violate the Law of Moses in keeping the feast of Pentecost on any day of the week whatsoever as it chanced to fall And on the other side the Samaritans being lookt upon by the Jewes as Schismaticks as Hereticks also by Epiphanius and divers other Christian Authors can make no president in this case nor ought to have their practice used for an Argument to consute the practise of the Jewes the more regular people and more observâ—â—â— of the Law and the punctualities or nicities of it then the others were Much like to this was the point in difference between the old Hereticks called Quartodecimani and the Orthodox Christians about the time of keeping Easter which the Quartodecimani kept alwayes on the fourteenth day of the month on what day soever it should happen on which day the Jewes also kept their Passeover the Orthodox Christians keeping it on the Sunday after in memory of the Resurrection of our Lord and Saviour for which the feast of Easter was first ordained He that shall justifie the Samaritans against the Jewes in the case of Pentecost may as well justifie the Quartodecimani against the Orthodox Christians in the case of Easter And yet to justifie the Samaritans it is after added that they produce the Letter of the Law Levit. 23. 15 16. where the feast of the first fruits otherwise called Pentecost or the feast of Weeks is prescribed to be kept the morrow after the seventh Sabbath which they interpret to be the first day of the week p. 87 88. As if the Jewes did not or could not keep themselves to the Letter of the Law in keeping Pentecost at the end of fifty dayes on what day soever it might fall because the Samaritans pretend to have the Law on their side in that particular Assuredly the Lord Primate did not consider of the absurdities he hath fallen into by thus advocating for the Samaritans and fixing the feast of Pentecost on the morrow after the seventh weekly Sabbath for by this means in stead of a feast of Pentecost to be observed on the fiftieth day from the first account we shall have a feast by what name soever we shall call it to be observed on the forty ninth forty eighth and forty seventh which though they may be called the feasts of Weeks or the feasts of the Law cannot by any means be called the feast of Pentecost For if the sixteenth of Nisan or the feast of first fruits fall upon the Monday the feast of Pentecost improperly so called must be kept upon the forty ninth if on Tuesday on the forty eighth day after and so abating of the number till we come to Saturday on which day if the sixteenth of Nisan should chance to fall as sometimes it must the next day after the seventh Sabbath would be but the forty fourth day and so by the Lord Primates Rule we shall have a feast of Pentecost but once in seven years that is to say when the sixteenth of Nisan did fall upon the first day of the week which is now our Sunday a feast of Weeks or of giving of the Law on the other six Adeo Argumenta ex absurdo petita ineptos habent exitus said Lactantius truely The second proof is borrowed from the testimony of Isychius an old Christian Writer who lived about the year 600. interpreting the morrow after the seventh Sabbath as the Samaritans also do to be the first day of the Week And true it is that Isychius doth so expound it and more then so makes it to be the first intention of the Law-giver that the day from which the fifty dayes were to be reckoned should be the first day of the week which is now our Sunday Planiùs laith he legislator intentionem suam demonstrare volens ab altero die Sabbati memorari praecepit quinquaginta dies dominicum diem proculdubio volens intelligi In which as the Lord Primate dares not justifie his Author for straining the signification of altera dies Sabbati to signifie the Lords day beyond that true meaning of the word which in Moses denoteth no more then the morrow after the Sabbath though produced by him to no other purpose then to prove that point so dare not I justifie the Lord Primate in straining the words of his Author beyond their meaning and telling us that he made no scruple to call the day of Christs resurrection another Sabbath day For if we look upon it well we shall not find that Isychius calls the day of the Resurrection by the name of another Sabbath day but onely telleth us that the Lords day the day on which our Saviour rose was altera dies Sabbati that is to say the first day of the Week or the morrow after the Sabbath understand by Sabbath in this place the feast of unleavened bread from whence the fifty dayes which ended in the feast of Pentecost were to take beginning as will appear by comparing these words with those before viz. ab altero die Sabbati memorari praecepit quinquaginta dies If the Lord Primate can find no better comfort from the Council of Friuli cap. 13. for calling the day of Christs Resurrection by the name of another Sabbath day he will finde but little if not less from those words of Saint Ambrose to which the said Council of Friuli is supposed to allude The Fathers words on which the Lord Primate doth rely to prove that the Lords day was then called a Sabbath as both Isychius and the said Council of Friuli are presumed to do are these that follow viz. Vbi Dominica dies coepit praecellere quâ Dominus resurrexit Sabbatum quod primum erat secundum haberi coepit à primo In which passage he would have us think that the Lords day is called primum Sabbatum or the first Sabbath and the Saturday Sabbatum secundum or the second Sabbath Whereas indeed the meaning of the Father is no more then this that after the Lords day had grown into estimation and got the better as it were of the Jewish Sabbath ubi Dominica dies coepit praecellere c. the Sabbath of the Jewes which was before the first in honour and account began to be lookt upon in the second place the first being given unto the day of the Resurrection And as for the Council of Friuli the Lord Primate doth not say for certain that the Lords day is there called Sabbatum primum and the Jewish Sabbath Sabbatum ultimum but that they are so called if he be not mistaken but if he be mistaken in it why not as well in this as in all the rest the Council of Friuli will conclude no more then Saint Ambrose did to whom it is said to have alluded And on the contrary if the Testimonies here alledged from Isychius the Council and Saint Ambrose may be properly used to prove that the Lords day was then called by the name of the Sabbath the Lord Primate must
Doctor Heylyn Part 2. page 43. to prove that Ignatius would have both the Sabbath and the Lords day observed were afterwards added by some later Grecian who was afraid that the custome of keeping both dayes observed in his time should appear otherwise to be directly opposite to the sentence of Ignatius p. 95 96. This is the easiest charge that may be and if there were nothing else intended but to shew that the Historian was not the Master of so much good fortune as to have seen the old Latine Copy in Caius Library before he undertook that work we might here end this Section without more ado But the main matter aim'd at in it is to disprove that which the Historian hath delivered concerning the observing of both dayes as well the old Sabbath as the new Lords day by the Primitive Christians That which the Lord Primate cites out of the third Book of Eusebius to shew that the main intention of Ignatius was to oppose the Ebionites of his own time is no more then what he might have found in the same Part and Page of the History of the Sabbath which himselfe hath cited and therefore might have here been spared were it not used by him as an Argument to prove that which no body doth deny viz. That by their imitation of the Church herein the antiquity of the observation of the Lords day might be further confirmed p. 96. Nor is it to much better purpose that he proves the universality of the observance of the Lords day out of another passage of the same Eusebius in his Book De laudibus Constantini in which he doth but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 having no other Adversary that I know of to contend withal The Author of that History had said so much of the Antiquity of the Lords day and the Universality of the observance of the same with many other things conducing to the honour of that sacred day that he received thanks for it sent to him in the name of divers Ministers living in Buckinghamshire and Surrey though of a different perswasion from him in other points about that day whom he never saw But that the Saturday or old Sabbath was not kept holy at the first by the Primitive Christians by those especially who lived in the Eastern parts of the Roman Empire neither the antiquity nor the universality of keeping the Lords day can evince at all For on the contrary that the old Sabbath was kept holy by the Primitive Christians is proved first by the Constitutions of the Apostles ascribed to Clement of good Authority in the Church though not made by them where it is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 By which it evidently appears that both dayes were ordered to be kept holy the one in memorial of the Creation the other of the Resurrection Which Constitutions being not thought to be of weight enough to make good the point though of so great antiquity and estimation as to be mentioned and made use of by Epiphanius a right learned man are somewhat backt by the Authority of Theophilus Antiochenus an old Eastern Bishop who lived not long time after Ignatius Anno 174. by whom we are told of that great honour which the seventh day or Jewish Sabbath had attained unto qui apud omnes mortales celebris est as before we had it in our fourth Section on another occasion with all sorts of people But if this be not plain enough as I think it is they are secondly most strongly countenanced by the Authority of the Synod held in Laodicea a Town of Phrygia Anno 314. where there passed a Canon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 touching the reading of the Gospels with the other Scriptures upon the Saturday or Sabbath that in the time of Lent there should be no oblation made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but on the Saturday and the Lords day onely neither that any festival should then be observed in memory of any Martyrs but that their names onely should be commemorated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 upon the Lords day and the Sabbaths Which Canons were not made as may appear plainly by the Histories of these elder times for the introduction of any new observance never used before but for the Declaration and Confirmation of the ancient usage Thirdly we find in Gregory Nyssen that some of the people who had neglected to observe the Saturday were reproved by him on the Sunday 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. With what face saith the Father wilt thou look upon the Lords day which hast dishonoured the Sabbath knowest thou not that these dayes are Sisters and that whosoever doth despise the one doth affront the other Fourthly by Saint Basil the Saturday or Sabbath is reckoned for one of those four dayes on which the Christians of his time used weekly to participate of the blessed Eucharist 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Lords day Wednesday and Friday being the other three And though it cannot be denied but that the observation of the Saturday began to lessen and decay in divers places towards the latter end of the fourth Century and in some other places as namely the Isle of Cyprus and the great City of Alexandria following therein the Custom of the Church of Rome had never been observed at all Yet fifthly Epiphanius Bishop of Salamis in the Isle of Cyprus could not but acknowledge that in other places 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they used to celebrate the holy Sacrament and hold their publick meetings on the Sabbath day And sixthly the Homily De Semonte ascribed to Athanasius doth affirm as much as to the publick Assemblies of the Christians on the Sabbath day and so doth Socrates the Historian who accounts both dayes for weekly festivals 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and addes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that on them both the Congregation used to be assembled and the whole Liturgy performed By which account besides Socrates and the Author of the Constitutions against whom some objections have been pretended we have the Testimonies of Theophilus Antiochenus Gregory Nyssen Basil Epiphanius and the Author of the Homily De Semente ascribed to Athanasius most plain and positive in this point that both the Sabbath and the Lords day were observed for days of publick meeting by the Eastern Christians as was affirmed before out of the Epistle of Ignatius ad Magnes And I conceive that the Lord Primate did not or could not think or if he did cannot be justified for so thinking that men of such an eminent sanctity as those Fathers were would falsifie that Epistle of Ignatius to serve their turns or adde any thing to that Epistle which they found not in it out of a fear that the custome of keeping both dayes observed in their times should appear otherwise to be directly opposite to the sentence of Ignatius p. 96. And therefore Doctor Heylyn taking the words of Ignatius as he found them in the
