Selected quad for the lemma: nature_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
nature_n	contain_v	law_n	moral_a	2,485	5	9.8922	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A17418	The doctrine of the Sabbath vindicated in a confutation of a treatise of the Sabbath, written by M. Edward Breerwood against M. Nic. Byfield, wherein these five things are maintained: first, that the fourth Commandement is given to the servant and not to the master onely. Seecondly, that the fourth Commandement is morall. Thirdly, that our owne light workes as well as gainefull and toilesome are forbidden on the Sabbath. Fourthly, that the Lords day is of divine institution. Fifthly, that the Sabbath was instituted from the beginning. By the industrie of an unworthy labourer in Gods vineyard, Richard Byfield, pastor in Long Ditton in Surrey.	Byfield, Richard, 1598?-1664.	1631 (1631)	STC 4238; ESTC S107155	139,589	186

separation from Gentiles and consecration to God therfore it was meerely ceremoniall and obliged not the Gentiles which it had done if it had beene a Law of Nature First here your consequence is weake and fallacious for every marke and signe of separation from others and consecration to God is not ceremoniall Baptisme is such a marke betweene Persian and Heathens yet no ceremony so is the Sacrament of the Lords supper Such was the Sabbath then and is at this day Neither doth every marke of separation and sanctification oblige only those that have that marke for the duty was no lesse necessary to men before the Law given than after and examples are not wanting of the Majesty of God himselfe g Gen. 2. 2. 7. 4. 8. 10 12. Exod. 16. 6. of Noah and of the Israelites before the Law by whom the dayes were gathered into weekes which sheweth that the observation of the Sabbath was not unknowne Lastly you urge us with an absurditie that will follow on this doctrine that if it bee of Nature to keepe the Sabbath it bindeth us Christians to keepe the seventh day Sabbath and so the first changers of the day to the first day of the weeke sinned grievously This argument is of no consequence for the first day of the weeke is now the Lords Sabbath as the seventh day from the Creation was then And thus neither Law of Nature broken nor sinne incurred and therefore all absurditie avoided the first day of the weeke is also the seventh though not that seventh day This accommodation also of the fourth precept to the Iewes in the determination of the day maketh not the commandement ceremoniall nor yet the change of it to our Lords day no more than the fifth Commandement is made ceremoniall by this promise respecting Israel in Canaan That thy dayes may bee long in the Land which the Lord thy God giveth thee And this change in the application of the precept by the Apostle that it may bee well with thee and that thou mayest live long on earth h Ephes 6. 3. It standing firme then that the Commandement in every part thereof as it is contained in the Decalogue is morall and of the Law of Nature and the breach thereof a sinne your conclusion taketh place against you namely that the servant may not in any case worke on the Sabbath at prohibited workes because it is sinne at the commandement of any master on earth For it is better to obey God than man To the Answer whereof I leave you or others that in pride of spirit and a spirit of contradiction dare to attempt it in your behalfe All that followeth in this part of your Discourse seeing it is but by way of Recapitulation by the former Answers is found to be of no force CHAP. 17. Breerwood Pag. 28 29 30. BVt there is another objection for admit the servants worke upon the Sabaoth be the Masters sinne that imposeth it Is it not sinne to give consent and furtherance to another mans sinne But this servants doe when they execute their Masters commandements and consequently it is unlawfull so to yeeld lawfull therefore it is to resist and reject such commandement I answer first touching the point of consenting that in such a worke is to be considered the substance and the quality that is the worke it selfe and the sinfulnesse of it servants may consent to it as it is their masters worke not as it is their Masters sinne for except these things be distinguished God himselfe can no more avoide the calumniation of being the author than poore servants of being the ministers of sinne for that God concurreth with every man to every action whatsoever as touching the substance of the action is out of all question seeing both all power whence actions issue are derived from him and that no power can proceede into act without his present assistance and operation but yet to the crime the faultinesse the inordination the unlawfullnesse of the action wherein the nature of sinne doth for malice consist hee concurreth not But it wholly proceedeth from the infection of the concupiscence wherewith the faculties of the soule are originally defiled the actions themselves issuing from the powers and the sinfulnesse of the actions from the sinfulnesse of the powers like corrupt streames flowing from filthier springs It is not therefore every concurrence of the servants with the Master to a sinfull action which causeth the staine and imputation of sin upon the