all our transgressions of the law performed not the law himfelfe with such perfect exact obedience as might answere the justice of God and the strictresse of his commandements but that something must be helped or supplied by dispensation The truth is therefore that our Sauiours obedience answered exactly and perfectly satisfied the exigence of that and all other commandements of Almighty God performing all to the vtmost that they required and therefore those easie and slender workes were no breaches of the commandement touching the Saboth But let that be admitted also first that the commandement was immediatly giuen to seruants Secondly that it was giuen touching the lightest degree of workes Let servants bee the persons and those workes the matter to whom and of which the commandement was giuen is your doctrine yet iustified hereby and subiect to no other reproofe The persons haue afforded me exceptions against it because the commandement was not giuen to seruants And the matter because it was not imposed touching that light sort of workes the time also will because it cānot be vnderstood of the Lords day for what day was it of which the charge of vacation was so strictly giuen Was it not the seauenth day of the weeke The seauenth saith the precept is the Sabaoth of the Lord thy God In it thou shalt doe no worke And why the seauenth Because in sixe daies the Lord finished all the workes of creation and rested the seauenth day therefore he sanctified the seauenth day what day is it whereof we question The Lords day That 's the first day of the weeke It is therefore the seauenth day of the weeke the Sabaoth of the Iewes not the first day of the weeke the Sabaoth of Christians that was so strictly by Gods commandement destined to rest Therefore the workes done on the Sabaoth day are no transgressions of Gods commandements But you will say the old Sabaoth is abolished and the celebration of it translated to the first day of the weeke Translated by whom By any commandement of God Where is it The holy Scripture wee know to be sufficient it containeth all the commandements of God whether of things to be done or to be avoided or to be beleeued Let me heare either one precept one word of God out of the olde Testament that it should be translated or one precept one word of the sonne of God out of the new Testament commanding it to be translated I say one word of any of his Apostles intimating that by Christs commandement it was translated It is certaine that there is none Therefore it is evident that the solemnity of the Lords day was not established Iure divino Not by any commandement of God and consequently that to worke on that day is certainly no breach of any divine commandement How then hath the first day of the weeke gained the celebration and solemnity to become the Sabaoth of the Christians By the constitution of the Church and only by that yet of that most ancient Church I confesse that next followed the ascention of our redeemer But yet all this is but Ius humanum it is but the decree of men which must not equall it selfe with Gods commandement and must be content with a lesse degree of authority and obligation then the commandement touching the Sabaoth might challenge that was pronounced in the eares of men with the voice of God and written in tables with the finger of God What then doe I doubt of the iust abolishment of the Iewes Sabaoth no in no sort it is abolished and that iustly I confesse yet not by any repeale of any contrary decree but only by expiration because it is growen out of date It was established for a signe * of difference betwixt the people of God and the prophane nations the Iewes and Gentiles but this difference is ceased the partition wall is broken downe Iewes and Gentiles in Christ are made all one all are become the people of God the Sabaoth was saith the Apostle a shadow * of things to come whereof the body was in Christ the body therefore being come what should the shadow be expressed For was it the shadow of Christs resting in the graue that day That is past or was it a shadow of rest and liberty from the slauery of sinne in the kingdome of grace that is obtained or is it a shadow of the eternall rest of the blessed in the kingdome of Glory That is sure to be obtained Christ hath giuen his word and wee haue receiued the pledge of his holy spirit These things are shadowed in Sabaoth And these things are already performed in Christ. The first is past the second is present the third is assured The Sabaoth therefore that was the shadow of these things when the things themselues were come vanished of it selfe But might not the celebration of the Sabaoth which thus ceased bee justly translated by the Church to the first day of the weeke Yes certainly both might and was iustly For I consider that the generality was of the morall law of the law of nature namely that men should sequester sometime from worldly affaires which they might dedicate to the honour of God only the speciality that is the limitation and designement of that time was the churches ordinance appointing first one certaine day that in relation of Christian assemblies namely that they might meete and pray and praise God together with one voice in the congregation And secondly defigning that one day to the first day of the weeke for some speciall reasons and remembrances For first it was the day of