But since he hath appeal'd to the Book of Homilies to the Book of Homilies let him go where he shall find as little comfort as he found in the Statute For in the Homily touching the time and place of prayer out of which the Lord Primate hath selected this particular passage it is thus doctrinally resolved viz. As concerning the time in which God hath appointed his people to assemble together solemnly it doth appear by the fourth Commandment c. And albeit this commandment of God doth not bind Christian people so streightly to observe and keep the utter Ceremonies of the Sabbath day as it did the Jewes as touching the forbearing of work and labour in the time of great necessity and as touching the precise keeping of the seventh day after the manner of the Jews for we keep now the first day which is our Sunday and make that our Sabbath that is our day of rest in honour of our Saviour Christ who as upon that day rose from death conquering the same most triumphantly Yet notwithstanding whatsoever is found in the Commandment appertaining to the Law of Nature as a thing most godly most iust and needful for the setting forth of Gods glory ought to be retained and kept of all good christian people So that it being thus resolved that there is no more of the fourth Commandment to be retained by good Christian people then what is found appertaining to the Law of Nature that the law of nature doth not tie us to one day in 7. or more to one day of the 7. then to any other let us next see by what Authority the day was changed how it came to be translated from the 7th to the first Concerning which it follows thus in the said Homily viz. This example and commandment of God the godly christian people began to follow immediately after the Ascension of our Lord Christ and began to chuse them a standing day of the week to come together in the very same with that before declared in the Act of Parliament yet not the seventh day which the Jewes kept but the Lords day the day of the Lords Resurrection the day after the seventh day which is the first day of the week c. Sit hence which time Gods people hath always in all ages without any gainsaying used to come together on the Sunday to celebrate and honour Gods blessed name and carefully to keep that day in holy rest and quietness both man and woman child servant and stranger So far the Homily and by the Homily it appears plainly that the keeping of the Lords day is not grounded on any commandment of Christ nor any precept of the Apostles but that it was chosen as a standing day of the week to come together in by the godly christian people immediately after Christs Ascension and hath so continued ever since So then the keeping of the Lords day being built on no other grounds as is declared both in the Homily and the Act of Parliament then the authority of the Church the consent of godly Christian people it must needs follow thereupon that it is to be kept with no greater strictness with reference either unto worldly business or honest recreations then what is required of the people by the Law of the Land the Canons of the Church or by the Edicts and Proclamations of the King or other supreme Governour under whom we live And if we please to look into the Act of Parliament before remembred we shall find it thus in reference unto worldly business viz. It shall be lawful to every Huusbandman Labourer Fisherman and to all and every other Person or Persons of what Estate Degree or Condition he or they be upon the Holy dayes aforesaid of which the Lords day is there reckoned for one in Harvest or at any other times in the year when necessity shall so require to labour ride fish or work any kind of work at their free will and pleasure any thing in this Act to the contrary notwithstanding The like we also find as to worldly business in the Queens Iniunctions published in the first year of her Reign in which the Sunday is not onely counted with the other holy dayes but labour labour at some times permitted and which is more enjoyned upon it For in those Injunctions it is ordered with a non obstante That all Parsons Vicars and Curates shall teach and declare unto their Parishoners that they may with a safe and quiet conscience after Common-prayer in the time of Harvest labour upon the holy and festival dayes and save that thing which God hath sent And if for any Scrupulosity or grudge of conscience men should superstitiously abstain from working on these dayes that then they should grievously offend and displease God And though it may be said that the Queens Injunction and every thing therein contained was buried in the same Grave with her yet cannot this be said of the Act of Parliament which is still in force and gives as much permission unto Worldly businesse as the said Injunction And as for Recreations there was not onely permission of such civil pastimes and man-like exercises by which the spirits of men might be refresht and their bodies strengthned but even of Common Enterludes Bear-baitings Bull-baitings and the like fit onely for the entertainment of the ruder or more vulgar sort For though the Magistrates of the City of London obtained from Queen Elizabeth Anno 1580. that Playes and Enterludes should no more be acted on the Sunday within the liberties of their City and that in the year 1583. many were terrified from beholding the like rude sports upon that day by the falling of a Scaffold in Paris Garden whereby many were hurt and eight killed out right yet there was no restraint of either in other parts of the Realm till King James to give a little contentment to the Puritan party in the beginning of his Reign prohibited the same by his Proclamation bearing date at Theobalds May 7. 1630. But for all other civil Recreations they were not onely permitted as they had been formerly but a Declaration issued from that King about sixteen years after concerning lawful sports from which some of the preciser sort of Justices had by their own authority restrained the people In the next place let us behold the Sunday or Lords day comparatively with the Saints days and other Festivals and we shall find them built on the same foundation the same Divine offices performed in both and the like diligent attendance required on both For in the Act of Parliament 5 6. of Edw. 6. before remembred the appointing of all holy dayes and set times of worship being first declared to be left by the Authority of Gods Word unto the liberty of Christs Church to be determined in every countrey by the discretion of the Rulers thereof it is next signified what dayes shall be accounted holy dayes and what shall not For so it
observed by the ancient Gentiles whom that old Bishop of Antioch had no reference to in this citation Johannes Philoponus the Grammarian speaks more plainly then Theophilus did but he speaks nothing to the point which we have in hand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. which Balthazar Corderius thus translateth Illud certè omnes homines consentiunt septem soles esse dies qui in seipsos revoluti totum tempus constituunt And so it was no question in that Authors time which was about the year 600. and somewhat after the distinction of time into weeks being then generally received by all civil Nations who either had received the Gospel or had been under the command of the Roman Empire That which comes after touching Moses Solus itaque magnus Moles septenarii dierum numeri rationem divina inspâ—ratione hominibus tradidit shewes rather the original of the distinction then the general practice it being more then a thousand years from the death of Moses before that distinction of time was received by the Gâ—eeks and Râ—mâ—ns and therefore not to be hoped nor look't for in the barbarous Nations And this is that which Petavius the Jesuite a right learned man hath thus delivered Anni divisio posterior est in Hebdomadas ea dividendi ratio prorsus à Iudaeis o iginem traxit Romani etiam ac Gentiles ante Tertulliani aevum adscivâ—sse videntur The last division of the year saith he is into weeks derived originally from the Hebrewes and seems to have been taken up by the Romans and other Gentiles before the time of Tertullian who takes notice of it By which it seems that this distinction was of no great standing in the Roman Empire till first their acquaintance with the Jewes and afterwards their receiving of the Christian faith had brought it into use and esteem amongst them The Proposition of the Histoâ—ian being thus made good I doubt not but the Application wil hold accordingly For hereupon it is inferred Hist of Sab. Part. 1. c. 4. n. 11. That the Chaldees Persians Greeks and Romans all the four great Monarchies did observe no Sabbaths because they did observe no weeks But the poor Historian must not pass with this truth neither which necessarily doth arise upon the proof of the Proposition And therefore he is told That if he had read how well the contrary is proved by Rivetus and Salmasius he would not have made such a Conclusion as he doth That because the Heathen of the four great Monarchies at least had no distinction of weeks therefore they could observe no Sabbath And I concur fully with the Lord Primate in this particular The Historian was not so irrational as to infer that the Heathen of the four great Monarchies could observe no Sabbath because they did observe no weeks in case it had been proved to his hand or that any sufficient Argument had been offered to him to demonstrate this that the very Gentiles both Civil and Barbarous both Ancient and of later dayes as it were by an universal kind of Tradition retained the distinction of the seven dayes of the week which is the point that Rivet and Salmasius are affirmed to have proved so well p. 79. But on the contrary the Historian having proved that there was no such distinction of the seven dayes of the week retained by the ancient Gentiles either Civil or Barbarous and so well proved it that the Lord Primate hath not any thing to except against him the Application will hold good against all opposition and I shall rest my selfe upon it that the Heathen which observed no Weeks could observe no Sabbath SECT V. The Historian taxt for saying that the falling of the first Pentecost after Christs Ascension upon the first day of the week was meerly casual The Lord Primates stating the Question and his inference on it Exceptions against the state of the Question as by him laid down viz. in making the Feast of First fruits to be otherwise called the feast of Pentecost or the feast of Weeks c. and that he did not rightly understand the meaning of the word Sabbath Levit. 