servant as when he consenteth and concurreth only to the action not to the sinne namely likes and approves it as his masters worke yet utterly dislikes it as it is his masters transgression likes of the worke for the obligation of obedience wherein touching worke he standeth to serve his Master and yet dislikes of the sinne for the great obligation wherin every one standeth toward the honour of God But yet to answer secondly to the point of resisting the servant ought not for any dislike or detestation of the annexed sinne to resist or reject his masters commandement touching the worke for in obeying hee is at most but the minister of another mans sinne and that as they say per accidens namely as it is annexed to such a worke but in resisting hee is directly the author of his owne sinne by withdrawing his obedience about bodily service from I say for the master doth not sinne onely in commanding his servant to worke but in working him and so bringing his command into execution which thing the servant knowing to be unlawfull must that he may not partake therein not onely not touch it with one of his fingers but also perswade the contrary and modestly rebuke it Again hee ought to attend on holy workes which directly will hinder that unlawfull worke and to these is he bound as Gods servant that day Thirdly by approving and this the servant doth really by his worke and by his example Your second solution is found by this that hath been set downe to be vaine and frivolous the servant must refuse to sinne in any kinde And his refusall in this kinde is not against the Law of nations as we have heretofore shewed nor against his owne covenant for his covenant though without limitations expressed doth not exempt him from the service of his Prince and Country the Prince may presse him to the warres much lesse from the service of his God when his Lord and Saviour presseth him to his warres as he doth in the day of assembling his army in holy beauty It is therefore wicked and injurious to God man nations lawes and covenants that you say that the Servant standeth bound to his master in all bodily service without any exception of the Sabbath more than other dayes Your phrase you use of the Servants resisting is your owne we teach the servant may refuse and must all such workes which God hath forbidden to be done that day but not resist no hee must acknowledge

bee on common dayes And that the worke there forbidden hath a speciall relation to the gaine of riches is the better apparent because the same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth opes as well as opus riches as well as worke and not onely where the commandement was pronounced in the 20 of Exodus but wheresoever it is repeated in the bookes of the law which is oftentimes and differently for other circumstances the same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is ever retained and never changed not every worke therefore absolutely but every worke of such a kinde namely consisting in toyle and tending to gain is restrained by the commandement and is there not evident reason to understand it so For seeing the intendment of the Precept is clearly in the point of that dayes vacation that the body should be refreshed by abstinence from labour And in the point of sanctification of it the minde should be refreshed by attendance to spirituall exercise it followeth manifestly that if there bee any workes that resolve not the body and so hinder not the refreshing of it nor dissolve and alienate the minde from the Service of God and meditation of godlinesse that these workes are not forbidden because neither the vacation which the commandement importeth nor that sanctification which it intendeth is impeached by them written by his owne hand at the time when these things were in agitation the coppy being his first draught and so very imperfect in many things cannot bee published as could be wished for the satisfaction of the Christian Reader Therefore wee must bee contented here and there to give thee a little taste and first in this particular you have it thus in his owne words Object The word Melachah doth signifie properly servile workes and is a choyse word of purpose used in this Commandement Sol. That the word signifieth servile workes I finde some Divines so saying but that by servile workes they meane onely toylesome and gainefull workes I deny For they used to place servile workes over against workes of pietie Now as by workes of pietie they meane lesser as well as greater works of religion to God so by servile workes they meane as well lighter as toylsome workes of labour for man To deale plainly with you I see no cause why Melachah should have any such speciall weight in signification For thogh your conceit of it that it signifieth opes as wel as opus might cast som color to perswade that it might meane works of gain yet that it shold specially note works of toyle there is no color Nay me thinks Magnaseh is of a larger signification and fits for toyle as signifying to worke cum energia Thus the wicked are workers of iniquitie and Nabals cattell are called Magnasehu appellantur nomine operis eò quod homo seipsum occupat in illorum acquisitione and are called by the name of Worke because man busieth himselfe in getting them and yet Pegnulah more fit than them both it signifieth opus and op●ris merces worke and the reward of worke workes of hands Psal 9. 