Christs resurrection from the dead Secondly it was the day of the holy Ghosts descention from Heauen to powre infinite graces vpon Christians The first of them for our iustification as the Apostle speaketh The second for the sanctification and edification of the whole Church to omit some other reasons of lesse importance iustly therefore was the consecration of the Sabaoth translated to that day But what of that What if the consecration of the Sabaoth was by the Church translated to the first day of the weeke Was therefore the commandement of God translated also That that day ought to be obserued vnder the same obligation with the Sabaoth For if the commandement of God were not translated by the Church together with the celebration from the seauenth day to the first day then is working on the first day no violation of Gods commandement was the commandement of God then translated from the Sabaoth to the Lords day by the decree of the Church No the Church did it not let mee see the act The Church could not doe it let me see the authority the Church could not translate the commandement to the first day which God himselfe had namely limited to the seaventh For could the Church make that Gods commandement which was not his commandement Gods commandement was to rest on the seauenth day and worke on the first
therefore to rest on the first and worke on the seauenth was not his commandement For doth the same commandement of God enioyne both labour and rest on the same day Is there fast and loose in the same commandement with God Thou shalt worke on the first day saith that and worke on the seaventh saith this Can the Church make these the same commandement But say the Church hath this incredible vnconceivable power Say it may forbid to worke on the first day by the vertue of the very same precept That doth neither expresly cōmand or license to worke on that day Say that the Church of God may translate the commandement of God from one day to another at their pleasure did they it therefore I spake before of their authority whether they might doe it I enquire now of the act whether they did it did the Church I say ever constitute that the same obligation of Gods commandement which lay on the Iewes for keeping of the Sabaoth day should be translated and laid vpon the Christians for keeping of the Lords day Did the Church this no no they did it not all the wit learning in the World will not proue it But you may obiect if the old Sabaoth vanished and the commandement of God was limited fixed to that day only then is one of Gods commandements perished I answere that the generality of that commandement to keepe a Sabaoth wherein God might be honoured was morall But the speciality of it namely to keepe 1 one day of seaven 2 the seaventh 3 one whole day 4 with precise vacancy from all worke were meerely ceremoniall the specialities then of the commandements are vanished But for the generality of it it is a law of nature and remaineth But as the speciality of that commandement implyeth plaine contradiction with the sabaaticall of the Lords day so the generality of it can enforce nothing for it for these are miserable consequents indeede plaine fallacies of the consequent that God hath sometime commanded vacancie for his honour therefore he hath commanded the first day of the weeke to be that time or this God hath commanded vs some time to rest therefore that time we must precisely abstaine from all māner of workes can the Church make these good consequences If it cannot the celebration of the Lords day can with no enforcement of reason be deduced out of the morality of Gods commandement But if you will reply that the Church hath established the first day of the weeke to be the Christians sabaoth not by way of consequence as deducing it out of commandement but meerely by authority appropriating and fixing Gods morall commandement to it you may say your pleasure but I shall neither beleeue nor you proue that such authority belongs to the Church or that such an act hath beene established by the Church which I am sure you can neuer doe neither of both for seeing that all divines acknowledge that the singling out of such a day to be sanctified namely the seauenth rather then any other was meerely ceremoniall although it was Gods owne designation I hope that you will confesse the speciall designement of the first day of the weeke to that honour before other daies being made only by the Church to bee also but ceremoniall But certaine it is that no ceremonies which come not vnder the obligation of Gods morall law should oblige to the obseruation of ceremonies Therefore it will never consist with reason that the morall law of God can by any authority of the Church oblige Christians to the celebration of the Lords day It is not therefore the translation of the old commandement of God from the one day to the other which yet if it were translated can oblige servants no otherwise then it did vnder the old law but the institution of a new commandement of the Church her selfe yet guided by the spirit of God that consecrated that day to the solemne seruice of God what then doth not the constitution of the Church for the celebration of the Lords day binde equally the consciences of men as the old commandement did for the celebration of the Sabaoth Binde it doth but not equally for the Church is no way equall vnto God the authority