23. 16. The Pentecost affixt by Moses to a certain day of the month as well as the Passover or any other Annual Feast made by the Primate to fall alwayes on the first day of the week and God brought into act a miracle every year that it might be so An Answer to the Lord Primates Argument from the practice of the Samaritans in their keeping of Pentecost The Quartodecimani and the Samaritans Schismaticks at the least if not Hereticks also The Lord Primate puts a wrong sense upon Isychius and Saint Ambrose to prove that they gave to the Lords day the name of Sabbath and his ill luck in it The inference of the Lord Primate examined and rejected The first day of the week not called the Lords day immediately after the first Pentecost as is collected from Waldensis nor in a long time after The Lord Primates great mistake in Tertullians meaning about the Pentecost Each of the fifty dayes which made up the Pentecost esteemed as holy by the Primitive Christians as the Lords day was The mystery of the First fruits not first opened by the Lord Primate as is conceived by Dr. Twisse who applauds him for it THe second charge which the Lord Primate layes upon the Historian relates unto the holding of the great feast of Pentecost upon which day the Holy Ghost came down and sate upon the heads of the Apostles in the shape of cloven fiery tongues and added by Saint Peters preaching no fewer then three thousand soules to the Church of Christ It was saith the Historian a casual thing that Pentecost should fall that year upon the Sunday It was a moveable feast as unto the day such as did change and shift it selfe according to the position of the feast of Passover the rule being this that that on what day soever the second of the Passover did fall upon that also fell the great feast of Pentecost Nam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 semper eadem est feria quae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Scaliger hath rightly noted So that as often as the Passover did fall upon the Saturday or Sabbath as this year it did then Pentecost fell upon the Sunday but when the Passover did chance to fall upon the Tuesday the Pentecost fell that year upon the Wednesday sic de caeteris And if the Rule be true as I think it is that no sufficient Argument can be drawn from a casual fact and that the falling of the Pentecost that year upon the first day of the week be meerly casual the coming of the Holy Ghost upon that day will be no Argument nor Authority to state the first day of the week in the place and honour of the Iewish Sabbath But the Lord Primate will by no means allow of this and therefore having framed a discourse concerning the feast of Pentecost
have very ill luck in finding no other testimony but that of luxus Sabbatarius in Apollinaris p. 75. to evidence that the Latine word Sabbatum used to denote our Christian Festivities of which in our first Section we have spoken suffiâ—iently Nor is the Lord Primate less zealous to entitle the Lords day to some Divinity then to gratifie the Sabbatarian Brethren by giving it the name of the Sabbath day For this is that which is chiefly aimed at in the inference wherein I would very cheerfully concur in opinion with him but that I am unsatisfied in the grounds of it For if I were satisfied in this that God so ordered the matter that in the celebration of the feast of Weeks the seventh day should purposely be passed over and that solemnity should be kept upon the first I should as easily grant as he that nothing was more likely to be presignified thereby then that under the state of the Gospel the solemnity of the weekly service should be celebrated upon that day p. 90. But being I cannot grant the first for the reasons formerly delivered I cannot on the like or for better reasons admit the second I grant that under the state of the Gospel the solemnities of the weekly service were celebrated on that day and yet I can neither agree with him nor with Thomas Waldensis whom he cites to that purpose that the Lords day did presently succeed Tunc intrasse Dominicam loco ejus in the place thereof as Baptism presently as he saith succeeded in the place of Circumcision For though Saint John Apocal. 1. call the first day of the week by the name of the Lords day as most Christian Writers think he did yet doth it not follow thereupon that it was so called statim post missionem spiritus Sancti as Waldensis would have it immediately on the comming down of the Holy Ghost For not onely in the eighteenth of the Acts which was some yeares after the first Christian Pentecost but in Saint Pauls Epistle to the Corinthians it is given us by no other name then that of the first day of the Week nor did Saint John write the Revelation in which the name of the Lords day is first given unto it till the ninty fourth or ninty fifth year from our Saviours birth which was sixty years or thereabouts from the coming down of the Holy Ghost the first Christian Pentecost And though I am not willing to derogate from the honour of so great a day yet I cannot agree with the Lord Primate That it is in a manner generally acknowledged by all that on that day viz. the first day of the week the famous Pentecost in the second of the Acts was observed For Lorinus in his Commentary on the second of the Acts tells us of some who hold that at the time of our Saviours suffering the Passover fell upon the Thursday and then the Pentecost must of necessity fall upon the Saturday or Jewish Sabbath But seeing it is said to be agreed on generally in a manner onely let it pass for once All which considered I shall and will adhere to my former vote viz. that if the rule be true as I think it is that no sufficient argument can be drawn from a casual fact and that the falling of the Pentecost that year upon the first day of the week be meerly casual the comming of the Holy Ghost upon that day will be no Argument nor Authority to state the first day of the week in the place and honour of the Jewish Sabbath And now before I shut up this Dispute about the Pentecost I shall crave leave to put the Lord Primate in mind of a great mistake which he hath fallen into by putting another sense on Tertullians words about the first Pentecost as observed by the Christians than was intended by that Author For telling us p. 85. That the Gentiles did not celebrate their Saturdays with that solemnity wherewith themselves did their Annual Festivities or the Jews their weekly Sabbaths he bringeth for a proof thereof a passage cited out of the fourteenth Chapter of Tertullian De Idololatria by which it may appear saith be that Tertullian thus speaks unto the Christians who observed 52. Lords days every year whereas all the Annual festivals of the Pagans put together did come short of fifty Ethnicis semel annuus dies quisque festus est tibi octavo quoque die Excerpe singulas solemnitates nationum in ordinem tâ—xe Pentecosten implere non poterunt But clearly Tertullian in thâ—t place neither relates to the 52 Lords dayes nor the number of 50. but onely to the Christian Pentecost which in his time was solemnized 50. dayes together and took up the whole space of time betwixt Easter and Whitsuntide And this appears plainly by the drift of the Author in that place in which he first taxeth the Christians with keeping many of the feasts of the Gentiles whereas the Gentiles kept not any of the feasts of the Christians non Dominicam non Pentecosten no not so much as the Lords day or the feast of Pentecost And then he addes that if they did it onâ—â—y to refresh their spirits or indulge something to the flesh they had more festivals of their own then the Gentiles had The number of the feasts observed by the Gentiles being so short of those which were kept by the Christians of his time ut Pentecosten non potuerint they could not equal the festival of the Pentecost onely much less the Pentecost and the Lords day together And so it is observed by Pamelius in his Notes upon that place where first he telleth us that the Author in that place understands not onely the feast of Pentecost it selfe or the last day of fifty sed etiam tempus illud integrum à die Paschae in Pentecosten but the whole space of time betwixt it and the Passeover taking the word Passover in the largest sense as it comprehends also the feast of unleavened bread But what need Pamelius come in place when it is commonly avowed by the ancient Writers that all the fifty dayes which made up the Pentecost were generally esteemed as holy and kept with as great reverence and solemnity as the Lords day was No fasting upon the one nor upon the other Die dominico jejunium nefas ducimus vel de geniculis adorare eadem immunitate à die Paschae in Pentecosten gaudemus as Tertullian hath it Saint Ambrose more expresly tells us Sermon 61. that every one of those fifty dayes was instar Dominicae and qualis est Dominica in all respects nothing inferiour to the Lords day and in his Comment on Saint Luke c. 17. l. 8. that omnes dies that is to say all those fifty dayes sunt tanquam Dominica Adde hereunto Saint Jeroms testimony Ad Lucinum and then I hope Tertullians words in his Book De Idololatria c. 14. will find another sense and meaning then that which the Lord
Primate hath ascribed unto it To shut up this Dispute in which we have encountred so many errors the Lord Primate tells us very rightly that on the day of the Passeover Christ our Passeover was slain for us that he rested in the grave the whole Sabbath following commonly called the feast of unleavened bread the next day after that the first fruits of the first or Barley Harvest was offered unto God and that from thence the count was taken of the seven Sabbaths and that upon the morrow after the seventh Sabbath which was our Lords day was celebrated the feast of weeks c. Upon which offering of the sheaf of the first fruits of the first or Barley Harvest which hapned at the time of our Saviours suffering on the first day of the Week he gives this note that Christ rose from the dead upon that day and became the first fruits of them that slept many bodies of the Saints that slept arising likewise after him p 91. And for this note he receives great thanks from Dr. Twisse signifying in a letter to him the great satisfaction which he received from him in opening the mystery of the feasts of first fruits to the singular advantage of the Lords day in the time of the Gospel p. 103. But herein Dr. Twisse may be said to be like those men of whom Tully speaks Qui non tantùm ornarent aliquem suis laudibus sed honorarent alienis For without derogating in the least from the honour due to the Lord Primate I cannot say that the honour of the first opening of this mystery doth belong to him it being an observation which I had both read in Books and heard in Sermons many years before 1640. in which or but the year before the Lord Primate wrote this present Letter to Doctor Twisse But because I have but few Books by me and cannot readily call to mind in what Books I read it I shall content my selfe at this present with the gloss of Deodati on the twentieth verse of the fifteenth Chapter of the first Epistle to those of Corinth where it is said that Christ was risen again and was become the first fruits of them that slept premising onely by the way that Diodati began those Annotations in the Italian tongue about the year 1606. to give his Country-men an insight of the darkness wherin they lived which afterwards he polished and perfected in such manner as they are now come into our hands Now Diodati his note is this viz. that Christ is called the first fruits of them that slept not onely because he was the first in the order of the Resurrection which is in Believers as it were a wakening from sleep but also in the quality of a Chief the cause and pledge of it in all his members inseparably united to him by communion of Spirit Rom. 8. 