this foundation, to see if I could find upon what ground it stood, and whether their mouths, that were disposed to cry down the morality of the fourth Commandment, with so much confidence, as if there had been no colour either of Religion or of reason for the maintenance thereof, might not be stopped, and the edge of those arguments abated, whereby they made account, they should cut asunder all the sinews of that opinion for ever: whether the head of that Philistine, which defied the armies of the living God, might not be cut off with his own sword, and the reproach taken away from Israel.  
That endeavour then brought forth these Propositions, wherein though the principal thing, that I aimed at, was to inquire, whether the morality of the fourth Commandment might not be made manifest, by such evidence, as nature itself might see sufficient reason to subscribe unto, yet I thought by the way I had met with such truths, as might serve to give some ground of satisfaction unto other doubts, both in the doctrinal and practical part, which I drew into corollaries or conclusions, such as I thought might be naturally deduced, from the same Propositions. But knowing how apt men are to overween their own works, and resolving that I might be though willingly I would not be deceived, I did both often enter into examination of that which I had done myself, and sometimes, as opportunity was offered, submit it unto the censure of others. Which course occasioned, though no alteration in the main, yet some additions unto that which I had done at first, and at last brought forth that Appendix, wherein I have endeavoured to remove all the doubts, that probably I could conjecture might be made of any thing therein. And now, for that common interest, that all men have in truth, I am content to put this work upon a public trial, in hope that I shall either be better confirmed in mine own opinion, by the approbation of others, whose judgements I may better build on then mine own, or meet with so much ingenuous charity in some, as meekly to make me understand wherein I have erred, and to direct me better.  
The way of truth is that I seek, but whether I have found it already myself, or shall hereafter be shewed it by another is not so much material. I would not willingly either like error any thing the better, because it is homeborn, nor truth the worse, because it comes to me as a stranger from another place. Which indifferency that I may not be drawn from but, as far as I can, keep myself free from any personal engagement. I am bold to put on the borrowed name of  
Irenaeus Philalethes.   

Sabbato-Dominica: A FEW PROPOSITIONS tending to reconcile the seeming Difference between the Letter of the Law and Christian liberty, in the Doctrine of the SABBATH and LORDS-DAY, briefly propounded, explained, and confirmed.  

