that the commandement of God could not restraine them but they needed also to be perswaded Or if perswasion had beene needful were this a convenient perswasion to vse to seruants Remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Aegypt which euen now when they were out the land of Aegypt were seruants And to proceede with the text what other importance hath that other reason which immediatly followeth And remember that the Lord thy God hath brought thee thence out of Aegypt with a mighty hand and out-stretched arme Therefore the Lord thy God hath commanded thee to make a day of rest Hath it any other but to declare that the Lord who had redeemed them from their continuall slaueries hath iust title right to impose on them the commandement of the Sabaoth for their servants rest importing as much as if he had said although of thy selfe thou shouldest haue compassion of thy seruant and allow him rest Remembring that thy selfe wast a seruant in the land of Aegypt yet art thou more effectually obliged to doe it because the Lord hath commanded thee The Lord that brought thee out of thraldome and vncessant labours in Aegypt and therefore hath reason to command one daies rest in a weekes revolution Thee that by his redeeming hand art set at liberty from that labour and seruitude Where marke againe that the Lord is said to haue commanded them who a little before were said to be seruants in Aegypt and by his goodnesse were freed from that slauery which reason could not be intended or directed to them which still remained in servitude It is cleare therefore that all this perswasion of Moses for servants resting on the Sabaoth was not directed to the seruants themselues who to take their ease on the Sabaoth needed neither to be commanded nor intreated licence would serue their turne but to the Masters whose desire of gaine by the seruants labour might stand betwixt the Sabaoth and the seruants rest and to make an end with the text with the last wordes of it what is it that the Lord for these reasons commanded was it barely to keepe obserue the Sabaoth as it is in the vulgar English Latine and Greeke translations No they are all short it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to make a day of rest Now to make it to be so importeth not only to obserue it himselfe but to cause others also to obserue it which is euidently the property of Masters and gouernors wherefore seeing both the commandement touching seruants rest from labour on the Sabaoth day and reasons added by Moses to perswade that point and draw their mindes to obsequiousnesse are evidently directed to the Masters and not neither of both to the seruants themselues I take it out of all question as cleare as the Sunshine at midday that if seruants by their Masters command doe any worke on the Sabaoth the sinne is not theirs who as touching their bodily labour are meerely subiect to their Masters power but it is their Masters sin for their sin it is that transgres the law They transgresse the law who are obliged by it they are obliged by it to whom it was giuen and imposed and giuen it was as I haue plentifully proued only to Masters Or if notwithstanding all these euidences you will still contend that the prohibition touching bodily labour on the Sabaoth is directly imposed on the seruants themselues see whether you bring not the Oxe and the Asse and other cattle also vnder the obligation of this commandement whose worke is immediatly after that of seruants prohibited and precisely vnder the same forme of words whose labours yet on the Sabaoth I hope you will not say to be in them sinnes and transgressions of Gods law But as the labour of the beast is the sinne and transgression of the Master to whom the commandement of the beasts resting from labour wasgiuen so is the labour of the seruant also which by the Masters commandment he executed on that day as being touching bodily seruice incident to mankinde in like degree of subiection the Masters sinne and not the seruants For distinction must be made betweene the matter and the forme if to speake in schoolemens stile offend you not that is betweene the act and the guilt of sinne of which in this case the act indeede wherewith the commandement of the Sabaoth is violated is the servants but the crime and guiltinesse is the Masters that sets him on worke for seeing sin formally taken is nothing else but the transgression of the law or vnlawfulnesse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Apostle tearmeth it most properly exactly even as guiltines is the obligation to punishment for that transgression it appeareth manifestly that his is the guiltinesse whose the transgression is and his the transgression to whom the law was prescribed as a rule that is the Masters to whom it is not only imposed that he himselfe should doe no worke on that day as a particular man in the first clause Thou shalt doe no worke but also that none of his should doe any as he is the Father or Master of a family in those clauses that follow Neither shall thy sonne nor thy daughter nor manseruant nor maid-servant c. which latter point touching his keeping of the Sabaoth viz. as the gouernour of his house had not beene so well provided for and regulated by the law of God if these clauses of children and seruants abstinence from labour