Written, By Mr EDWARD BREREWOOD professor in Gresham Colledge in LONDON.


AT OXFORD, Printed by Iohn Lichfield, and are to be sold by Thomas Huggins. Ann. Dom. 1632.

AN EXPLICATION OF THE fourth Commandement.

REmember, [...] Zechor memento in Exodus, is in Deut. 5. [...] shemor, obserua, obserue.

Morall, is that which pertaineth to Manners, either

1. By the instinct of Nature, as belonging to the inwarde law written in our hearts: or

2 By the instruction of discipline, as being of the outward law pronounced by God; as that of ob­serving the seaventh day; so that it may be tearmed Naturall, as being, not of the institution of Nature, but of the disciplining of nature: not of Nature as it was at the first ordained by God, but as after in­formed by him.

Morall, is not every Rule (in our sense) that gene­rally doth informe mens manners, that after such a manner the custome of Nature informeth them; but the naturall information of them; namely that which by the naturall light of vnderstanding wee see to be good or bad; and by the naturall in­clining [Page 4] or declining of the wil, following that light, we affect of obhorre.

Ob The reason of the commaundement (because the Lord rested the seaventh day) concerneth equallie Iewes and Gentiles; therefore the commandement belongeth equally to them all.

Sol The Lords resting on the seaventh day, is not the reason of the obligatiō, for that followes the de­cree of Gods pleasure onely; but onely of the ele­ction of the day, viz: the 7th; namely that for that cause it pleased him to exempt that day before any of the other, and charge it with a commandement of rest. So that there it is not assigned; as the rea­son of the commandement, why a Sabbath should be observed, but why that day before other was charged with the commandement.

By the naturall light of vnderstanding] not as actuated and perfited by discourse or forraigne dis­cipline, or prescription of lawes, but by the power of nature which belongeth to vs, and is found in all Nations. For although that radiant light which shined in our first parents be fallen with their fall, & the beames of it be gone, yet some sparke of that light remaineth, it is not vtterly extinguished, but (as after the falling of the Sunne) some twilight is left, enough to see the generalities of our duty, if we follow it, and if we follow it not, we despise to be directed, by that light, which is enough to con­demne vs. Rom. 1.

In the Commandement of the Sabbath are con­sidered

[Page 5]1 The admonition for the observing, Remember.

2 The matter commanded. 1. Sanctification of the 7th day. 2. Vacation from worke, servile worke [...]

3 The persons: Thou, thy Sonne, Daughter, Man­servant. &c.

4 The reason: Because the Lord rested on that day from Creating.

Ob. That commandement is charged only with the admonition (Remember) therefore that specially amongst the rest the Lord would name observed.

Sol. To that commandement specially is the admonition (Remember) annexed, either, because

1 It is not meerely morall and a law of nature, as the others are, but partly ceremoniall, as touching the determination to a certaine day; And therefore being not so effectually imprinted by nature in the hearts of men, needed a speciall admonition for the observance, least it should slipp out of mind.

2 It was giuen before in the wildernesse of Sin Exod. 16. 23, 26. with the giving of Manna, and by some neglected, whereof they are admonished by the word Remember.

3 It was not continually to bee obserued every day as the other commandements, but after the in­termission of 6. dayes, the 7th day was to be conse­crated to rest; which they were specially required to remember, least their desire of lucre might cause them to worke on that day also.

4 Because it hath relation as [...] the reason of the election of that day (the [...]) to the for­mer [Page 6] times, the times of the Creation, because even so God wrought in 6. dayes, & rested the seaventh, which they are charged to remember and doe like­wise.

5 Because although the transgression of that com­mandement were in it selfe formally, no more viti­ous then of the rest, yet in respect of the euill conse­quences which might follow on the ignorance of Gods law, to the hearing whereof that day was consecrated, it was more dangerous.

Ob. No commandement so vehemently vrged by the Prophets, nor the transgression so greviously rebuked as that of the Sabbath, therefore it is a principall precept.

Sol. It is most vehemently exacted, because the observing of it was most neglected, not because it was more excellent then the rest. And the trans­gression most greivously rebuked, not because the transgression of the commandement being absolute­ly in it selfe considered, was more sinfull, but be­cause considering it respectiuely in relation to the e­vents and consequences, occasionally proceeding of that transgression, it was more dangerous: Foras­much, as it being the day dedicated to the exercise of their Religion (the only day of the weeke a­mongst the Iewes) both for invocation and adorati­on of almighty God, and specially, for their instru­ction in the law of God, which was that day only read in their Synagogues; vpon the contempt of that commandement, the ignorance of Gods law, being the foundation of all divine Religion, must [Page 7] of necessity ensue. In which respect, the transgres­sion of it was more perillous amongst the Iewes, then amongst Christians, who haue other dayes in the weeke besides the Sabbath, both for publique prayer, and instruction.

Touching sanctifying of the Sabbath; The duty in generall of sanctifying it, is commanded by God: But the particular manner of sanctifying it, is not prescribed by him, but the Church; The act is Gods ordinance; The particular manner and limi­tation of the act touching time, place, order, is the Churches decree; The thing it selfe, or matter, is of divine constitution, but the manner and circumstan­ces of that sanctification were left to the determina­tion of the Church.

The Sabbath day implyeth 1. number, one of seauen. 2. Order, the 7th of that number, none else: For first, in the relating of that commandement it is never found in the Scripture [...] but every where [...]

2ly The reason assigned for the rest on that day, will not serue for every day of seauen, but only for the 7th day, namely Gods rest from the workes of creation: as the reason assigned now for the celebra­tion of the Lords day, namely the resurrection of Christ and the descent of the Holy Ghost, will not fitt any other.

And thirdly, If the vnderstanding of the com­mandement were, one of seauen, and not precisely the seauenth day, then had it beene lawfull for the Iewes to haue translated their Sabbath to any other [Page 8] day of the weeke.

Thou shalt doe noe worke, thou nor thy Sonne &c.

Thou] is not taken generally as in the other com­mandements, (where no difference of persons is specified) but Limitedly, as signifying the Father, Master, Owner, Freeman, namely that either hath the power to dispose of others, or at least the liber­ty to dispose of himselfe.

1 Because Thou is either taken in the same sense in the first place, and in the latter, or otherwise, if o­therwise, there is Aequivocation committed in the very next words; If in the same sense, therefore Li­mitedly, as in distinction of Children and Servants, that is, Parents, Masters &c. for so it is taken in the latter place.

2 Because either the negatiue coniunction (nor) excludeth nothing that was not implyed in the word (Thou) and then it was added superfluously of children, servants, &c: or if it exclude those that are not implyed in the word (Thou) then is it cleere that the word (Thou) containeth not children, ser­vants, &c.

Fathers, Masters, Freemen, are considered either Personally, as particular men; so the first clause be­longs to them, Thou shalt doe no worke &c. or Rela­tiuely, as governours of their housholds▪ so the se­cond clause, Thou nor thy Sonne &c. as if he had said, neither shalt thou doe worke on the Sabbath day, neither shalt thou suffer them that are vnder thy [Page 9] government to doe any.

The word (Thou) importeth every Freeman, or every man as farre as he is free, and hath power to keepe it, or to dispose of himselfe. For some are free simply, who by their condition are so; others Limitedly, as servants may be by their Masters per­mission; namely, so farre as the disposition of them­selues, or their owne actions is allowed them. In which case only Servants come vnder the obliga­tion of the commandement, but yet that is not as servants, but as in some sort free, namely as they are primary authors themselues of their owne workes, and not as Ministers of their Masters worke.