The first Proposition.  
THe fourth Commandment in the literal sense and meaning of it doth design a seventh day in proportion onely, not the seventh day in order, also to be unto the people of God the ordinary time of holy rest.  
By the literal sense and meaning of the fourth Commandment, I understand that interpretation of the words which according to the rules of grammatical instruction they may, and in analogy to other places of Scripture, and the common received principles of Religion they must bear.  
By a seventh day in proportion onely, not the seventh day in order; also I understand one day of seven indefinitely taken, not specially restrained, in respect of order unto this or that seventh: accounting from one onely fixed period, but so left at liberty that it may indifferently be understood of any of the seven, first or last, or second, third, fourth, fifth or sixth, to be reckoned from that one prefixed period. As in other cases, Levit. 23.13. Two tenth deals of fine flower, and the fourth par● of an Hin▪ And Levit. 26.31. the fifth part of the tithes must needs be understood of such a proportion, viz. a tenth, a fourth a fifth, without any respect unto order at all; so as to imply that it must of necessity be this or that tenth, fourth or fifth: for if it were any part at all of that proportion it was sufficient.  
By the people of God I understand all those, and onely those, who by profession of the true Religion take upon them to be in special covenant with the true God: for unto all those and onely unto those, I take the Law of the two Tables to be given by God at Mount Sinai: not unto the Nation of the Israelites alone, nor unto all mankind universally, but indefinitely onely unto all, as all had an unconfined liberty to become Israelites by profession before the birth of Christ, and Christians after, and so to enter into special covenant with God, as the Israelites had done before the Law was published. Exod. 19.5. &c.( See the Appendix in the first exception and the answer to it.)  
By the ordinary time of holy rest, I understand that sufficient and convenient part of time which nature itself, being ruled by right reason, will confess, ought usually to be set apart for the solemn exercise of those actions of religious service, which are to be performed unto the true God by them that would have and show that they have him to be their God in their lives and conversations.  
The Proposition thus explained, I confirm it thus.  
The fourth Commandment in the literal sense and meaning of it, doth design either a seventh day in proportion onely, and not the seventh day in order also to be unto the people of God, the ordinary time of holy rest, or the seventh day in order onely, and not a seventh day in proportion also, or both a seventh day in proportion, and the seventh day in order also. But not the second nor the third, ergo the first.  
The mayor is evident of itself. For {αβγδ} dies septimus, Exod. 20.10. indifferently signifies a seventh day, or the seventh day, (a) and ( the) whereby the difference is expressed being particles proper to our English tongue, to which there is neither in the Hebrew, nor the latin, nor peradventure in most other languages any thing answerable: which defect the Schools supply by distinguishing of dies septimus formaliter, and dies septimus materialiter. And though we should give an emphasis unto the Article {αβγδ}, and red it dies ille septimus, that seventh day( which no necessity enforceth us to do, unless withall we take ourselves tied to translate in the next verse {αβγδ} coelos illos, and {αβγδ} terram illam, those heavens, and that earth, as though there were some other heavens and another earth, which were not made in the six dayes but in some other) yet no shift whatever will serve us to evade the necessity of this truth, that either it must be understood of a seventh in proportion onely, or the seventh in order onely, or both: for proportion and order must needs be either joined or severed in the signification of {αβγδ} septimus.  
The minor consisteth of two parts: whereof the former that the fourth Commandment in the literal sense and meaning of it doth not design the seventh day in order onely, and not a seventh day in proportion also, will easily, I conceive, be granted: for otherwise that seventh joined with the other six should either exceed or come short of the whole: unless we will say that every seventh day is either longer or shorter then some of the other six: or that the whole revolution of time may not according to the Scripture account be measured by weeks, whereof every one hath neither more nor less but seven equal dayes apiece; if not in exact Astronomic●ll computation, yet at least in ordinary vulgar account. The B. of Ely, pag. 177. observeth that the fourth Commandment made one day of seven a weekly Sabbath: and pag. 179. he saith, the subject of that Commandment is a natural day of 24. houres.  
The latter part of the minor that the fourth Commandment in the literal sense and meaning of it doth not design both a seventh day in proportion, and the seventh day in order also, to be unto the people of God the ordinary time of holy rest, is that which alone, I suppose, will be denied; and therefore onely needs to be confirmed. And to that purpose I would argue thus.  
That interpretation which includeth the common and natural equity of the Commandment, which obligeth all the people of God to the end of the world, and nothing else is the literal sense and meaning of the Commandment if the grammatical construction of the words will bear it, and enforce no more. But that interpretation wherein the fourth Commandment is taken to design a seventh day in proportion onely, and not the seventh day in order also, to be unto the people of God the ordinary time of holy rest, includeth the common and natural equity of the Commandment, which obligeth all Gods people to the end of the world, and nothing else: and the grammatical construction of the words will bear it, and enforce no more. Ergo,  
The mayor I presume will not be denied.( See the Appendix in the second exception, and the Answer to it.)  
The minor consisteth of two parts. For proof of the former, viz. that that Interpretation wherein the fourth Commandment is taken to design a seventh day in proportion onely, and not the seventh day in order also, to be unto the people of God the ordinary time of holy rest, includeth the common and natural equity of the Commandment, which obligeth all Gods people to the end of the world, and nothing else; I refer me to the reverend and very learned L. B. of Ely, in his Treatise of the Sabbath& Lords day, whose words are these, pag. 120. The common and natural equity of this Commandment obligeth mankind to the end of the world. And pa 121. the equity of the fourth Commandment is of the law of Nature. And pag. 90. the common and natural equity of that Commandment is moral: viz. that Gods people are obliged to observe a convenient and sufficient time for public and solemn divine worship, and for religious and ecclesiastical duties. And abstinence from secular labour and negotiation, and keeping holy one day of every week for mans temporal and natural refreshing, and for the spiritual good of his soul is very agreeable both to natural and religious equity; and it is grounded upon the ancient custom and practise of Gods people in time of the Law. Where in the margin he quotes out of Chrysostome in Genes. Hom. 10. Jam hinc ab initio doctrinam hanc insinuat nobis Deus, erudiens in circulo hebdomadae diem unum integrum, {αβγδ}. Consecrare& designare operationi spiritualium.  
Which passage of Chrysostome appears unto me to intimate more then the Bishop seemeth to take notice of: viz. that the ancient custom and practise of Gods people in keeping holy one day of every week was taught them by God even from the beginning. Which if it be true, and the thing in itself very agreeable both to natural and religious equity, as the B. confesseth, I do notsee what colour of reason any man can have to pretend it ceremonial, or peculiarly appropriated in the Commandment unto the Israelites alone: unless he will say, that what was generally intended unto all men before, was afterward in the fourth Commandment particularly limited, and restrained unto the Israelites alone; which he that will pretend to be true of the fourth Commandment, me thinks must be forced to confess as true of all the other nine.  
And whereas he pretendeth that our keeping holy now one day of every week is grounded upon the ancient custom and practise of Gods people in time of the Law, I demand whether that custom and practise itself were not grounded either upon a Law of Nature, or at least upon a positive Law of divine institution: and if so( as I think it cannot be denied) why the keeping holy now of one day in every week should rather be said to be grounded upon that custom and practise, then upon that Law whether natural or positive on which that custom and practise itself at first was grounded. Since it is not safe grounding upon any custom or practise how common or ancient soever, unless that custom and practise itself be grounded upon such a foundation either in reason or Religion as still stands in force as well for the latter as the former practise. Otherwise I do not see but that a turk might pled as well for his circumcision, as grounded upon the ancient custom and practise of Gods people in time of the Law, as a Christian for his keeping holy one day of every week, as grounded upon the like custom and practise, unless this custom and practise of keeping holy one day in every week were itself grounded on a foundation of another nature then that of circumcision was.  
Again, in that passage of the B. I observe that he makes that to be the common and natural equity of the fourth Commandment, which I ever conceived to belong unto the first. For the first come. requiring that we should have the true God to be our God, not onely in our minds and in our hearts, but likewise in our lives and conversations( which must be by performing unto him not onely sudden and occasional, but likewise set and solemn actions of religious service, as I presume will not be denied) requires withall that a sufficient and convenient time should be set apart and employed to that purpose: since mens actions, especially external, cannot at all be performed but in time and place, nor as they ought to be, unless that time and place be both sufficient and convenient. So that if this were all that the fourth Commandment required of Gods people in requiring this, it should require no more then in effect the first Commandment had done already, nor give any further direction concerning the time to be employed in solemn worship, then might as well be understood concerning the place wherein that worship ought to be performed, which yet it is evident that it hath done. And I think I may add that it was requisite it should be so: that so I may answer their demand that ask a reason why God should rather design a proportion of time then of place for his solemn service. Although such a question me thinks should need no answer, since it either is or at least should be enough for us that God hath done so: yet this we may conceive to be some reason of it. First, because time is a more inseparable circumstance of any action then place can be. Moses describing the creation, Gen. 1.1. begins with the beginning of time, and so proceeds accordingly: he saith not where, but when each thing was done: even place itself can have no being but in time. Secondly, because one and the same proportion of time may be observed by Gods people every where in performing the solemn actions of religious service, whether publicly or privately, but one and the same proportion of place cannot. Thirdly, because there are general divisions of time into distinct proportions made by God himself even in the creation, and first constitution of time, the characters whereof stand stamped in the course of nature, by which even natural reason may be guided in the choice of a sufficient and convenient part to be employed in solemn worship, as we shall have occasion to consider more anon. But there are no such divisions of place which is always proportionable to the thing that is placed, and differs according to the various circumstances of the same.  
Besides, if this, and this onely be the common and natural equity of the fourth Commandment, that a sufficient and convenient time should be employed in holy worship, as it is pretended; I demand whether purposely intended, and expressed in the words, or onely presupposed, and taken for granted. If purposely intended, and expressed; I demand whether in a phrase of speech that is to be understood properly or tropically. If properly, then it doth not onely express the necessity of observing a sufficient and convenient time, but likewise show plainly what part of time is sufficient and convenient, viz. a seventh day, one day in every week. If tropically, I demand what kind of trope it can be, wherein the general may so be understood by the special, as that the special itself must not be necessary included in the general. For if by the Sabbath day or a seventh day in the fourth Commandment be intended a sufficient and convenient time, we must either deny that a seventh day is a sufficient and convenient time, or else aclowledge it therein required, as that which is presupposed to be the common and natural equity of the Commandment: which will appear more plainly to be so, if we can prove that there is no other part of time which nature will aclowledge to be sufficient and convenient, but onely one day in every week, as anon I shall assay to do. If onely presupposed, and taken for granted, I see not why we should esteem it more proper to the fourth Commandment, then to the second or the third: or why we should not as well esteem the other necessary duties of the first, as that we must have a God, and that the true God to be our God, that we must know him, love him, fear him, and obey him, and the like, to be the common and natural equity of the fourth Commandment( for all these must needs be therein presupposed, and taken for granted) and so in the end reduce them all to one, without any distinction, except it be in such particulars onely as we resolve to reject at our pleasures, as not appertaining unto us but to the Israelites alone.( See the Appendix in the third Exception, and the Answer to it.)  
Again, I observe that the B. in that passage joins public and solemn worship together, as likewise religious and ecclesiastical duties; as though these were terms of equal extent, or that Gods people were equally obliged to them all by one and the same moral Law. Which I take to be a common error, and the occasion of many mistakes amongst them that have written upon this subject. For all solemn divine worship is not public, nor are all religious duties ecclesiastical. And as it is one thing to be exercised and employed in the solemn actions of religious service simply considered, and another thing to be exercised and employed in the same solemn actions of religious service as they are public and ecclesiastical: so the bond whereby Gods people are obliged to be so exercised and employed, must be referred unto divers Commandments. For the solemn actions of religious service simply considered to the first come. as before, for the public and ecclesiastical exercise and performance of them, if directed and required immediately by God himself, as amongst the Israelites in many things it was unto the first Commandment likewise, wherein generally all obedience unto God himself is enjoined: if immediately depending upon the authority of Civill and ecclesiastical Governors, as now adays it doth unto the first Commandment. As for the fourth Commandment, I conceive that the scope thereof is no more, but onely in a special manner to design that proportion of time which is ordinarily to be employed by Gods people in solemn worship; and to give a general intimation of the use and end unto which that time must be employed.  
And in that respect I conceive the B. expression not to be so full as it might have been, when he saith, that the keeping holy one day in every week is very agreeable unto natural and religious equity: having said before that Gods people are obliged by the common and natural equity of the Commandment which is moral, to observe a sufficient and convenient time for solemn worship: for upon that ground I conceive it may be probably at least pretended, that natural and religious equity will not onely allow of that practise as fitting and convenient, but likewise avow it for requisite and necessary: as if to that purpose one should argue thus.  
If natural equity oblige men of necessity to observe a sufficient and convenient time for solemn worship; then natural equity must presuppose men able to judge of the time to be so observed, whether it be sufficient& convenient or no: otherwise natural equity shall bind men to do that, which whether they have done or no they cannot tell,& so they shall not be a law unto themselves, or their conscience witness with them, contrary unto that of the Apostle, Rom. 2.14, 15. And natural equity cannot presuppose men able to judge of the time to be observed for solemn worship, whether it be sufficient and convenient or no, but upon this supposition, that either it must be all time absolutely, or a part of time onely. The former I presume will not be pretended agreeable unto natural and religious equity, I therefore let it pass. If the latter, it must be a part of time, either once onely to be chosen and observed, or often. The former I likewise presume will not be pretended agreeable unto natural and religious equity, and therefore I let that also pass. If the latter, it must be either such a part of time as arises upon an arbitrary artificial division of time, which man himself at his own pleasure hath been or may be author of: or else such a part of time as arises upon a natural division of time which God himself made at the creation; the characters whereof are written in the course of nature: out of the parts whereof, if any one be taken and employed for solemn worship, it will ordinarily be sufficient and convenient.  
Not the former, but the latter. For the general determination of a common and natural equity which obligeth all mankind must needs depend upon something in nature, of as early an original, as large an extent, as unchangeable constancy, and long continuance as itself. But no artificial arbitrary division of time can be coevall unto that common and natural, equity, which in this case is to be determined by it, neither so universally known, or perpetually immutable, and consequently certain as that which is natural. So that either there must be some such certain division of time apparent unto nature, or nature will never be able of itself to determine whether such or such a time be sufficient and convenient to be ordinarily employed in the solemn actions of religious service or no.  
The main things then to be inquired in this case are: First, what natural divisions of time there are, the characters whereof were at the beginning, even in the creation by God himself the Creator, imprinted in the course of nature. Secondly, which of those divisions it is that common and natural equity being called unto counsel, must needs aclowledge and confess, doth afford a sufficient and convenient time to be employed in solemn worship.  
For the first, it is evident both by the history of the Creation, Gen. 1. and 2. and by the observations of art and experience, that there are four main divisions of time which God himself hath made, namely, into dayes, into weeks, into moneths, and into yeers: whereof the second and the third arise out of the multiplied revolution of the first and the last of the third.  
Here nothing, I suppose, will be denied or doubted of, at least there is nothing that concerns our present purpose much, but whether the division of time into weeks, whereof every one consists of seven dayes apiece, be a natural division of Gods own institution in the Creation the characters whereof may be observed in the course of nature. For the affirmative whereof, I doubt not but I might produce the unanimous consent both of Fathers, Schoolmen, and Interpreters upon Genesis the first and second, as these few particulars which I have had opportunity to take notice of, persuade me to believe.  
Basil. in Hexam. hom. 2. Deus merely qui temporis naturam creavit, mensuras ipsi ac signa, nimirum spatia dierum adjunxit, septimanaque ipsum metiens, in orbem septimanam in seize semper versari jussit, curricula temporis ac motiones enumerantem:& unum item diem septimanam conficere, ipsum in seize septies redeuntem.  
Lactan. de divino premio Lib. 7. cap. 14. Dies septem sunt. qu●bus per vicem revolutis orbs conficiuntur annorum, &c.  
Clem. Alex. lib. 6. storm. In septenariis totus mundus circumagitur omnium quae& viva gignuntur,& quae nascuntur, &c.  
Hieron. in Amos, cap. 5. Septenarium numerum esse sanctum etiam Sabbatum probat, in quo requievit Deus ab omnibus operibus suis— Novit& hoc secularis philosophia& medicorum libri— ita ab initio mundi diebus conditis, ut omnes labores& molestiae septimo numero conquiescant—& septem astra juxta numerum dierum dicuntur errantia, &c.  
August. ad Casulan. Epa. 86. Septem dies sunt, qui volumine temporum per sua vestigia revocantur.  
Id. de Genesi ad literam, lib. 4. ca. 18. Dies septimus& ipse unus est dierum, qui omnes septem sunt, quorum repetitione menses& anni& secula peraguntur: ut mane quod poneretur post vesperam septimi hoc esset initium octavi diei, de quo jam deinceps silendum fuit, quia idem primus est ad quem reditur, à quo rursus hebdo madis serìes ordiatur. Vnde probabilius est istos quidem septem dies illorum nominibus& numero alios atque alios sibimet succedentes currendo temporalia peragere spatia.  
Lomb. lib. 2. sent. dist. 15. Numerando dies usque ad septimum procedimus,& dicimus septem esse dies, quorum repetitione omne tempus agitatur.  
And peradventure much more might be added to this purpose out of their observations, that are expert in astronomy, astrology, and chronology, as I am induced to conceive by that of Jos. Scalig. Can. Isagog. lib. 3. cap. 4. whose words are these. Vtimur hebdomade dierum, non ogdoade, ut prisci Romani, neque Triscaedecade, ut Mexicani. Nam secundum illa instituta aliae periodi excogitandae essent, quae omnino cum veris rationibus tropicis nunquam quadrare possunt, ut hinc occultam quandam vim septenarii dierum agnoscere possis. And a little after: Divinitus igitur institutus est numerus dierum septenarius, qui ad omnem civilis anni solaris rationem commodissimus est,&, ut dixi, nescio quid {αβγδ} habet. Mr. purchase in his pilgrimage, lib. 1. cap. 4. in the Margin saith, The Heathen by the light of nature had their weeks, as appeareth by naming the dayes after the seven Planets, &c. art. Probl de Sab. He further allegeth to prove the observation of one day of seven in every week to be natural and moral. Aquin. secunda secundae, q. 122. art 4. Mr. Hooker Eccles. Pol. lib. 5.§. 70. Broughton in his Concent. And lib. 2. cap. 4. in the margin. Septimana res omnibus quidem orientis populis ab ultima usque antiquitate usitata nobis autem Europaeis vix tandem post Christianismum recepta. Scal. de Emendat. T. l. 1. Antiquior est appellatio dierum septimanae sub nominibus 7. planetarum quam horarum. Horae nova appellatio à Graecis, Cor. lib. 7. & Casaub. ad Athen. lib. 1. aliquanto post Aristotelis tempora. Which allegations of his may give just occasion of further enquiry unto those that are furnished with means and opportunities that way. See the Appendix in the fourth Exception, and the Answer to it.  
For the second, men cannot make perfecter divisions of time then God himself hath made; and of these which he hath made if nature be put to determine out of which a sufficient and convenient part must be taken, to be ordinarily employed in the solemn actions of religious service, she cannot but aclowledge that of necessity it must be either a day out of a week, or a day out of a month, or a month out of a year.  
Now as the first natural division of time is into dayes; so the first natural multiplication of daies is into weeks. And these two divisions of time are always equal, one natural day or week being never either longer or shorter then another( understanding it of those dayes and weeks which are measured per motum diurnum totius, if we speak either according unto exact astronomical computation, or otherwise according unto ordinary vulgar account) whereas moneths and yeers are sometimes forced to admit or loose odd minutes, houres, or dayes to keep their courses even in account. For that those two dayes whereof we red, Jos. 10. and Isa. 38. in length exceeded others, was not natural, but miraculous, and extraordinary: and therefore in the ordinatie computation of time they must pass in the same rank with other dayes. And larger then one day of seven there is no part of time arising upon a natural division, because the least natural proportion of time that ariseth upon a multiplied revolution of dayes is a week. less then one day in a week then which is a seventh day in proportion, will not be allowed by the judgement of nature itself, as sufficient to be employed in the solemn actions of religious service. For I do not expect it should be pretended agreeable either unto natural or religious equity, that a less part is sufficient for God, when a greater may more conveniently be had. But a day out of a month, or a month out of a year, would neither be convenient nor equal. Not convenient, because the necessities both of religious and worldly affairs do equally require a mutual interchange of speedier dispatches, and quicker returns. Not equal, because sometimes they must either be extended or contracted above ordinary, or else the whole account of time put out of frame.  
And so I have done with the former part of my minor, viz. that that interpretation wherein the fourth Commandment is taken to design a seventh day in proportion onely, and not the seventh day in order also, to be unto the people of God the ordinary time of holy rest, includeth the common and natural equity of the Commandment, which obligeth all Gods people to the end of the world, and nothing else.  
This onely let me add, that when I speak of natural equity, I do not intend to aclowledge that equity alone for natural, which dim eyed nature, now in the state of corruption, can easily discover to be such: but if there be any other equity, which nature in its pure estate of innocence could of itself have seen to be such, or which corrupted nature now not further blind folded by passion or prejudice, but willingly giving itself to be guided by the rules of right reason, must needs aclowledge to be such when it is discovered, and made known; I make account that that likewise may be esteemed natural equity. For I doubt not but strait lines would be strait, and naturally strait, though the natural straightness of them could never be demonstrated unto us by any other means but onely by the use of artificial instruments. And why may not many duties then be necessary, naturally necessary; the natural necessity whereof yet may not be now apparent unto us, but onely by divine discovery? Is not according to the usual saying, Rectum onely index sui& obliqui? Can we know that we do well by any other means, but onely by the same whereby we may likewise know whether we do ill or no? Saint Paul saith of himself, I had not known sin but by the Law: for I had not known lust, except the Law had said, thou shalt not covet. Rom. 7.7. And yet I suppose there is as much common natural equity in this Commandment, Thou shalt not covet thy neighbours house; thou shalt not covet thy neighbours wife, &c. as in any of the other five that went before it. Though marriage be an ordinance of God, the institution whereof had never come unto our knowledge, if God himself had not conveyed it to us by his Word. Certainly divine discovery by revealed light serves not onely to impose a necessity of obedience where it was not before, but likewise sometimes to inform us what necessary duties nature itself would have taught us, that we stood obliged unto, had we and it continued still in our primevall state of integrity. The true God is not known unto us now to be such as he is, but by revealed light, nor can be served as he ought to be, but onely by those that are instructed by himself: shall we therefore pretend that natural equity doth not oblige all men unto the knowledge and service of the true God: Sure if we do, we may as well pretend, that either there is no natural equity at all in any thing; or that by natural equity we are not obliged to do any thing at all: for if the knowledge and service of the true God be not necessary, nothing is. Therefore me thinks it cannot be safe to exclude all those out of the number of natural duties, which nature now cannot see to be such without revealed light. For by that means, I suppose, we should make it a difficult matter to convince a gain sayer of a natural necessity in any kind of duty whatsoever. For whatever we could propound as a principle in nature, to ground the necessity of a duty upon, he might pretend it none of natures own, but borrowed: should we point him to the practise of the same, be it justice, mercy, chastity, sobriety, or any other moral duty exactly observed by mere heathen men, might he not pretend that they did that in imitation of the Israelites, unto whom were committed the Oracles of God, as well as that from them they borrowed their sacrifices, and their solemn Feast dayes? Should we urge him with the testimonies of the most ancient Heathen Authors; might he not as easily reply, that Moses wrote before them all, and that they might learn other things as well as the histories of the Creation and the Flood from him? Should we press him with examples of barbarous Nations, altogether unacquainted with letters and learning, whereby either the Laws or manners of other men might be conveyed unto their knowledge; might he not except against that evidence in some, unless we ourselves would yield to accept the same from him in all other particulars? why may not these evasions serve a ruffians turn to shift himself from under the yoke of other Commandments, as well as reverend Divines make use of the same, or the like, to put by the force of arguments urged for the sanctification of one day in every week, as a necessary duty grounded on the fourth Commandment? We red not that samson thought himself any thing the less obliged to perform the condition of the covenant he had entred into with his thirty companions, because he could truly say unto them: If ye had not ploughed with my heifer, ye had not found out my riddle. judge. 14.18. And if God in his Word discover his will concerning any thing which he would have his people do, and upon that discovery they can find it to be agreeable unto natural and religious equity( as the keeping holy of one day in every week is acknowledged to be) although they neither did nor could of themselves conceive any such thing before, me thinks, their future obligation should be nothing abated by their former ignorance. See the Appendix in the fifth Exception, and the Answer to it.  
Since then the sufficiency and conveniency of that proportion of time, whereof wee speak, viz. a seventh day, or one day in every week, to be unto the people of God, the ordinary time of holy rest, is so sufficiently discovered unto them in the fourth Commandment by God himself, that nature itself, I think, would be ashamed to aclowledge reason in any thing that should be pretended to the contrary. I durst not exclude the perpetual observation of that proportion from the compass of that common and natural equity, which obligeth all Gods people to the end of the world: although I should grant that without that discovery, nature now corrupted as it is, neither would nor could ever have taken any notice of it. For I presume it might be well known to Adam in his state of innocence, though after his fall, I doubt not, but his knowledge in that, as in other particulars, was much impaired, and though all his posterity till Moses time, had never heard of it: which whether they did or no, I think is more then can be certainly evidenced by any one necessary Argument. And that Adam once did know it, I am the rather induced to believe because it is now acknowledged to be very agreeable, both unto natural and religious equity, and I can hardly be persuaded that any thing of that nature was unknown to Adam in his state of innocence, at least I think no man can prove this was.  
For the latter part of my Minor, viz. that the grammatical construction of the words will bear that interpretation, and enforce no more, it is evident, as before, in that dies septimus, indifferently signifies, a seventh day in proportion, or the seventh day in order, and unless other Arguments be brought to sway, it will incline no more unto the one translation then the other. And what better arguments to that purpose can there be, then those that are drawn from analogy unto other places of Scripture, and the common received principles of Religion? which I conceive, pled strongly for a seventh day in proportion onely, not for the seventh day in order also, accounting as I said at first, from some one fixed period onely. And to that purpose I would argue thus:  
That interpretation which agrees with the universal and perpetual practise of Gods people, both under the Law and under the Gospel, recorded in Scripture, as either directed or approved of by God himself, or the Ministers of God, inspired by the holy Ghost, holds better analogy with other places of Scripture, and the common received principles of Religion, then that which differs from it.  
But that interpretation according unto which the fourth Commandement is taken to design a seventh day in proportion onely, not the seventh day in order also, to be unto the people of God the ordinary time of holy rest, agrees with the universal and perpetual practise of Gods people, both under the Law and under the Gospel, recorded in Scripture, as either directed or approved of by God himself, or the Ministers of God, inspired by the holy Ghost: and that interpretation according unto which the Commandement is taken, to design both a seventh day in proportion, and the seventh day in order also differs from it: Ergo,  
The mayor is grounded upon these two, unless I mistake them, commonly received and undoubted truths.  
First, That the Scriptures and the commonly received principles of Religion, do never contradict themselves, or one another.  
Secondly, That the universal and perpetual practise of the people of God, both under the Law and under the Gospel, is agreeable both unto the Scriptures, and the commonly received principles of Religion: whence Praxis sanctorum est interpres praeceptorum, hath sometimes passed in the nature of a principle.  
For the Minor, we know that the people of God, both under the law and under the Gospel, have observed a seventh day in proportion, viz. one day in every week, as the ordinary time of holy rest, but not the seventh day in order, also accounting from one prefixed period onely, viz. not the self-same day in every week, but under the Law the last, and under the Gospel the first. That wherein they all agree, is the same proportion of time; and that wherein they differ, is the order of the time proportioned. In this the practise of Gods people under the Law was directed and approved of by God himself: the practise of Gods people under the Gospel was, if not directed, yet at least approved of; if not by Christ himself, yet by his Apostles, infallibly assisted and directed by his holy Spirit.  
The Bishop of Ely, upon another occasion, pag. 10. of his Epistle Dedicatory, hath these words; The Apostles act was according to the Word, for they were men inspired by the holy Ghost. Whereupon I assume. But the Apostles act was to observe a seventh day in proportion on onely, not the seventh day in order also, as the ordinary time of holy rest: and there is no other word but this of the fourth Commandement, according unto which that act could be. Ergo,  
So that it should seem, what ever men do now adays, the Apostles and primitive Churches understood the fourth Commandement, to design a seventh day in proportion onely, not the seventh day in order also, to be unto the people of God the ordinary time of holy rest. For if it had been as peculiarly proper to the Iewes, to set apart a seventh day in proportion, for the ordinary time of holy fest, as it was to set apart that seventh day in order, which they did. The Apostles and the Primitive Churches would have found the self-same necessity of altering the proportion of the time, as the order of the time proportioned: which since they did not, it seems they saw no reason why they should. And certainly, if the fourth Commandement in the self-same word, designed both, and God did purposely intend that his people should so understand it, either both must be ceremonial or neither, whereof the former is directly overthrown by the practise, the other, by the doctrine of the Christian Churches.  
And hereupon it follows.  
First, That the fourth Commandement is neither rightly interpnted nor understood by them that take it in the literal sense& meaning of it, to design one definite or special day of every week, as the first, second, third, fourth, fift, sixth, or last in order from some one prefixed period, to be unto the people of God the ordinary time of holy rest.  
Secondly, That Saturday was no more the Sabbath of the fourth Commandement unto the Jews, then Sunday is to Christians.  
Thirdly, That the designation of that one definite or special day in every week, whereon the Sabbath should be kept, both then was, and still is juris positivi.  
Fourthly, that the reason why the Jews observed Saturday for their Sabbath, and Christians Sunday for theirs, is not to be found, and so not to be sought in the fourth Commandement. See the Appendix in the sixth exception, and the Answer to it.  
Fifthly, That Jewish superstition, so far as concerns the ordinary time of holy rest, is sufficiently avoided, and Christian liberty asserted, by fixing it upon another day in order, although of the same proportion.  
Sixthly, That the testimonies urged to evince the observation of the Sabbath, now unlawful, as that which was proper to the Jews, must be understood of the Sabbath, not as it was a seventh day in proportion onely, but the seventh day in order also from that fixed period, at which the Jews began their first account of weeks.   

