The Doctrine of the Sabbath Vindicated, Chapter 16
CHAP. XVI. Breerwood. Pag. 21, to 28.
BVt ſeeing I have begun to object I will proceed a little farther in that courſe, both the more evidently to declare my meaning, leſt it be obnoxious to calumniation, and alſo to reſolve the objections that may bee produced againſt ſervants obedience touching worke on the Sabaoth, if my imagination be ſo good as to finde them, and my learning alſo to ſatisfie them. Object. For firſt, it ſeemes that ſervants are touching this commandement in better condition than other men: if by their workes on the Sabaoth they tranſgreſſe it not: and tranſgreſſe it they doe not, if it bee not impoſed on them, but only on their maſters. Sol. Touching them, I anſwere that the workes of ſervants are of two ſorts, ſome proceeding from them as they are ſervants, that is, upon their maſters commandement: others proceeding from their owne election: unto which namely not by any commandement of their Maſters, but by the way of their owne deſires they are carried. Of the firſt ſort of workes they are only Miniſters, of the ſecond they are Authors. And touching this ſecond ſort I confeſſe (although of the former it bee farre otherwiſe) both that ſervants have a ſeverall obligation of their owne, and that their tranſgreſſion and ſinne is ſeverall, and therefore that themſelves are bound to anſwere it to the juſtice of God, but whether the ſinne of theſe ſecond workes, be peculiarly the ſervants, or that the Maſter alſo participates with the ſervant in that guiltineſſe. It may be a queſtion, for if they be done meerly by the ſervants election (beſide the knowledge and contrary to the commandement of his maſter) it ſeemes to be particularly the ſervants ſinne. But if they bee occaſioned by the maſters negligence, then doth he certainly participate in guiltineſſe with his ſervant although in a diverſe ſort, for it is a ſinne of commiſſion in the ſervant doing an unlawfull act, and a ſinne of omiſſion in the Maſter neglecting his due care, becauſe by the precept of Almighty God the maſter is bound not only to command his ſervant to worke, but to command him not to worke on the Sabaoth day: well then the workes, which ſervants doe on the Sabaoth day on their owne election, are condemned: the workes they doe by obedience, are excuſed by their maſters commandement; but what workes are ſo excuſed? Are all? No; but briefly all thoſe which while they are performed as by the Servants of men, they that doe then are not impeached for being the ſervants of God. That is to ſay, the workes of labour, but not the workes of ſinne: 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 i… cleare that all the other commandements, being indifferently impoſed without either ſpecification or exception of any perſon whatſoever, reſpect not any more one than another: and therefore hold all men under an equall obligation; and ſo was it altogether convenient, becauſe they are no leſſe the ſecret lawes of nature, than the revealed Lawes of God, and no leſſe written with the finger of God in the fleſhly tables of the heart, than in the tables of ſtone, all of them forbidding thoſe things that by their property and nature, or (as the Schoolemen ſay) exſuogenere, are evill; but the commandement that forbiddeth ſervile workes on the Sabaoth is of a different ſort; firſt becauſe the ſervant is, touching the matter which it forbiddeth (labour) wholly ſubject to another mans command: ſecondly, becauſe the commandement forbiddeth not the ſervant to worke, but onelyonly forbiddeth the Maſter his ſervants worke; thirdly, becauſe the thing it ſelfe, namely, ſervants labour, is not evill materially and exſuogenere, as the matters of the other negative commandements are: but only circumſtantially, becauſe its done upon ſuch a day: for idolatry, blaſphemy, diſhonouring of Parents, murther, adultery, theft, falſe teſtimony, coveting of that is other mens; which are the matter of other commandements, are evill in their owne nature; and therefore forbidden becauſe they are evill 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 native ilneſſe in the other cauſeth the prohibition, but the prohibition in this cauſeth the evill, for laboring on the ſeventh day; if God had not forbiddē it had not bin evil at al (no more than 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 bee withdrawne from their bodily labours, and to be dedicated to the honour of God (which even the prophaneſt Gentiles, amidſt all the blind ſuperſtition, and darkeneſſe, wherewith they were covered, 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 obſerve one day in the number of ſeven, as a certaine day of that number, and namely, the ſeventh in the ranke, or a whole day by the revolution of the Sunne, and with that ſevere exactneſſe of reſtraining all worke (as was injoyned to the Iewes) is but meerely ceremoniall, brought in by poſitive Law; and is not of the law of nature. For had that forme of keeping Sabaoth, bin a law of nature, then had it obliged the Gentiles as well as the Iewes, ſeeing they participate both equall in theExod. 31. 13. Ezek. 20. 12. 30. ſame nature: yet it did not ſo, but was given to the Iſraelites, to bee 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 ever obſerved by any of the holy Patriarchs before it was pronounced in mount Sinai: But if it had beene a law of nature her ſelfe, and ſo had obliged all the Patriarchs; 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 us 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 have 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, and chiefly theirs, which firſt tranſlated the celebration of that day, being the ſeventh, to the firſt day of the weeke; who yet are certainly ſuppoſed to be none other than the Apoſtles of our Saviour.