The Sabbath is called Holy, not Formally, for any peculiar inherent holinesse it hath aboue other dayes, but Finally, because it was ordayned and consecrated to holy exercises in the service of God.

The comandement is partly
  • Morall, Remember to sanc­tify the Sabbath
  • Ceremoniall: The 7th day is the Sabbath.

The sanctification then of the Sabbath is Morall, but the limitation of it to the seaventh day is Cere­moniall.

The commandement of sanctifying the Sabbath was not giuen from the beginning, as it seemeth,

1 Because there was no remembrance that it was obserued by any of the ancient Patriarks.

2 Because where it is giuen to Moses Exod. 16. it is spoken of as a new thinge, as the rulers comming, [Page 10] and report to Moses vers. 22. and Moses answere to them vers. 23. doe plainely declare; namely that the morrow was the Rest of the holy Sabbath to the Lord, whereof they could not haue beene ignorant, if it had beene vsuall before.

3 Because, it is said to be giuen to the Israelites Exod. 16. 19. to be a signe betweene God and them Exod. 31. 13. Ezech. 20. 12. but it was not a signe to the Israelites more then to other Nations, if it had beene giuen from the beginning to Adam and his posterity.

4 Because, in the beginning there was no occasi­on in mens labour, to draw them away from the contemplation and worship of God, but that every day might be a Sabbath, for the state of innocency admitted neither one nor other, but man of him­selfe was most prone to the honour of God.

Ob. God sanctified the seaventh day presently after the Creation, Gen. 2. 3. Ergo

Sol. 1 God sanctified it himselfe by resting in himselfe, and producing no more creatures; but he commanded not Adam to sanctifie it: for where it is said that God sanctified the seaventh day, because in it he rested from all his workes; that (because) seemes not so much to note the occasion why hee sanctified it, as the formall cause or condition of the sanctification, which consisted in the rest of God in himselfe, ceasing to worke more in the Creation of things.

Sol. 2 Or if it note the occasion (which I rather thinke) yet it designeth not the time of the sanctifi­cation; [Page 11] so that although it be said that God sanctifi­ed the seaventh day, because he rested in it from the Creation (which Moses there fitly obserues, because he writes there of that rest of God) yet it followeth not that he sanctified it then, when hee rested, but that for that reason hee sanctified that day rather then any other, when he gaue the commandement touching the Sabbath in time of the Law.

Sol. 3 Or else hee sanctified it from the begin­ning by destination to sanctifie, ordayning that to be the day which in the Law he would sanctify; But not by Actuall explication, to sanctifie or command.

In it thou shalt doe no worke.

Namely, of thy election when thou maist ab­staine, or, 2ly. Thou shalt not doe thine owne worke; But yet a servant out of obedience to his master, as a servant, might if he were commanded: neither is that excluded by the commandement; for whereas in licensing or commanding the 6. dayes worke he vseth both words [...] whereof [...] importeth to worke and labour as a servant, or to serue, & [...] to worke simply with­out any implication of service; In commanding the seaventh dayes rest, he saith not (in opposition to the first) [...] thou shalt not worke as a ser­vant, but only in opposition to the second [...] But had God intended to exclude servants obe­dience to their Masters, touching workes on the Sabbath day, as well as workes that are freely done, he would haue added [...] aswell as [...] having vsed both in licensing of the 6 dayes worke.

[Page 12]And if it be answered that one is implyed in the other, then to expresse both was superfluous in the former place.

Thou shalt doe no worke] that is, thine owne, that is referred to thine owne end, for first, they are for­bidden to doe that worke on the Sabbath, which they were licensed to doe on the six dayes: but that was their owne worke [...] Exod. 20. 9. Opus tuum.

2 The declaration of Esay. 58. 13. importeth it plainely; If thou turne from doing thine owne will &c. not doing thine owne workes. And of the A­postle Heb. 4. 10. for he that is entred into his Sab­bath, hath ceased from his owne workes, as God did from his. But those only (in Gods esteeme) are a mans owne workes that proceed from his owne will; which he chooseth to doe, and whereof he is the Author: which he doth for his owne sake and satisfaction; not those which he doth as the Minister of another, to whose commandement and inforce­ment hee is subject. They are not therefore the workes of a servant as a servant, but the workes hee doth freely of himselfe that are there forbidden.

Q. Whether works of labour, or also sinnes be forbidden by the commandement of the Sabbath.

A Both, namely, workes of labour, as it is a day of vacation; and workes of sinne, as it is a day of sanctification; for that day being specially dedicated to holynesse, proclaimeth sinnes committed on it to be specially sinfull, because besides the transgre­ssion of other commandements, which they natu­rally [Page 13] import, they imply also the transgression of this Commandement, touching the speciall sancti­fying of the Sabbath day. So that although the act or labour, or work it selfe be but one, as to kill, to steale, &c. yet the guilt is twofold when it is done on the Sabbath.

The seauenth day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God, &c.

1 Either because it was the memoriall of his rest after the Creation.

2 Or because it was the day of mans vacation. commanded by him.

3 Or because it was to bee dedicated to his wor­ship and service, and not as the six daies to bee im­ployed in ordinary worke.

Thou nor thy sonne, nor thy daughter, &c.

In the severall mention of every one with the Pro­noune (Thy) it is manifest that relation is still had to (Thou) mentioned in the first place, and there­fore the Commandement was giuen to him, to whom all these belonged.

Nor the stranger that is within thy gates, &c.

Strangers to the Israelites were either in respect of their Of-spring only, but not of religion, as Prose­lites, that had receaued the seale of the Couenant, Circumcision, and these stood meerely in the same obligation with the Israelites: or in respect of Religion also, which were amongst them on any oc­casion of outward affayres; which were by the Ma­gistrate to be restrained; not because the Comman­dement [Page 14] belonged to them directly, but obliquely only, and in relation to the Israelites, to whom strangers worke on the Sabbath might giue occasi­on, or example to offend.

The worke of a servant, as an absolute person; namely his free and electiue workes, are forbidden himselfe in the first clause (Thou shalt doe no worke) But his workes as he is a relatiue person, namely a servant, that is, his imposed workes, which he doth not of his owne will, but by reason of his subjecti­on to his Master, are forbidden his Master, not him selfe, in the latter clause (Nor thy Servant.)

The former clause then (Thou shalt doe no work) is to bee vnderstood of absolute and free doing, wherein the doers worke according to their owne pleasure, not of respectiue, & enforced doing, where there is mingled some passiuenesse with the doing, as when in respect of their servile subjection to their Masters, and feare of their displeasure and pu­nishment, seruants are made to doe those workes, which of their owne will, they would gladly leaue vndone. It is therefore to bee vnderstood of Ele­ctiue, and not of Coactiue workes.

To obserue one day of seauen, for the Sabbath, is not of the Morall Law.

1 Because that part of the Commandement whereby the Sabbath is limited to the seuenth day, is confessed to be ceremoniall.

2 Because the Number, one of seauen, and Order, the last of seauen, are not otherwise specified in the Commandement then in the very same word (the [Page 15] seauenth day) therefore both are either Morall, or both Ceremoniall.

3 Because although some of the Ancient haue affirmed that one of 7 is to bee kept holy vnto the Lord, yet none of them (perhaps older then an hun­dred yeares) haue said it to be Gods Morall Law.