on the Sabaoth had beene giuen directly to themselues and not to their governours But you will reply perhaps that the commandement touching seruants rest on the Sabaoth is giuen to their Masters indeede but not only to them but to their seruants also No such matter for if it be let that appeare and set downe the clause wherein it is manifestly expressed or necessarily implied that seruants are forbidden all labour on the Sabaoth day as servants I say touching matter of service or labour imposed on them by their Masters for that in those workes which seruants doe on the Sabaoth day of themselues and not as proceeding from their Masters iniunction but from their owne election it is no question but they transgresse the commandement but those workes they doe not as seruants that is at anothers command but as in the condition of their seruice or favour of their Masters they retaine some degree of liberty and haue some disposition of themselues permitted vnto them so in that respect fall into the clause of free men viz. the first clause of the commandement Thou shalt doe no worke but to seruants as seruants in case they be commanded to worke which is our question there is no clause of the commandement imposed Whereby may easily and clearly be discerned the difference betwixt the equity wisdome of Almighty God in the constitution of the law of the Sabaoth obliging Parents and Masters and owners for the children seruants and cattle that
A LEARNED TREATISE OF THE SABAOTH WRITTEN By M r EDWARD BREREWOOD Professor in Gresham Colledge LONDON TO M r NICOLAS BYFIELD Preacher in Chester With M r BYFIELDS answere and M r BREREWOODS REPLY AT OXFORD Printed by Iohn Lichfield Printer to the Famous Vniversity for Thomas Huggins An. Dom. 1630. Proue all things hold fast that which is good 1 Thes. 5. 21. For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodnesse and righteousnesse and truth prouing what is acceptable to the Lord Ephes. 5. 9. 10. Holy Father Sanctify them through thy truth Thy word is truth Ioh 17. 17. These faults I desire the reader to amend before he read the booke PAGE 9. line 10. leaue out and p. 25. l. 13. read consecration for participation p. 27. l. 17. r. not of the for not the pag. 28. l. 2. r. commandement for commandements l. 7. read Gods command f. God commands p. 29. l. 26. read greater for great p 30. l. 3. r. per accidens for per accidence l. 15. r. thereof for thereon p. 32. l 4. r. servant for seruants p. 30. l. 21. r. respected for expressed l. 29. r. in the Sabaoth for in Sabaoth p. 42. l. 5 r. of the commandement for of commandent p. 47. l. 14. r. their for there p. 54. l. 7. r. haruest for heauinesse p. 68. l. r. perpetuall for perpetually p 79. figure 9. r. volly for vally p. 81. M r Brerewoods text should be continued p. 90. r. short for shord p. 91. r. for a great part for of a great profit p. 91. l. 23. r. who for whose p. 94. for should be out ib. the for your p. 95. the gap at appointment should not be nor any point Many mispointings and lesser faults there are by the darkenesse of the copy and the oversight of the Printer which the iudicious reader may easily correct A TREATISE OF THE SABAOTH WRITTEN BY M r EDWARD BREREWOOD to M r NICHOLAS BYFIELD preacher in Chester SIR I am but a stranger vnto you yet I am bold to trouble you because you haue troubled me with as strange an occasion There is a young man one Iohn Brerewood dwelling in this Citty but borne in that whom his Father Graundfather when they left this World left very young And left he was especially to my care who am his vnckle That youth I placed here in London to serue in condition of an apprentice and placed he is with a man of so good religion report trade that if I might haue picked him a master in the whole City I thinke I should haue chosen none before him In this mans service hee hath spent two years and more and God shewing him and in his behalfe me also more mercy then either of vs deserued I began to receiue comfort of him after some sorrow that his former vntowardnes had caused and to recouer good hope after my former doubt and feare but yet for all this Gods good pleasure it was to abate this contentment of mine and by the youths new follies to bring me into new perplexities for being not long since sent to Chester about his Masters businesse he returned againe so strangely altered that I haue seldome seene in so short a time so great a change For so deiected he was in his countenance so dull and wretchlesse about his businesse so alienated quite from his master and so obstinately resolued whether by faire means or by fowle to forsake his seruice that I was not fuller of sorrow to see him so changed then of wonder to imagine how he became so And yet the care and paines I tooke by the endeavour of my selfe and of my friends to recouer and to resettle him was equall to both and so much more they were because I laboured to cure a disease whereof I could not perceiue the cause For the pretences which at first hee made of the vnablenesse of his body and toilesomenes of his seruice I know were but fained excuses or else complaints of lazinesse as being assured that there are 20000 in this City of lesse bones that make noe bones of greater labour But the true cause of all this distemper fell out to be at last a case of conscience