16. The worke of the hireling Iob 7. 2. It is likely that he that published this Treatise of Master Breerwoods hath a perfect coppie of a full answere For Master Breerwoods provoked spirit as he termeth it himselfe would not have beene allayed without a satisfactorie answer Faire dealing would have required it should have beene produced and then I had saved this paines in answering But then the Publisher had missed his aime which was to traduce the Dead who then being Dead had yet spoken Sixtly that this interpretation is orthodoxe and yours novel and adulterous see how Divines and the Church●s of Christ have understood it Our Church of England declareth her minde in the first part of the Homilie of the place and time of Prayer where the example of the man that gathered stickes on the Sabbath day is alledged and those that pranke and prick and paint and point themselves to be gorgeous and gay those that toyishly talke are reckoned a sort of transgressors worse than those that keepe Markets and Faires that day Tertullian saith q Non facies opus quod utique tuum Arcam verò circūserre neque quotidianum opus videri potest neque humanum sed bonum sacrosanctum c. Tertul. l. 2. contra Marcionem God forbade humane workes not divine Thou shalt doe no worke what worke namely thine owne but to carry abou the Arke that is about the wals of Iericho can neither seeme a dayly worke nor an humane but a good and holy worke and therefore by the very Commandement of God divine Master Greenham r Greenh Treatise of the Sabbath As wee denie Church feasts as imit●tions of the Heathen so we deny Holy-day playes as remnants of ancient prophanenesse pag. 169. sheweth excellently that recreations as shooting and the like at other times lawfull and bankettings and the exercises for sicke persons refreshing if it be not in reading singing and holy conference for if they be sicke it is a time of praying not of playing and if they be well to play are they not so to doe these Heavenly and comfortable duties All these are unlawfull to be used that day neither saith he is the Sabboth onely broken by prophanenesse but also by idle workes Mayer ſ pag. 260. upon the fourth Commandement saith We must rest from worldly speeches and thoughts small workes which come not within the compasse of religion mercy or necessitie must not be done on the Sabbath saith Master Dod on the Commandements t pag. 152. Polyander Rivet Wallaeus and Thysius say u Synopsis purioris theol ●●sp 21. pag. 261. That it is morall and ingrafted in nature that the whole minde bee taken off from other cares on the Sabbath and the whole day bestowed in the duties morall or if so how should the Iewes put a difference betweene the one and the other for you will needs have ceremoniall precepts in the body of the fourth Commandement And why bring you in the Instance of our blessed Saviour who was a Iew and bound to the law as given to the Iewes and kept the ceremonial as wel as the moral law Secondly Come come you are plunged let me helpe you In that our Saviour did allow and doe many light and laborlesse workes in your Ashdodaean phrase for we take your words till wee come to examine the matter further and yet by voluntary dispensation was bound to all the law it is cleare that no ceremoniall law or clause of any law in the old Testament forbade the workes that hee did on the Sabbath and so your answere that that command in Exod. 35. 3. was a If it were ceremoniall the equitie neverthelesse must binde Christians although the sanction doth not constraine them The equitie of the Law teacheth us wee ought not to turne this libertie to bee servants of our wanton desires Greenth Treatise of the

danger and a stinte set beyond which if they went their judiciall lawes condemned them to death as you ignorantly avouch Thirdly you say that the name of Sabbath was never applyed to the Lords day by any Apostle or other Christian for many hundred yeeres after Christ The Apostle in Heb. 49. doubted not to apply the name of Sabbath to the Christian people and our rest saying That the People of God have their Sabbatisme left unto them Yet admit your strong conceit had bin as strong a Truth what would follow thence That our Saviour intended our Sabbath in that place of Matthew because the Apostles call it the Lords day In no case For to use the name of distinction in times of the Church wherein the Saturday was called Sabbath cannot either make the Apostles faultie or the name of Sabbath incompatible to that day The seventh Section answered First that at the time of the siege of Ierusalem all ceremonies Zuares de l●gib l. 9 c. 19. of the old law were deadly you denie and we affirme for if our Saviours death be not the time of the ceremonies deadlinesse you confesse you lost your labour to the one halfe of your Reply hereto indeede St Hierome sets that for the period but you have not answered one of his arguments but to let that passe the terme prefixed is this Looke when the Ceremoniall law was dead throughout the whole world it began at the same time to bee deadly also through the world now the ceremoniall law was dead when the Gospell was published for that obliging the other ceased to oblige and that published the other was utterly evacuated Therefore in that point of time in which a sufficient promulgation of the Gospell was accomplished instantly the old law was deadly This you partly saw when you said in this Section and not onely dead they were but deadly also I confesse to Christians to whom he was certainely revealed to be the Saviour This time was before the eversion of Ierusalem as the Apostle testifieth in Col. 1. 