The Commande­ment for­biddeth
  • Litterally, servile workes of the body Labours.
  • Mystically, servile workes of the soule-Sinnes: and so is St Ambrose to bee vnderstood in Luc. 13. that the Law forbids Servilia opera in Sabbato, id est, peccatis gravari.

The Commandement of the Sabbath enioynes 1. Outward worship of God by the name of San­ctification. 2. Cessation from workes as a necessa­ry preparation for that worship: That, as the End, This, as the Meanes. But if wee speake not of the Immediate but remote ende, it is the inward and spirituall, not outward and ceremoniall worship; which although it come within the intentiō of the Law-giuer, yet not within the obligation of the Law, because it being the End vnto which the Cō ­mandement is directed and ordained, cannot be the Matter of the Commandement, the Matter being comprised in the Commandement, but the End be­ing outward in relation of it, besides that the in­ward worship seemeth to be the matter of the first Commandement.

Works of necessity are excused al on the Sabbath, because the Necessity excuseth the Condition of [Page 16] their servilenesse, both common to freemen & ser­vants, because every one is bound by the instinct of nature to avoid mischiefe imminent to himselfe, or his neighbour. And workes of Charity because they are enjoyned (to loue our neighbours as our selues) by the morall Law, whereas servile workes are excluded on the seauenth day but by a ceremo­niall Commandement. And it is but iust and right, that where they cannot consist together (I meane where they cannot be both obserued) that the Ce­remoniall rather then the Morall be omitted.

Six dayes shalt thou labour and doe all thy workes, &c.

Is a Permission it seemes and no divine Comman­dement. 1. Because, else it should bee vnlawfull to exempt any time out of the six daies, even to wor­ship God, and consequently hee should sinne that should dedicate any of the six daies to that service: as it was a sinne to exempt any time of the seauenth day to doe worke. 2. Because in that Commande­ment were involved a double precept, as being of diverse daies, and contrary duties, and contrary qualities, the one Affirmatiue, the other Negatiue; which therefore cannot bee the same Commande­ment. 3. The Iewes that haue collected 613 Com­mandements of the Law, neuer observed this for one of them.

In the sweat of thy browes thou shalt eat thy bread. is the inflicting of punishmeut,Gen. 3. not the enjoyning of a Commandement, a denouncing of Malum panae, that he and his posterity was to suffer, not a­ny [Page 17] obliging of them vnto it, as bonum to be done; as if every one sinned that sweat not when he did eat, or liued not by his sweat. And yet neither hath that any more relatiō to the six dayes then to the 7th, if it be a Commandement; or if the meaning of it be onely that man should gaine his liuing by his sweat, is it any obligation for labour all the six daies, if by his labour in lesse space hee bee able to purchase it!

In the sweat of thy browes] that is, thou shalt doe it of necessity being enforced, by the curse laid on the earth, but not of duty, being enioyn'd vnto it by Gods Commandement, which was no more then the former clause that ( [...]) in sorrow hee should eat of the earth: or that to the woman, In sorrow shalt thou bring forth; or that to the Serpent, Vpon thy belly shalt thou go, & dust shalt thou eat. &c.

He that will not labour neither let him eat, 2. Thes, 3. 10.] Not he that cannot, by occasion of Impo­tency; nor he that needs not, by reason of plenty; but he that being able, and needing, yet will not worke, let him not eat; that is, at the charge of others, for as touching their owne, the Apostle would not in­terdict them: for is it not just that a man should su­staine himselfe of his owne▪ or had the Apostles rather a man should perish of famine, then be relei­ved of his owne?

Six dayes shalt thou labour] If it had intended a Precept, not a Permission, it had beene crossed by Gods own Commandements of refraining all ser­vile workes in sundry of their Anniversary feasts, [Page 18] which of necessitie must often fall on some of the six dayes. And which is more absurd, Gods mo­rall Commandement (for such the same men ac­knowledge it to be) should be crossed by his Cere­moniall Praecepts.

The Lords day of what Institution.

Christ gaue no such commandement to his Apostles, for neither is any remembrance found of it in the histories of his life and doctrine, the Gos­pells; nor record of any such Commandement in the writings of the Apostles giuen or to bee giuen by Christ, or by his appointment to the Church, or to the Apostles.

For if it be said that Christ commanded it to the Apostles, although the Commandement be not mentioned.

1 An vncertaintie is affirmed which cannot bee proued, and Christ belied for any thing that ap­peareth.

2 A doore for the authority of vnwritten Tradi­tions is opened which will be ill endured.

3 The Apostles are secretly accused for concea­ling Christs Commandement from the Church.

For I demand whether the commandement was giuen them to the end to be published to the church or no? If not, it cannot bind the Church; for a law is of no force without promulgation, till it bee knowne to be a Law, for how can that Law binde the consciences as the Law of God, which is not declared to be the Law and will of God? If it was giuen the Apostles to that end, then they sinned grieuously [Page 19] in concealing that Commandement of Christ from the Church, which he delivered them to be declared to the Church. Neither were it e­nough to be declared by speech onely (which yet cannot be proued) but they should haue commit­ted it to writing, being of the importance it was, & seeing it concerned not onely the Church then be­ing, but the whole Church that should bee to the worlds end: whereof their writings were to be di­rections, but their speech not so.

The Lords day seemes to bee celebrated in the Church rather by Imitation of the Apostles, then their Constitution; for we finde their example for holy assemblies on that day, but Commandement of theirs giuen to the Church for celebrating that day, we finde none.

Ob: The Sabbath is an everlasting couenant, Exod. 31. 16. But the old Sabbath was to cease in our Saviours death, therefore, that which succeed­eth in place of it, is also of divine ordinance.

Sol. 1. The Sabbath is everlasting in respect of the thing signified, that is, the eternall rest of the Elect with God, after the finishing of their labours in the world, wherof the Apostle discourseth in the 4th to the Hebr: but not so in respect of the signe.

2. Everla­sting is ta­ken either
  • Absolutely, that hath no end at all.
  • Limitedly, that hath no certaine end prefixed, or knowne period appointed for the continuance, although in nature or divine ordinance it hath a determi­ned period.

[Page 20] The first the Iewes call (as Burg: notes) [...] ever and ever; The second [...] onely, as in this place: So that the Sabbath is said to be everlasting, no otherwise then Circumcision is called Gen. 17. 13. and the Aaronicall priesthood, Exod. 28. 43. & 29. 9. that is, not simply so, during all eternity, or all time, but respectiuely, during all the time of the old covenant, or the time of the Law, while the Is­raelites were to be Gods peculiar people.

Ob: It was Gods ordinance and appointment, that the Apostles should ordaine that day to be ob­serued in the Church: therefore it is by divine or­dinance.

Sol. Gods ordinance is either
  • Secret, namely, the ordinance of his Counsell or Providence, in which sense the administration of all things is per­formed by his ordinance.
  • Revealed, namely the ordinance of his Commandement, declaring such and such things, to be his will.

So the Institution of the Lords day is not his ordi­nance. Hee ordained indeed by his secret decree (voluntate beneplaciti) that it should be established insteed of the Sabbath; but hee ordained it not by his owne manifest decree, that is, his Commande­ment (voluntate signi, or revealed will) that hee would haue it so.

The Commandement of the Lords day, may be tearmed divine diverse waies.

1 Either because the Apostles established it, being enlightned, and inspired by the holy Ghost to or­daine it.

[Page 21]2 Or because they had receiued the authority from God, whereby they were enabled or warran­ted to doe it.