of it is lesse then the authority of God therefore is the obligation of the Churches ordinance lesse then the obligation of Gods ordinance But yet binde the conscience it doth and that firmely and effectually even the conscience of every member of the Church to true and exact obedience For he * that heareth not the Church is no better then an heathen or a publican And neuer was Church on earth more vndefiled then that that ordained that institution He that despiseth the Apostles of Christ despiseth Christ himselfe and the Apostles were governours of that Church for acknowledged it is that the celebration of the Lords day was the ordinance of that Church and of those gouernours Therefore it is sure that that ordinance doth oblige the conscience of every Christian man but if you aske me how farre doth that constitution of the Church oblige the conscience I answere you as farre as it doth command you will desire no more further it cannot It cannot oblige further then it doth ordaine it cannot bind the conscience for guiltinesse further then it doth for obedience because all guiltinesse doth presuppose disobedience now that the Church ordained solemne assemblies of Christians to be celebrated that day to the honour of God and in them the invocation of Gods holy name thankesgiuing hearing of the holy Scriptures and receiuing of the Sacraments is not denied It is out of question all antiquity affordeth plentifull remembrance of it But that it inioyneth that severe exact vacation frō all workes on the Lords day which the commandement of God required in the Iewes Sabaoth you will never proue It relisheth too much of the Iewish ceremonies to be proued by Christian divinity For this is no proofe of it that the Lords day is succeeded in place of the Sabaoth Or as some diuines tearme it as the heyre of the Sabaoth It is I say no proofe at all except it were established by the same authority and the observance of it charged with the same strictnesse of commandement for if it succeede the sabaoth in place must it therefore succeed in equall precisenesse of obseruation So if the Pope succeedeth Peter in place must he therefore succeede him in equality of power the Lords day therefore succeedeth the Sabaoth in the point of sanctification for celebration of the assemblies for the Church hath precisely commanded that but not in the point of exact and extreame vacation from every kinde of worke for that the Church hath not commanded and so although the Lords day may well be tearmed the heire of the Sabaoth yet is it not ex asse haeres as the civill lawyers speake It inheriteth not the whole right of the Sabaoth for that right
and prerogatiue of the Saoth was not giuen to the Sabaoth and its heires it it was no fee simple and if I may speake in the lawyers stile it was only a tenure for tearme of life namely during the life of the ceremoniall law which life ended in the death of our Saviour This reason therefore of the succession of the Lords day in place of the Sabaoth is no reason Any other reason besides this or else authority which I might in your behalfe obiect to my selfe I know none worthy mentioning for the commandement of God as I haue proved is not of this day The commandement of the Church is of this day but not of these workes neither will all the histories of the ancient Church nor cannons of the ancient councells nor any other monuments or registers of antiquity afford you as I am certainly perswaded search them as curiously as you can record of any such constitution of the Church for the generall restraint of workes on the Lords day you may finde I know in some of the ancient Fathers much sounding the prerogatiue of that day as that it was a holy day in Eusebius a day of Christian assemblies in Iustin Martyr and a day of reioycing in Tertullian a festivall day in Ignatius and some more of the like but doth any of all these import or imply a generall restraint a desistāce from all worke No they doe not neither shall you finde in these nor in any other records of antiquity any constitutions of the Apostles and of the first Church extant to haue effect no nor any relation or remembrance that such a constitution had ever beene made by them nay I finde cleare evidence to the contrary for would Constantine the Great that most holy Emperour and the best nursing Father of Christian religion that ever Prince was would he I say haue licensed by his decree the country people freely libere liciteque are the words of the constitution to attend their sowing of graine setting of vines and other husbandry on the Lords day if those workes had beene forbidden by the commandement of God or decree of the Apostles and first Church Or would the Fathers in the councell of Laodicea one of the most ancient approued councells of the Church enioyne the vacancy of the Lords day with this condition And if men can Certainly servants full ill can if they bee constrained by their Masters to worke would they I say haue added such a condition had it beene simply vnlawfull for all sorts of people by the ancient sanctification of the first Church to doe any worke that day It appeareth therefore that there were no such vniversall constitutions of the Church The actuall forbearing of all workes by some Christians that day I stand not on nor on the exhortations of some ancient Fathers to that purpose some remembrances of both are