To turne to the point and clearely to determine it; the maſter only is accountable unto 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 ſin: and how for the workes of labour? Namely, if hee doe them not abſolutely, of his owne election, but reſpectively, as of obedience to his maſters command; for touching labours, ſervants are directly obliged to their maſters. But touching ſinnes, themſelves 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 received immediatly a direct commandement to the contrary, from his Maſter in heaven: For it is better to obey God than man. And there is no proportion betwixt the duties which they owe as ſervants to their maſters according to the fleſh: & which they owe as Children to the father of ſpirits: or betwixt the obligation wherein they ſtand to men, who have power but over their bodies in limited caſes, and that for a ſeaſon. And that infinite obligation wherein they ſtand to him that is both creator, and preſerver, and redeemer, and ludge of body and ſoule; ſinne therefore they may not, if their Maſters command them, becauſe God hath forbidden them (nor only forbidden, I ſay, but forbidden it them) but labour they may if their maſters command them, becauſe God hath no way forbidden them that; God hath indeede forbidden the Maſters exacting that worke on the Sabaoth; but hee hath not forbiddē the ſervants execution of that work if it be demanded or exacted: he hath reſtrained the maſter from commanding it, but hee hath not reſtrained the ſervants from obeying if it bee commanded, for although I acknowledge the ſervants worke on the Sabaoth to imply ſinne: yet I ſay it is not the ſervants fault. And albeit I confeſſe the commandement of God be tranſgreſſed, and God diſobeyed by ſuch workes on the Sabaoth, yet it is not the ſervant that tranſgreſſeth the commandement, it is not he that diſobeyeth God. For the queſtion is not the paſſive ſenſe, whether God bee diſpleaſed with theſe workes, but of the active who diſpleaſeth him. The thing is confeſſed, but the perſon is queſtioned. Confeſſed, that is, that there is ſinne committed in that worke, but queſtioned whoſe ſinne it is. For worke having relation both to the Maſter and to the ſervant: to the Maſters commanding and to the ſervants executing; I affirme that page missing were given more to ſervants than to others▪ and croſſeth your former words, where you ſay, their labour is forbidden: for if they labour, is it not their labour, and ſo on the contrary? Or to the words (directly and immediately?) you yeeld then, that ſervants labour is forbidden indirectly and immediately. The truth is, that which is nakedly forbidden, is directly forbidden: and that which is immediately forbidden, is ſinfull to be done, though mediately: mediately or immediately takes not away the edge of the precept, or power of the commander.