11. even as under the Law in the first fruits offered to God the people had an assurance of Gods blessing upon all their Harvest In a word as some things are defined or to speak more properly described amongst Philosophers rather by what they are not then by what they are so it is easier to declare to whom the first opening of this Mystery of the first fruits if there be any mystery in it doth not of right belong then to whom it doth SECT VI. The Historian charged for following the Greek Editions of Ignatius in his Epistle to the Magnesians An old Latine Translation of Ignatius preferred by the Lord Primate before any of the Greek Editions and the reason why Proofs from the best of the Greek Fathers that the Sabbath was kept as an holy day by the Primitive Christians The contrary not proved by these two testimonies which are alledged from the Council of Laodicea and the words of Gregory the Great The Council of Laodicea prohibits not the keeping of the Sabbath day but the keeping of it after the manner of the Jews by abstaining from all kind of work The Sabbatarians by imposing a restraint from all manner of work on the Lords day are by Pope Gregory the Great made the Preachers of Antichrist The Lord Primate picks a needless quarrel with the Bishop of Ely THe third charge laid by name on the Historian relates unto a passage cited out of the Epistle of Ignatius Ad Magnesianos in which he doth not stand accused either for falsifying the words of his Author or putting a wrong sense upon them but onely for not consulting with an old Latine copy of Ignatius which he never heard of The Historian had then by him no fewer then four Editions of that Father one published by Mastreus the Jesuite both in Greek and Latine another in both languages published by Vedelius a Genevian with his notes upon it a third more ancient then either of them printed at Paris in both languages also but the year I remember not and a fourth in Latine onely but of a very old Print subjoyned unto the works of Dionysius the Areopagite Out of all which compared together he cited that passage out of the Epistle to the Magnesians against which the Lord Primate hath excepted and is this that followeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Let us not keep the Sabbath in a Jewish manner in sloth and idleness for it is written that he that will not labour shall not eat and in the sweat of thy brows shalt thou eat thy bread But let us keep it after a spiritual fashion not in bodily ease but in the study of the Law not eating meat dressed yesterday or drinking luke-warm drinks or walking out a limited space or setling our delights as they did on dancing but in the contemplation of the works of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. And after we have so kept the Sabbath let every one that loveth Christ keep the Lords day festival the Resurrection day the Queen and Empress of all dayes in which our life was raised again and death was overcome by our Lord and Saviour So that we see he would have both dayes observed the Sabbath first though not as would the Ebionites in a Jewish sort and after that the Lords day which he so much magnifieth the better to abate that high esteem which some had cast upon the Sabbath Against this passage and the inference which is raised upon it the Lord Primate first objecteth saying that there is no such thing to be found in an old Latine copy of the works of Ignatius which is to be seen in the Library of Caius Colledge in Cambridge which for many respects he doth prefer before any Greek Edition then extant And in that old Latine copy saith he there is nothing to be found in the Epistle to the Magnesians touching the Sabbath and the Lords day but these words onely viz. Non amplius Sabbatizantes sed secundum Dominicam viventes in qua vita nostra orta est And thereupon he doth infer that all those other words alledged by
several Greek Editions above mentioned and finding them so well backt and countenanced by those holy Fathers which succeeded in their several times need not be troubled at the starting out of an old Latine Manuscript so different from the Greek Editions as it seems to be nor to recede from any thing which he hath cited out of those Editions because the Lord Primate findes it not in his Latine Manuscript The passage of Ignatius Ad Magnesianos cited by the Historian being justified by so many good Authors all living and writing except Socrates onely in the four first Centuries we must next see what the Lord Primate hath to object against it or any thing therein delivered or rather to confirm his correction of it out of the old Latine Copy in the Library of Caius Colledge The old Latine Copy hath it thus Non amplius Sabbatizantes sed secundum Dominicam viventes in qua vita nostra orta est And this he thinks to be a sufficient Argument to prove that the Lords day was observed as a weekly holy day by the Christians in the room of the abrogated Sabbath of the Jewes p. 93. Though no such thing can be collected either as to the weekly celebrating of the Lords day or the abrogating of the Jewish Sabbath from his Authors words But then as well to justifie the reading of this old Latine Copy as to refel that which the Historian had observed from the Greek Editions he gives us two Authorities and no more but two The first is the Authority of the Fathers in the Council of Laodicea touching the time whereof whether he or the Lord Bishop of Ely be in the right we dispute not now By whom it was declared quod non oportet Christianos Judaizare in Sabbat o otiari sed ipsos eo die operari diem autem Dominicam praeferentes otiari si modo possint ut christianos p. 98. But unto this it may be answered that this Canon it is the 29 in number relates not to the meetings of the Christians on the Sabbath or Saturday for Gods publick service but to the usage of some men who did seem to Judaize upon it by giving themselves to ease and idleness and to rest from labour when the service of the day was ended And that the Canon meant no more then to reprove such men as observed the Saturday or Sabbath after the manner of the Jewes and to take order for the conttary in the time to come appears most evidently by the great care they took touching the solemnizing of that day and the Divine Offices to be done upon it declared in three several Canons the summe whereof we have seen already in this Section So that this first part of that Canon aimed at no other end but by ordaining that the people should work on the Sabbath or Saturday suppose it still after the publick service of the day was ended thereby to distinguish them from the Jewes who would not work at all upon it And then that this distinction between them and the Jewes might appear more evidently it was ordered in the later part of that Canon that preferring the Lords day before it they should as Christians rest from labour on that day if their occasions would permit them For if we mark it as we should we shall not find that the Fathers absolutely prescribed any such cessation from all or any work for which purpose it is chiefly cited but onely with a si modo possint if neither Masters Parents or other Superiors should command them otherwise or that the conveniency of their own affairs or the doing of good offices to their neighbour did not occasion them to dispose of it or some part thereof on some bodily labour The Canon must be thus expounded or else it must run cross to those which before were mentioned which were ridiculous to imagine in so grave a meeting The next Authority is taken from Gregory the Great who telleth us that it is the Doctrine of the Preachers of Antichrist qui veniens diem Dominicum Sabbatum ab omni opere faeciet custodiri who at his coming shall cause both the Lords day and the Sabbath to be kept or celebrated without doing any manner of work A passage very strangely cited and such as I conceive the Lord Primate will neither stand to nor be ruled by upon second thoughts For if it be the Doctrine of the Preachers of Antichrist that no manner of work is to be done upon the Saturday or Sabbath it is the Doctrine of the same Preachers of Antichrist that no manner of work be done on the Lords day neither And if it be the Doctrine of the Preachers of Antichrist that no manner of work should be done on the Lords day what will become of all our English Sabbatarians and their Abetrers who impose as many restraints of this kind upon Christian people as ever were imposed on the Jewes by the Scribes and Pharisees What will become of those who framed the Articles of Ireland or have since subscribed them or preacht or writ according to the tenour of them in one of which it is decreed that the first day of the week which is the Lords day is wholly to be dedicated to the service of God and that therefore we are bound therein to rest from all common and daily business The Lord Primate did not well consider of these inconveniencies when he brought in Gregory the Great to bear witness for him And in that want of consideration he falls on Doctor Francis White Lord Bishop of Ely a right learned man for rendring Pope Gregories words by a strange kind of mistake in turning this word and the Copulative into or the Disjunctive But possibly this may be a fault of the Printers or a slip of the Pen without any purpose or design of altering the least word or true intention of that Father And secondly whether it be rendered by the Copulative and or the Disjunctive or is not much material for if it be the Doctrine of the Preachers of Antichrist to teach men to abstain from all manner of work both on the Saturday and the Sunday it is no doubt the Doctrine of the same preachers of Antichrist to teach men to abstaine from all manner of work upon the Saturday or the Sunday So that the Lord Primate might have spared that exception against a man of his own order and of so great Abilities in the Schools of Learning but he held a contrary opinion to the Sabbatarians and therefore was to fare no better then the Author of the History had fared before him And herein the Lord Primate seems to be of the same mind with the famous Orator who held it very just and equitable ut qui in eadem causa sint in eadem item essent fortuna And so much for that SECT VII The Historian charged for crossing with the Doctrine of the Church of England and in what particulars