3 Or because it was dedicated or ordained to di­vine vse, namely the solemne worship of God.

So that the preeept of the Lords day is in these respects divine, but yet is not a divine Precept, be­cause the Act of commanding it; or imposing the observation of it on the Church; is not diuine, but (at most) Apostolicall.

Ius divi­num, may bee inter­preted ei­ther.
  • Divine ordinance, in which respect, those things only which are institu­ted by God himselfe are tearmed to be Iure divino.
  • Divine right; in which respect those things that belong to the worship of God although the ordinance or Commandement whereby they are exacted be humane, may be tearmed to be Iure divino.

So that things consist Iure divino, either Origi­nally or Materially. Originally that proceede from divine Institution and haue God for their Author.

Materially; that belong of right to divine wor­ship, although the right by which they are requi­red be humane Institution (that is) ordained of men in zeale of Gods glory. And in the second sense, the Lords day is iustly tearmed to be Iure divino. The worship of God that belongeth to the Lords day is of the Law of God and nature (Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God) but the peculiar belong­ing [Page 22] of that worship to that day, is not of those Lawes, (that is) the worship considered in it selfe is de iure divino; but the Annexion of it to that day rather then any other, is but de iure humano, as being meerely ceremoniall.

If Ius divinum be that, or taken for that which is established by divine Authority, the Lords day is in some sort de iure divino: In some sort, namely, not by Personall, but by delegate divine authority (that is) not prescribed personally and immediatly by God himselfe, but only by vertue of that Au­thority which by God was committed to the A­postles for the ordering and governing of his Church: but being taken for divine ordinance, or commandement, it is not de iure divino.

To entitle a Commandement divine is required, 1 First that the Authoritie be divine whereby it is ordained.

2 That the Author himselfe that ordaineth it, be so also: that is, that both the power whereby, and the Person that doth immediatly establish it, be di­vine: which divine authority is confessed to be in the Apostolique Constitutions, but the immediate Authors are denyed to be divine. Now as all other events and Actions receiue their denomination from their immediate not remote causes, as to bee tearmed Necessary or Contingent, Naturall or Vio­lent, Divine or humane: so the constitutions of the Apostles, although they proceede originally from the instinct and inspiration of the Holy Ghost, Gods spirit; yet proceeding immediatly from the [Page 23] institution of the Apostles themselues, which de­liuered them to the Church in forme of Com­mandements, they are to be termed humane con­stitutions, and not properly divine.

Lawes may be said to be established by God, ei­ther in respect of the

1 Institution, when they are ordained and pre­scribed by him, as that of the Lords day is not.

2 Approbation or Confirmation, when they are al­lowed by him; and thus it may bee said to be esta­blished by him.

Ob. The decrees of the Apostles deliuered to the Church proceed from the Holy Ghost, therefore, they are divine.

Sol. They proceede from the Holy Ghost occasi­onally and mediatly, as disposing the mindes of the Apostles to exact them for the good of the Church; But Immediatly and Actually from the Apostles. Or else, from the Holy Ghost by way of inspiration but not by way of Iniunction or Commandement. I say by way of Inspiration, from the Holy Ghost illuminating the vnderstan­ding of the Apostles to perceiue that such a decree would be good for the Church: but not by way of Injunction as charging them to impose such a Commandement vpon the Church. So that here was direction only without obligation, the Holy Ghost assisting but not appointing; and therefore no divine Commandement. For the establishing of the commandement will no more proue a divine Action because the Apostles receiued the light [Page 24] whereby they established it from the Holy Ghost: then the sight of the eye an heavenly action, because it receiueth the light whereby it sees from the sunne.

The Precept of the Lords day was instilled and inspired into the mindes of the Apostles as a thing expedient and worthy to bee commanded, but not as a commandement, or that ought of duty or necessity to be commanded.

The decree of the Lords day is of God, or the spirit of God dispositiuely or directiuely, enlightn­ing the vnderstanding of the Apostles & Church to see that it was expedient and profitable for the Church, but not Immediatly or Imperatiuely, by way of Mandate or obligation, as charging the Church to doe it, as in Act. 13. 2. Separate mee Barnabas and Saul for the worke to which I haue called them. So that as it proceedes from the Holy Ghost, it is no commandement, but as from the A­postles and Church it selfe: As when I giue a man light whereby he may see his way, or else advise him to take that way, I doe not therefore impose a­ny Commandement on him to proceede that way.

The Precept of the Lords day, being indeed but an Ecclesiasticall or Apostolicall constitution, may notwithstanding be tearmed divine.

1 Originally; because the Authority whereby the Apostles established it was receiued from God.

2 Because it was destinated to the worshippe of God: Obiectiuely.

[Page 25]3 Materially; because it is of things belonging to divine not humane affaires.

4 Exemplarily, because it was ordained by Ana­logie or Imitation of the Sabbath, which in the old Law was commanded by God himselfe.

Ob: The celebration of the Lords day was de­duced by the Church from the Commandement of the Sabbath, therefore it is a divine decree.

Sol: If it were deduced from it by way of Illa­tion, as conclusions are from their principles, it were virtually or consequently a divine decree: but it is deriued from it only by Imitation or Analogie, or by way of Example, as from a patterne; and yet that derivation was not caused by divine ordinance (for there is no Commandement of God to imitate that patterne) but by humane discourse, reasoning, that it is convenient, that in the new Law one day of seauen be reserued for God, because God him­selfe so commanded in the old. And that day should be the first of the seauen, because it was the day of Christs resurrection, the New Law-giuer; or the day wherein God beganne to create the world: or the day wherein the holy Ghost descended visibly from heauen vpon the Church.

Ob: By Christs Lawes we are bound to heare his Apostles & obey them as himselfe, He that hea­reth you heareth me: Luc. 10. 16. As my Father sent me, so send I you, &c. Ioh. 20. 21. Therefore he that transgresseth the Apostles Commandement, doth also transgresse the Commandement of Christ.

Sol: 1. The trangression of the Apostles Com­mandement, [Page 26] is also a transgression of Christs, not Formally and Directly, but Consequently, and Con­comitantly, because hee hath charged to obey his Apostles, which proueth not the Apostles decrees to be divine Commandements, but being humane Commandements, to be warranted and approued by divine authority.

2 The Apostles constitutions may bee tearmed divine Commandements, not in respect of their Institution, which is humane, as being the Act of humane will, and discourse, but in respect of their Obligation, because wee are by Christs Comman­dement charged and bound to obey them.

So that (He that heareth you heareth me, &c.) is not to be vnderstood properly, as of the Personall or Identicall hearing of Christ, but Analogically as of Christs interpretation or estimation, of that obe­dience or disobedience to his Apostles as perfor­med to himselfe, and of their despising, as if him­selfe were despised, because the honour or disho­nour of the Embassadour redoundeth to him that sent him, as in Mat. 25. 40. What yee haue done to the least of these, yee haue done it to me, that is, in mine acceptance and estimation. So that these and the like speeches are to be vnderstood as of Analogie, not of Identity.

As my Father sent me, so]

So, in the generall manner, that is, Immediatly from my side, as I was sent immediatly from my Father: or, So, namely in some proportion, and re­semblance, not in equalitie: for the Father sent his [Page 27] sonne in whom was the fulnesse of power. (All pow­er is giuen to me, &c. Mat. 28. 18) But the sonne sent his servants to whom was granted a certaine mea­sure of the spirit, and some participation of power: yet in some manner and resemblance so; as namely,

1 To the same generall end, as to reconcile men to God, and to preach the Gospell, Goe teach all na­tions, &c.

2 Furnisht with the same power and graces of the spirit (but nothing in the same measure) of bin­ding and loosing sinnes, of doing miracles for the confirmation of the truth.

