treatifeofthe Sabboth. 1S5 thingpleafeGod. Yea wee may reade how ftriétlyand fuperftitioullythe Gentileskept theirhohe daies : fo that with all other theyagreed after a fort in this generali poynt, that there fhould be bothappoyntedmeanes,and certaine fettimesfor the worfhipofGod.A- gaine,it is likethat the Gentiles werenoc ignorant ofthe lawoffafling,as may appeare by theNiniuites : but howtoorder it aright to theglorie of God,they werealtogether iggo.. rant,becaufe they wanted the word. Wherefore herein wee countthe tritegladeofChri- ftians to confiá,diat theLord bath giuenvs thetruth,and bathnot left vsto our ownein- Rons..9 uentions in themeanes ofGods worfhip:and herein isChriftian dignitie,that as we haue Pfal.tgi' the manner ofour religion prefcribedofGodhiinfelfe ; fowehauealto thetnne,which bee forthat purpofe bathhim(elfe fánétified. Itfollowed] not then, becaufe theSabboth is not ingraffed in mans nature, thereforethe Sabboth is not morali, becaufe in trueth neither were the )awes of the ineanes ofGods worfhip, nor of fattingfo ingrafted,'althoughín fowenianner they were. Their reafonsbyconfequence areeitherfrom theoldTeltament, or from the new. Their argumentfrom the oldTettament is this : Wee readepot, the laity rtefrff oh- of the Sabboth was put inpraótife before the lawwas promulgated inmount Sinai:there- ieítion. fore itis not morali but ceremoniall. This is no good reafon,we findeit not written,there- Anfwere. ., fore it wasnot. Forfo they may argue againft fatting, and many other things which were vfed, and yet the praaifeof them not leftinwriting. Who can difallowofinariage and of fpoufals ? doe nottheGentiles,the lawes ciuill,andtheRomane law approaethem?and yet whatrecord honeweleftconcerning their thingsin writingbeforethe law ? Locke in- to thehiltorie ofthe Kingsand fudges, inthe bookes of the Chronicles, where you (hall finde mention madebut onceof the Sabboth, and wee haueit oncecommandedby pre- cept,Gen.z .and commended by prabtife,Exod.r6.z6.inwhich place the manof God fpeakethin the preterperfeEt tense, Beholdhowthe Lord bath giuenyou the Sabboth. -Their fecond reafonis drawne froin theltreightnesdale law tobeexecuted (Exod.35.z, 3.) on Thefecundob himthatgathered flicks ,which aléyfay muft notbeinioynedvs. Concerning this,it ma- zeta°on. Iced] no more againft the moral) oblèruation ofthis precept, than the other ceremonies A'zftere.. did againft theother precepts,whereunto theywere ioyned.TheIewes being intheir non- agehad rules peculiarto themfelues,withtherewe arenot intangled: howbeitthey hado- ther general! cömandements,which being commontovs with them,appertaine Rill vnto vs. As forexample,to teachourchildren the commandementsof theLord,appertaineth to vs,Deut.6. y. but tobinde them vponour hands fora figne,and asfrontlets betweene our ghat things eycs,appertaineth to the Iewes : to borie thedead belonged' to vs,but toenbahnethem thériro öut}; withfpices,whohad not focleere a teftimonie of the refurreétion,belongeth to theIewes. andahat tovs Is notthe law ofmurderas well enioynedvs,astothe Iewest yetwe maycote blood,which with them:. they could not.Weoughttobe astemperateas they,yetwe maycate thefamesofmeate, Kindling of which wasforbidden them. And fò inall thecommandements the morali obfernation be- firmathe longed'tovsaswell astothem,theceremoniallkeeping,tothemandnot tovs. And the ¿afuúrov% faine weconcludeofthis place concerning the fire makingon this day. Out ofthenewTeftament theyalfo gather two-reafons. Fini theyfay it is notmentio. out ofthence ned.nor vrged fo much in the newTeftamcnt,as are the otherprecepts. I anfwere,this is rft tut. nogood teaton : but is rather tobereturned to theAnabaptifts,who reafon,tbat the indi- ietf osz. ,eiall lawes arenot to bevfed,becaufe they arenot vrged. Nay rather lookewhat the hohe gr, /were, Ghoft bath fet downmore fparingly in theold Tefta}nent,he bath morefully and plainly fuppliedit in the new Teffament, andwhat thing the law contained:more fully,that the Golpell handled' more fparingly, becaufethe Lord in his heauenly wifedoinewouldnot troublevs much withone thing. Butwe knowit isnamed,Matth.iz.andz}.Mar.z.Ioh; f. Aa.ao. r.Cor.r6.andr6.Reuelar.i. The fecond argument is this : The Apoftleschanged the day,which(fay therenìen)they Thefecundob. neuer would hauedone,had it beenmoral I anfwere, it was neuer commanded' nor ap- Amere poyrtedwhat onecertaine day fhould bekeptamongfeuen, but that fhould beob- ferued a leuenth day : which being kept,it is fufficient, and the lawremained' vnuiolated. Andyet wepermit not,that any man athis pleafure fhouldnow changethis day. Forthat which the Apoflles did,they did not as pinnatemen, but as men guided by thefoiritof R 3 Gods
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=