The Doctrine of the Sabbath Vindicated, Chapter 28
CHAP. XXVIII. Breerwood. Pag. 43, 44, 45.
BVt 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 farther, than it doth ordaine; it cannot bind the conſcience for guiltineſſe further than it doth for obedience; becauſe all guiltineſſe both preſuppoſe diſobedience; now that the Church ordained ſolemne aſſemblies of Chriſtians, to bee celebrated that day to the honour of God, and in them the invocation of Gods holy name, thankeſ-giving▪ hearing of the holy Scriptures, and receiving of the Sacraments, is not denied; It is out of queſtion, all antiquity affordeth plentifull remembrance of it. But that it injoyneth that ſevere and exact vacation, from all workes on the Lords day, which the commandement of God required in the Iewes Sabaoth, you will never prove. It reliſheth too much of the Iewiſh Ceremonies, to be proved by Chriſtian divinity: for this is no proofe of it, that the Lords day is ſucceeded in place of the Sabaoth, or as ſome Divines 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 ſucceed the Sabaoth in place, muſt it therefore ſucceed in equall preciſeneſſe of obſervation? (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 extreme vacation, from every kind 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 and prerogative of the Sabaoth was not given to the Sabaoth and its heires; it was no fee ſimple (and if I may ſpeake in the Lawyers ſtile) it was onelyonly a tenure for tearme of life: namely, during the life of the ceremoniall law, which life ended in the death of our Saviour. This reaſon therefore of the ſucceſſion of the Lords day in place of the Sabaoth is no reaſon.
Anſwer.
Firſt, what was acknowledged by the Church, as injoyned by the point of vacancie from all labour, without the leaſt relliſh of Iewiſh ceremonies; wee ſhall ſee in the next Chapter. Here onelyonly wee examine your ſuppoſed confutation of a reaſon to prove it; which reaſon is this; The Lords day is ſucceeded in the place of the Sabbath, or as ſome ſay, as Heire of the Sabbath, therefore to bee kept Sabbath-like. You confute it thus: If it ſucceeds it in place, muſt it ſucceede in equall preciſeneſſe of obſervation? No, It ſucceeded in point of Sanctification, not of exact vacation. I reply, your diſtinction is not diſtinct; for if in Sanctification, then in exact vacation, namely, vacation Sabbaticall: for if in the end, in the meanes neceſſary to that end, and for that end ordained, which is exact vacation, ſo farre as it may further Sanctification: Now for your playing on the termes about an Heire, it is frivolous.
Secondly, for your inſtance in the Pope ſucceeding Peter, arguing from place to power, it little conduceth to this matter: for the Pope ſucceedeth not in place Apoſtolicall, if he did, I ſhould not much doubt of his power Apostolicall. Had there beene a certaine Commandement of God to ſhew, that God in his eternall Law commanded his people to obey the Apostolicall place? But by place you mean roome, not Officiall function, and then what kinne betweene your inſtance, and the matter in hand?