SECT. 19.] OF THE ORIGINAL OF THE SABBATH. 317
hath not done so unto any nation,” namely, not in the same man- ner; for none will deny but that nine precepts at least were given unto all mankind in Adam.
19. It is added by the same learned author, “ Praterea (p. 51) si quies septimi diei omnibus ab origine mundi hominibus injuncta fuisset, non autem solis Israelitis & tempore Mosis, Deus non solum Israelitas ob neglectum illius preecepti sed et Gentiles, semel saltem eadem de causa reprehendisset. Cum vero Israelitas ea de causa reprehendat szepissime, Gentiles tamen nuspiam reprehendere hoc nomine legitur, qui propter peccata in legem naturalem commissa toties et tam arciter 4 Deo reprehenduntur. Luculentum ejus rei exemplum est, Neh. xii. Tyrii asserunt Hierosolymas et omnes res venales quas vendebant ipso Sabbato Judeeis, et quidem Hierosoly- mis, ver. 16. Non tamen Nehemias peccati violati Sabbati reos arguit Tyrios sed Judzos, ver. 17. Tyrios autem clausis portis pridie Sabbati 4 vespera usque urbem excludit, et ita compescit, et tandem & muris urbis abigit, ver. 19-21. Si vero Tyrii hi una cum Judeis lege Sabbati communi preecepto fuissent obstricti; nonne 4 viro sanctissimo ejus peccati nomine quoque reprehensi fuissent? quod tamen factum non apparet. Quum preterea Scriptura impia Gen- tilium festa graviter reprehendat, an sancti Sabbati neglectum, si id quoque ipsis observandum fuisset, tam constanti silentio dissimu- lasset?”
The force of this argument consists in this assertion, that whatever we find God did not reprove in the Gentiles, therein they did not sin, nor had they any law given unto them concerning it, no, not even in Adam: which will by no means be granted. For,—
(1.) The times are spoken of wherein God “suffered them to walk in their own ways, and winked at their ignorance.” Hence, as he gave them no reproofs for their sins by his revealed word, so those which he gave them by his providence are not recorded. We may not therefore say, they sinned in nothing but what we find them re- proved for in particular.
(2.) Other instances may be given of sins against the light of na- ture among the Gentiles, and that in things belonging to the second table, wherein that light hath a greater evidence accompanying it than in those of the first, the first precept only excepted, which yet we find them not rebuked for. Such were the sins of concubinacy and fornication.
(3.) After the renovation or giving of this command unto the
_ Jews, it was the duty of the nations to whom the knowledge thereof did come to take up the observation of it. For it was doubtless their duty to join themselves to God and his people, and with them to observe his statutes and judgments; and their not so doing was
318 OF THE ORIGINAL OF THE SABBATH. [EXERC. II.
their sin; which, as is pretended, they were not reproved for, or God was not displeased with them on that account.
(4.) The publication of God’s commands is to be stated from his giving of them, and not from the instances of men’s transgressing of them. Nor is it any rule, that a law is then first given when men’s sins against it are first reproved. or the instance insisted on of Nehemiah and the Tyrians, with his different dealing with them and the Jews about the breach of the law of the Sabbath, chap. xiii, it is of no force in this matter; for when the Tyrians knew the com- mand of the Sabbath among the Jews,—which was a sufficient reve- lation of the will of God concerning his worship,—it was their duty to observe it. Ido not say that it was their duty immediately, and abiding in their Gentilism, to observe the Sabbath according to the institution it had among the Jews; but it was their duty to know, own, and obey the true God, and to join themselves to his people,— to do and observe all his commands. If this was not their duty, upon that discovery and revelation which those had of the will of God who came up to Jerusalem, as they did concerning whom we speak, then was it not their sin to abide in their Gentilism; which I suppose will not be asserted. It was therefore, on one account or other, a sin in the Tyrians to profane the Sabbath. It will be said, Why then did not Nehemiah reprove them as well as he did the Jews? The answer is easy. He was the head and governor of the state and polity of the Jews, unto whom it belonged to see that things amongst them were observed and done according to God’s law and appointment; and this he was to do with authority, haying the warrant of God for it. With the Tyrians he had nothing to do; no care of them, no jurisdiction over them, no intercourse with them, but according to the law of nations. On these accounts he charged not them with sin or a moral evil, which they would not have re- garded, having no regard to the true God, much less to his worship; but he threatened them with war and punishment for disturbing his government of the people according to the law of God.
It is well observed, that God reproved the profane feasts of the heathen, and therein unquestionably the neglect of them that were of his own appointment. Yor this is the nature and method of ne- gative precepts and condemnatory sentences in divine things, that they assert what is contrary to that which is forbidden, and recom- mend that which is opposite unto what is condemned. Thus, the worship of God according to his own institution is commanded in the prohibition of making to ourselves or finding out ways of reli- gious worship and honour of our own. For whereas it is a prime dictate of the law of nature, that God is to be worshipped according to his own appointment,—which was from the light of it acknow-