Selected quad for the lemma: nature_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
nature_n	ceremonial_a	law_n	moral_a	3,530	5	9.7415	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A16722	A learned treatise of the Sabaoth, written by Mr Edward Brerewood, professor in Gresham Colledge, London. To Mr Nicolas Byfield, preacher in Chester. With Mr Byfields answere and Mr Brerewoods reply; Learned treatise of the Sabbath	Brerewood, Edward, 1565?-1613.; Byfield, Nicholas, 1579-1622. aut	1630 (1630)	STC 3622; ESTC S106416	30,804	60

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

to the iustice of God but whether the sinne of these second workes be peculiarly the seruants or that the Master also participate with the seruant in that guiltinesse It may be a question for if they be done meerely by the seruants election beside the knowledge and contrary to the commandement of his Master it seemes to be particularly the servants sinne But if they be occasioned by the Masters negligence then doth he certainly participate in guiltinesse with his seruant although in a diuerse sort for it is a sinne of commission in the servant 〈◊〉 vnlawfull act and a sinne of omission 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 neglecting his due care because by the 〈◊〉 Almi●hty God the Master is bound not ●nly 〈◊〉 command his seruant to worke but to command him not to worke on the Sabaoth day well then the workes which seruants doe on the Sabaoth day on their owne election are condemned the workes 〈◊〉 doe by obedience are excused by their Masters ●mandement but what workes are so excused Ar● all No but briefly all those which while they are performed as by the Servants of men they that d●●●●●m are not impeached for being the servants of God That is to say the workes of labour but not the workes of sin for to the first they are obliged by the law of nations but the second are forbidden them by the law of God not nakedly forbidden as their labour on the Sabaoth is but directly and immediatly forbidden them for it is cleare that all the other commandements being indifferently imposed without either specification or exception of any person whatsoeuer respect not any more one then another therefore hold all men vnder an equall obligation and so was it altogether conuenient because they are no lesse the secret lawes of nature then the reuealed lawes of God and no lesse written with the finger of God in the fleshly tables of the heart then in the tables of stone all of them forbidding those things that by their property and nature or as the Schoolemen say ex suo genere are euill but the commandement that forbiddeth seruile workes on the Sabaoth is of a different sort first because the servant is touching the matter which it forbiddeth labour wholly subiect to another mans command secondly because the commandement forbiddeth not the servant to worke but onely forbiddeth the Master his servants worke thirdly because the thing it selfe namely servants labour is not evill materially and ex suo genere as the matters of the other negatiue commandements are but only circumstantially because it s done vpon such a day for idolatry blasphemy dishonouring of Parents murther adultery theft false testimony coueting of that is other mens which are the matter of other commandements are euill in their owne nature and therefore forbidden because they are euill in their owne nature But to labour on the Sabaoth is not by nature evill but therefore evill because it is forbidden So that the natiue ilnesse in the other causeth the prohibition but the prohibition in this causeth the evill for labouring on the seaventh day if God had not forbidden it had not beene evill at all no more then to labour on the sixt as not being interdicted by any law of nature as the matters of all the other commandements are for although the secret instinct of nature teacheth all men that sometime is to be withdrawen from their bodily labours and to be dedicated to the honour of God which euen the prophanest Gentiles amidst all the blind superstition and darkenesse wherewith they were couered in some sort did appointing set times to be spent in sacrifice and devotion to their Idols which they tooke for their Gods yet to obserue one day in the number of seauen as a certaine day of that number and namely the seauenth in the ranke or a whole day by the revolution of the Sunne and with that seuere exactnesse of restraining all worke as was enioyned to the Iewes is but meerely ceremoniall brought in by positiue law and is not of the law of nature For had that forme of keeping Sabaoth beene a law of nature then had it obliged the Gentiles as well as the Iewes seeing they participate both equall in the same nature yet it did not so but was giuen to the Israelites to be a speciall marke of their separation from the Gentiles and of their particular participation to God neither shall wee finde either in the writings of Heathen men whereof some were in their kinde very religious that any of them had ever any sense of it or in the records of Moses that it was euer obserued by any of the holy Patriarches before it was pronounced in mount Sinai But if it had beene a law of nature her selfe and so had obliged all the Patriarches and as large as nature her selfe and so obliged all the Gentiles and had it not beene as durable as nature too and so obliged vs Christians also Certainely it had for if that precise vacation and sanctification of the Sabaoth day had consisted by the law of nature then must it haue beene by the decree of all Divines immutable and consequently right grievous should the sinne of Christians be which now prophane that day with ordinary labours chiefly theirs which first translated the celebration of that day being the seauenth to the first day of the weeke who yet are certainly supposed to be none other then the Apostles of our Saviour To turne to the point and clearly to determine it the Master only is accountable vnto God for the servants worke done on the Sabaoth but for what worke Namely for all the workes of labour but not for the workes of sinne and how for the workes of labour Namely if he doe them not absolutely of his owne election but respectiuely as of obedience to his Masters command for touching labours servants are directly obliged to their Masters But touching sinnes themselues are obliged immediatly to God Therefore those they may doe because their master commands them these they may not doe although commanded because God forbids them The servants then may not in any case sinne at the commandement of any Master on earth because hee hath receiued immediatly a direct commandement to the contrary from his Master in heauen For it is better to obey God then man And there is no proportion betwixt the duties which they owe as servants to their Masters according to the flesh And which they owe as Children to the father of spirits or betwixt the obligation wherein they stand to men who haue power but ouer their bodies in limited cases and that for a season And that infinite obligation wherein they stand to him that is both creator preserver and redeemer Iudge of body and soule sinne therefore they may not if their Masters command them because God hath forbidden them not only forbidden I say but forbidden it them But labour they may if their Masters command them because God hath no way