The second Proposition.  
The fourth Commandment in the literal sense and meaning of it, is simply and perpetually moral, as well as the second, third, fift, sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth.  
BY the literal sense and meaning of the fourth Commandment, I understand, as in the first proposition, that interpretation of the words, whereby they are understood to design a seventh day in proportion onely, not the seventh day in order also, to be unto the people of God the ordinary time of holy rest.  
By simply and perpetually moral, I understand such a Commandement, as wherein that which is commanded, is in its own intrinsical nature and quality good, either is or may be resolved into some dictate or principle of the Law of nature, imprinted in mans heart at the creation, obliging all Gods people to universal& perpetual obedience, both in regard of persons, times, and places. See the Appendix in the seventh Exception, and the answer to it.  
I instance the second, third, fift, sixth, seventh, eight, and ninth Commandements, without making mention of the first and last, because I take the first and last Commandements, to comprise in general all the duties of piety and charity, which Gods people owe immediately to God himself, and mediately to God in one another: and the other eight to express so many several branches of obedience, three in the first, and five in the second Table, which God would have his people in a special manner to take notice of: all which may be reduced unto as generally they are included in the other two, the first and last.  
The proposition thus explained, I confirm it thus:  
That Commandement in the literal sense and meaning of it, is simply and perpetually moral, as well as the second, third, fift, sixth, seventh, eight, and ninth, which neither in the matter delivered, nor manner of delivery, doth any way differ more from them then they do each from one another, but hath the characters of a Commandement, simply and perpetually moral, appertaining unto it as well as they. But the fourth Commandement, in the literal sense and meaning of it, doth neither in the matter delivered, nor manner of delivery, any way differ more from the second, third, fift, sixth, seventh, eight, and ninth Commandements, then they do each from one another: but hath the characters of a Commandement simply and perpetually moral, appertaining unto it as well as they, Ergo:  
The mayor I take to be evident of itself. For if it be not, it must either have some special mark and stamp set upon it, either in the matter delivered, or manner of delivery, whereby Gods people may be able to distinguish between it and the rest, or some express testimony, speaking plainly to that purpose. But there is neither sentence, nor word, nor syllable, nor tittle in the whole book of God, that intimates any thing at all to this purpose, that of the ten Commandements uttered by God himself on Mount Sinai, and writ with his own finger in the two Tables, nine alone were simply and perpetually moral, one and that the fourth onely positive and ceremonial. Either therefore we must find some difference among the Commandments themselves, or else wee can have no ground to fix the foot of a distinction on: and to distinguish where there is no difference, is a more likely means to mask an error, then unfold a truth.  
The Minor consisteth of three parts: the first concerns the matter delivered in the Commandements: the second, the manner of delivery: the third, the characters of a Commandement simply and perpetually moral.  
For the first, I take the matter delivered in the fourth Commandement, to be as before in the first proposition, nothing else but the designation of a seventh day, in proportion onely, to be unto the people of God the ordinary time of holy rest. And in doing this, the fourth Commandement doth differ no more from the rest of the Commandements, then they do each from one another: for each of the rest hath its special object proper to itself, as well as the fourth: and there is no more difference between Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy, and, Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord thy God in vain: then there is between Honour thy father and thy mother, and, Thou shalt not commit adultery. And I shall take it for granted of the rest, until I see some instance given to the contrary.  
For the second, I take it to be out of question, and that no man will deny, but that the fourth Commandement was delivered in the self-same manner with the other nine.  
For the third, if we take but those three characters of a Commandment simply and perpetually moral, which are laid down by the Bishop of Ely, pag. 28, 29, 30, 31. for ought I perceive they all appertain as well unto the fourth Commandment, as to the rest. The fourth Commandment requiring no more in the literal sense and meaning of it, as was formerly shewed in the first Proposition; but that which nature itself may either observe, or at least aclowledge to be in its own inward nature and quality good, yea necessary to be observed by all Gods people at all times, and in all places. And the exception which the Bishop in the pages following takes to the morality of the fourth Commandment, by application of those characters is onely in respect of the seventh day in order, which he takes to be the literal and particular object of the Commandment.  
But if the first Proposition stand fast, that the fourth Commandment in the literal sense and meaning of it doth design a seventh day in proportion onely, not the seventh day in order also, to be unto the people of God the ordinary time of holy rest, this second will of necessity follow, that the fourth Commandment in the literal sense and meaning of it is simply and perpetually moral, as well as the second, third, fifth, sixth, seventh, eight and ninth. For in so doing, the fourth Commandment doth as the rest express no more but that which Gods people, by the light of their natural understanding, might either observe, or at least aclowledge to be beseeming or good for them to do: and whatsoever may possibly be known to be of that quality doth bind men absolutely as they are men: as Mr. Hooker speaks. Lib. 1.§. 8.9.10.  
And hence it follows.  
First, That they who deny the fourth Commandment in the literal sense and meaning of it, to be simply and perpetually moral, may be justly suspected to hold no better opinion of the rest.  
Secondly, That they who esteem themselves not bound by virtue of the fourth Commandment to set apart one day in every week for the ordinary time of holy rest, may think themselves as well at liberty to make images of God, and worship him therein, &c.   