Thirdly, you ſay, The other commandements were impoſed without ſpecification or exception of any perſon whatſoever, and therefore hold all men under an equall obligation; but this not ſo. Anſw. What arguing is this? This commandement is with ſpecification, and the ſervant is ſpecified, and his worke of ſervice to his maſter on the Sabbath ſpecified and prohibited, therefore it bindeth him not, it is not his ſinne. Nay, the ſpecification maketh it the more his ſinne, and God provided by this enumeration of the perſons, (as all have and will agree, unleſſe any ſhould uſe your falſe glaſſe) that this reſt might by no meanes be violated. Maſter Atterſoll *VponUpon Numb. chap. 28. verſ. 11, 12, 13. p. 1142.ſaw in this enumeration not a freeing of the ſervants and ſubjects from the obligation, becauſe a charge is laid on the Governours to ſee that others keepe the day: but a reaſon to perſwade the inferiour the more chearefully to keepe it: thus he ſaith; The charge is laid on Governours, that inferiours might yeeld chearefully to Gods will, conſidering how ſtrait a charge God hath given to all Governours. And that he meant by Gods will, the commandement here impoſed upon, and binding ſervants from doing their maſters worke, though commanded, is apparant by his words in the ſame place, which runne thus: Many fathers urge their children, many maſters command their ſervants to goe about their owne buſineſſe, and ſend them from place to place at that time, when they ſhould attend to the holy Commandement of the Lord, whereas both of them might well and lawfully reply to their fathers and maſters, and ſay with Chriſt our Saviour, Luk. 2. 49. Wist yee not that I muſt be about my Fathers buſineſſe?
That word (exception) is venemous, as if ſome perſons were excepted by that ſpecification of perſons in the fourth Commandement: theſe are cankred words and evill that will quickly corrupt good manners. Therefore Chriſtian Reader, I give thee this note as an Antidote; and that it may be the more ſtrong to expell poyſon, know that the ſpecification of perſons in a precept negative, cannot be an exception of thoſe parties from under that precept, if ſpecified in the prohibition, not excepted. And for the equall obligation that holds all men alike under the other Commandements, it is the ſame alſo in this: for if you ſay the commandement more obligeth Governours, I anſwer; It doth ſo in reſpect of their politicall obſerving of the command, as they are Governours, and ſo ought to ſee this Law kept, and not violated: and thus they are bound more, and otherwiſe than other men to every of the other nine Commandements. For the Magiſtrate is the keeper, or preſerver of both mCuſtos utriuſque tabulae.Tables of the Law. But in reſpect of their perſonall obſervance hereof, it is equally charged on them, as on the ſervant and ſubject: and ſo it is alſo in the reſt of the precepts.
Fourthly, you ſay, this commandement is of a different ſort from others, therefore it otherwiſe obligeth, and you give three things to ſhew this difference; firſt, the nature of it; ſecondly, the matter prohibited; thirdly, the command it ſelfe.
Firſt, for the nature of this Law, you ſay, It is a Law ingraven in the Tables of ſtone, but not on the Tables of mens heart, nor any Law of nature. You make this diſtinction, that there are revealed Lawes in the Decalogue which are not the ſecret Lawes of Nature, the Lawes ingraven in ſtone by the ſinger of God, were not all of them the Lawes of Nature.
Againſt this I preſſe you with reaſons, authorities, and page missing of the other Commandements in the nature and property of the things, as you ſay, and ſo you give three inſtances; two of them have been already anſwered, namely, that the labour of the ſervant is wholly ſubject to another mans command, and that the commandement only forbiddeth the maſter his ſervants worke. The third difference (which now we will, God willing, ſcanne) is this, That the thing forbidden, viz. ſervile worke, and ſo the ſervants worke, is not evill materially,, and ex ſuo genere, as the matter of other commandements is, nor evill of its owne nature, but onelyonly becauſe it is prohibited, and therefore, you hold, it is no Law of nature.
Here firſt conſider how farre wide this is to your ſcope, and the queſtion in hand: for what if the matter prohibited be evill but onelyonly by prohibition; would not that prohibition make it ſinfull of lawfull, and that to the ſervant? Ile give you an inſtance in a precept ceremoniall: God commanded that no leaven ſhould be in their houſes during the Feaſt of unleavened bread: ſuppoſe the maſter ſhould command his ſervant to make in thoſe dayes leavened bread, if the ſervant did it, the ſervant ſinned as well as his maſter.