and full glad I was that the case proved no worse then that he had such feeling of conscience for I had imagined sundry others although it grieued me not a little to see his conscience so seduced and the point that pricked him was this his Master on the Lords day sent him forth sometimes on arrands as to bid guests or fetch wine giue his horse provender which last his Master remēbreth not that euer he bad him past once or about some other light businesse he was instructed he said that to doe these things or any other worke on the Sabaoth day although it were such work as might lawfully be done on another day and although he did it not of his owne disposition but only in obedience to his Masters command yet was a sinne and transgression of Gods commandements touching the Sabaoth and that he was not bound to yeeld nay that hee sinned against God in yeelding obedience to euery such commandement of his Masters that day which by the precept of almighty God was wholely precisely consecrated to rest and the service of God To this effect he told me he was instructed when he was in Chester and that you S r were his chiefe instructer out of which doctrine he deduced as naturall reason rightly taught him to doe that he ought in such cases to reiect the comcommand of his Master and in no sort to performe it which because he could not doe without his masters great offence and his owne affliction he saw no other course to be taken but to forsake his masters service that so becomming his owne Master he might not be commanded to sinne against God Which resolution of the young mans being so peremptory and obstinate as for a time I found it to be if it moued me both to melancholy and anger who can iustly blame me For I saw not only a poore youth my neere kinsman entangled with the conscience of another mans sinne if it be sinne but withall his vtter ruine for his condition in this World hardly ventured his Master wronged his friends grieued and my selfe especially indammaged that am in bond deepely ingaged for him and yet this was not all that inwardly afflicted me but some thing there was beside that might well stirre as patient an heart as mine to indignation Namely because I perceiued this doctrine of yours whereof this resolution of his proceeded and his ruine was likely to follow neither to haue good beginning nor likely to haue good ending but to beginne in ignorance and to end in sinne to beginne in mistaking the Law of God to end in the wicked disobedience of seruams to their Masters in the rebellious contempt of the lawes of men But for the transgression of mens lawes by
this doctrine or the mischiefes that may ensue of it in the cōmonwealth I will not meddle I will not censure the one nor divine of the other you are a teacher of Gods word within the compas of that word I will stay with you and by it examine with your patience whether this frame of your doctrine be grounded on the rocke or on the sand on the firme rocke of Gods law or on the fickle sand of your owne fantasie misunderstanding the law and so whether it tend to the edification or ruine of the Church For touching the commanding of the Sabaoth vpon which I averre this doctrine of yours cannot be grounded lay it before you and consider it well And tell me to whom is the charge of seruants ceasing from worke on the Saboath day giuen Is it to the seruants themselues or to their Masters It is giuen of seruants I confesse their worke is the matter of the commandement But I demand whether it be giuen imposed to the seruants themselues or to the Masters whose seruants they are For if the commandement be not giuen to them then doe not they transgresse the commandements if by their Masters they be set to worke but the Masters to whom the law was giuen that the seruant should not worke consequently the sinne is their Masters and not theirs so if the law be not imposed to them then it requireth no obedience of them It obligeth them not therefore is neither the transgression of it any sinne to them but only to those to whom it was giuen as a law For the better cleering of which point let me aske you a question or two of other commandements that for their forme are paralell to this and whereof you haue no preiudice God commanded the Israelites that no stranger should eate of the paschall lambe againe that no Ammonite nor Moabite should enter into the congregation of the Lord to the tenth generation Good Sit tell me did the stranger sinne if hee eat of the passeouer being supposed invited Or did the Ammonites or Moabites sin if they came into the congregation being admitted Did the stranger I say and the Ammonites and the Moabites in these cases sin of whom the commandements were giuen or the Israelites to whom the commandements were giuen touching them no but it is clearely the Lords meaning that the Israelites should not admit of any gentile to the participation of the Passeouer nor receiue the Ammonites and Moabites into the congregation of the Lord Let me aske you one question more of a case that hath fallen in my remembrance A precept comes out from the Prince That every Cittizen in London shall on such a day keepe his seruants within doores and not suffer them to goe a broad If not withstanding that precept some Master sends forth his seruant about his businesse doth the seruant