recorded in the fourth Commandment p. 113. And in these words we have two several propositions viz. First That the setting apart of some whole day to Gods solemn worship is juris Divini naturalis and secondly that the Sabbath which he meaneth by this solemn day was juris Divini positivi recorded in the fourth Commandment both which shall be examined in their several turns And first I would fain know of Doctor Bernard or any other of the Lord Primates Chaplains since he cannot answer for himselfe where we shall find that the setting apart of some whole day for Gods solemn worship was juris Divini naturalis That some time was to be set apart for the worship of God is agreed by all and reckoned by most knowing men not interessed in any party to be the moral part of the fourth Commandment but that this time should be some whole day is neither imprinted in mans heart by the Law of Nature nor ever required of the Iews nor observed by the Christians Or granting that some such whole day was to be set apart for Gods solemn worship I would fain know in the first place when the said whole day was to begin and how long to continue whether it were a whole natural day or a whole artificial day as they use to phrase it And if it were a whole natural day then whether to extend from midnight to midnight after the reckoning of the Gentiles or from Sun-setting to Sun-setting from Even to Even according to the account of the Iewes or if a whole artificial day then whether a day of twelve hours onely after the reckoning of the Iewes or from Sun-rising to Sun-setting be they more or less according to the several Climates under which men lived Which points unless they be well stated the conscience will have nothing in this case to rely upon In the next place considering that the Lord Primate speaks indefinitely of some whole day without determining when and how often the said whole day was to be observed I would fain know whether such a whole day was to be set apart once or twice in the week or whether it would suffice to the fulfilling of the moral part of the fourth Commandment if it were onely once a month or once a year or once in seven year or once in the course of a mans whole life For being it is said indefinitly that the setting apart of some whole day to Gods solemn worship is juris Divini naturalis ingraffed in the Heart of man by the Law of Nature it may be probably inferred that the setting apart of one whole day at what time soever a man pleaseth may very sufficiently comply with the intention of that Law and consequently discharge the man so doing from all further observance which how far it will satisfie the consciences of men or be accounted acceptable in the sight of God I shall leave to others to determine But admitting that this whole day which the Lord Primate speaks of was to have as frequent a return as the Iewish Sabbath I would then know when such a whole day was either ordinarily kept or required to be kept by the Iewes or Gentiles That no such whole day was ever ordinarily kept by the Iewes appears by their riotous feastings on the Sabbath day which before we spake of by which it is most evident that the one half of that day was either spent in Luxury and Riot or in Rest and Idleness and that the least part of the other moyety was spent in holy Meditation and much less in the solemn worship of God which in the first settlement of that Nation in the Land of Canaan was performed onely in the Tabernacle as afterwards in the Holy Temple at which but few of the people and those which dwelt near the place of worship could give any attendance We meet indeed with a Commandment that the Sabbath was to be continued from Even to Even Levit. 23. 32. that is to say from Friday evening at Sun-set until the like time of Sun-set on the Sabbath day Which Precept being first given by God with reference to the day of Atonement or Expiation and commonly applyed by the Iewes to the weekly Sabbaths requires no otherkeeping of the day for that space of time more then the afflicting of their souls by a solemn fast then onely rest from labour all servile works And this appears plainly by the first words of the said 32. verse where it is said That it should be unto them a Sabbath of rest compared with vers 30 31. where forbearing all or any manner of work is the chief thing required to the observation of that day And yet that rest from labour and cessation from all manner of work frequently intermitted also either with reference to the solemn keeping of the day it self Mat. 12. 5. or the preservation of the creature Luke 13. 15. 14. 5. But that the whole day extending from Even to Even should be either spent in afflicting their souls as it is meant onely of the day of Atonement or Expiation which was observed but once a year or in the acts of solemn and religious worship if it be understood of the weekly Sabbath to which the Iews commonly applied it also as before was said as I no where find So have I no reason to believe it without better grounds Certain I am that so much of the Sabbath day after this account as intervened between the Sun-setting on the Friday and the Sun-rising on the Sabbath was partly spent in rest from labour and making necessary preparations for the day ensuing and part thereof in necessary repose and sleep for the refreshing of their bodies and support of nature and how the rest of that day was spent we have seen before There is another place in Scripture much prest upon the consciences of the people by the rigid Sabbatarians of these times to stave them off from any lawful recreation on their new made Sabbath that is to say Isa 58. 13 14. where God speaks thus unto that people If thou turn away thy foot from the Sabbath from doing thy pleasure on my holy day and call the Sabbath a delight the holy of the Lord honourable and shalt honour him not doing thine own wayes nor finding thine own pleasure nor speaking thine own words then shalt thou delight thy self in the Lord. But if we look better on this Text and compare it with vers 3. of the same Chapter where we find mention of a fast and of the afflicting of their Souls on the day of that fast we may see easily that the Text so much insisted on by our Sabbatarians relates onely to the day of Atonement which being a day of publick humiliation and of confessing their sins to the Lord their God required a stricter withholding of themselves from their lawful pleasures then any of the weekly Sabbaths So as admitting that this whole day was by God required to be
spent in some religious Acts of solemn worship though never kept so by the Iewes yet was it but one whole day in a year and that injoyn'd also by a positive Law which if it be sufficient to discharge the obligation laid upon us by the Law of Nature the observation of the Sabbath formerly of the Lords day now may be thought superfluous And if no such whole day were kept or required to be kept by the Iewes Gods peculiar people there is small hope to find it amongst the Gentiles who did too much attend their profit and indulge their pleasures to spend whole dayes upon the service of their gods I speak here of that which the Gentiles did in ordinary and common course as a thing constantly required of them and observed by them and not of any extraordinary and occasional action such as the three dayes fast which was kept in Nineve by the Kings command upon that fearful Proclamation which was made against it by the Prophet Ionah As for the Christians I dare with confidence affirm that the spending of the whole Lords day in the acts of worship was never required of them or of any of them by any Imperial Edict or National Law or Constitution of the Church till the year 1615. at what time it was enjoyned by the Articles of the Church of Ireland as shall be proved at large hereafter when that passage in those Articles comes to be examined The Lord Primates first Proposition being thus blown off we next proceed to the examination of the second that is to say That the solemn day of worship should be one in seven was juris Divini positivi recorded in the fourth Commandment A proposition which will find few Friends and many Adversaries especially as it comes attended with the explication which he makes upon it For first it crosseth with Tostatus a man of as great industry and as much variety of learning as any of the age he lived in and not with him onely but with Thomas Aquinas the great Dictator of the Schools and generally with all the School-men of which thus Dr. Prideaux in his Tract De Sabbato Sect. 3. It is as Abulensis hath it a Dictate of the Law of Nature that some set time be put apart for Gods holy worship but it is Ceremonial and Legal that this worship should be restrained either to one day of seven or the seventh day precisely from the worlds creation A time of rest is therefore moral but the set time thereof is ceremonial which is confessed by those who have stood most on this Commandment and urged it even to a probable suspicion of Iudaisme Aquinas also so resolves it and which is seldome seen in other cases the School-men of what Sect soever say the same whereby saith he we may perceive in what respects the Fathers have sometimes pronounced it to be a ceremony and a shadow and a figure onely In the next place it crosseth with the Sabbatarians of these later times who generally make the sanctifying of one day in seven to be the moral part of the fourth Commandment the limiting of that day to the last day of the week or the seventh day on which God rested to be the ceremonial part of it and it concerns them so to do in point of interest for otherwise they could find no ground for the morality of the Lords day Sabbath and founding that morality on the fourth Commandment and pressing it upon the consciences of the people with such art and industry So that we have three parts at least of this one Commandment viz. the moral part consisting in the setting apart of one whole day but no matter when for Gods solemn worship the Positive part consisting as the Lord Primate saith in sanctifying one day in seven and then the ceremonial part in limiting that day to the seventh day precisely of the creation of the world on which God rested from his labours And strange it were if the judicial Law should not put in also for a share and make up the fourth the man that gathered sticks on the Sabbath day being tried according to this Law and condemned accordingly But here before we shall proceed to the Explication by which the Lord Primate makes his opinion more agreeable to the Sabbatarians then at first it seemed I must ask some of the Lord Primates followers where I shall find the Institution of that positive Law which before we heard of by whom it was ordained and on whom imposed for positive Laws must be declared and enjoyned in terms express or else they are neither Laws nor Positive If they shall say that we may find the Institution of it in the second of Genesis then must it be the sanctifying of that very seventh day on which God rested from his labours and not the setting apart or sanctifying of one day in seven as the Lord Primate would fain have it And secondly if the setting a part or sanctifying of one day in seven as it is juris Divini positive be that which is recorded in the fourth Commandment as the Lord Primate sayes it is then must it also be the same very seventh day on which God rested as before there being no other day but that commanded to be kept holy in that Commandment or mentioned to be blessed and sanctified by the Lord our God And on the other side if sanctifying the seventh day precisely on which God rested from his labours either as mentioned in the fourth Commandment or instituted in Gen. 2. be onely juris ceremonialis but a matter of Ceremony as the Sabbatarians would fain have it then as they leave no room at all for the Lord Primates positive Law in either Scripture so do they furnish the Church with a better Argument against themselves concerning the Antiquity and use of Ceremonies then hath yet been thought of But leaving them to free themselves from these perplexities at their better leisure we must next see what satisfaction will be offered to the Sabbatarians who make the sanctifying of one day in seven to be the moral not the positive part of the fourth Commandment And herein we shall find the Lord Primate very ready to give them all possible contentment And therefore he ascribes so much morality to his positive Law as to make it immutable and unchangeable by Men or Angels which is one of the chiefe priviledges of the moral Law and then he fixeth the first Institution of it on Gen. 2. which makes it equal in a manner to the Law of Nature if not part thereof And first saith he I mean here such a jus Divinum positivum as Baptism and the Lords Supper are established by which lieth not in the power of any Man or Angel to change or alter pag. 105. This makes it somewhat of kin to a moral precept of which the School-men have afforded us this general Aphorism Praecepta legis naturalis esse indispensabilia that is to say that the
