Answer to Two Books of the Sabbath, Part 4
The fourth and fifth Texts.
S…e Mr Cawdry in page 431. thus writing: Objection the fourth. The fourth is taken out of the New Teſtament, Mat. 5.17, 18. where our Saviour ratifies the morall Law, the Decalogue till the end of the world; whence thus he argueth: If every jot and tittle of the Law be in force untill the worlds end, then theſe letters and words, the ſeventh day is the Sabbath, are in force untill the worlds end. But the former is true by the Text alledged Mat. 5.17, 18. Ergo, &c.
Objection the fifth. The laſt Text is Mat. 24.20. whence thus he argues: Their deſtruction was forty yeares after Chriſts death, yet he bids them pray that their flight might not be in the winter, nor on the Sabbath day; and therefore Chriſt foreſaw that the Sabbath day ſhould be in force ſtill, and kept after his death.
Theſe two texts indeed I own for mine, and the ſubſtance of the two Arguments deduced from them, though but unhandſomly laid down by Mr Cawdry; now let the Reader judge whether there be not better force of proofe in theſe two texts than there was in the three texts ſet before them in the front, on purpoſe to diſgrace me and theſe two texts.
As for the Text Mat. 5.17, 18. I allow it as Mr Cawdry hath laid it downe. As for the other text, Mat: 24.20. Pray that your flight be not on the Sabbath day; this flight was to be at the deſtruction of Jeruſalem, about fifty years after Chriſts death; whence I thus argue, that Chr…ſt allowed of the antient Sabbath as a Chriſtian Ordinance in the Church, all times of the Goſpell after his death; and had it been a dying Ceremony, as many fancy, Chriſt would not have bidden Chriſtians to pray to God to prevent their profanation of it, for this had been a profanation of the ſacred duty of Prayer; as if a Papiſt ſhould pray not to travell on Chriſtmas day.
Having by theſe two Texts proved the perpetuity of the antient ſeventh day, and Saturday-Sabbath, it will be expected by my Reader that I ſhould confute Mr Cawdry's anſwers to them; which thing I profeſſe I can eaſily doe without much ſtudy; but no provocations ſhall make me go beyond the bounds I have ſet to my ſelfe; I have reſolved to handle but two things: the one is to vindicate my ſelfe from the abuſe of the three forged Texts: the other is to vindicate God's fourth Commandement from Mr Cawdry's falſe gloſſes, and corrupt Expoſitions of it, ſaying, God commanded not the ſeventh day in order, but one day in the ſeven without order; and by this falſe Expoſition he makes his anſwer to many of my twenty foure Arguments.
My hope is that as our State do allow liberty of Conſcience to ſome in ſome caſes, ſo they will allow me a liberty in theſe two things: firſt, to vindicate my ſelfe from ſlanders. Secondly, to vindicate Gods fourth Commandement from falſe Expoſitions. I dare not go farther leſt I ſhould offend the State, and have my books burnt; one Mr Ockford about two yeares paſt wrote a booke in defence of my way againſt the Lords day, and for the old day the ſeventh day, but, as ſaith Mr Cawdry, it was anſwered by fire, being ordered to be burnt; as I remember Mr Tyndals Tranſlation of the New Teſtament long ſince was ordered to be burnt too; and was not Pa…eus on the Romans burnt alſo in King James his daies? And I feare me ſo it would be with this my book if I ſhould exceed my bounds; Let not therefore Mr Cawdry thinke, that I do not reply to his anſwers becauſe I cannot, but becauſe I dare not; if I durſt, and had but this faire dealing, to have the Preſſe as open to me as it is to him, he ſhould ſoone ſee that I would make his weakneſſe in arguing to appeare unto all men. I had rather be engaged in this quarrell than go to my dinner or ſupper. When two Souldiers are to fight, the odds is too great, to give al encouragements and conveniences to the one, and bind the hands of the other behind him, or hold a cudgell over his head if he ſtrikes a blow; it is my unhappy condition to ſuffer this odds, to have the fire prepared for my books, and the benefit of the Preſſe denied me, unleſſe I Print by ſtealth. So far for vindication of my ſelfe: and now for the vindication of the fourth Commandement.