The Apostles are considered two waies either as

1 Apostles, that is, Messengers of Christ to preach the Gospell, and the things belonging thereto: that is, the Articles of faith, the Sacraments of Grace, & the fundamentall rules of holy life, that is, the pre­cepts of Gods Morall Law: In which respect, all that proceeded from them was De iure Divino; they being but the proclaymers, or messengers to declare Gods will vnto men: for in this respect they receaued not only authority to teach, Mat. 28. 19. Goe and teach all, &c. but also the particular points which they were to teach, vers. 20.

2 Governours of the Church which they had got­ten to Christ by appointing, and setting downe of Canons, and convenient rules for the good orde­ring, and discipline of the Church: in which respect they receaued authority from Christ indeed; but particular commandement touching the Rules, & Lawes, which they were to ordaine, they receaued [Page 28] not, seeing they no where declare, or signifie such Canons, or Commandements to haue beene pre­scribed by Christ to the Church, or giuen them­selues for that purpose, but deliuer them as their owne ordinances: Such as are Not to ordaine a Pres­byter or Bishop that had two wiues, Tit. 1. 6. & 1. Tim 3. 2. and so Deacons, viz. and so widowes the wiues of one husband, 1. Tim. 5. 9. The ordinance of sea­ven Deacons in the Church, Act. 6. 3. To make collections for the poore, on the first day of the weeke. 1. Cor. 16. 2. To salute each other with an ho­ly kisse, Rom. 16. 16. That a woman should pray in the Church covered, 1. Cor. 11. To annoint the sicke with oyle, Ia. 5. 14.

The Apostles Constitutions are not divine Or­dinances.

1 Because the Church hath altered, and abolish­ed some of them, as 1. the salutation by kissing:

2. The excluding of widowes vnder 60 yeares old, which were after receaved by the Church at 50. Novel: 6. Canon: 6. after that at 40. Concil: Chal­ced: Canon. 15. 3. abstaining from things stran­gled, &c.

2 Because the Apostles themselues intimate sometimes so much. As, I speake this by permission, not by Commandement. 1. Cor. 7. 6. To the rest, I speake, not the Lord, 1. Cor. 7. 12. Other things I will order, &c. 1. Cor. 11. 34. Extreame vnction (as it is tearmed) was an Apostolique Commandement, Iam. 5.

3 Because neither the divine Authority imparted [Page 29] to them by Christ, nor the suggestion of the Holy Ghost, is sufficient to make them divine Com­mandements? Not the Authority, because all the power, & authority of Princes, is likewise from God: Rom. 13. yet their decrees are no divine comman­dements. And secondly, because Gods Com­mandements, are declarations of Gods pleasure, what he would haue done; therefore imparting of Authority to giue commandements, without spe­cifying what he would haue commanded, is not sufficient to make them Gods commandements. Not the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, being but by Illumination, or suggestion; 1 Because all the good workes of men should by the same reason be divine actions, as proceeding from the suggestion of the Holy Ghost. 2 Because if inspirations of the Holy Ghost be divine commandements, it follow­eth that so many divine Commandements are gi­ven to men, as good workes, or wordes, or thoughts proceed from them▪ And withall that in­finitely more Commandements are imposed by God, to good, them to wicked men.

4 Because Christ gaue not the Apostles alone that power of ordayning Lawes in the Church, as for themselues Personally, but to the Church, in whose name, as being the first Governours of it, they receiued it: for else it should follow, that now the Church, since the Apostles times, is destitute of power to make lawes: and consequently, that all the Lawes brought into the Church by generall Counsells are vniust, because established without [Page 30] lawfull Authority, and that many mischiefes of heresies, and schismes, may befall the Church, which she hath no power, or meanes to helpe. If therefore that Authority of ordaining Lawes was giuen by God to the Church (in whose behalfe the Apostles receiued it) it followeth that if the A­postles decrees be divine Commmandements, be­cause they receiued that power from God, that all the ordinances of the Church, by the same rea­son are divine Commandements.

5 Because if the Law of obseruing the Lords day be a divine Commandement, then it is so, ei­ther because it proceeded from God immediatly, without the intervention of man (which must bee shewed out of the word of God) or else if it be to be reputed a divine Commandement because it proceeded from God Mediatly, then all humane Lawes, that are good and just, are also divine com­andements. By me Kings raigne and Princes, &c. Prov. 8. 15.

6 Because if the constitutions of the Apostles, deliuered to the Church, had beene Gods Com­mandements imposed on the Church by them (as the judiciall and ceremoniall precepts of the old Lawe were by Moses) then would they haue signi­fied withall to the Church, that they had beene Gods owne commandements, whereof they were but the Messengers, or reporters (as Moses and the Prophets vse was Thus saith the Lord) for other­wise they should wrong both the Church, who would haue receiued them with the more reve­rence, [Page 31] knowing them to be Gods owne comman­dements, and not the Apostles; and also God him­selfe, by not declaring them to the Church, to bee Gods owne commandements, which God had gi­ven as his commandements to the Church.

But if it be answered, that the ordinance of the Lords day was not an Inspiration only, but a di­vine Revelation of Gods pleasure touching it; it may be refelled. 1 Because it is but a voluntary as­sertion that cannot be proved. 2 Because such a Revelation made to the Apostles, is no divine Pre­cept to oblige the Church; for if a revelation hath the force of a divine Commandement, yet hath it so only in relation to them, to whom it is a revela­tion, not to others, except it appeare to them that such was Gods revelation. For I aske, whether by that Revelation, God commanded the Apostles to ordaine such a Precept in the Church touching that day? Or whether by it hee commanded the Church, but revealed it to the Apostles, that they should publish it as his commandement to the church? If the first; it follloweth, that although that commandement be divine in relation to the Apostles, yet in relation from the Apostles, to the church, it is Humane, except God had comman­ded the Apostles to publish it in his owne name: But if that Revelation was made to the Apostles, not to the intent they should be ordainers or Au­thors of such a commandement in the church, but that they should be publishers of that commande­ment to the church, which God had for that pur­pose [Page 32] revealed to them in his name; then did the A­postles sinne most grievously that published it not in his name to the church, which they had recei­ved from God, to publish as his precept: especially seeing it could not oblige as a commandement of God, which was not promulgated in his name, & as his commandement; therefore there was no such revelation made to the Apostles, especially seeing neither in the Apostles writings, nor in those Fathers that liued with the the Apostles, or neerest their time, or any other of all Antiquity, there is any remembrance found of any such Re­velation or commandement.

That which the Apostle saith 1. Cor. 7. 12. (to the rest speake I, not the Lord) he spake either with­out the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and then it is manifest, that all Apostolique ordinances are not divine commandements; or if by the Inspirati­on of the Holy Ghost, then it followeth that these inspirations are not the Lords commandements.

Ob. The Apostles were the instruments, and ora­cles of the Holy Ghost, because he taught them all things Ioh. 14. 26. he lead them into all truth Ioh: 16. 13. It was he that spake in them Mat. 10. 20. Marc: 13. 11. Therefore their decrees are the com­mandements of the Holy Ghost.