transgresse the Princes commandement by obeying his masters Or ought he by pretence of that precept to disobey his Master and neglect his charge It is plaine he doth the former and therefore he ought not to doe the latter For the commandement was giuen to his master not to him and the purpose of it was to restraine his Master from commanding such seruice and not to restraine the seruant from obeying his Master if it were commanded there it is apparent that the obligations of commandements pertaineth to them to whom they are prescribed as rules and not to them of whom only as being the matter of the precept they are prescribed Now that that clause of the Commandement touching seruants was not giuen to the seruants them selues but to their Masters in whose power and disposition they are the text and tenour of the commandement doth clearly import for marke it well and answere me to whom is this speech directed Neither thy sonne nor thy daughter shall doe any worke on the Sabaoth day is it not to the Parents For can this manner of speech thy sonne thy daughter be rightly directed to any other then the parent and is not by the same reason the clause that next followeth neither shall thy man seruant nor thy maid-seruant doe any worke on the Sabaoth day directed to the Masters of such seruants Seeing that phrase of speech thy man seruant thy maidseruant cannot rightly be vsed to any other It is therefore as cleare as the Sunne euen to meane vnderstandings if they will giue but meane attendance to the tenour of Gods commandements rather then the fond interpretations and deprauations of men that that clause of the commandement touching seruants cessation from working on the Sabaoth is not giuen to seruants themselues but to their Masters concerning them Or if to any darke vnderstanding which some grosse cloud may ouershadow this seeme not cleere enough the declaration yet of Moses himselfe touching the commandement will make it so of Moses I say who can neither be suspected of ignorance as hauing beene with the Lord 40 daies together in the Mountaine when he receiued the tables of the commandements with whō the Lord talked familiarly as a man doth with his friend nor yet of corruption as being by the Lords mouth pronounced faithfull in all his house he therefore in the 5 of Deuter. 14. which is only the place of Scripture besides the 20 of Exodus where all the branches of that commandement are repeated after the seuerall prohibitions touching the workes of sonnes seruants cattell c. addeth this Epiphonema That thy man servant and thy maidseruant may rest as well as thou It is to this thou therefore to whom this charge is directed that the seruants should rest vpon the Sabaoth who can be conceiued to be no other then the master of those seruants which yet moreouer the reason of that commandement touching seruants rest immediatly added will better cleare from all exception for remember saith Moses that thy selfe wast a seruant in the land of Aegypt and the Lord thy God brought thee out thence with a mighty hand and an out stretched arme Therefore the Lord thy God hath commanded thee to make a day of rest for to whom was that spoken remember that thy selfe wast a seruant in the land of Aegypt but to them that had beene servants and now were not seruants Or to what intent and purpose is that remember brought in remember that thy selfe wast a seruant but to moue compassion in them towards their owne servants and allow them a time of rest hauing themselues felt the burthen and affliction of seruants in Aegypt and remembring how glad they would haue beene of some remission but if the commandement of rest had beene directly and immediatly giuen to seruants themselues what needed any perswasion to that effect Would not seruants over set and wearied with six daies toile be of themselues glad to rest on the seauenth Or would they be so hot set on worke whereby yet they gained nothing but their labour for their paines and the profit being another mans
for it if they did soe worke It is therefore to be vnderstood of them that worke willingly of themselues or as authors cause others to worke as masters doe their servants not of them who only as ministers and against their wills are set to worke And rather because the worke of the servant that I say which hee doth by the commandement of his master to whom for matter of labour he is meerely subordinate euen reason and equity will interpret the masters worke And certainly that God accounteth it so the declaratioÌ„ of that precept in another place doth make manifest Sixe daies thou shalt doe thy worke and the seaventh day thou shalt rest that thine Oxe and thine Asse and thy Sonne and thy Maide c. may be refreshed for is it not manifest that the servants worke is accounted the Masters seeing the rest from the Masters worke is the refreshing of the servants the Master therefore who by the morall law was commanded that his servants should not worke on the Sabaoth was by the Iudiciall to bee punished with death if the servant did worke that day by his commandement And thus haue I proued my assertion namely that the commandement of the Sabaoth was not giuen nor fit to be giuen to the servants themselues but to their gouernours both by arguments of reason which is the rule of men and authority of Scriptures which