Of the vindication of Gods fourth Commandement.
Before I fall cloſe upon this point, I ſhall premiſe five things tending to the vindication of this Commandement.
1. What may be the reaſon of Mr Cawdry's wreſting theſe words in the fourth Commandement; The ſeventh day is the Sabbath, from the proper ſenſe of the ordinall number ſeventh? which ſignifies not only one of ſeven, but more, as the l…ſt of ſeven, and that ſingle one which followes the ſixe d…ies labour; and why would he inſtead of this bring in one day of ſeven indefinitely?
His tacite reaſon I beleeve is this, that having no precept for the Lords day in the New Teſtament, and none but poore probable reaſons ab exemplo, therefore he would faine incorporate the Lords day into the fourth Commandement to ſtrengthen it: ſo it having no legs of its own to ſtand on, he would be ſo friendly to it, as to borrow a paire of legs from the fourth Commandement, and then it ſhall be able to ſtand in the opinion of the deluded multitude. As for his Arguments ab exemplo, from example, as is the ſuppoſed practice of the Apoſtles, however it go current in the Pulpit, yet Sir, if you know it not, let me informe you, that an Argument ab exemplo in Diſputation is next unto nothing, try it when you will.
For my part, if it could be proved that the Lords day had a divine inſtitution, which I never ſaw proved, nor hath Mr Cawdry proved it in any or all of his three larger Volumes on the Sabbath; I ſay, if it could be proved to be ſet up by Chriſt or his Apoſtles, yet I ſtiffely deny it to be commanded in the fourth Commandement, for the Lords day is called in Scr…p…ure the firſt d…y of the weeke, but the fourth Commandement is f…r the ſeventh and laſt day of the weeke; and the Lords day was not known when the fourth Commandement was given on mount Sinai.
If, as you ſay, Chriſt did inſtitute the Lords day, is not Chriſts inſtitution and authority ſufficient for it, but that you muſt run unto the Old Teſtament, the fourth Commandement for a Law and Commandement for it? Chriſt hath inſtituted two new Sacraments, Baptiſme and the Lords Supper; now, is not Chriſts inſtitution and authority ſufficient to uphold them, but that we muſt run to the Old Teſtament as unto the Laws and Commandements for Circumciſion and the Paſſeover? ſaying, our two Sacraments ſtand by force of the two Laws in the Old Teſtament. So if Chriſt had ſet up a third new Ordinance, as the Lords day, what need we to run further than the New Teſtament, and then to Chriſts inſtitution and authority for it.
But you will ſay, Circumciſion and the Paſſeover are Ceremonials, but the fourth Commandement is Morall. I anſwer, if the fourth Commandement be morall, then the time there commanded is morall too: and morall things are not alterable: one jot or tittle ſhall not paſſe from the Law ſo long as heaven and earth laſt, Mat. 5.18.
It is a ſigne the cauſe is naught, when the Authors of it are ſo put to their ſhifts, and to uſe their wits, as to run ſuch ſtrange and unuſuall courſes, as to run from the New Teſtament to the Old Teſtament, and that for a new Ordinance: yea, and alſo to wreſt the proper ſenſe of the fourth Commandement, as if it were a noſe of wax, to be bowed on this ſide at one time, and on the other ſide at another time: to command the Saturday for thouſands of years untill Chriſt, and the Sunday, or Lords day for ever after Chriſt.