Which though it may be true enough in the Proposition yet I cannot think that it agrees with the Authors meaning in the Application Nor am I better edified with the criticism of Gothofredus on this place who thinketh it to lie under some great corruption qui locus haectenus in foedissimo mendo cubat leaves in worse case then he found it by his pretended Emendation And therefore I conceive Tertullians meaning to be briefly this that the Jewes then living had so disused and estranged themselves by their riotous feastings on the Sabbath from that sobriety and moderation wherewith their Ancestors had used to observe that day that they seemed ignorant in a manner of the ancient custome of their own Nation in that case These passages of Tertullian being thus explained the Answer to the rest of the Lord Primates Authors will find less difficulty Tibullus in a verse of his Saturni sacrâ me tenuisse die bestowes the Epithet of Sacrâ upon the Saturday or day of Saturn But this I say and so sayes the Lord Primate too is not so properly to be understood of the Gentiles who made not the seventh day a festival or an holy-day as the Jewes did p. 83. but of the very Jewes themselves who kept it for a festival or an holy-day And then Tibullus sayes no more then what Ovid hath affirmed in the verse formerly cited in which he calleth the seventh day by the name of septima sacra dies with reference to the Jewes and to them alone That which comes next from Lucian in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 touch the Boyes getting leave to play 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on the seventh day or Saturday p. 86. is of little consequence Lucian then lived in the East Countries where the Gentiles Jewes and Christians lived promiscuously with one another And it is probable enough that the School-masters observing that the Saturday was held in great veneration by the Christians and kept for a Festival by the Jewes the better to comply with both or to send home their Children if they had any such in their Schools in convenient time might rather chuse to gratifie the Boyes with a play day 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on the seventh day or Sabbath then on any other And as for the Emperor Alexander Severus and his using to go unto the Capitol and other Temples on the Saturday or seventh day as Aelius Lampridius hath informed us of him it is of less consequence then the former it being well known to all which have read the Stories of that age and time that being trained up under the wing of his Mother who was inclinable enough to the Christian Faith he had not onely somewhat in him of a Christian but a smack also of the Jew And therefore if he more frequented the Capitol and other Temples on the seventh day or Saturday then on any other it is not to be attributed to any Authority which the Lord Primates Tradition might have gained upon him but unto education or imitation no great matter which For that many of the Gentiles who lived within the verge of the Roman Empire had taken up divers of the customes and ceremonies of the Iewes who lived scattered and disperst amongst them is affirmed positively by Iosephus Quin etiam populi jam olim saith he multam nostram pietatem aemulantur nèque Civitas Graecorum ulla usquam aut Barbarorum nec ulla gens ad quam septimanae in qua vacamus consuetud◠minimè pervenerit c. that is to say that the Gentiles long since shewed themselves inclinable to the religion of the Jews and that there was no City of the Greeks or barbarous people or any Nation whatsoever in which their custome in observing the seventh day for a day of rest as also of their games and fasts was not taken up In which respect Philo hath told us more then once that the Sabbath was become a general Festival which in his Treatise De Dec alogo may be easily found And it was very agreeable to the ancient custom of the Romans that it should be so who used when they had conquered any Country not onely to carry away their gods and set them up amongst their own but to take from them some part of their religion thinking thereby to enlarge the bounds of their Empire and bring all the Nations of the World under their command Sic eorum Potestas Authoritas totius Orbis Ambitus occupavit sic imperium suum ultra solis vias ipsius Oceani limites propagavit sic dum Vniversarum gentium sacra suscipiunt etiam regnare meruerunt as Cecilius pleads the cause for them in Minutius Foelix SECT IV. The Historian charged by name for saying that the ancient Gentiles knew not the distinction of weeks and sent to be taught his lesson better of Dector Ryvet and Salmasius His Arguments to prove the point laid down at large and not refelled by the Lord Primate The Lord Primates opinion to the contrary not proved by any ancient Author either Greek or Latine The practice of the Sclavonians related by Helmoldus an obscure Writer and a Postnatus too doth not prove the point Nothing affirmed by Theophilus Antiochenus or Johannes Philoponus to prove that the distinction of weeks was anciently known amongst the Gentiles The Historians Application justified WE are now come at last to the first of those Charges in which the Author of the History is concerned by name touching the division of time into weeks whether observed or not observed by the ancient Gentiles in which the Lord Primate thus declares The Gentiles saith he both Civil and Barbarous both ancient and of later dayes as it were by an universal kind of Tradition retain the distinction of the seven dayes of the week which if Dr. Heylyn had read so well proved as it is by Rivetus and Salmasius he would not have made such a conclusion as he doth that because the Heathen of the four great Monarchies at least had no distinction of Weeks therefore they could observe no Sabbath p. 79. The Historian is here sent to School to learn of Ryvet and Salmasius that the Gentiles both civil and barbarous both ancient and of later dayes as it were by an universal kind of Tradition retained the distinction of the seven dayes of the week of Ryvet he must learn for one because he was of the same opinion with the Lord Primate in the point of the Sabbath and of Salmasius for the other because he was of the same judgement with him in the point of Episcopacy But the Historian will not learn of any such Masters but onely of the Lord Primate himselfe But first it will be necessary to know what the Historian saith to the point in hand and yet not onely what he saith as if he could carry it out on his own Authority but what he proves by witnesses of unquestioned credit The passage is not long and therefore without any
and the day on which it was to be holden he lets us see by a marginal Note p. 90. against whom it is that he bends his forces viz. against Dr. Heylyn Part 2. c. 1. pag. 14. Let us see therefore what he hath to say against Dr. Heylyn in this particular and into what inconveniencies he runs himselfe by the contradiction In order whereunto he must first observe how he states the question and then consider whether his proofs and arguments will come up to it The Israelites saith he by the Law of Moses were not onely to observe their weekly Sabbath every seventh day but also their feasts of weeks once in the year which although by the vulgar use of the Jewish Nation it may now fall upon any day of the week yet doe the Samaritans untill this day constantly observe it on the first day of the week which is our Sunday for which they produce the Letter of the Law Leviticus 23. 15 16. where the feast of the first fruits otherwise called Pentecost or the feast of weeks is prescribed to be kept the morrow after the seventh Sabbath which not they onely but also amongst our Christian Interpreters Isychius and Rupertus do interpret to be the first day of the week p. 87 88. This ground thus laid and some proofs offered quite beside the point in question to shew that the Lords day was called by the name of Sabbath in some ancient Writers he builds this superstructure on it and makes this following Descant on the former Plain song viz. But touching the old Pentecost it is very considerable that it is no where in Moses affixed unto any one certain day of the month as all the rest of the feasts are which is a very great presumption that it was a moveable Feast and so varied that it might alwayes fall upon the day immediately following the ordinary Sabbath And if God so order the matter that in the celebration of the feast of weeks the seventh day should purposely be passed over and that solemnity should be kept on the first what other thing may we imagine could be presignified thereby but that under the state of the Gospel the solemnity of the weekly service should be celebrated upon that day p. 90. Such is the state of the Question and such the inference which ariseth from that stating of it both which are now to be examined as they lie before us And first the feast of first fruits was not otherwise called Pentecost or the feast of weeks as the Lord Primate sayes it was For though two loves in the name of the first fruits of the second or wheat Harvest were to be offered to the Lord on the feast of weeks which being celebrated on the fiftieth day from the sixteenth of Nisan had the name of Pentecost yet was the name of the feast of first fruits appropriated more especially to the second day after the Passover or the sixteenth of Nisan on which the people offered the first fruits of their Barley which in that country was first ripe and from which the Computation of the said fifty dayes was to take beginning And it was thus appropriated for these reasons following 1. Because the sixteenth of Nisan was the first day of their Harvest on which the people were to offer the very first fruits of the increase of the earth which in that Country was their Barley before which time they were not to eat either bread or parched corn or the green ears of it this offering to be made in the Sheafe or Gripe before the Corn was thresht out v. 10. to the end that all the subsequent Harvest by the offering of these first fruits might be blest unto them whereas the offering of the two loves in the name of the first fruits of their Wheat was not until the end of Harvest above seven weeks after when the Wheat was hous'd and threshed and made into bread And secondly the name of the feast of first fruits was appropriated to the sixteenth of Nisan because it had no other name by which it might be dignified above the rest of the fifty and distinguished from them whereas the day on which the two loves were to be offered was eminently known by the name of the feast of weeks and the feast of Pentecost and sometimes also called the feast of the Law because the Law was given that day by the hand of Moses In the next place the Lord Primate either did not understand the meaning of the word Sabbath Levit. 23. 15 16. or if he did he would not seem to understand it the better to carry on some design for the Sabbatarians for by the tenour of his discourse it appeareth most evidently that in both places he understands the word Sabbath in no other sense but as it signifies the weekly Sabbath of the fourth Commandment and thereupon concludes that the computation of the fifty dayes beginning on the morrow after the Sabbath and continuing till seven Sabbaths should be complete even unto the morrow after the seventh Sabbath the feast of Pentecost must of necessity fall upon the first day of the week which is now our Sunday If so the Sabbatarian Brethren are in the right in making the falling of the first Christian Pentecost on which the Holy Ghost came down and sat on the heads of the Apostles three thousand souls being that day added to the Church of Christ to be an argument of some weight for their Lords-day Sabbath and Dr. Heylyn is in the wrong for making the falling of that Pentecost upon the first day of the week to be a matter of casualty the feast of Pentecost not being tyed to a certain day but falling on any day of the week as the year did vary But by his leave by Sabbath in verse 15. And you shall count unto you from the morrow after the Sabbath we are to understand the feast of unleavened bread which with all other of the Annual feasts had the name of Sabbath as appears plainly by many several passages in this very Chapter And this is that which is observed by some of the Fathers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Saint Chrysostom Hom. in Matth. 39. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Isidore Epist 110. l. 3. And secondly by Sabbath in the rest of those two verses viz. Seven Sabbaths shall be complete even unto the morrow after the seventh Sabbath c. we are not to understand the weekly Sabbath but the week it selfe the whole seven dayes which from the last in order but the first in dignity took the name of Sabbath For so we read it in Chap. 18. of Saint Luke where the Pharisee boasted of himself that he fasted twice a week verse 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith the Greek original Jejuno bis in Sabbato saith the vulgar Latine Thus also in Matth. 28. Luke 24. we find 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 prima una Sabbati as the vulgar hath it to denote