Secondly, the propoſition it ſelfe is faulty: for the matter of the ſecond Commandement is not evill materially, any more than the matter of the fourth, to make an image or likeneſſe of any thing in heaven, earth, or ſea, is not evill, but onelyonly circumſtantially, as to make it to bow to it. If you ſay, to make it to bow to it, is the matter of the Commandement: (as indeed it is) then I ſay, to worke on the Sabbath, is the matter of this Commandement; and as to make an image to bow to it, is evill materially, and of its owne nature, ſo to ſpend (the Sabbath I ſay not, that ſeventh day, but) the Sabbath, the conſecrated time of Gods worſhip in our labour, is evill materially. And therefore the maſters command cannot excuſe the ſervants worke that day. And now hence I further reaſon againſt you thus: Though the ſecond Commandement forbid to make images, which is not evill in it ſelfe, but onelyonly with this circumſtance added, to make them to bow to them; yet he that maketh them for another that he knoweth will worſhip them, breaketh the ſecond Commandement; therefore in this Commandement, the ſervant that worketh at his maſters commandement, whom he knoweth to abuſe his labour in this kind, breaketh this Commandement. Now by your Rule, the ſervant commanded to make an image, which he knoweth his maſter would abuſe to worſhip it, ought to make it, becauſe to make a likeneſſe or image is not ſimply evill.
Thirdly, when you hold, that the Law of Nature is of thoſe things only that are evill by their property and nature, this paſſage received thruſts out the ſecond commandement from being a Law of Nature, according to your expoſition of a thing that hath in it native ilneſſe: for to make an image (ſetting aſide the circumſtance) to bow to it, is no more evil, than for a ſervant to worke, ſetting aſide this circumſtance (on the Sabbath.) This your ſlye arguing ſavours of Popery, which hath thruſt out the ſecond Commandement as a poſitive and ceremoniall Law upon the ſame grounds.
And when you ſay, that the prohibition of other things is cauſed by their native illneſſe; if you meane, their illneſſe was before the Law (not underſtanding by Law, the promulgation thereof, but the Law of Nature written in the heart of man, inaſmuch as this Law is the expreſſe righteouſneſſe of God) it is a blaſphemous Tenet, for hereby tranſgreſſion ſhall bee where there is no Law, and a chiefe evill, a ſummum malum, as well as a chiefe good, or an abſolute goodneſſe out of God, which this illneſſe ſwerveth from. For my part, I cannot tell how any thing ſhould bee evill natively, but evill, becauſe it is defective of good, which good perfecting man is the Law of righteouſneſſe. If by prohibition, you meane the promulgation of the Law, then I ſay, that this maketh not the thing prohibited unlawfull, but onelyonly makes the ſinne the greater in them that yet offend, after God by lively voyce hath renewed thoſe obliterated precepts, offuſcated with ſinne in the heart of man.
Thirdly, the Commandement it ſelfe in theſe five things (you ſay) is meerely Ceremoniall, brought in by poſitive Law; and is not of the Law of Nature; firſt, to obſerve one day in ſeven; ſecondly, to obſerve a certaine day of that number; thirdly, to obſerve the ſeventh in the ranke; fourthly, to obſerve a whole day by the revolution of the Sunne; fifthly, to obſerve it with ſevere exactneſſe of reſtraining all worke. This you eſſay to prove, firſt, by a place of Scripture; ſecondly, by the example of the Patriarchs; and thirdly, by the abſurditie that elſe will follow.