2. I ſhall premiſe another thing, which is a diſtinction of Mr Cawdries, ſaying, in his ſecond part, page 255. The old world had the laſt day of the weeke, the new world the firſt day of the weeke. Now by the old world he meanes the Church of the Jews before Chriſt, and by the new world the Chriſtian Church ſince Chriſt; and both theſe have their ſeverall daies from this one fourth Commandement; now this is a Popiſh diſtinction in its application: for Papiſts ſay of the ſecond Commandement, that it forbade Images indeed to the Jews, that is, to the old world, but not unto Chriſtians, that is, to the new world: and ſo ſaith Mr Cawdry, the fourth Commandement was for the laſt day of the weeke to the Jews of the old world, but it is n…t ſo to Chriſtians of the new world, for it commands us the firſt day of the weeke; might he not as well ſay, Proteſtants are bound by the fifth Commandement to honour their Parents; and by the ſame Commandement Papiſts are bound to honour the Pope, but not their Parents? Never did Jeſuites more abuſe the ſecond Commandement, than Mr Cawdry doth the fourth Commandement.
3. I ſhall premiſe this alſo; that Mr Cawdry ſaith in his ſecond part, page 255. That the ſeventh day in order was not the ſubſtance of the fourth Commandement. In his third part, page 418. He ſaith, The ground of all the Sabbatarian errour is, that they take for granted, that the ſeventh-day-Saturday-Sabbath was commanded as the ſubſtance of the fourth Commandement; we agree with them in this, that if it be ſo we muſt turne Anabaptiſt…, who keep no day, or Sabbatarians, to keep the ſeventh day with the Jews; but this is their miſtake, &c. And in p. 259. of his ſecond part he ſaith, one day in ſeven is the ſubſtance of the fourth Commandement.
To this I anſwer, Firſt, if theſe words, The ſeventh day is the Sabbath, be not the ſubſtance of the fourth Commandement, how can h…s words, one day in ſeven, be the ſubſtance of the Commandement? Are they not both ſpoken of the time? If the one be the ſubſtance, then the other i… a ſubſtance alſo; and if that which is not expreſſed in the Commandement, as one day in ſeven, be the ſubſtance of it, then much rather muſt theſe words, the ſeventh day, which are expreſſed in the Commandement, be the ſubſtance of the Commandement.
2. For this word ſubſtance, it is not uſed here properly; for it hath neither Circumſtance nor Accident in the fourth Commadement; the ſubſtance is the duty of reſt from labour, and the worſhip of God; the time is the Circumſtance. Beſides, few Readers underſtand what ſubſtance and accident are; wherefore I would require Mr Cawdry to forbeare this word ſubſtance, and ſtate the queſtion by ſome other word which is proper, and which every Reader may underſtand, as to uſe the word commanded; for we ſpeake of one of Gods Commandements, and of a day or time commanded; which alſo will avoid ſtrife betweene the diſputants about the word ſubſtance, it being liable to be uſed ſometime in one ſenſe, ſometime in another; Now, if you uſe the word commanded, then Mr Cawdry muſt ſay, The ſeventh day was not commanded, but one day of ſeven was commanded; both which are manifeſtly f…lſe: for the ſeventh day was expreſly commanded in ſo many words, ſaying, The ſeventh day is the Sabbath, in it thou ſhalt not do any worke; but one day of ſeven was not commanded or expreſſed in the fourth Commandement; So now Sir, they are your own words, you muſt turn Anabaptiſt, keeping no day, or Sabbatarian, keeping the Saturday-Sabbath with the Jews, now take your choice,
4. I ſhall premiſe this alſo; Mr Cawdry ſaith in his ſecond part, page 257. In like manner we ſuppoſe it may be ſaid, that the fourth Commandement ſaith, Thou ſhalt ſanctifie one day of ſeven at Gods appointment, that is, in particular, God appointed the laſt day of ſeven to the old world, and the firſt day of ſeven to the new world.
To this I anſwer; H…re he makes one day of ſeven to be the genus, whereas thoſe words be no where expreſt in the fourth Commandement, nor are gatherable by conſequence; and then he makes the laſt day of ſeven, the Saturday, and the fi ſt day of ſeven, the Sunday to be the two ſpecies; the former appointed by God to the Jews in the fourth Commandement, the latter appointed by God to Chriſtians in or by the fourth Commandement alſo; but is it not ſtrange, that
1. God ſhould appoint two ſeverall dai…s by one ſingle Commandement, and never to expreſſe any more than one? For the fourth Commandement mentions but one day ſingularly, not daies plurally; as the Sabbath day, not daies: and the ſeventh day, not daies, Exod. 10 8, &c.