The third Proposition.  
If the Jews were necessary bound to exercise or abstain from any thing upon the saturday, which Christians are not upon the Sunday, it was not by virtue of the fourth Commandment, but by some other positive Law.  
BY the saturday, I understand that day which the Jews set apart for their ordinary time of holy rest: not as designed in the fourth Commandment, but as that whereunto they were directed by the voice of God himself, before the Law was published upon Mount Sinai; taking occasion from that special act of his providence, whereby he so disposed that Manna wherewith he fed them in the wilderness, should fail to fall upon that day. Exod. 16.22. &c. Which day is generally conceived to be the seventh in order from the Creation: and some undertake to prove it so: as Joh Behm. Chronolog. Manuduct. lib. 1. Tit. 3. ca. 3. But the arguments he urgeth to that purpose, are such as have greater need of proof themselves then the conclusion he infers upon them; being but borrowed from that which I conceive to be a common error: viz that the sanctification of the seventh day mentioned in Gen. 2.3. and Exod. 20.11. was purposely intended unto it, as well in respect of order as proportion. And whether the day which the Jews observed for their Sabbath, were the seventh in order from the Creation, or no, it matters not, if, as before in the first Proposition, the fourth Commandment do design a seventh day in proportion onely; not the seventh day in order also, to be unto the people of God the ordinary time of holy rest.  
By the sunday, I understand that day which Christians set apart for their ordinary time of holy rest: not as designed in the fourth Commandment, but as that whereunto they have been guided by the practise of the Apostles and primitive Churches: who were therein directed at the first, if not immediately by Christ himself, yet at least by that holy Spirit wherewith they were inspired, taking occasion from that act of Gods providence, whereby he so disposed, that Christ should rise again from the dead that day. Which that it was the first day in order of the week, accounting the saturday, whereupon the Jews observed their Sabbath the last, is evident in all the four Evangelists: but whether the first day in order from the Creation or no, until it be resolved whether the saturday were the seventh, is neither possible certainly to know, nor any way necessary to inquire.  
The proportion thus explained, follows necessary upon the two former. For if the literal sense and meaning of the fourth Commandment be no more but to design a seventh day in proportion onely, to be unto the people of God the ordinary time of holy rest: and if in this sense and meaning the fourth Commandment be simply and perpetually moral: then neither were the Jews by virtue of the fourth Commandment obliged to do any thing more, or Christians less, then to observe one day in seven as the ordinary time of holy rest. That is one day in every week so to lay aside their usual employment in civil affairs, that they may in a special manner then be exercised in the solemn actions of religious service; by performance whereof they may have, and make it appear indeed, that they have the true God to be their God in their lives and conversations.  
But what those actions are wherein Gods people must then in a solemn manner be exercised the fourth Commandment meddles not with particularly, onely it intimates they must be holy; and so makes a general reference unto the first Commandment, wherein is required the actual exercise of all those actions, by performance whereof we have, and show that we have the true God to be our God in every kind, both in our minds and understandings, our hearts and affections, our lives and conversations.  
These actions of religious service, the fourth Commandment requires all Gods people, when, and wheresoever in a special manner, to exercise and employ themselves in one day in every week above the rest: and to that purpose on that day to lay aside their usual employments upon other dayes, and so to order their affairs, that six dayes diligence in worldly business may sufficiently provide for the convenience of a seventh dayes rest, to be employed in holy worship. And this is all that the fourth Commandment either did or doth oblige the Jews or us unto.  
Other things the Jews were enjoined or forbidden to do upon their Sabbath the saturday: as to have new bread put upon the table in the Tabernacle. Levit. 24.8. to have the continual burnt-offering and drink-offering doubled. Numb. 28.9, 10. to kindle any fire. Exod. 35.3. But these and the like observances they stood obliged unto, not by virtue of the fourth Commandment, but by those other positive Laws which no more concern us Christians now, then the other ceremonial and judicial Laws appendices onely of the moral, and appropriated unto the Jews.  
And hence it follows,  
First, That the example of the Jews in the observation of their Sabbath, is no necessary rule for Christians now to guide themselves by in the observation of theirs, unless it may be made to appear that therein they did nothing but what they were obliged to by virtue of the fourth Commandment.  
Secondly, That the ground of obligation whereby Christians stand charged with sundry particulars, to be observed by them upon the Lords day, now must be drawn out of other commandments, and cannot be directly and immediately deduced from the fourth. As that such or such a company of people are publicly to meet together upon the Lords day in such or such a place, so often or so seldom,& there to continue so long or so short a time in the performance of such or such actions of religious service, dependeth upon positive laws either ecclesiastical or Civill, of human institution, unto which men owe obedience by virtue of the fift Commandment. Yet so that they by whose authority those laws are enacted, are limited in general by the fourth Commandment, what to require by those laws, viz. that which ordinarily may not hinder, but help to further the sanctification of the resting day.   