6. that the Gospell was come unto and brought forth fruite also in all the world and proclaimeth to the Churches that the Ceremoniall law was deadly both in that Epistle to the y Col. 2. 20. 21. Gal. 5. 3 4. 4. 9. 10. 11. Colossians and in the Epistle to the Galathians Secondly for your assertion about the old Sabbath that it did remaine and was observed in the East Churches three hundred yeeres and above after our Saviours death it is utterly false that it was observed either Iewishly or as a Sabbath or in Obedience to the fourth Commandement No such observation was Anathematized in the Councell z Ignat. ad magn of Laodicea and Ignatius charged those Christians to worke that day If you meane this observation was the performance of some religious duties publikely then you might say every day in the weeke was observed religiously by them for that is knowne that many of the Greeke fathers as well as the Latine preached every day and a Aug. Ianuar. Ep. 11● Augustine tels of divers customes in the Churches Some communicated at the Lords table every day some some certaine dayes some on the ancient Sabbath and the Lords day some onely on the Lords day But you must needs intend the Iewish observation of the Sabbath for these words you adde all ceremonies therefore and particularly of the old Sabbath at the time by you mentioned were not deadly Thirdly and when you say that the name of Sabbath was not given in the Church to any other day than the Iewes Sabbath for more hundred of yeeres than three hundred Augustine saith b Serm. de temp 251. So we also sanctifie the Sabbath the Lord saying Ye shall not doe any worke therein The eighth ninth tenth eleventh and twelfth Sections answered In the eighth Section you set forth slanderous reports of Master Byfield which you tooke in by retayle some about his Doctrine concerning late repentance of this the Church of England knoweth his wholesome propositions imprinted in his bookes on the Coloss and on the first Epistle of Peter Some about his Discipline as you terme it but those in and about Chester know his goings in and out then among them In the fourth page of the Treatise you tell of Rebellion against mens lawes and mischiefes to the common-wealth and in the 53. page that few drew so freely of this vessell as he all which cannot agree to a resolution of a private case and those words wherewith Mr Byfield chargeth you and you deny viz. that this doctrine tended to the corrupting of the estate where your kindred and acquaintance and your selfe had lived are expresse in a letter written Iune the ninth 1611. Therefore he justly charged you for charging him unjustly in these respects and did not calumniate you And whereas you say that the doctrine of the Sabbath which you opposed was not for pulpits but for Corners you might have knowne it hath sounded in pulpits and is in print by divers Divines This of the ninth Section But what doe I indeed these nor the other Sections containe nothing worthy an Answere The hands are joyned with scorners and the replies borrowed from wicked men let them alone The thirteenth Section answered That you did adjure Mr Byfield which yet you deny will be manifest if your forme of speech in the end of your Treatise and the nature of an Adjuration be compared together * Zauch in tertium precept de adjuratione An Adjuration is an action in which in the Name of God or by his Name either we require an oath of any one whereby hee should binde himselfe to doe or not to doe something or wee binde him to it by command or intreaty without an oath exacted and that our desire may be more surely obtained we interpose the Name of God Your words are these I challenge you as you will answere it at the judgement Seat of Almighty God when your accounting day shall come to repaire the ruine you have made in his Conscience True here you require not an oath to binde him to this yet you require it with an interposition of the Name of God and a denunciation secretly of Gods anger if he doe it not and so you fall under the second kinde of Adjurations The fourteenth Section answered Here begin Mr Byfields reasons why he would not yeeld to answere the Treatise though adjured Mr Breerwood would refell them Take M. Byfields words together and they are a sufficient reason for every strangers vaine challenge ought not to be answered Now this challenge of M. Breerwoods was vaine because the Injury was but a Conceit no Reality and the doctrine of M. Breerwood abundantly answered in Writers at his hand Thus all M. Breerwoods words are to no purpose and a meere beating of the Ayre By the way note M. Breerwoods Parenthesies no man lesse curious or inquisitive of other mens affaires neither