Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n
Text snippets containing the quad
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
A60379
|
Sundry queries formerly tendred to the ministers of London for clearing the doctrine of the Fourth Commandment and the Lord's Sabbath-day but now tendred to the consideration of all men.
|
Saller, William, d. ca. 1680.
|
1660
(1660)
|
Wing S400; ESTC R26226
|
5,946
|
1
|
1.7 Prov. 30.6 Rev. 22.18 19. Again Christ is said to be in all things head to the Church Ephes 1.22 and we have one Lawgiver Jam. 4.12 we read of no more Again the transgressing of the Commandments of God to bring in the Traditions of men was vain Worship in Christs time and so condemned by him Mat. 15.3 6 9. and therefore a sin now sure and if this change must be admitted of as good upon this account I see not how we can avoid falling back to Babylon again and receiving all Romes traditions although never so contrary to the Scriptures To the Third Opinion I am as hard to be reconciled as to the Former First because I find no word in the Scriptures evidencing this that Christ did change the day Secondly or that any of his followers did it by his Authority nor yet the least mention made of any such reason in the word as the work of Redemption or the resurrection of Christ as a cause of the change thereof but that the Church in its Apostacy did change it I doubt not as she hath done all other the Lord 's holy Ordinances but that there is any the least warrant from the Word of Truth for her so doing is all the doubt But further the Scriptures are flat against it our Saviour would not have us think he came about any such business Mat. 5.17 18 19. Therefore I do beseech you all in the fear of God take this matter into your serious consideration and shew some good ground from the Scriptures for your neglect of keeping the Lords Holy Sabbath and your suffering the people to live in this great sin of making the Lords Holy day their greatest working day through the whole Nation or else repent your selves and perswade the people to repentance also as you will answer it at the great Day of account But now because there is some shew of proof brought for this Third and last Opinion therefore I will examine it before I leave it And as for what is alledged from Job 20.19 it can be no proof of their keeping the first day of the week as a Sabbath although they met together for in Luk. 24.11 13. it appeareth evidently they did not believe that Christ was risen from the dead therefore they could not keep the day by his appointment for the honour thereof Secondly two of the Disciples went a journey of threescore furlongs that same day which going and coming was not less than fifteen miles too much for a Sabbath-days journey when it is to go from the assembly of the Saints And they kept the day next before it holy Luke 23.56 and it is not like they kept two Sabbaths together And as for what is alledged from verse 26. that he appeared to them again after eight days it needs no more answer but this That if it were after eight days as the text saith it was then it could not be upon the eighth day and so it can be no proof in that case and as for what is affirmed by some that all Christs appearings after he arose were on the first days of the week I say it wants proof from the Scripture but if it were so it would be so far from proving it a Sabbath that it would prove the contrary For the third time in John of his appearing to them he found some of them a fishing and he reproved them not but set them to work look John 21. from the 1. to the 15. And as for that Text Acts. 20.7 I say thus it is to be inquired of them that bring this Text to prove that the Sabbath is changed whether the breaking of Bread here must needs be meant of the Lord's Supper or may it not rather be understood of common eating seeing breaking of bread is as well used for common eating as in Acts. 2.46 But it seems more likely for this reason also because Paul was to take his leave of them on the morrow morning But that which is most clear against this opinion is the season in which they brake bread it being after midnight not an usual hour for this duty of remembring of Christ's death and as may appear was not done as a Sabbath-days work for if they met in the day-light before and kept it a Sabbath then this after-midnight in which they brake bread could be no Sabbath it belonging to the second day of the week for this is evident by Scripture that the night of every day goeth before the day Gen. 1.2 5 8 13 19 23 31. Lev. 23.32 But if they met in the night of the first day of the week that goeth before the day light and is part of that day then it is evident that the first day of the week is no Sabbath because Paul set forward on his journey in that very morning and so this Text falls short of being any proof of the change of the Sabbath likewise Also it might be inquired whether that word Preached that is there put in in Acts. 20. be properly translated or no and whether the same word in all other places be not always translated discoursed or reasoned and never translated Preached and if generally so translated then was it not so improperly translated here as if it should prove the first day of the week to be kept a Sabbath for want of clearer or better proof There is yet a Text more brought 1 Cor. 16.1 2. to prove a changing of the Sabbath also but it is commonly alledged with this addition when you meet together on the first day of the week just as if it were so written in the Text indeed whereas there is not one word of the Churches meeting or coming together in the Text but only of each mans laying aside by him in store something for the poor Saints at Jerusalem according as God bad prospered him that so at Paul's next coming to them their charity might be ready to be sent away So that in this Text there is no room for any man to prove that on the first day of the week here was any Church-meeting or Sabbaths-days-work appointed to be done but rather a considering what good bargains had been made the week before and a looking over Shop-books and casting up Accounts to see how God had blessed their labours the week before and what might be spared out of their gains to make a purse for the poor Saints of Jerusalem this is the clear import of this Text for how else shall men lay by them accordingly as God hath prospered them unless they take account how he hath prospered them now Paul appointing this work to be done upon the first day of the week it shews plainly that the day is no Sabbath and it is most likely it was so appointed to prevent the doing of it at the latter end of the week lest it should occasion their intrenching upon the Sabbath for the doing of it There is also one other Text that is summoned in commonly to appear for proving the change of the Sabbath from the seventh day to the first day of the week Rev. 10. I was in the spirit on the Lords day Now by what rule of Scripture these men call the first day of the week the Lord's day I know not no text of Scripture that ever I read of ever knew it by that name yet or by any other name but only this the first day of the week but indeed the seventh day is known by the name of the Lords Day very well in the Scriptures the Lord himself gave it this name Exod. 20.10 and the Prohet Isaiah knew it by this name Isa 58.13 So that if we will permit the Scriptures to be judge in this cafe they will give the name of the Lord's day to the seventh day But if we will needs have the first day of the week to bear away this noble title it must have it from some old tradition only now it is not hard for me to believe that the Church might soon corrupt her self and superstitiously observe the first day of the week for the honour of Christ's Resurrection as tradition gives us an account they did observe the sixth day also for the honour of his death for in how short a time did the true Church of God miscarry as far as this comes to and drew Aaron the High Priest into the snare with them for company in making a day holy to the Lord Exod. 32.5 6. So also might the Church soon after the Apostles death set apart the first day of the week upon a Godly intention and yet upon some fuperstitious account when they had so done it would not be at all hard to honour it with the name of the Lords day But further the Papists themselves confess in their Commentary upon this very Text That the first day of the week is kept holy by tradition and not by authority of Scriptures also from Ecclesiastical history Socrates Book 5. Chap. 21. it is plain that all Churches came together to break bread in remembrance of Christ's death on the Sabbath day for some hundreds of years after Christ but the Church of Rome c. which saith the history used to do it on the first day of thee week upon an old tradition So that if men be willing to see from whence the changing of the day came it will not âe hard to find it out For the other two Opinions I shall not at present trouble my self further with them till I see an answer to this So leaving my writings to your reading and consideration I remain Your servant and the servant of all men for the Truth 's sake W. SALLER Blessed is the man that doth this and the son of man that layeth hold on it that keepeth the Sabbath from polluting it and keepeth his hand from doing any evil Isa 56.2 FINIS