to be found I know but these are particular examples and perswasions constitutions of the Church they are not edicts of sundry Princes likewise and decrees of some provinciall councells are extant I confesse in record to the same effect and those are constitutions indeede but partly not of the Church partly not vniversall nor very ancient and therefore are no sanctions to oblige the whole Church which beside the law of God and decrees of the Apostles to whom the goverment of the whole Church by our Saviour was committed and the canons of the vniversall Synods no positiue constitution can doe What then Would I set at liberty that euery man may freely prophane the Lords day with extraordinary labour No I would not I confesse it is meete Christians should abandon all worldly affaires that day and dedicate it wholly to the honour of God that Christians should not be lesse devout religious in celebrating of the Lords day then the Iewes were in celebrating of there Sabaoth for the obligation of our thankfulnes to God is more then theirs although the obligation of his commandement to vs in that behalfe is lesse Meete it is I say And wish with all my heart it were most religiously performed euen with all abstinence from worldly affaires and all attendance to Godly devotion But yet notwithstanding I deny that together with the institution of the Lords day there was any such constitutiō of theChurch established whereby men were obliged to the strict desisting from all worke But what doth the honour of God then stand at the courtesie of man to prophane that day if they list with worke at their pleasure Not so for beside the constitutions of some ancient councells both the edicts of christian Princes haue every where restrained that prophanation neither of which for matters that fall vnder their power can bee transgressed without sinne and disobedience to God whose commandements although not directly yet reductiuely those constitutions are for God hath commanded all men to honour their Parents the parents of their country stand in the first ranke The sonne of God hath commanded all Christians to heare the Church and that vnder forfeiture of communion of Saints but they that despise the Canons of the Church or edicts of the Prince heare not the one honour not the other therefore they that transgresse either of these constitutions transgresse also Consequently I say though not immediatly the commandements of God but yet neither of them both to come neare home are transgressed by servants if they worke by their Masters commission and not of their owne election for neither doth the one law or the other giue liberty and warrant to Servants to be rebellious to their Masters touching point of service that day more then others But in forbidding of worke first they intend not your precise abstinence from any light and labourlesse worke as both the censure of the Church and iudgement of temporall Magistrats make manifest which neuer tooke hold on any man for such manner of workes And secondly they purpose to forbid the Masters commanding or allowing of worke and not the servants obeying if he be commanded for the law is intended and taketh hold of them that haue the liberty and power to keepe it not of them that haue not but are meerely vnder the power and disposition of another man wherefore if Servants worke on the Lords day of their owne choice it is their owne sinne but if their Masters command it is their masters sinne And he standeth bound to answere the law no warrant therefore nor incouragement haue servants by any of these lawes to reiect their commandements touching matter of worke or service on the Sabaoth or any other day And is not this more agreeable to the doctrine of the holy Apostles of our Saviour every where delivered touching servants Doe they not often and with exceeding earnestnes command and exhort them to obedience no where permitting them any point of liberty and that without exception of Master of labour or of time for that we may take a very short view
of their doctrine touching servants obedience what masters are they to whom servants ought to be obedient Infidells and beleeuers saith Paul 〈◊〉 Tim. 6. 1. 2. Covetous and froward saith Peter 1. Pet. 2. 18. that is even to all obedient to all How In what sort From the heart saith the Apostle Collos. 3. 23. in singlenesse of heart as vnto Christ in another place Ephes. 6. 5. without any replying not so much as answering againe In a third Titus 3. 9. That is in all readinesse and humility obedient to all in such sort how farre In what points Even in all things servants be obedient to your Masters in all things Colos. 3. 22. please them in all things Titus 2 9. thinke them worthy of all honour 1. Tim. 6. 1. In all things Yea in all things belonging to the condition of Servants that is in all service in all labour which is the proper character of all servants and obedient to them in all things why That the name of God and his doctrine be not evill spoken of 1. Tim. 6. 