Sol. The Consequence is denied, for teaching is a passible act of the vnderstanding, whereby it is en­lightned to see the truth; but commanding is an actiue operation of the will, whereby it obligeth them to whom the commandements doe belong. So that (to teach them all things) is, to enlighten [Page 33] their vnderstanding in all things; neither all things absolutely (for then should they be omniscient) but as our Saviour seemes there to declare it, by re­membring them of all things he himselfe had told them; or all things necessary to the mysterie of re­demption, to the Gospell of Reconciliation; And so to lead them into all truth belonging to the do­ctrine of faith, or into all truth, necessary to salva­tion, or, to the performance of their Apostolicall function. And so lastly was it the Holy Ghost that spake in them, not personally, for in Luc. 12. 12. it is declared thus the Holy Ghost shall teach you what you ought to say. But it followeth not, because the Holy Ghost taught the Apostles all things, or all truth necessary for the preaching of the Gospell, therefore he commanded all those ordinances, touching the goverment, manners and discipline of the Church, which by the Apostles were establi­shed; Or because he directed them what was to be beleeued touching faith and doctrine, therefore he limited, and enioyned them what was to be com­manded, touching manners and discipline.

The Apostles touching Matters of Faith, or declaration of the Gospell to the world, were Mes­sengers onely; and receiued not onely Authority to preach, but particular instructions also of every poynt they were to preach, from Christ himselfe. But as touching Matter of Goverment, or Admini­stration of Discipline, to bee exercised in that Church which they gathered out of the world, they were more then messengers, namely deputies or Vicars of Christ, and receiued (by delegation from Christ) Authority, whereby they were war­ranted, [Page 34] and enabled to order the Oeconomie of the Church; but were not limited by personall, and particular instructions from Christ; how euery thing must be done, but were enlightned onely by the Holy Ghost, to see what was most convenient for themselues, and for the Church, and so to com­mand it. But whatsoeuer they taught, or comman­ded as Messengers of the Gospell, touching faith, loue and the Sacraments, was de iure divino, be­cause they commanded in that behalfe, nothing but what Christ had commanded them to teach, or command the Church, that is, they were but the re­porters of Christs commandements, and not ordai­ners of them.

The old Law contained many determinations, both in ceremoniall Praecepts, touching the man­ner of Gods worship, & also in judiciall touching Peace and Iustice to be kept amongst men: But the new lawe (being the Lawe of Liberty) imposeth not these determinations; but contents it selfe with three Generall sorts of Praecepts, namely

  • 1 The Morall commandements, that belong to the Law of nature.
  • 2 The Articles of Christian faith.
  • 3 The Sacraments.

But all other matters, pertaining to the determi­nation, or particular manner, either of divine wor­ship, or humane judgements, are freely permitted by Christ (the giuer of the new Law) to the go­verners of the church, & to the princes of the na­tions to be appointed: so that all such particular de­terminations are but de iure humano.

The Apostles haue a twofold relation; One to [Page 35] the worke of the Gospell; whereof they are the dis­pensers, that is, to doctrine; of which Christ being the Author, and they only the Messengers and Mi­nisters, that which they deliuer is de iure divino; Another to the Church, whereof they are the o­verseers and governours, that is, to order and dis­cipline: of the particular ordinances, and determi­nations of which Goverment, the Apostles them­selues being directly Authors (although they re­ceiued the Authority whereby they were warran­ted from God) it appeareth they are but de iure humano.

Ob. St Paul 1. Cor. 14. 37. affirmeth that the things which he wrote, were the Commandements of the Lord.

Sol. The things he wrote, namely touching the points he there intreated of, that is, of the vse of Prophecy, and of Tongues: definitely those; but not indefinitely all; for to the rest speake I; not the Lord 1. Cor. 7. 12. Concerning virgins I haue no comman­dement of the Lord, ibid. ver. 25. but I giue my ad­vice.

The celebration of the Lords day had for occa­sion. 1. The resurrection of our Sauiour that day: 2 The example of his Apostles: 3 The custome of the Church freely imitating (without Precept) that Example, who yet solemnized it not in stead of the old Sabbath, but together with it; as yet is vsuall in Aethiopia and Syria; And all this while it was obserued, not of necessarie obligation, or in­iunction (for any thing that appeareth) but of vo­luntary devotion. But at last it obtained obligation by the Institution of Princes, and Synods of the [Page 36] Church; The first Emperour that commanded it was Constantine the Great, Cod. lib. 3. Tit. 12. lib. 3. The Synode that decreed it was the Councell of Laodicea Can. 29. Anno Christi 364.

The Apostles Examples of assembling to divine service on the Lords day, enforce no Commande­ment on the Church to doe the like (else by their example we are also to keepe the Iewish Sabbath) because examples haue not the force of Lawes, which all men ought to keepe, but of Counsells on­ly and perswasions, not amisse to be followed of them whose case is alike.

Touching the preaching of the Gospell vnto the world, it was necessary our Saviour should giue his Apostles, not only authority to preach, but par­ticular commandements and Instructions, touch­ing every thing they were to preach, because their Preaching respected the doctrine of the Church, which is Catholique; and ought to bee the same al­waies, and over all the world: But touching the Go­verning of the Church, it was convenient hee should giue them authority, and charge to gouerne it, but particular instructions and prescript Rules were not so necessary, because it belonged but to the discipline of the Church; for which, either at all seasons, or in all parts of it, the same Rules of Government are not convenient.

1 The solemnity of the Lords day consisteth not by any Precept of theirs (that is the Apostles) but by their Example.

2 Or if it did as touching Sanctification by holy assemblies, yet not touching generall Vacation from worke, as in the old Sabbath.

[Page 37]3 Or if both were the Apostles Precepts, yet it followeth not they were Gods Commandements: for although the Solemnity of the Sabbath had beene enjoyned the Apostles by God, to bee tran­slated to the Lords day; yet it doth not follow, that the old Commandement touching the Sabbath was by Gods ordinance also translated to that day. For if the Lords day be charged with the same Commandement, precisely that the Sabbath was, so that there is no other change saue of the day, then is it no lesse displeasant to the Lord, to doe a­ny light worke on the Lords day then on the Sab­bath, as, to goe out of our places, Exod. 16. To kin­dle fire, Exod. 35. To gather stickes, &c. And every one that transgresseth it, deserueth to dye, Exod. 31 14. 15. For God is the same, who gaue all these charges touching the Sabbath. If therefore the Commandement be also the same, there is as much reason for the one, as for the other.

Besides the Lord loueth not one day more then another, therefore if the duties belonging to both dayes bee the very same, there was no reason to transferre those duties, from one day to another.

Ob: The celebration of the Lords day hath warrant by Scripture. 1. Cor. 16. 2. Act. 20. 7. &c.

Sol: 1. Warrant of Example it hath, that it may be done; warrant of Commandement it hath not, that it must be done.

2 There are 2 points in the celebratiō of that day, 1 Sanctification by publike devotion in solemne assemblies, for which wee haue the Apostles Pra­ctise, but not Precept.

2 Vacation from worke, for which wee haue no [Page 38] evidence, either of Precept, or Practise of theirs.

Ob: There cannot be so many reasons for the celebration of any other day, as the Lords day,

1. Creation of the world. 2. Nativity. 3. The Re­surrection of Christ. 4. Descent of the Holy Ghost, &c. Therefore the Church could not haue dedicated another day.

Sol: The argument is denied: because though these are good reasons for the Election of the day, why the Church should encline to make choice of that day before any other, yet not sufficient for ob­ligation, to binde them to obserue that, and exclude all other, for the Church notwithstanding these reasons, might haue dedicated another day to that solemnity without breaking any Commandement of God.