The fourth Proposition.  
To call the Sunday now the Sabbath, is no more to Judaize, then it is to call the Ministers of the Gospel Priests, the Eucharist a Sacrifice, or the Cmmunion Table an Altar.  
BY the Sunday, I understand that day of the week which is by Christians now adays observed, as the ordinary time of holy rest, not simply in itself, but with relation to that use unto which it is put.  
By Judaizing, I understand to do or say something, whereby we may be said to have fellowship, or to partake with the Jews in something so proper unto them, that thereby they have been, or may be, not unfitly distinguished from all other Nations or societies of men.  
By calling the Ministers of the Gospel Priests, the Eucharist a Sacrifice, and the Communion Table an Altar, I understand the unaffected applying of those particular names by Christians now adays to such persons and things, as in regard of their office and use, carry some correspondence and analogy unto other persons and things, unto which the same names were under the Law applied by the Jews.  
The proposition thus explained, I confirm it thus:  
To Judaize is unlawful for Christians. But to call the Sunday now the Sabbath, is no more unlawful for Christians, then to call the Ministers of the Gospel Priests, &c. Ergo.  
The mayor I presume will not be denied. The Minor may be proved thus.  
That which is no more forbidden, is no more unlawful. But to call the Sunday now the Sabbath, is no more forbidden, then to call the Table of the Lord an Altar, &c. Ergo.  
again, the original use of names is to be significant, ad placitum imponentis, and Christians have as much liberty and reason to use the word Sabbath, to signify the Lords day, as the word Sacrifice, to signify the Lords Supper. Or rather more, since the Lords day as now it is, or ought to be used amongst Christians, is properly a Sabbath day, that is, a day of rest: but the Lords Supper, a memorial onely of the death of Christ, as our ordinary catechism teacheth us to speak.  
Besides, to Judaize is to do or say something, whereby wee may be said to have fellowship, or to partake with the Jews in something proper unto them. But to call the Lords day the Sabbath, is not to do that whereby wee may be said to partake with the Jews in any thing proper unto them. For they never called the Lords day the Sabbath, but the Saturday: and they more partake with the Jews, that call the Saturday the Sabbath now, as the Papists and some others do, then they that give that name unto the Lords day alone.  
But the Jews gave that name unto their ordinary day of holy rest.  
Suppose they did: may not others therfore give the same name unto another day of holy rest, and yet not Judaize? May not we call our Saviour Christ the messiah, because the Jews call him so, whom yet they expect to come to be their Saviour? But the truth is, it was not the Jews themselves that put that name upon the saturday, their day of holy rest, but God himself taught them by Moses to apply that name unto that day. Exod. 16.23. and in the fourth Commandment hath put that name upon the ordinary day of holy rest unto his people whensoever: one day in every week either is, or at least wise ought to be a Sabbath day, the Sabbath of the Lord. And our Saviour himself, Matth. 12.8. speaking of his own authority over the time to be employed in holy worship: and Mark. 2.27. speaking of all mens equal interest unto the use of it, refuses not the name of Sabbath, but saith, The son of Man is Lord also of the Sabbath. And, The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. He doth not say, the Sabbath was made for you Jews alone, and other men have nothing to do with it; but he speaks of man indefinitely, and that is as much in effect, as generally of all men. So Matth. 24.20. he biddeth his disciples pray that their flight be not on the Sabbath day.  
And why should we need to contend about names, if we agree concerning the things intended by those names? The proper name of that which is necessary cannot be unlawful. We agree that there must be amongst Gods people solemn times of holy rest: we agree that the ordinary time of holy rest to us is not the saturday now, but the Sunday. Whether then is not the sunday now a day of holy rest? or is not the name Sabbath a fit name for such a day? If the sunday be not the ordinary time of holy rest to us, either then we have none at all, or some other: If none at all, how can we be freed from a just imputation of profane impiety? If some other, then either that may bear the name of Sabbath, or else the name Sabbath is not a fit name for such a day: which none, me thinks, should dare to say, but he that presumes he can teach the holy Ghost to speak, who commonly calls all such dayes Sabbaths: and if it be a fit name for another day of the same nature, then why not for this? And it is a wonder to me how some men can find the necessary observation of other holy dayes appointed by the Church and State, enjoined by the name of Sabbaths, both in the fourth Commandment, and elsewhere in Scripture, and yet that it should be cried out against as judaism, when men speak of the Lords day by the same name. What if wee should call Sunday now the day of rest? were that any more to Judaize, then it were to rest that day? Is it Judaizing to use an Hebrew word of the same signification in stead of an English? why then should it not be heathenizing to use a greek or latin word? Are not other Jewish names of times as Pentecost, and Pasche still in use? And were these any less, nay were they not more ceremonial then the ordinary Sabbath was? But those names have been anciently used; and the sunday hath not been called the Sabbath till of late.  
Suppose that were true, as I presume it is not: may no names now adays be used but those that have been heretofore? Horace was of another mind when he said: 
— Licuit semperque licebit,  
Signatum present nota producere nomen.  
Ut sylvae foliis pronos mutantur in annos.  
Prima cadunt ita verborum vetus interit  
Et juvenum ritu florent modo nata vigentque.   
And, 
Multa renascentur quae jam cecidere cadentque.  
Quae nunc sunt in honore vocabula si volet usus.  
Quem penes arbitrium est& jus& norma loquendi.  Or if antiquity alone have the authority to grant a Warrant for the use of words; how is it that others are not branded for their upstart novelty as well as this? For how many ages is it since the name Puritan hath been applied unto such as being every way conformable unto the doctrine and discipline established by public authority in the Church, do onely dissent from particular men in some private opinions?  
Put case the Lords day were not called the Sabbath heretofore: yet was it not called the resting day, if not in English, yet in latin? What else is the signification of the latin word Feria, which they of the Church of Rome have put instead of Sabbath, when to distinguish the other dayes of the week they set themselves of purpose to avoid both Jewish names and heathenish? Is it not granted, or at least may it not be proved that the ordinary time of holy rest amongst Gods people was transferred from the saturday to the Sunday? And why may not that then carry the name which came in the place? Why may not the Lords day be honoured by Christians with the name of Sabbath, as well as Christians themselves are honoured with the name of Israelites and Jews? Nay better since Christians cannot be said to be Israelites and Jews, but in a mystical analogical sense; but the Lords day may be and is a Sabbath day in a literal and proper sense.  
And hence it follows.  
First, That it seems to savour more of peevish perverseness, uncharitable prejudice, and a spirit of pride and contention, then of Christian humility, and love to Gods service, his people, and his truth: that the unaffected use of such names in such sences is many times made a matter of reproach and scorn.  
Secondly, That if any thing could be just amongst men, wherein God and his truth are unjustly dealt with; it were but meet and equal that they who would deny men liberty to call the Lords day the Christian Sabbath, should themselves be restrained from calling the Preachers of the Gospel Priests, the Supper of the Lord a sacrifice, and the Communion Table an Altar: or at least, that they should not be permitted to restrain the one till they refrain the other: since what they pretend either for or against the one, may as well, or rather better, be pretended for or against the other.    