This matter ſhall bee more largely diſcuſſed, becauſe it will much cleare the Doctrine of the Sabbath; for now you ſtrike at the roote of it, and would lay Religion on the ground: but your owne ſtaffe will breake your backe, which you give by the handle into our hands. This you yeeld, that the ſecret inſtinct of nature hath taught all men, even the prophaneſt Gentiles, that ſome time is to be ſet apart, and dedicated to the ſolemne worſhip of God, as ſet times to be ſpent in ſacrifice and devotion. Now goe on; this inſtinct is the Law written in their hearts; therefore the Sabbath is a Law of Nature. But did this inſtinct of Nature guide them to your former five particulars about the time of worſhip? If it did, and that the ſheards hereof are found among the Gentiles, you cannot, nor any other for you conclude (unleſſe you will play the mad-men with reaſon) that every of them hath leſſe than moralitie and perpetuitie in it. It is true, the Gentiles a thouſand wayes depraved the uſe of the Sabbath, by keeping holyday to their Idols, ſaith Aretius yAret. problem. loc. 55. de Sabb. obſer.they alſo wreſted the name to a wanton and ridiculous ſignification, in which notwithſtanding there hath remained ſome footſteps of the ancient originall, to which ſerò tandem Gentes redire debuerunt, at length the Gentiles, though late, ought to returne. To omit their depravations, ſee in them the footſteps of every particular.
Firſt, the Gentiles ſet apart certaine and conſtant dayes not moveable and wandring.
Macrobius ſaith, there are foure kinds of publike holydayes (Feriarum, that is, dayes vacant from pleading and labour) Stative, Conceptive, Imperative, and nundinative: and the Stative are common to all the people on certaine and ſet dayes, and moneths, and noted with ſtanding obſervations in their Calendars.
Secondly, they obſerved a certaine day of ſeven, and particularly the ſeventh.
Heſiod ſaith zforeign Heſiod. foreign.the ſeventh day is a holyday. Lampridius telleth of Alexander Severus, that on the ſeventh day, when he was in the City, he went up to the Capitoll, and frequented the Temple. Homer ſaith, the ſeventh day is holy, and was the day in which all things were perfected, and on which we depart from the bankes of Hell.
Callimachus ſaith the like, and that it is the birth-day, chiefe and perfect aClemens Alexandr. ſtromat. l. 5..
Clemens Alexandrinus ſheweth bforeign Clem. Alex. l. 5. ſtrom., that not onelyonly the Hebrewes, but the Greekes alſo knew the ſeventh day holy. And Euſebius cEuſeb. de prepar. Evang. l. 13. c. 7.affirmeth, that almoſt all as well Philoſophers as Poets knew, that the ſeventh day was more ſacred. And Philo dPhilo. lib. 2. de vita Moſis.the Iew ſaith, Who doth not honour that ſacred day, which returneth every weeke.
The ſeventh day holydayes were wont to be granted to children in Schooles among them eLucianus in Pſeudo logiſta..
Certaine of the Ethnicke Doctors were wont onelyonly to diſpute on the Sabbaths fAul Gell. l. 13. c. 2. Sueton. Lib. 3..
Seneca gSenec. ep. 95.in his 95. Epiſtle ſhewing that exhortations are not enough, but wee need obliging precepts, yea, the decrees of wiſedome; bee reckoneth up the Sabbath, as the feſtivall day for Religion; but condemneth their manner of obſerving it, when he ſaith; Let us forbid any one to light a candle on the Sabbaths: for neither doe the gods want light, and men themſelves are not delighted with ſmoke; he worſhippeth God who knoweth him. hMacrob. Saturn. l. 1. c. 7.Macrobius ſheweth, that Saturne (of whom is the name of Saturday) was honoured with Candles lighted at his Altars, and wax-Tapers offered on his dayes.