Ob: The Lords day is insteed of the Sabbath, and equivalent vnto it, therefore the sinne is equall in transgressing of either.

Sol: It is insteed of it, because it hath succeeded it; and is equivalent vnto it, as touching the Vse, be­ing consecrated to the solemne worship of God and Rest, as that was; but not equivalent, either as tou­ching the Institution, because it is ordained not by God, but by the Church; or as touching the Obli­gation, because it is not charged, as that was with Gods commandement; so that there is the like End of both, but not the like Beginning; the like equiva­lence of Occasion for both (the Resurrection of Christ, and the manifestation of mans redemption, being as excellent a worke as rest from creation) but not equivalence of Authority in establishing of both; The like vtilitie in obseruing of it, but not [Page 39] the like Necessity and obligation to obserue it.

Ob: Esay 66. 23. speaking of the renewed state of the Church by Christ, saith, That from moneth to moneth, & from Sabbath to Sabbath, all flesh should come to worship, &c. Therefore the Sabbath of Christians is established by divine voice.

Sol: 1. Hee speakes not onely of the Renewed state (by Grace) but of the Glorified state of the Church, as is manifest by the 22 and 24 vers. And that, of their worshipping from Sabbath to Sabbath, is not to be vnderstood Litterally, but Figuratiuely to note not so much the manner, and intermissions, as the everlasting continuance of that worship, by those seasons of worship (the new Moones and Sab­baths) that were familiar to the Iewes.

2 Or if it be vnderstood of the Militant state of the church vnder grace, yet 1. it proues the Sabbath of Christians and the worship exercised on it, only to be foreseene, and fore-spoken of by the spirit of God, but not to be commanded by God: Prophecies are no Decrees. And 2, although it were not onely foreseene, but also preordained by the counsell of God, yet might that ordinance haue effect, without divine commandement, by humane constitution.

3 Or if it imply a commandement of God tou­ching the Sabbaticall worship of God, their doth it also of that monthly worship (in the New Moones) which is vtterly abandoned in the church of God: both which together the Apostle doth reject. Col. 2. 16.

There is a threefold Sabbath,
  • 1 Externall, of the body from servile worke.
  • 2 Internall, of the soule from sinne, [Page 40] from the guilt of sinne, freed from damnation; from the Crime of sinne freed from disobedience, by the merit and grace of Christ.
  • 3 Aeternall, from both labour and sinne, and all the paines and passions of this life. The first was the Sabbath of the Law. The second of Grace. and the third of Glory.

The observing of the Lords day hath descended from the Primitiue Church, from hand to hand to vs as a Tradition of the Apostles; namely by Tra­dition it is come to vs, as their Practise, not as their Precept, and as to hold by vertue of their Example, not of their Commandement.

1 The Christians of the Primitiue Church, were bound to keepe a Sabbath to the Lord, because it is of the Morall law; 2 To keepe the seventh day, they thought inconvenient, least they should seeme to yeeld obligation to the Ceremoniall law. 3 Yet to keepe one day in seven, the imitation of the like cō ­mandement given by God to the Iewes, directed them. And, 4, of them they elected the first day, in memoriall of Christs Resurrection frō the dead.

The prescription of one day in seven is but an I­mitation of the like prescribed to the Iewes, not a divine commandement. I say, but the imitation of à divine Commandement. But yet the commande­ment that it imitateth, and whence it hath warrant and direction, being but ceremoniall, the imitating Commandement cannot be Morall.

Whether the Commandement touching Servants va­cation from worke in the Sabbath be given direct­ly to themselues, or to their masters concerning them.

SErvants workes are theirs, either
  • Originally, Personally, that proceed from their own election and mo­tion; or
  • Ministerially, executiuely, that are performed by their labour, but enjoyned by their Masters com­mission.

The first are properly their owne workes, as be­ing the Authors; the second properly their Masters; not theirs, as being but Ministers, and performed of them, not of Election, but of necessary obedi­ence, which they owe to their Masters by the law of Nations; which law of nations, the lawes of God dissolue not; the first therefore are their owne sinnes, the second their Masters sinnes,

Servants may be considered ei­ther
  • [Page 42]Absolutely ▪ as persons retaining some degree of liberty, and working fre­ly, or
  • Respectiuely, as servants obeying their Masters commandements, & wor­king by vertue of such comman­dements.

In the first they sinne, in the second not.

Workes are ether
  • Of Labour, as the seuerall trades, and states of mens liues, and vocations, by nature not evill; or
  • Of Sinne, which are evill by their na­tures, as to steale, &c.

The first, servants may performe on the Sab­bath without sinne, by their masters commande­ment, not the second.

Ob. The worke done on the Sabbath is sinne: the worke is the servants, therefore the sinne.

Sol. 1 The worke considered Materially; as touch­ing the labour is the servants; for he performes it; but considered Formally, as touching the transgres­sion of the lawe, is the masters, for to him the charge and commandement of his servants cessati­on from worke was giuen, and he it is that impos­eth the worke.

2 The worke considered Naturally is the servants that doth it. but Morally it is the Masters that com­mands him to doe it, or else it would not be done: The servants in Act, the Masters in Imputation.

Ob. If the servant ought to worke by the Masters Commandement on the Sabbath, then either wil­lingly, [Page 43] and so seemes to sinne against God in being willing to further the breach of Gods commande­ment; or vnwillingly, which seemes not to agree with his duty towards his Master.

Sol. 1

Willingly notes either
  • The Propension and free election of will, or
  • The Obedience & yeelding of the wil.

In this last respect the servant ought to worke willingly, because he oweth willing obedience to his Master touching labour, not so in the former. So that the worke, which of his owne absolute & primary will or election he would not doe, yet he doth of a conditionall and secundary will, as in re­spect of the condition of a servant, who is bound (touching matter of labour) to submit his owne will to his Masters pleasure.

Sol. 2 In worke enjoyned on the Sabbath, there is

1 The substance of the worke, Labour.

2 The Qualitie of the worke, sinfulnesse; as a transgression of Gods law; of which, as the first is in Nature before the latter, so the readinesse and obedience of a good Servants will, extends it selfe to the first, not to the latter, id est, as it is his ma­sters Worke, not his sinne.

Ob. The servants worke on the Sabbath is the Masters sinne, therefore if the servant consent to the worke, he consents to the Masters sinne.

Sol: To that which is sinne Materially, but not to it as it is sinne Formerly; for it is considered either as the Execution of his Masters command, and so he consenteth; or as the transgression of Gods Com­mandement, [Page 44] and so he consenteth not. So that hee consents onely to the worke, Per se, to the sinne Per Accidens, onely as it is annexed to such a worke. The Act then of the consent passeth onely to the worke, no farther, and yeeldeth an appro­bation no further then to it, no way approuing of the transgression, or sinne annexed with it. As I may loue a learned man, that is withall vitious; yet I loue him for his learning, not for his vice; so the servant his Masters worke, as it hath adioyned his Masters profit not his sinne.

Ob. Every one ought if he can, to prevent his neighbours sinne, not to lend his hand, or shoul­der to the execution of it: But servants worke on the Sabbath is the Masters sinne; Ergo.