AN APPENDIX unto the precedent Propositions, tending to satisfy some exceptions likely to be taken to them.  

The first Exception.  
THen it should seem this Law is not obligatory to the Heathen: Ergo, no Law of nature nor simply moral.   

The Answer.  
This notwithstanding the fourth Commandement, may be simply moral, and a law of nature as well as any of the other nine. Nor is it any contradiction to say, that the work of the Law was written in the hearts of Heathen men, and yet that the Jews had this advantage of all other Nations, that unto them alone were committed the Oracles of God; and that the promulgation of the Law at Mount Sinai was intended by God as a further obligation of obedience, unto none but the Israelites alone, and those that should enter into special covenant with God, as they had done: See Rom. 2.14, 15. and Rom. 3.1, 2.   

The second Exception.  
Your adversary, I suppose, would here deny your mayor, and say, that that interpretation gives the literal sense and meaning of the Commandement, which includeth not onely the common and natural equity thereof, obliging all, but also and more especially the particular determination of the day, viz. the Jewish Sabbath: for so Master Broad contends. To the Minor also he would perhaps say, that your interpretation includes not onely the common and natural equity of the Commandement, obliging all, but something else too, which it should not include( as the Commandement respecteth Christians) viz. the specification of the time( i.e.) that it must be one day in seven: which though he would grant to be agreeable to natural equity, yet he would deny it to be necessary required thereby.   

The Answer.  
Were it not for those two clauses( and nothing else, and enforce no more) I grant the mayor might be denied and justly. But that in the literal sense and meaning of the Commandement, there should be included any thing else, but what the grammatical construction of the words will enforce, or analogy to other places of Scripture, and the common received principles of Religion require, doth pass my understanding to conceive, nor do I think there is any reason can be given for it. For the minor I expected it would be denied, and therefore have endeavoured to prove it.   

The third Exception.  
By this reason is not the second and third Commandment also excluded as superfluous? For the first Commandment requiring so and so as you say, doth it not withall( implicitè and consequenter) require too that we should not worship Images, nor blaspheme his name?   

The Answer.  
This reason, I confess, if it excluded any as superfluous, must needs exclude the second and the third as well as others: but to say that the second, third, and fourth Commandments are virtually included in the first; the fifth, sixth, seventh, eight and ninth in the last; and may be reduced unto them, is not to exclude them as superfluous, unless we will say that all compendiums and Epitomes exclude all larger Tractates and Commentaries as superfluous. Saint Paul saith, He that loveth another, hath fulfilled the Law. Rom. 13.8. And yet he thinks it not superfluous to say, Let every soul be subject to the higher powers, &c. ver. 1. &c. It is true that the first Commandment requiring so and so, requires as you say withall ( implicitè& consequenter) that we should not worship Images, nor blaspheme Gods Name. But will any man pretend it superfluous, that what hath been once commanded implicitè& consequenter should again be commanded explicitè& immediatè? A great part of Scripture more by the same reason might be pretended superfluous; and that of Solomon alone might be sufficient. Eccl. 12.13. Fear God, and keep his Commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. Besides that it is one thing to imply that a sufficient and convenient time is to be set apart for solemn worship, and another thing to express that proportion of time which ordinarily is both sufficient and convenient, as the fourth Commandment hath done.   

The fourth Exception.  
By this opinion it should seem that the evidence of a necessary duty pretended to be naturalis& perpetui juris, the practise whereof all men do stand obliged unto, may depend upon such mathematical speculations as few men are acquainted with, it may be none so certainly assured of, as that they can satisfy the doubts which may be made of them by others: and it seems strange that all men should be bound to do that which but a few, if any at all can certainly perceive a necessity of, or a truth in those principles whereupon that evidence is pretended to be grounded.   

The Answer.  
But ignorance argues not an action unnecessary unto them in whom that ignorance itself is inexcusable. They that once did know, and still might have known all that they ought to do, having lost that knowledge through their own default, are no whit the less obliged to obedience, although much more indeed altogether unable to perform it. St. Paul saith, We are not sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves. 2. Cor. 2.5. and yet I doubt not but that there are some things which we ought to think, and that as naturalis& perpetui juris, though naturally( as now wee are) we know them not: otherwise there should be nothing necessary now till a new discovery brought men again to be acquainted with it. Saint Paul saith, We know not what we should pray for as we ought. Rom. 8.26. and yet I presume to pray for what we should, and as we ought, is naturalis& perpetui juris, a necessary duty which no man can justly pretend himself exempted from obedience to. If ignorance were always accompanied with innocence, our Saviour needed not have said, Father forgive them, for they know not what they do. Luk. 23.34. Nor would he have said, He that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes shall be beaten( though he added) with few stripes. Luk. 12.48.  
Nor do I in this contradict that which I said in the confirmation of the first Proposition, viz. If natural equity oblige men of necessity to observe a sufficient and convenient time for solemn worship, then natural equity must presuppose men able to judge of the time to be so observed, whether it be sufficient and convenient or no, &c. For it sufficeth that once there was that ability in men then when they first entred into that bond, the loss of which ability since left them no less obliged afterward then they had been before. And I doubt not but that the revolutions of the heavens, and all the distinctions of time made by their several motions were better known to Adam in his state of innocence; and should have been unto all his posterity, had they continued still in that estate by the strength of their natural understandings, then ever they have been unto any man since by all the improvements that industry hath been able to make of art and experience; and that then both the duty itself enjoined in the fourth Commandment, and the evidence of the necessity thereof, as naturalis& perpetui juris, with all the principles of reason, out of which that evidence might be drawn, were apparent enough and acknowledged by him. And if the ignorance and uncertainty of those speculations by which some men endeavour to regain unto themselves, and impart unto others the knowledge of natural things, do argue the imperfection of that evidence which natural men may now have of their duties in this or any other kind whatsoever; yet argue they not the things in themselves to be any whit the less either certain or necessary: Should we therefore deny the fifth Commandment which saith, Honour thy father and thy mother, to be naturalis& perpetui juris, and say, that all men are not necessary obliged to the obedience of it, because few men or none are able to understand, and certainly resolve upon the truth of those philosophical speculations which concern human generation, and the variety of those circumstantial accidents which make our English proverb true, He is a wise son that knoweth his own father: or those principles of policy wherein the relations that are between Princes and their Subjects have their first foundation, and the like: yet it may be the perfect understanding of these would afford no little evidence, I say, not unto the equity alone, but even unto the necessity of that obedience.  
Again, I do not either onely or mainly rely upon Mathematica●l or philosophical speculations to evidence the necessity of a week●y Sabbath, but principally upon divine discovery. Yet as Saint Paul disputing at Athens, Act. 17.28. alleged a sentence of the heathen Poets to evidence the truth of the Creation, and consequently to overthrow their idol-worship: so I doubt not, but that the observations of Art and experience may be usefully applied to convince a gain-sayer of the natural equity and necessity of obedience unto that Commandment, whereby Gods people are requ●red to set apart one day in every week as the ●tdinarie time of holy rest, though those observations may be no more either generally known, or commonly received for undoubted truths, then that saying of the Poets was. But what the Apostle Saint Paul saith of tongues, 1 Cor. 14.22. they are for a sign not unto them that believe, but to them that believe not: the same would I say, of these testimonies drawn from the observations of Art and experience, they are for an evidence not unto them that think the division of time into weeks, consisting of seven dayes a piece, to have been made by God himself in the Creation; but unto them that are otherwise minded: to whom they may be as the Philistines forges were unto the Israelites, 1 Sam. 13.20. places to sharpen their ploughshares, coulters, axes and mattocks in. For how ever it be true that the Apostle saith, Hebr. 11.3. By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the Word of God; so that things which are seen were not made of things that did appear; and they that entertain the Scriptures as the oracles of God, dare not admit a thought to the contrary: yet was it never held either unlawful, unfit, or unnecessary to bring philosophical Arguments in as handmaids to attend upon Divine discovery in clearing the doctrine of the worlds Creation. And since in this question of the Sabbath there is now adays a kind of appealing from the fourth Commandment to the light of nature, whose eye-sight hath been long ago decayed, me thinks, we may well allow her the use of Art and experience as spectacles, or perspective glasses, through which she may see both further and clearer, then otherwise of her self she can do, and rather bless God that affords us any help that way, then lightly esteem the lessons we may learn thereby.   