Mr. Ley accused by the Lord Primate for being too cold and waterish in the point of the Sabbath That by the Declaration of the three Estates convened in Parliament 5. 6. of Edw. 6. the times of publick worship are left to the liberty of the Church and that by the Doctrine of the Homilies the keeping of the Lords day hath no other ground then the consent of godly Christian people in the Primitive times No more of the fourth commandment to be now retained by the Book of Homilies then what belongs to the Law of Nature Working in Harvest and doing other necessary business permitted on the Lords day both by that Act of Parliament and the Queens Iniunctions No restraint made from Recreations on the Lords day till the first of King James The Sundaies and other Festivals made equal in a manner by the publick Liturgy and equal altogether by two Acts of Parliament The Answer to the Lord Primates Obiection from the Book of Homilies with reference to the grounds before laid down The difference between the Homilies of England and the Articles of Ireland in the present case Several strong Arguments to prove the Homily to mean no otherwise then as laid down in the said Answer Doctor Bounds Sabbath Doctrines lookt on as a general grievance and the care taken to suppress them WE are now come unto the third most material charge of all the rest by which the Historian stands accused for opposing the Doctrine of the Church of England in the Book of Homilies to which he had formerly subscribed and that too in so gross a manner that all the Sophistry he had could neither save him harmless for it nor defend him in it This is an heavy charge indeed and that it may appear the greater the Lord Primate layes it down with all those aggravations which might render the Historian the less able either to traverse the Indictment or plead not guilty to the Bill I wonder saith he in his Letter to an Honourable Person pag. 110. how Doctor Heylyn having himself subscribed to the Articles of Religion agreed upon in the Synod held at London Anno 1562. can oppose the conclusion which he findeth directly laid down in the Homily of the time and place of Prayer viz. God hath given express charge to all men in the fourth Commandment that upon the Sabbath day which is now our Sunday they shall cease from all weekly and week-day labour to the intent that like as God himself wrought six dayes and rested the seventh and blessed and consecrated it to quietness and rest from labour even so Gods obedient people should use the Sunday holily and rest from their common and dayly business and also give themselves wholly to the heavenly exercise of Gods true Religion and service This is the charge which the Historian suffers under wherewith the Lord Primate as it seems did so please himself that like a crambe his cocta it is served in again in his Letter unto Mr. Ley but ushered in with greater preparation then before it was For whereas Mr. Ley had hammered a Discourse about the Sabbath which he communicated to the Lord Primate to the end it might be approved by him the Lord Primate finds some fault with the modesty of the man as if he came not home enough in his Propositions to the point in hand Your second Proposition saith he p. 105. is too waterish viz. That this Doctrine rather then the contrary is to be held the Doctrine of the Church of England and may well be gathered out of her publick Liturgy and the first part of the Homily concerning the place and time of prayer Whereas you should have said that this is to be held undoubtedly the Doctrine of the Church of England For if there could be any reasonable doubt made of the meaning of the Church of England in her Liturgy who should better declare her meaning then her self in her Homily where she peremptorily declareth her mind That in the fourth Commandment God hath given express charge to all men c. as before we had it Assuredly a man that reads these passages cannot chuse but think that the Lord Primate was a very zealous Champion for the Doctrine of the Church of England but upon better consideration we shall find it otherwise that he only advocateth for the Sabbatarians not onely contrary to the doctrine of the Church of England but the practise also which that we may the better see I shall lay down plainly and without any sophistry at all upon what grounds the Lords day stood in the Church of England at the time of the making of this Homily both absolutely in it self and relatively in respect of the other Holy dayes And first we are to understand that by the joint Declaration of the Lords Spiritual Temporal and the Commons assembled in Parliament in the 5. 6. years of King Edw. 6. the Lords day stands on no other ground then the Authority of the Church not as enjoyned by Christ or ordained by any of his Apostles For in that Parliament to the honour of Almighty God it was thus declared viz. Forasmuch as men be not at all times so mindful to laud and praise God so ready to resort to hear Gods holy word and to come to the holy Communion c. as their bounden duty doth require therefore to call men to remembrance of their duty and to help their infirmities it hath been wholsomly provided that there should be some certain times and dayes appointed wherein Christians should cease from all kind of labour and apply themselves onely and wholly unto the aforesaid holy works properly pertaining to true Religion c. which works as they may well be called Gods service so the times especially appointed for the same are called holy dayes Not for the matter or the nature either of the time or day c. for so all dayes and times are of like holiness but for the nature and condition of such holy works c. whereunto such dayes and times are sanctified and hallowed that is to say separated from all profane uses and dedicated not unto any Saint or Creature but onely unto God and his service dayesâ—rescribed â—rescribed in holy Scripture but the appointment both of the time and also of the number of dayes is left by the Authority of Gods word unto the liberty of Christs Church to be determined and assigned orderly in every Country by the discretion of the Rulers and Ministers thereof as they shall judge most expedient to the setting forth of Gods glory and edification of their people Which Statute being repealed in the Reign of Queen Mary was revived again in the first year of Queen Elizabeth and did not stand in force at the time of the making of this Homily which the Lord Primate so much builds on but at such time also as he wrote his Letter to Mr. Ley and to that Honourable Person whosoever he was
which was so plainly and professedly contrary to her own Injunctions Secondly from the strong Alarm which was taken generally by the Clergy and the most knowing men of the Laity also at the coming out of Doctor Bounds Book about the Sabbath Anno 1595. In which book it is declared amongst other things that the Commandment of sanctifying every seventh day as in the Mosaical Decalogue is Natural Moral and Perpetual That there is great reason why we Christians should take our selves as straightly bound to rest upon the Lords day as the Jewes were upon their Sabbath that there should be no buying of victuals upon that day no Carriers Packmen Drovers or other men to be suffered to travel no Scholars to study the Liberal Arts no Lawyers to consult the case of their Clients or peruse their Evidences no Justices to examine Causes for preservation of the peace no Bells to ring upon that day no solemn Feasts or Wedding Dinners to be made on it with so many other prohibitions and negative precepts that men of all sorts and professions looked upon it as a common grievance Thirdly from the great care which was presently taken by such as were in Authority to suppress those Doctrines the said Book being called in by Arch-Bishop Whitgift both by his Letters missive and his visitations as soon as the danger was discovered Anno 1599. and a command signified in the Queens name by Chief Justice Popham at the Assizes held at Bury in Suffolk Anno 1600. that the said Book should no more be printed though afterward in the more remiss Government of King James it came out again with many Additions Anno 1606. Fourthly and finally from the permitting of all sorts of Recreations even common Enterludes and Bear-baitings in the so much celebrated Reign of Queen Elizabeth as also by the Declaration about Lawful sports published by King James An. 1618. and revived afterwards by King Charles Anno 1633 which certainly those godly and religions Princes would neither have suffered nor have done had they conceived it to be contrary to the Doctrine of the Church of England of which they were such zealous Patrons and such stout Defenders No breaking of Subscription here by the Historian no crossing or opposing of the Doctrine of the Church of England in the Book of Homilies and consequently no such need of Sophistry to elude the Lord Primates Argument which was drawn from thence as the said Honourable Person N. N. must believe there was SECT VIII A further Argument to prove the meaning of the Homily as before laid down The high esteem which the Church of England hath of the ancient Fathers as also of the usages of the primitive times with her respect unto the neighbouring Reformed Churches No restraint from labour on the Lords day imposed by the Council of Laodicea Beza's opinion of the liberty in those times allowed of Law-suits and Handy-crafts prohibited in great Cities on the Lords day by the Emperour Constantine but Husbandry permitted in the country Villages Proof from Saint Jerome Chrysostom Augustine that after the Divine service of the day was ended the rest of the day was spent in mens several businesses Husbandry first restrained in the Western Churches in the Council of Orleans Anno 540. and by the Edict of the Emperour Leo Philosophus in the Eastern parts about the year 890. Several restraints laid on the Lords day by the Council of Mascon Anno 588. Pope Gregory offended at such restraints and his censure of such as did enioyn them The liberty allowed in the Lutheran Churches on the Lords day as also in those of the Palatinate till after the year 1612. Nor in the Churches of the Low-Countries till the year 1618. Not onely servile Works but Fairs