2. Is it not ſtrange, that in one and the ſame Commandement, and in the very ſame words, God ſhould appoint both a Jewiſh and a Chriſtian Sabbath? And the one to be kept in memory of the Creation, the other of the Redemption? But ſuch things are nothing ſtrange to Mr Cawdry.
3. Is it not ſtrange, that God ſhould appoint to the Jews their ſeventh-day-Sabbath at the giving of the Law on mount Sinai, and at the ſame time, and in the ſame words, without any difference making, appoint the Lords day to Chriſtians, a day not known then to the Jews, nor to have any being or beginning, for thouſands of yeares after, till Chriſt came? This Lords day was hidden ſo ſecretly in the fourth Commandement, that had not Mr Cawdry ſtept up of late, by his more than ordinary wit and skill in Logick, to ſearch and find it out for us in the fourth Commandement, we ſhould never have thought of ſuch a Jewell lockt up in the fourth Commandement; I marvell he hath not found alſo the Sacrament of Baptiſme to be appointed by God in Circumciſion, and ſecretly lockt up in the old Law for Circumciſion: and our Lords Supper to be appointed by G…d for us Chriſtians in the Paſſeover, and cloſely hidden in the old Law for the Paſſeover, and then, and there commanded to us; though theſe were ceremoniall, yet our Chriſtian Sacraments in them might be morall or perpetuall.
4. Is it not ſtrange, that Law and Goſpell both ſhould be comprized in one Commandement, and in one and the ſame words without any difference made by God? Did God want words that he muſt expreſſe differing things in one and the ſame word? had not Mr Cawdry found out this myſtery, I muſt profeſſe, I ſhould have been deeply ignorant of it; now, the old Sabbath day was Law, and a part of the Law and Decalogue: and the feigned Lords day in the fourth Commandement was Goſpell, it being kept in memory of our Redemption by Chriſt; ſo there was both Law and Goſpell commanded by God in the fourth Commandement, according to Mr Cawdry; theſe things conſidered, is not Gods fourth Commandement ſhamefully abuſed by Mr Cawdry? and is it not high time to vindicate it?
5. I ſhall premiſe another thing; Mr Cawdry in his ſecond part, page the 255, 257, 256, 265. ſaith, that one day in ſeven is directly commanded in the fourth Commandement; but the ſeventh day is indirectly commanded in the fourth Commandement; now I ſuppoſe that is ſaid to be directly which is expreſſed in words; and that indirectly which is gathered from the words by conſequence of reaſon, and ſo Mr Cawdry underſtands it, ſaying in page 255. expreſly and directly, both words of the ſame ſenſe; and in Page 259. not directly but by conſequence.
To this I anſwer; Is it not ſtrange Sir, that you ſhould ſay, one day of ſeven is directly commanded, when theſe words, one day in ſeven, are not to be found in the fourth Commandement? And to ſay theſe words The ſeventh day, which are expreſſed, are but indirectly, and by conſequence commanded? Surely, if any thing be indirectly in the fourth Commandement it muſt be one in ſeven, becauſe theſe words are not in the Commandement. In the fifth Commandement the thing directly and expreſly commanded is, to honour our naturall Parents: but to honour Magiſtrates is indirectly, and by conſequence commanded, it not being expreſſed; why you ſhould ſo croſſe a received diſtinction ſeems a Paradox to me.
Theſe five things I have premiſed, and now I come a little cloſer to the worke, as Mr Cawdry leads me on: and thus he begins to defend One day in ſeven to be the true ſenſe and meaning of the fourth Commandement, and that it is no paradoxall expoſition of it.
To hold one day of ſeven is the ſenſe of the fourth Commandement is not a Paradox.