The fifth Exception.  
If God discovers his will concerning the offering up unto him external and bloody sacrifices of sheep, oxen, &c. upon this discovery man by the light of nature in such manner qualified as you speak of in the beginning of this inserted addition) may discern and aclowledge it to be agreeable to natural and religious equity, to offer up such sacrifices unto him; and yet the thing itself, viz. this kind of offering or sacrificing is not for all that naturalis& perpetui juris. So here might some one say in this case.   

The Answer.  
If God had discovered his will concerning the offering up unto him external and bloody sacrifices of sheep, oxen, &c. at the same time, and in the same manner as he did discover his will concerning the setting apart one day of seven for a weekly Sabbath; I should have thought that discovery a strong inducement to conceive that to be naturalis& perpetui juris, as well as this. For though as the Bishop of Ely speaks, pa. 54. these circumstantial accidents make no alteration of the internal and natural form or quality of the material object of this( or indeed of any other) Commandment, nor conclude by a necessary inference all those, and onely those precepts that then, and so were uttered to be simply and perpetually moral, yet they afford a very probable Argument to persuade us, that all that which was then and so delivered, was purposely intended by God to be of the same binding power to the same persons. But to let that pass. When God did discover to his people his will concerning the offering up unto him external and bloody sacrifices of sheep, oxen, &c. Deut. 12.4. &c. he did withall discover to his people that his will was not to require or to permit them the performance of that service every where, but expressly confined them unto the place which he should choose to put his Name there. And the Apostle St. Paul tells us plainly, Hebr. 9.9, 10. that Gods intent and purpose was not that his people should stand always alike obliged unto those observances, but onely until the time of Reformation. There is no such limitation for the sanctification of the Sabbath day, nor did the Jews ever understand it so.  
And yet I rest not in this answer neither, because I know that though the offering up of bloody sacrifices were limited and confined in respect of place, yet other ceremonial observances were not. Therefore I go further and say, that God discovering his will in this kind, upon this discovery man by the light of nature in such manner qualified, as I speak of, might discern and aclowledge it indeed to be agreeable unto natural and religious equity, to offer up such sacrifices unto him. But how? not absolutely and simply agreeable unto natural and religious equity, in regard of the thing itself required, but onely secundum quid, and ex hypothesi, in regard that it was required by him whose authority is absolute, and his revealed will the rule of righteousness. For set aside the Commandement, and what necessity or fitness can any man by the light of nature find in a pigeon or a lamb, more then in an Eagle or a lion, to be offered in sacrifice to God? yea what reason why such consecrated things should rather die then be preserved alive? As types of the all-sufficient perfect sacrifice of Christ, wee may conceive it fit to be so: but then wee go beyond the bounds of moral duties, and enter into a consideration of an higher nature then human reason can pretend unto. But in the observation of one day of seven, to be unto the people of God the ordinary time of holy rest, I think and I have endeavoured to show, that nature will aclowledge such a fitness as is not to be found in any other proportion of time whatsoever. And this I conceive is a main difference, that may be and must be observed and acknowledged to be between such things, as when they are discovered to be agreeable unto the will of God, may withall by the light of human reason be acknowledged to be agreeable unto natural and religious equity. As for example; dare any man deny it agreeable unto natural and religious equity, that God commanding it, Abraham should sacrifice his son, and the Israelites rob the Egyptians? yet neither of them both was Naturalis& perpetui juris. And on the other side, not to covet that which is another mans, is I suppose without question, Naturalis& perpetui juris, and since God hath discovered his will to that purpose, men by that remaining remnant of the light of nature, which they have, may discern and aclowledge it to be agreeable unto natural& religious equity, but that which it may be no man ever would have light upon, if God had not lead them to it by his Law. Saint Paul saith expressly, I had not known lust( namely to be sin) except the Law had said, Thou shalt not covet, Rom. 7.7. The marriage of one man unto one woman onely, appears to be Naturalis& perpetui juris, by that of the Prophet malachi, Mal. 2.14. &c. And he proves it by that act of Gods providence in the creation, that he made but one, although he had the residue of the Spirit. Yet who could ever have attained to the knowledge thereof, if God himself had not revealed it? So the observation of one day in seven, as a weekly Sabbath, appears to be Naturalis& perpetui juris, by the fourth Commandement, and is proved so to be by that act of Gods providence in the creation, that he disposed all time in respect of use, to be employed in labour, or in rest; and for proportion ordinarily allowed six dayes of labour unto one of rest: though men peradventure since the fall had never known this, if Moses had not recorded the history of the creation. So that, it seems, of things which appear upon occasion of divine discovery, and not otherwise to be agreeable unto natural and religious equity, one may be Naturalis et perpetui juris, and another not.  
again, peradventure, some would say( which yet I do not) that external and bloody sacrifices were so far agreeable unto natural and religious equity, that they might still be practised by the people of God, so that it were not with opinion of necessity, and as types in reference unto Christ to come. What else is the meaning of those words in the Bishop of Ely, pag. 62. Our Saviour although he disannulled the old Law in respect of observation in the time of the Gospel, yet he established and confirmed the lawful use thereof in the Christian Church. Which words, if wee should stretch them to their utmost extent, would I doubt not bring both bloody sacrifices and almost, if not absolutely, all the rites and ceremonies of the Law within the reach of Christian liberty, and then I presume the Sabbath should be no more excluded then the rest. How ever, I persuade myself, the general practise of the Churches of Christ in all places and at all times( which if any thing be, is able to prove a catholic tradition) in setting apart one day in every week, as their ordinary time of holy rest( which is all that I pretend to be simply and perpetually moral; yea, all that is intended in the fourth Commandement) and in rejecting the use of bloody sacrifices, and the like, is a sufficient evidence that they have always entertained a different opinion of the one and of the other. So that it is no necessary consequence to say, that because bloody sacrifices are not Naturalis& perpetui juris, therfore a seventh day Sabbath is not, though both be agreeable unto natural and religious equity, and that seen onely by occasion of divine discovery: since in the one it may be seen, as properly belonging to the thing itself, in the other, no otherwise but onely with reference to Gods revealed will.   

The sixth Exception.  
The reason of the Jews observation, it seems, is to be found apparently in the very body of the Commandement, in these words: For in six dayes the Lord made heaven and earth. {αβγδ} quoniam, nam, enim: and afterward {αβγδ} idcirco. Therefore the Lord blessed the seventh day- the seventh day? Which seventh day? why that wherein he restend: and that was the Jewish Sabbath. This Master Broad stands most upon.   

The Answer.  
The reason of the Jews observation, in part, I confess, is to be found in the Commandement, viz. in that they observed one day in every week, but not in that they observed that day in order, which they did. Neither do I take that reason which is to be found to be in the body of the Commandement, but added to the explication of it: the body of the Commandement being comprised in those words, Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy, whereof the words following are an explication, six dayes, &c. And that which followeth, For in six dayes, &c. I take to be a reason of the explication, not of the Commandement itself. It is true, Master Broad stands most upon this, that the Commandement designs that day which was observed by the Jews: and so doth the Bishop of Ely, affirming it to be the literal and specifical object of the Commandement. But this which they stand most upon, for ought I can perceive, hath most need to be, but is least of all proved to bee intended in the Commandement.  
The force of the rational and illative particles, for and therefore, I aclowledge and confess, they prove strongly that which they are intended to prove, both the sufficiency and the convenience of a seventh day in proportion, one day in every week, to be unto the people of God the ordinary time of holy rest. For in that God observed that proportion himself, it may very well be taken to be an evidence of his puppose and intent, that men should observe it too, and use the same division and distinction of time which he himself had done, and ordinarily employ it so. But to infer a necessity of observing the same day in order, which was at first observed by God, because the same proportion of time is to be observed by men that was observed by him, is to dispute à dicto secundum quid, ad dictum simpliciter, or petere principium, to take that for granted which may be denied. That God intended to require of his people the observation of the same proportion of time, cannot in reason be denied: but that he intended to require of them the observatition of the same order of the time proportioned, cannot I think be proved.   

The seventh Exception.  
I would this resolution were made apparent more fully and clearly. And if it may be so resolved, why do you make it obligatory onely to Gods people, and not to all men universally? And do you think that the Israelites did one whole day or other every week vacate solenni cultui divino, in the time of the grievous Egyptian bondage? or if not, that they did therein violate or go against a dictate and principle of the Law of nature? {αβγδ}. Wee may put the same case in Christians now adays under Turkish tyranny and slavery, or the like.   

