The Doctrine of the Sabbath Vindicated, Chapter 2
CHAP. II. Breerwood. Pag. 5. 6.
FOr the better clearing 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 have no prejudice. 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 Sir tell me, did the Stranger ſinne if he eat of the Paſſeover being ſuppoſed invited? or did the Ammonites and Moabites ſinne if they came into the Congregation being admitted? Did the Stranger, I ſay, and the Ammonites and the Moabites in theſe caſes ſinne, of whom the Commandements were given, or the Iſraelites to whom the Commandements were given touching them: no, but it is clearely the Lords meaning, that the Iſraelites ſhould not admit of any Gentile to the participation of the Paſſeover, nor receive the Ammonites and Moabites into the Congregation of the Lord.
Anſwer.
Firſt, I reply, theſe Commandements are not paralell, and ſo your ground faileth: theſe Commandements; I ſay, this, Thy ſervant ſhall doe no manner of worke; and this, No ſtranger ſhall eate of the Paſſeover. In the firſt, you acknowledge the maſters worke is forbidden to the maſter, whether done by himſelfe or by his ſervant. In the latter, the Paſſeover forbidden to the ſtranger, is enjoyned to the Iew. The Iew muſt eate the Paſſeover, the Iew muſt not admit the ſtranger to eate, but the maſter muſt not worke, and muſt not admit his ſervant to worke. The thing prohibited, viz. to doe ſervile worke on the Sabbath, is ſinfull in it ſelfe, but the eating of the Paſſeover (which is the thing forbidden the ſtranger) was the ſpeciall worſhip of God, his ordinance and ſervice, required of the Iew. Now this makes a wide difference in the ſenſe of thoſe precepts that ſound alike: for where the thing is evill it cannot but be evill who ever doth it, that is capable of the divine precept, as the ſervant is; for he is a reaſonable creature, and was a Iew: but where the thing it ſelfe is holy, it becomes evill onelyonly to him that prophaneth and defileth it.
The Iew is made the obſerver of the Paſſeover, and the preſerver of it from the ſtrangers obſervation, but here the maſter and ſervant are both made obſervers of the command of ceaſing from work, and the maſter is to preſerve it to the ſervants obſervation.
Beſides, where the words runne in the ſame forme, the precepts are not preſently paralell, or the prohibitions: for to make them ſo, the parties commanded muſt ſtand alike capable of the Law, or uncapable. Wee'le not goe farre for inſtance; the words in this precept are every way for forme of words paralell, Thy ſonne ſhall doe no manner of worke, the ſtranger within thy gate ſhall doe no manner of worke; yet the forme of the precept is not the ſame becauſe the ſonne of the Iew ſtood otherwiſe obliged to the Sabbath, as your ſelfe doe yeeld, pag. 25. than the ſtranger. And to put it beyond all exception, theſe for forme of words are paralell, Thy ſonne ſhall doe no worke, Thy cattell ſhall doe no worke; yet the precept is not paralell, becauſe the ſonne is capable of Gods Law to obey it properly…, and theSoli homines capaces ſunt propriae legit. Zuarez. de leg. l. 1. c. 6. cattell are not. There is a difference betweene the forme of precepts, and the forme of words, in which precepts are ſignified. The forme of the precept muſt partly bee gathered from the ſubjects, to which they have reference, and as they are capable, or leſſe capable of law, ſo the precepts to be underſtood: for the Law in its owne nature carrieth a certaine reſpect and diſpoſition to them, on whom it is impoſed mLex eſſential…er quandam habitudinem ad eos dic…, quibut imponitur. Zuarez. l. 1. ca. 6. de leg.. Now for the Law of the Paſſeover, the ſtranger was not ſo capable of it, as being not under the Law; but the ſervant being a Iew, is alike capable of the Law of the fourth Commandement as is his Maſter, becauſe equally under the Law. What the Law ſpeaketh, it ſpeaketh to them who are under the Law nRom. 3. 19., ſaith the Apoſtle.