is the rule of Christians and cannot finde any thing materiall in either of both that may reproue it but yet if I should admit which I doubt you will neuer proue that the commandement was directly giuen to servants themselues as servants and that they might lawfully disobey their Masters touching those workes where by the precept of the Sabaoth might be transgressed yet haue I another exception against your doctrine namely for condemning every light worke such as inviting of guests or fetching of wine from a neighbours house or giuing a horse provender for these are the very instances which bred the question for transgression of Gods commandements forbidden on the Sabaoth no it is not the commandement importeth no such thing for it is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is every worke but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is there forbidden that is every servile worke for such the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly doth import and servile worke by the interpretation of the best diuines is accounted either that which is attended with the toile of the body or at least intended and directed to lucre and gaine of riches with some care of the minde such as mens ordinary worke is wont to bee on common daies And that the worke there forbidden hath a speciall relation to the gaine of riches is the better appareÌ„t because the same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth opes as well as opus riches as well as worke and not only where the commandement was pronounced in the 20 of Exodus but wheresoeuer it is repeated in the bookes of the lawâ— which is oftentimes and differently for other circumstances the same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is euer retained and never changed not every worke therefore absolutely but every worke of such a kinde namely consisting in toile and tending to gaine is restrained by the commandement and is there not evident reason to vnderstand it so For seeing the intendment of the precept is clearly in the point of that daies vacation that the body should be refreshed by abstinence from labour And in the point of sanctification of it the mind should be refreshed by attendance to spirituall exercise it followeth manifestly that if there be any workes that resolue not the body and so hinder not the refreshing of it nor dissolue 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 And if you will obiect that euen very light workes are expressely forbidden in the law so that to kindle fire on the sabaoth day was vnlawfull I must answere you that that and some other were but ceremoniall precepts not morall and belonged to the curious observance of the commandement and therefore obliged the Iewes and none else for that such light and labourlesse workes on the Sabaoth were no transgression at all of the morall commandement the practise of him whose every action was our instruction of him who was the giuer of the law as God and the only keeper of it as man will put all out of questioÌ„ for had that exact and extreame vacation on the Sabaoth beene required by Gods morall commandement and so every light worke beene a transgression of it would not our Sauiour haue repooued the Iewes for loosing their beasts from the staules and leading them to water on the Sabaoth day Yet hee mentioneth and reproues it not and thinke S r by the way he that condemned not bringing of beasts to drinke would not condemne bringing meat to beasts or would he haue not suffered only but excused the plucking of eares of corne and rubbing out the graines on the Sabaoth day as he did in his disciples or would he himselfe on the Sabaoth day haue made clay and anointed with it the eyes of the blinde or would he haue commanded others to doe such workes on the Sabaoth as he did the impotent man whom he had healed namely to take vp his bed that day and depart See then how this seuere precisenesse of yours agreeth with the practise and doctrine of our Saviour who not only suffered these light workes to be done without reprehension but excused them but did them himselfe but commanded others to doe them therefore in his iudgement who was the law giuer and must be the Iudge of all the sinnes of men they were no transgression of the commandement of the Sabaoth For vaine it were to reply that Christ was Lord of the Sabaoth and therefore might dispence with the commandement at his owne pleasure vaine it were I say for although he were Lord of the Sabaoth as God being so the law giuer yet was he subiect to the commandement as man being as the Apostle saith made vnder the law for what else importeth that kinde of speech made vnder the law but that he which by nature was not vnder the law as being God was yet made vnder the law as becomming man which law first himselfe pronounced he came â—o fulfill and secondly his Apostles that hee had fulfilled it in that he had no sinne but every transgression of the law was sinne therefore in no sort he transgreffed the law and it not only were not vaine in this manner to excuse our Saviours actions but a very hard dangerous point when question is made of our Saviours fulfilling of the law to fly in this case to the refuge of dispensations as if our Sauiour that came to satisfy for
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