Aretius hath theſe words iAret. problem. loc. de Sabbathi obſerv.; The Greekes and Latines call the Sabbath, The day of reſt, which the Gentilespage missing
But before I paſſe over this point, I would take off the exceptions of one Franciſcus Gomarus ſGomarus de Inveſtigat. ſententiae & originis ſabbati. cap. 4. pag. 42.a Germane, who pleades, that theſe allegations for the ſeventh dayes celebrity obſerved among the Gentiles are inſufficient, and the conſequence thence drawne to proove this to have ought of the Law of Nature in it, infirme. The inſufficiency of allegations out of the Poets hee would evince from this, that thoſe Poets talke, as the proverbe is, of Garlike, but we ſpeak of Onions; and though Clemens Alexandrinus & Euſebius alledge them, yet for this cauſe they deſerve little credit, becauſe they ſpeake of the ſeventh, but the Poets only of a ſeventh. I anſwere, that they muſt needs availe, and be of force to any that hath reaſon: for (be it they ſpake not of that ſeventh from the Creation, yet) that they ſpeake of the celebrity of a ſeventh, maketh wholly and ſufficiently to proove, that they were guided to▪ a ſeventh; and if they knew not the ſeventh through iniquity and vanity, that can no more diſproove the feſtivity of the ſeventh to bee from the beginning, and reach to all, than the failings in many ſpecialties of the firſt, and ſecond, and third, and other commandements, can diſproove their ingraving on the heart of man, as Lawes of Nature: and on the other ſide, it prooveth as ſufficiently that this commandement is a Law of Nature (ſo farre as it is expreſſed in the Decalogue,) as the reliques of the other precepts in the hearts of Gentiles, proove them to be Lawes of Nature, and therefore his exception in ſpeciall againſt that authority out of Heſiod, if it ſhould bee underſtood of every ſeventh day, taking the calculation from the firſt day of the month, doth no way ſupplant our intended purpoſe. Well hath a learned Biſhop tPatterne of Catech. Doctr. pag. 124.of our Church obſerved, that ſufficient is found in the heart of the Gentiles, to their condemnation, for breaking the Law of the fourth commandement, they knew that numerus ſeptenarius eſt Deo gratiſſimus, and it was numerus quietis; and thence they might have gathered, that God would have his reſt that day: and ſo the ſeventh day after birth they kept exequiae, and the ſeventh day after death, the Funerall. Note alſo that Gomarus paſſeth over thoſe ſayings, brought by Clemens and Euſebius out of Homer and Callimachus untouched, becauſe they are not found in their writings now extant; which proveth the weakeneſſe of this cauſe.
That quotation out of Philo Iudaeus, he thinketh he hath taken off by that place of the ſame Author, in his booke of the Decalogue, whereby (hee ſaith) it is evident, that Philo ſpake not properly, but only by ſimilitude of the number of ſeven, becauſe hee thus expounds himſelfe in that place; The fourth commandement (ſaith he) commands the ſeventh day: commanding it to be ſpent holily and godly. This certaine cities celebrate every month, as a Feſtivall, beginning their reckoning from the New Moone: but to the Iewes every ſeventh day is holy. I anſwer; Firſt, it is a meere preſumption of his to ſay, that here Philo expounds his meaning in the other place, for this is in his booke of the decalogue, that in another booke, viz. The ſecond of the life of Moſes: nor doth he make the leaſt intimation of reference thither. Then this quotation, that he maketh the expoſition of his meaning in the former place, cannot be; for here he ſpeaketh only of ſome few cities, there in generall termes, (who honoureth not that holy day?) Moreover, in another place uPhilo de mundi opiſicio.hee calleth, that very ſeventh day, foreign, a generall Feſtivall to be obſerved of all people for ever. Laſtly, if hee had but peruſed Philo, or not perverted him willfully, hee might have ſeene his plaine meaning, whoſe words (both for this purpoſe, and for the reſt of ſervants, about which our diſpute is) I ſet downe, not mangled, but entire; and they are theſe: It admoniſheth (ſaith hee, meaning the Divine Law) it admoniſheth all of dutie: Barbarians, Graecians, inhabitants of maine continents aſwell as of Ilands the Weſterlings, the Eaſterlings, the Europeans, and the Aſians, the whole habitable World, even to the uttermoſt coaſts. For who doth not honor that holy day, returning every weeke, bringing remiſſion of labour and holy vacations to the maſter of the familie with his houſhold; not onelyonly to freemen, but alſo to ſervants, yea moreover to the beaſts vnderunder the yoke? and ſo forth.