1. which two last points of the Apostles doctrine touching servants obedience I would advise you S r specially to consider for whereas it is out of question that infidells exacted workes of their Christian servants as in the beginning of the Church many beleeuing seruants had vnbeleeuing masters on the Lords day no lesse then others if their yeelding to that exacting of their Masters had beene sinne would he haue commanded them to obey their Masters in all things And to please them in all things without excepting of any day or of any labour For that heathen Masters would exact of Christian servants their ordinary labour and service on the Lords day as well as on others you haue no reason to doubt except you thinke that heathen men would tender and respect more the religion of their Seruants that religion which themselues esteemed to be superstition folly then their owne profit And then if Christian seruants should haue withdrawen their obedience that day reiecting and resisting their Masters commandements whereas their vnbeleeuing servants willingly obeyed them and laboured for their profit had they not caused the name of God which they worshipped to be blaspheamed and the doctrine which they professed to be evill spoken of which was the point of the Apostles doctrine I especially remembred you of That God I say which commanded and that doctrine which instructed servants to disobey their Masters by depriving them of their seruice caused their hindrance The Apostle knew full well this was not the way to propagate the Gospell and enlarge the kingdome of Christ he knew it was Christian meekenes obedience humility patience that must doe it therefore he commandeth Christian servants to giue their Masters all honour to obey thē in all things to please thē in all things that so their Masters seeing them more serviceable profitable servants withall more vertuous then others were might sooner be drawen to like of the religion that made them such whereas the cōtrary would haue bin manifestly a scandall and grievous impeachment to the propagation of the gospell defamed it for a doctrine of contumacy and disobedience and for a seminary as it were of disturbance and sedition of families and common-wealths And not only alienated the affections of Masters from their Christian servants but inflamed all men with indignation hatred against the Christian religion and the professors of it Such therefore evidently is the importance and intendment of the Apostles doctrine as vnpartiall men whom preiudice or selfe-conceipt leads not away may soone discerne very farre differing from this doctrine of yours Touching which point of the Apostles instruction giuen to servants for this effectuall and generall obedience you will not reply I hope as some haue done that at first indeede it was permitted for the good of the Church least the increase of it and proceeding of the Gospell should be hindred by offence given to the Gentiles For would that haue beene permitted if it had beene vnlawfull Or could the Church of God be increased by the sinnes of men His Church increased by that whereby himselfe was dishonoured Or would the Apostles haue permitted men to sinne as now Iesuits doe for the good of the Church nay exhorted and commanded to it who had himselfe expresly taught that wee must not doe evill that good may come of it No neither of both can be because either of both were a staine and derogation to the righteousnesse of God the intention therefore of the Apostles was simple without all tricks of policy to teach servants all exact and entire obedience to their Masters touching all workes that belong to the duty of servants namely that were in themselues honest and lawfull without excepting of any day Neither shall you finde as I am verily perswaded and I speake not at randome if all the monuments of antiquity be searched through either the practise of Christian seruants or the doctrine of Christian preachers to haue beene any other I say you shall not finde any remēbrance in the ancient Church if you search the bookes of histories that it was the custome of Christian seruants to withdraw their obedience from their Masters on the Lords day no if you search the bookes of doctrine that every any Father or teacher of the Church so perswaded or instructed them no nor yet if you adde to them the Heathen writers also that liued in the age of the ancient Church and whereof diverse were sharpe and bitter enemies to the Christian religion and apt to take every advantage to calumniate and disgrace it such as Lucian Porphyrie Iulian Libanius Eunapius and others were you shall never finde the detraction of servants obedience obiected to Christians And certainly if in all antiquity no history be found to record it no father to perswade it no enemy toobiect it it may well seeme evident that this doctrine of seruants withdrawing obedience from their masters for worke on the Lords day was neither taught nor practised in the ancient Church And therefore S r to draw to an end for I grow weary haue already both dulled my penne and my selfe I would advise you in the name of Iesus Christ whose Minister you are whose worke you haue in hand to examine this doctrine of yours what foundation it may haue in the word of God what effect in the Church of God least the foundation happily be your owne phantasie not Gods word the effect proue the poysoning not the norishing of the church I know Sr you are not the first that set this doctrine abroach nor the only man that drawes of the vessell although few draw so freely as you But I would advise you sir in the name of God to beware betimes draw not too deepe It is all nought it relisheth already with them that haue good tasts like the water of Marah It will proue like that