Secondly, I affirme, that the ſtrangers, Moabites and Ammonites, did ſinne in thus doing, though invited or admitted, they prophaned holy things, as Balthazar did the Bowles of the Temple oDan. 5. ….. Now the Iewes ſinfull invitation cannot take away their prophanation. It is all one as if a Pagan living among us, that refuſed our Religion, and were not baptized, ſhould yet come and eate of the Bread of the Lord, though ſome Miniſter for ſome by reſpect ſhould be ſuppoſed to invite him. There were among the Iewes ſtrangers that kept houſe, and had ſervants, that yet were no Proſelytes, but onelyonly ſtrangers within the gates; theſe ſinned againſt this precept, if they would kill the Paſſeover and eate it, although the ſewes ſhould through remiſſeneſſe ſuffer it. Further, that a ſtranger may ſinne againſt a precept given of him, is cleare by that precept in verſ. 48. of chap. 12. of Exodus, Let all his males be circumciſed, and then let him keepe the Paſſeover. The commandement is given expreſſely to the Iſraelites of the ſtranger, and yet if that ſtranger ſhould out of Zipporah's tenderneſſe hide or ſpare a male, and ſo eate, all the Iewes held that he ſinned againſt this precept given of him pMaimony in Korb. Peſach. c. 5. 5. 5.. It is evident alſo by the penaltie laid on the ſtranger, with whom leavened bread was found and eaten on the Feaſt of unleavened bread, hee was to be cut off from the Congregation of Iſrael (for puniſhment is to bee inflicted onelyonly upon tranſgreſſors) and yet the Commandement of keeping the Feaſt of unleavened bread was given to the Iewes onelyonly in any fonne of words that we find verſ. 15, 17.
Thirdly, and for your inſtances, I have yet further to except againſt them, as they are alleaged by you.
This precept, No ſtranger ſhall eate thereof qExod. 12. 43., hath been underſtood to bind the ſtranger there mentioned, aſwell as the Iew▪ for the Chaldee Paraphraſt renders it thus; No ſonne of Iſrael that is Apoſtate, ſhall eate of it: Now the Apoſtate Iſraelite ſinned if hee ate, aſwell as the Iew that invited him to eate, the perſons that were uncleane legally at the day of the Paſſeover ſinned, if they kept it at that ſeaſon, though the Governours tooke no notice of it, or would permit it. Numb. 9. 6, 7, 10, 11.
And for the Moabite and Ammonite rDeut. 23. 3.it is cleare, that it is ſpoken of them converted, & made Proſelytes, who ſtood therefore bound to keepe the whole Law, as being circumciſed: for the Law ſpeaketh of a temporall puniſhment to be inflicted on them to the tenth generation after their converſion; the one hundred generation of them remaining Heathen had been ſtill farre from admiſſion. Theſe then did breake this command of God, aſwell as the Iewes that admitted them, though the command in your opinion bee given but of them, and it is alſo in part true. And that they did breake this precept, appeares alſo by the example of the burſt, and of the baſtard ſDeut. 23. 1, 2., the commandements are given in the ſame forme, given of them to the Governours, yet bound them of whom given: For God by his prohibition makes them uncapable of ſuch an honour and priviledge, if they ſhould ruſh upon holy things when hee hath interdicted them, their prophaneneſſe and contempt were great. I retort therefore your inſtances thus: The ſtrangers, Moabites and Ammonites forbidden theſe holy things, though the precept were of them chiefly, and to the Iewes principally touching them, did prophane them, tranſgreſſe the Law, and did proudly ruſh upon things peculiar, if they meddled therewith: therefore much more the ſervant, though the precept bee of him chiefly, and to his maſter principally concerning him, if hee worke on the Sabbath, prophanes it, tranſgreſſeth the Law, and proudly ruſheth upon the priviledged and peculiar time encloſed by the Lord of time himſelfe. It is clearely the Lords intent, that the maſter ſhould not ſuffer, nor charge his ſervant to worke this day; and as clearely the Lords meaning, that the ſervant ſhould not doe his maſters worke that day which is the Lords, and not his maſters day.