Sol. The servant ought to prevent his Masters sin by lawfull meanes, not by vnlawfull: Disobedience touching matter of labour is vnlawfull; and evill must not be done, for the good that may come of it. The servant therefore may advise or intreat his Master, but disobey he must not; Neither doth hee in that case lend his hand to the worke as it is his Masters sinne, but as the performance of a servants duty, which is to labour for his Masters profit, when he shall be commanded by his Master.

Ob. Ier. 17. 21. 22. All Iudah and Ierusalem are commanded on perill of their soules to beare no burthen on the Sabbath, nor bring it in by the gates of Ierusalem, nor out of their houses, nor to doe any worke, but to sanctifie the Sabbath.

Sol. 1. I answere first, the Commandement is gi­uen [Page 45] touching servants and cattle; [...] Take heed to your soules; what? the soules of your persons? no, for it is giuen to the Kings of Iudah amongst others, ver. 20. But Kings did not carry burthens; But to the soules vnder their charge, namely seruants & cattle; for the seruants are called in Scripture their Ma­sters soules, as appeares Gen: 12. 5, & 36. 6, yea the worke that is immediately specified, viz. carrying of burthens (the peculiar worke of seruants and cattle) imports so much.

2 The Commandement is giuen touching them to the Kings and the inhabitants of Ierusalem, not to the seruants themselues;

First, because that charge was giuen to them, to whose fathers the commandement of the Sabbath had beene anciently giuen vers. 22.The word is [...] the cittizens of Ierusalem, for the Iewes had no word to signifie a citizen but [...]. but those were the naturall Israelites, whereas their servants were for the most part strangers.

Secondly, because the charge is given to them out of whose houses burthens were forbidden to be carried vers. 22. but those were the Cittizens or owners, not servants.

Thirdly, because the charge was giuen to them of whom it is said, They would not heare nor obey, but made their necks stiffe. vers. 23. which cannot be vnderstood of servants; for would not they haue beene glad of one dayes rest, after a whole weekes toyle? or had they rather vndergoe cōtinuall toyle and paine to breake Gods commandements, then take their ease to keepe it and please God?

Fourthly, The Commandement it selfe, Carry [Page 46] no burthens, neither doe any worke in the Sabbath, that is, let none be carried, doth import as much. For although the worke touching the Execution of it, were the worke of their servants, and cattle; yet it is the Masters and owners by a iust imputation, because done by their commandement: and the servants & cattle are but their Instruments meerely vnder their dominion and appointment. So that in Gods estimation, They are reckoned to carry those burthens, which by their Commandements are carried.

The Commandement is not giuen to servants as servants, that is, touching workes commanded them by their Masters,

1 Because it is giuen to them, to whom this speech is directed. Thy servant shall doe no worke, but that is the Master. Exod. 20. 10.

2 Because the rest of servants was one speciall end of that Commandement, on the seauenth day thou shalt rest, that the sonne of thy handmaid may be refreshed, Deut. 5. 14. That thy man servant & maid may rest as well as thou. But the end of the comman­dement is not the matter of the commandement, therefore servants are not commanded to rest.

3 It is giuen to them who are willed to remember that themselues were servants in the Land of Ae­gypt, and that the Lord had deliuered them from it, Deut. 5. 15. but those were free men, not servants, Ergo, 4. Because giuen to them who had pow­er to keepe it without the transgression of the Law of Nations (which the Lawes of God dissolue not) [Page 47] But servants haue not that power (being meerely (touching labour) at their Masters disposition, and his Instruments: contrary, the Masters had that power both for themselues, and their servants.

5 Because it was more agreeable to reason, to giue it to them who had more power, by reason of their goverment, and were like to haue more care of Gods Commandements, by reason of their dis­cretion, and age. But both these belonged to the Masters rather then to the servants.

6 Because servants are often commanded to obey their Masters in all things, touching labour, but no where in Scripture either restrained, or repre­hended for such labours performed by their Ma­sters Commandement, but the Masters themselues.

Ob: Servants working on the Sabbath at their Masters command is scandalous, and giueth the Godly occasion of offence.

Sol. offence is either
  • Actiue, whereby people are occasioned to offend, that is, to sinne. Or
  • Passiue, whereat they are offended that is, displeased.

The first it giues not at all; the latter it giues, but by occasion of their frailty and ignorance that are offended, for although the godly may be iustly of­fended with such workes done, yet not iustly in re­lation to the poore servant, that vnwillingly exe­cutes them, but the sinfull Master that commands them.

Againe, scandall properly taken for Ac tiue scan­dall, or scandall giuen, is nothing else but an exem­plary [Page 48] sinne; and therefore implieth Materially, sin, that is, offence against God; and Formally, Exam­ple, whereby others are occasioned to fall into sin, that is, sinne against our neighbour; but improperly taken for Passiue scandall, or scandall (as they call it) taken; is, when that which in it selfe is no sinne, becommeth to any other, through the errour or frailty of the obseruer (who judgeth not aright) an occasion of some sin. And of this latter sort of scandals only, are servants workes done on the Sab­bath by their Masters commandement, which ne­verthelesse in relation to their Masters, are full and proper scandalls.

Ob: The servant ought not to obey his Ma­ster commanding the transgression of Gods com­mandements; but when hee commands him to worke on the Sabbath he doth so, Ergo,

Sol: It is a transgression of Gods commande­ment in respect of the Commander, not of the Exe­cuter; or else the proposition is true by transgressi­on Formally taken, but not Materially; namely for the worke that hath the transgression annexed, not Naturally, but Casually, as being done on such a day.

Ob: God hath forbidden the Master to com­mand his servant any worke on the Sabbath, there­fore he hath no right to command him such work, therefore the servant may justly refuse it, being commanded.

Sol: The argument is denied; for although God hath restrained the Masters commandement, yet not so the servants obedience, by that precept: [Page 49] and therefore the same service he oweth his Master by the Law of Nations, he still stands bound vnto, if it be exacted. So that the servant can neither re­iect his Masters commandement iustly (because al­though his Master be limited touching comman­ding by that precept, yet is not the servants liberty enlarged, or purposed to be so, but by the Masters grant and consent) nor wisely; seeing in rejecting, he incurreth his Masters displeasure & punishment; and in obeying he committeth no sinne.

Ob: Rest is giuen to servants by that Commā ­dement. Exod. 23. 12. Deut. 5. therefore they may iustly challenge it, and consequently they may justly refuse worke.

Sol: Rest is giuen to servants not Immediatly, by any grant made directly to themselues, but Me­diately by commandement giuen to their Masters, not to set them to worke: so that they are to expect it by their Masters leaue and allowance, and not to be their owne carvers: Wherein although the Ma­sters sinne against God▪ in not performing that deed of mercy towards their servants, which God com­manded them to performe; yet is not the servant thereby loosed from his obligation of servile obe­dience; much lesse ought he to make himselfe his Masters iudge in pronouncing of his owne liberty, but if he may challenge it, it must bee by lawfull course, as by complaint vnto them, to whom the ouersight of lawes belong, who yet cannot iustly free him from his Masters service that day directly by with drawing his obedience, but only by re­straining [Page 50] (by some enforcement if cōmandement will not serue) his Master from commanding.

2 Although they may iustly challenge the rest and liberty, intended for them in that commande­ment, yet doth it not follow, that if they challenge it not, they thereby incurre sinne; for they may doe it, but they are not bound to doe it, for intended it was for a favour towards them, to comfort them, not for an obligation, to binde or entangle them, as it must haue proued, if they had beene commanded to disobey their Masters, exacting their labour; namely, by provoking their Masters heavy displea­sure against them.


This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.