The Answer.  
The clearing to the full of this resolution is the thing I labour for: and if it be not as apparent unto others as it seems to me, I wonder not who know that every man abounds in his own sense. But since the way of truth is that which I seek, I shall entertain it as a special favour from any man that will inform me where I wander from it.  
In what sense I make the Commandment obligatory onely to the people of God, and not to all men universally, I did intimate before: not in regard of the subject matter of it, but in regard of a further tie put upon them by the special promulgation of it at Mount Sinai: a respect which I take to be equally common to the fourth with the rest of the Commandments.  
Your instances of the Israelites in the time of the Egyptian bondage, and Christians now adays under Turkish tyranny and slavery, or the like, I aclowledge to be both of the same nature: and doubt not but that they then might, and these now may, notwithstanding their subjection to such grievous slavery, sanctify a Sabbath day vacando cultui divino solenni, and that for one whole day or other in every week, although not with that public solemnity which in statu libero, and Rep. pacata, they might have done: yet with such private devotion as God would have been contented to accept from them in that estate, and wherewith they might encourage themselves, and cheer up their own souls as David did, if not in the same, yet in a case not much unlike: Psal. 42. and Psal. 43. throughout. But whether they did so or no, since God in his Word hath not thought good to tell us, I think there is no necessity at all that we should inquire. And both of them and Christians now adays in the case that you propound, I think it more charity to hope the best, then wisdom to suspect the worst. Which yet if we should suppose and grant, that thereupon it would follow which you seem to fear, that in so doing they did violate or go against a dictate and principle of the Law of Nature; I think it would prove no more then might be pretended, that they did not onely then, but both before and after in the practise of polygamy: unless we will say that to commit adultery was not so much to violate and go against a dictate or principle of the law of nature, as to profane the Sabbath day in case the fourth Commandment were simply and perpetually moral: which no man can say, but that withall he must confess that the fourth Commandment is simply and perpetually moral as well as the seventh: which if it be granted of that one, I hope will not be denied of the rest.  
Besides that, suppose the fourth Commandment had been but a positive law that bound the Israelites, and none but them, to observe one day in every week as the ordinary time of holy rest, yet the observation thereof might have been as impossible, at least as difficult and dangerous for them afterwards in the time of the Babylonian captivity( when the enemy mocked at their Sabbaths. Lam. 1.7. when Darius made a Decree that whosoever should ask a Petition of any God, or man, for thirty dayes, save of the King himself, should be cast into the den of lions. Dan. 6.7. And when we may easily believe that others as well as Jehojachin and Zedechias were bound in chains, and kept in prison a long time together) as it would have been before in the time of the Egyptian bondage, or can be for Christians now adays under Turkish tyranny.  
And shall we think that the Jews did one whole day or other every week vacare solenni cultui divino, in the time of the Babylonian captivity? Or if not, that they did violate and go against a dictate or principle of the law of nature, in disobeying a positive law of Divine institution, whereof there is no reason at all to conceive they could be ignorant? If the former, why may we not as well conceive that the Israelites did so in the time of the Egyptian bondage? For ought I know, there is as much testimony in Scripture of the one, as of the other that is of neither any at all. If the latter, this objection will make no more against the simplo and perpetual morality of the fourth Cammandment, then against the moral equity thereof, if it be taken to be positive: for the divine institution therof, I suppose, will never be denied, nor that to live in disobedience to a positive law of divine institution which men are sufficiently informed of that it is such, is to violate and go against a dictate and principle of the Law of Nature.  
The onely pretence that I can probably conjecture may be made to the contrary is this, that the fourth Commandment was not intended by God to put a bond of obedience upon the Israelites generally as they were men, or as they were entred into special covenant with God; but as they were to live in in statu libero, and Rep. pacata: wherein they might have convenient opportunity and liberty for the solemn exercise of public worship. And therefore that though the Jews in the time of the Babylonian captivity, and other such ex●remities should not have practised obedience unto the fourth Commandment, vacando solenni cultui divino, one whole day or other every week, yet they should not have lived in disobedience unto a positive Law of divine institution, whereof they were not ignorant, and so not have violated or gone against a dictate and principle of the Law of Nature, because in that case the Commandment bound them not; and where there is no Law, there is no transgression.  
But to this I answer. First, that there may be solemn actions of religious service privately performed, and that all solemn worship is not public. For to the solemnity of any action sundry circumstances may concur, whereof to be publicly performed, is but one, and in defect thereof, either any, or at least some of the rest may serve to make the performance of an action solemn: for I take set and solemn actions to be properly opposed unto sudden and occasional. I think the Church of Rome would hardly be persuaded to confess that a private mass were not a part of solemn service, and if she could as easily prove it to be truly religious worship, as she might that the exercise of it is a solemn action, I see not why she should be blamed for it. Nor can I conceive how solemnity and privacy should not be taken to concur in that great mourning, whereof the Prophet zachary speaks, Zech. 12.11. &c. when all the families that remain shall mourn, every family apart, and their wives apart. What action of religious service amongst the Israelites was more solemn then the celebration of the Passeover? over? Yet one of the ordinances of it was, that it must be eaten in their private houses by every family apart; and that none must go out of the door of his house until the morning. Exod 12.21.22.  
Secondly, if it may be truly pretended, that the fourth Commandment as a positive law obliged not the Jews, but onely in statu libero, and Rep. pacata, why may not the like be pretended likewise of other positive Laws as those which ●estrained their marriage with other Nations, and eating of unclean beasts, and the like? Which yet it appears they were obliged to even in the time of the Babylonian captivity, and their greatest extremities. Nay if with the Papists we should think that the second Commandment were no more simply and perpetually moral, then the fourth Commandment is pretended to be, but that in respect of the literal and specifical object of it, it was onely positive, and obliged none other but the people of Israel, why might we not likewise pretend that it bound not them neither, but in statu libero, and Rep. pacata? And so that Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were more precise then needed, when they choose rather to expect a miracle of deliverance in the fiery furnace, then they would fall down and worship the golden Image which nabuchadnezzar had set up. And the like may be said of other Commandments.  
Thirdly, if we should aclowledge it true, that the fourth Commandment did not oblige the Jews but onely in statu libero, and Rep. pacata, why should this limitation be restrained to it onely upon a pretence that it was but a positive Law, and not as well be extended unto it in case it be simply and perpetually moral? May not the fourth Commandment still stand in as full force unto Christians, as ever it did unto the Israelites, and yet bind them no more then it did these; save onely then when they might have convenient opportunity, and liberty of exercising public worship? If onely public worship were required of the Israelites on the ordinary Sabbath, those cases of necessity wherein they were dispensed with, or rather wherein the Commandment did not oblige them at all, will alter nothing of the nature of it; but that notwithstanding it may be either simply and perpetually, or onely positively moral: for the question now is not whereunto, but when, and whom it binds.  
And so, me thinks, this exception is much like that of the Bishop of Ely, page. 175. &c. drawn from the necessity of a moral possibility in all just Laws, which he denies the Law of the fourth Commandment to be capable of in respect of all Nations. For he granteth that the fourth Commandment made one day of seven a weekly Sabbath, and that the weekly Sabbath was to be a natural day of twenty four houres: but he pretends it obligatory onely to the Jews, not unto all Nations; because, saith he, some Nations have no ordinary weeks containing seven particular dayes, distinguished each from other by the rising and setting, and by the presence and departure of the sun: as those that live in the northern Climates under 70.75.80.85. and 90. degrees.  
Where first I conceive, there is a mistake of natural dayes, being divided and distinguished from one another by the rising and setting of the sun: which is not the distinction of natural dayes( as he understands them, viz. dayes consisting of twenty-four equal houres a piece) but of artificial: the natural day so understood, being properly distinguished by the access and recess of the suins center unto and from the meridional line, as the artificial day in that sense is distinguished by the center of the suins access unto and recess from the Horozontall line: all which are discernible even in those climates which he speaketh of, and so the distinction of dayes and weeks, as possible to the people living there as in other places. The occasion of which mistake, may have been the different application of the terms of that distinction by divers men, some calling that the artificial day, which others call the natural and 'vice versa: which not being well observed or not much regarded, it was easy to slip a genere in genus, and to understand that of the one which was spoken of the other by the same name. And yet to confess the truth, before we admit that definition of a natural day, and that distinction of one natural day from another, we had need to distinguish of a natural day, that it is either that which is exactly such indeed, or that which is vulgarly accounted such. That which is exactly such indeed, may be called dies mundanus, or periodus aequatoris, being the measure of that motion whereby in the space of twenty-foure equal houres, any one point in the aequator, or in any other of the parallel circles is carried round, and brought again to the self same meridional line: and this of all other divisions of time made by the motions of the heavens, is the most simplo, and always equal to itself. That which is vulgarly accounted such, may be called dies solaris, or periodus solis diurna, being the measure of that time, wherein by the diurnal motion of the Universe, the center of the sun is carried round, and brought again unto the same meridional line: and this of all other divisions of time, made by the motions of the heavens, comes nearest in exact perfection unto that which is made by the diurnal motion of the Universe, but in itself is not exactly equal: and of a natural day in this latter acceptation, must the former passages be understood.  
Secondly, if that pretended impossibility were granted, he must likewise pretend it impossible that the Jews should have lived in one of those climates, or else confess the Law unjust, if the Jews living there should have been bound to the obedience of it: unless he will pretend that the fourth Commandement did bind the Jews in some places of the world, but not in all: and then it would follow, that the Jews by removing of their habitations, might have freed themselves from that yoke of bondage, as some esteem it to have been.  
So in the cases you propose of the Egyptian bondage, and of Turkish tyranny, there is no inconvenience can be pretended to the Israelites then, or Christians now, from the bond of the fourth Commandement, as of a natural Law, but so, that the Jews at other times might have been subject to the like, by reason of their obligation to the same, as to a positive Law of divine institution, if it had been intended onely unto them.  
FINIS.