Againe, hee helpeth us to another authoritie out of loſephus in his ſecond booke againſt Appain, who ſaith, Neither is there any city of the Grecians, or Barbarians, nor any Nation, to whom the cuſtome of the ſeventh day, in which wee reſt, hath not come. A pregnant proofe. But Gomarus ſaith, there are words foregoing which doe end the controverſie, namely theſe, Moreover the people doe now much emulate our piety. Which words (ſaith he) do only ſhew, that the obſervation of the Sabbath among the Gentiles, was only an imitation of the Iewes by Proſelites, and perchance many others. What? were all the Gentiles Eaſt and Weſt, become Proſelytes; or would all of them admit a meere ceremony? Some Nations beſides Proſelytes, admitted Circumciſion: but did all the cities of Greeks and Barbarians admit thereof? And if they imitated their piety, could it bee thought that they imitated it as theirs, and not rather as that which their naturall light glimmeringly guided them unto; eſpecially ſeeing the Iewes were naturally hated of all people.
For his quotation out of Theodoret upon the 20. chap. of Ezekiel, to teſtifie to his tenet, who ſaith, That in the obſervation of the Sabbath, the Iewes ſeemed to obtaine a certaine proper commonwealth; for no other Nation did obſerve this reſt, and neither did Circumciſion ſo diſtinguiſh them from others, as did the Sabbath. I anſwer: This cannot bee underſtood of any kind of obſervation of the Sabbath, for then Theodoret muſt ſpeake directly againſt all received teſtimonies of antiquity (which may not bee thought) but of the true obſerving thereof in the ſolemne rituall worſhip of God, which being all publike and ſolemnely uſed on that day, as the ſanctification thereof, did aſmuch more lively diſtinguiſh the Iewes, Gods people; from the Heathen Idolaters, than did circumciſion; as the whole Law doth more than any one part thereof.
Thus wee have made good the ſufficiency of the quotations excepted againſt, wee leave them therefore with the reſt fore-alleaged to be cavilled at by the next that dares to attempt it.
The infirmeneſſe of the conſequence (ſaith Gomarus) is this, that if the obſervation of the Sabbath had prevailed among the Gontiles, yet from thence no ſuch antiquity of the Sabbath may bee evinced, but only thence appeareth the imitation of the Iewes by the Gentiles, as by Proſelytes and others perhaps. I anſwer, the conſequent is firme, for the former Heathen Authors have no reference to the Iewes, and the Gentiles derided the Iewiſh Sabbathes, Lament. 1. 7.
But ſuppoſe it came up among the Gentiles by imitation of the Iewes, yet this ſpreading of it farre and wide, prooveth the goodnes of the conſequence, that it is of the moral Law. For hence it ſufficiently appeares, that the inſtitution of a ſet ſeventh day in the weeke is immutable, and not ceremoniall and temporall; not proper to the Iewes onelyonly, but common to all, ſeeing nature apprehends it meet and neceſſary, that we often exerciſe the worſhip of God, and cannot but acknowledge (as we ſee in the inclination of the whole univerſe of men) that this weekely determination of a day is moſt convenient, and altogether abſolute.
Hitherto of the anſwer to your poſition, determining what is ceremoniall in the fourth commandement. Your proofe for the ceremony of it in thoſe reſpects, is, firſt, taken from Texts of Scripture in Exod. 31. 13. and Ezek. 20. 12, 20. Hence you reaſon thus; That forme of keeping Sabbath was given to the Iewes, as a ſpeciall marke of their 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 page missing was no leſſe neceſſary to men before the Law given, than after, and examples are not wanting of the Majeſty of God himſelfe gGen. 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 hEpheſ. 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.