Answer to Two Books of the Sabbath, Part 8 – Part 9
His firſt Argument.
Mr Cawdry in his ſecond part, page 261. thus reaſoneth: If the order of the day (firſt or laſt) in the fourth Commandement be not ſubſtantially profitable, or being altered is no waies prejudiciall to Religion, then the ſeventh day was not commanded as the ſubject or ſubſtance of the fourth Commandement.
But the order of the day, (firſt, or laſt, or any other) is not ſubſtantially profitable; or being altered is it any waies prejudiciall to Religion.
Therefore the ſeventh day in order was not commanded as the ſubject or ſubſtance of the fourth Commandement.
I anſwer firſt to the firſt propoſition, and to the conſequent part of it, ſaying, Then the ſeventh day was not commanded as the ſubject or ſubſtance of the fourth Commandement; To this I ſay, the ſeventh day is time and order; now time and order are neither ſubject nor ſubſtance, but adjunct, accident, or circumſtance; now if I ſhould grant your concluſion, what were I the worſe, or you the better by this Argument? For though the ſeventh day be not commanded as the ſubject or ſubſtance, yet if it be commanded as an adjunct to the duty of holineſſe, or Gods worſhip, or as an accident or circumſtance, it is binding to obedience: for it is a commanded adjunct, accident, or circumſtance.
I anſwer now to the ſecond propoſition, and to the former part of it, ſaying, The order of the day, as the laſt day of ſeven, is not ſubſtantially profitable: To this I ſay, 1. What if it be not ſubſtantially profitable, if it be circumſtantially profitable? Is not this as much as can be expected of a commanded time? furthermore, if one day of ſeven, that is, any one of ſeven, be ſubſtantially profitable, as you Sir ſay, why ſhould not the ſeventh and laſt day of the ſeven be alſo ſubſtantially profitable? Is not the ſeventh day one day of the ſeven?
I anſwer next to the latter part, ſaying, The ſeventh day being altered, it is not any waies prejudiciall to Religion. To this I ſay, 1. If this alteration be not prejudiciall to Religion, that is, to Gods worſhip in the day, yet it is prejudiciall to God, and to his fourth Commandement; for i… it not prejudiciall to God to have his holy day, and the day choſen by him before all other daies of the ſeven, to be altered and changed, and ſo rejected?
Againe, ſuppoſe the alteration of the ſeventh day be no dammage to Religion and Gods worſhip in the day; ſo ſay I, the taking up of another day for it, as the Lords day, the firſt day of the weeke, this is no gaine or advantage to Religion and Gods worſhip; now will any wiſe man make a change of any thing if it be not for a better? It is the p…t of a foole to change one Penny for another, or one Counter for another, both being alike. Furthermore, the alteration of the ſeventh day is as prejudiciall to Religion, as the ſetting up of the firſt day is advantagious to Religion; and therefore the ſeventh day may be as well the ſubſtance of the Commandement as the firſt day.
Againe, is it not prejudiciall to change the ſeventh day, which hath a divine inſtitution and precept for it, and Gods example in reſting on that day, for the Lords day, or firſt day, which hath no divine inſtitution or precept for it, nor Chriſts example in reſting on this day? For Chriſt made the Lords day a travelling day, and ſo did two of his Diſciples, travelling ſixty furlongs to Emmaus, and back againe to Jeruſalem, which is fifteene miles, eight Furlongs to a mile, Luk. 24.1, 23, 29, 33. Joh. 20.19. this is more than a Sabbath daies journey.
To conclude, give me leave Sir, to retort your Argument againſt your ſelfe on this manner.
If one day of ſeven indefinitely be not ſubſtantially profitable: or being altered is no way prejudiciall to Religion; then one day of ſeven was not commanded as the ſubject or ſubſtance of the fourth Commandement.
But one of ſeven indefinitely is not ſubſtantially profitable: or being altered to the ſeventh day definitely, it is no way prejudiciall to Religion.
Therefore one day of ſeven was not commanded as the ſubject or ſubſtance of the fourth Commandement. My anſwers to his Argument will cleare this Argument; ſo far of his firſt Argument.
His ſecond Argument.
If the ſeventh day was directly commanded as the ſubject or ſubſtance of the fourth Commandement, then it was commanded as Ceremoniall, or as Morall.
But the ſeventh day was neither commanded as Ceremoniall, nor as Morall.
Therefore the ſeventh day was not commanded at all in the fourth Commandement.
Anſwer.
I have heard Country people ſay, Schollers can by Logick prove the Moone was made of a greene cheeſe; now is not Mr Cawdry ſuch a Logician? for his concluſion ſaith, The ſeventh day was not commanded at all in the fourth Commandement, when with our eyes we ſee and read the contrary in the Commandement.
Further I anſwer, whereas he thinkes there is no third thing beſides Morall and Ceremoniall, I give him this for a third thing, a perpetuall poſitive; and then though the ſeventh day was not commanded as Morall or Ceremoniall, yet it might be commanded as a perpetuall poſitive Ordinance.
Here againe Sir give me leave to retort your Argument upon your ſelfe on this manner.
If one day of ſeven indefinitely was directly commanded as the ſubject or ſubſtance of the fourth Commandement, then it was commanded as Ceremoniall or as Morall.
But one day of ſeven indefinitely was neither commanded as Ceremoniall, nor as Morall; for there are no ſuch words in the fourth Commandement as one day in ſeven; neither can they be gathered by conſequence from it: and to ſuppoſe it is but to beg the queſtion.
Therefore one day of ſeven was not commanded at all in the fourth Commandement.
If the ſeventh day, which is expreſt in the fourth Commandement, be not commanded as the ſubject of the fourth Commandement, how ſhould one day of ſeven, which is not expreſt be the ſubject of it? And if there be no ſuch thing in the fourth Commandement as one day of ſeven indefinitely, then it is neither Moral, nor Ceremoniall, but a fantaſie of mans braine.