and Markets continued on the Lords day in those Countries till the same year also Necessary labour permitted on the Lords day in the Reformed Churches of the Switzers and honest Recreations in the French and Genevian Churches as also in the Kirk of Scotland The conclusion and application of the last Argument IT hath been proved sufficiently in the former Section that the passage alledged by the Lord Primate from the Book of Homilies and that twice for failing is capable of no such sense and meaning as he puts upon it for if it were the Homily must not only contradict it self but the Authors of it must be thought to propound a Doctrine directly contrary to the Queens Injunctions and the publick Liturgy of this Church and several Acts of Parliament which were then in force And which is more the whole body of Gods people in this Land by following their necessary business and lawful pleasures upon the Sunday or Lords day when no attendance at the place and hours of Gods publick service was required of them must be supposed to have run on in a course of sin against Gods Commandments and of contempt and disobedience to the publick Doctrine of the Church for the space of 80. years and upwards without contradiction or restraint which to imagine in a Church so wisely constituted and in a State founded on so many good Lawes cannot find place with any man of sober judgement But there is one Argument yet to come of as much weight and consequence as those before that is to say that if any such restraint from labour and honest recreations was by the Doctrine of this Church imposed on the people of God this Church must openly oppose the Doctrine of the ancient Fathers the laudable usages and customes of the Primitive times together with the general practise and perswasion of all the Protestant and Reformed Churches in these parts of the world a matter so abhorrent from the principles of the first Reformers and from the Canons and Determinations of this Church and the Rulers of it that no surmises of this kind can consist with reason The Church of England hath alwayes held the Fathers in an high regard whether we look upon them in their learned and laborious writings or as convened in General National and Provincial Councils appealing to them in all Differences between her and the Church of Rome and making use of their authority and consent in expounding Scripture witness that famous challenge made by Bishop Jewel in a Sermon preached at Saint Pauls Cross Anno 1560. in which he publickly declared that if all or any of the learned men of the Church of Rome could produce any one sentence out of the writings of any of the ancient Fathers or any General or National Council for the space of the first 600. years in justification of some Doctrines by them maintained and by us denied he would relinquish his own Religion and subscribe to theirs Witness the Canon made in a Convocation of the Prelates and Câ—ergy of England Anno 1571. Cap. De concionatoribus by which it was ordered and decreed that nothing should be preacht to the people but what was consonant unto the Doctrine of the old and
new Testament quodque ex illa ipsa Doctrina Catholici Patres veteres Episcopi collegerint and had been thence collected by the Orthodox Fathers and ancient Bishops And though H. B. of Friday-street in his seditious Sermon preached on the fifth of November Anno 1636. and the Author of the Book entituled The Liberty of Prophecy published in the year 1647. endevour to make them of no reckoning yet was King James a learned and well studied Prince perswaded otherwise then so And thereupon in some Directions sent by him to the Vice-Chancellor and other of the Heads of the University of Oxford bearing date January 18. An. 1616. it was advised and required That young Students in Divinity be directed to study such Books as be most agreeable in Doctrine and Discipline to the Church of England and excited to bestow their time in the Fathers and Councils School-men Histories and Controversies and not to insist too long upon Compendiums and Abbreviators making them the grounds of their study in Divinity By which we see that the first place is given to Fathers and Councils as they whose writings and decrees were thought to have been most agreeable to the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England The like may be said also of the usages and customes of the Primitive times which the first Reformers of this Church had a principal care of it being asfirmed in the Act of Parliament 2. 3. of Edw. 6. by which the first Liturgy of that Kings time was confirmed and ratified that the Compilers of the same not onely had an eye to the most pure sincere Christian Religion taught in the Scriptures but also a respect to the usages in the Primitive Church They had not else retained so many of the ancient Ceremonies as bowing at the name of Jesus kneeling at the Communion the Cross in Baptism standing up at the Creed and Gospels praying toward the East c. besides the ancient Festivals of the Saints and Martyrs who have their place and distinct offices in the present Liturgy And as for the neighbouring Protestant and Reformed Churches although she differ from them in her Polity and form of government yet did she never authorize any publick Doctrine which might have proved a scandal to them in the condemning of those Recreations works of labour and other matters of that nature which the general practice of those Churches both approve and tolerate And therefore if it can be proved that the spending of the whole Lords day or the Lords day wholly in Religious exercises accompanied as needs it must be with a restraint from necessary labour and lawful pleasures be contrary to the Doctrine of the ancient Fathers the usages and customes of the Primitive times and to the general practice of the Protestant and Reformed Churches I doubt not but it will appear to all equal and indifferent men that there is no such mind and meaning in the Book of Homilies or in them that made it as the Lord Primate hath been pleas'd to put upon it or to gather from it And first beginning with the Fathers Councils and the Usages of the Primitive Church it is not to be found that ever they required that the whole day should be employed in Gods publick service without permission of such necessary business and honest recreations as mens occasions might require or invite them to It was ordained indeed by the Council of Laodicea spoken of before that Christians on the Lords day should give themselves to ease and rest otiari is the word in Latine which possibly may be meant also of a rest from labour but it is qualified with a si modo possint if it may stand with the conveniences of their Affairs and the condition which they lived in And so the Canon is expounded by Zonaras in his gloss upon it It is appointed saith he by this Canon that none abstain from labour on the Sabbath day which plainly was a Jewish custome and an Anathema laid on those who offended herein 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. But they are willing to rest from labour on the Lords day in honour of the Resurrection of our Lord and Saviour But here we must observe that the Canon addes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in case they may For by the Civil Law it is precisely ordered that every man shall rest that day 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Hindes and Husbandmen excepted his reason is the very same with that before expressed in the Emperours Edict 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. for unto them it is permitted to work and travel on that day because perhaps if they neglect it they may not find another day so fit and serviceable for their occasions Besides which it is to be considered that many Christians of those times were servants unto Heathen Masters or otherwise obnoxious to the power of those under whom they lived and therefore could not on the Lords day abstain from any manner of work further then it might stand with the will and pleasure of those Superiours to whom the Lord had made them subject A Christian servant living under the command of an Heathen Master might otherwise neglect this Masters business one whole day in seven and plead the Canon of this Council for his justification which whether it would have saved him from correction or the Church from scandal I leave to be considered by all sober and unbiassed men All that the Church required of her conformable Children during the first 300. years was onely to attend the publick ministration or morning-service of the day leaving them to dispose of the rest thereof at their will and pleasure the very toil of Husbandry not being prohibited or restrained for some ages following For proof whereof take these words of Beza a man of great credit and esteem not onely with our English Presbyterians but the Lord Primate himself Vt autem Christiani eo die à suis quotidianis laboribus abstinerent praeter id temporis quod in coetu ponebatur id neque illis Apostolicis temporibus mandatum neque prius fuit observatum quam id à Christianis Imperatoribus nequis à rerum sacrarum meditatione abstraheretur quidem non ita praecise observatum That Christians ought saith he to abstain that day from their labour except that part alone which was appointed for the meetings of the Congregation was never either commanded in the Apostles times nor otherwise observed in the Church until such time that so it was enjoyned by Christian Emperours to the end the people might not be diverted from meditating on holy matters nor was it then so strictly kept as it was enjoyned Now the first Christian Emperour was the famous and renowned Constantine who was the first that established the Lords day which formerly had stood on no other ground then the Authority of the Church and consent of Gods people by Imperial Edicts so by the like Imperial Edict he restrained
that the first day of the Week which is the Lords day was wholly to be dedicated to the service of God and therefore that men should be bound to rest therein from their common and daily business which is the Doctrine of the Articles of the Church of Ireland Next let us look upon the Protestant Lutheran Churches amongst whom though restraints from labour formerly imposed by many Canons Laws and Imperial Edicts do remain in force yet they indulge unto themselves all honest and lawful recreations and spare not to travel on that day as well as upon any other as their necessities or pleasures give occasion for it If they repair unto the Church and give their diligent attendance on Gods publick service there is no more expected of them they may dispose of all the rest of the day in their own affairs and follow all such businesses from which they are not barred by the Laws of the several Countries in which they live without being called to an account or censured for it And as for the Reformed or Calvinian Churches they give themselves more liberty on that day then the Lutherans doe few of them having any Divine offices until now of late in the Afternoons as neither had the Primitive Christians till toward the later end of the fifth or the beginning of the sixth Century In those of the Palatinate the Gentlemen betake themselves in the Afternoon of the Lords day to Hawking and Hunting according as the season of the year is fit for either or spend it in taking the Air visiting their Friends or whatsoever else shall seem pleasing unto them as doth the Husbandman in looking over his grounds ordering his cattel or following of such Recreations as are most agreeable to his nature and education And so it stood in the year 1612. at what time the Lady Elizabeth daughter to King James and wife to Frederick the fifth Prince Elector Palatine came first into that Countrey whose having Divine Service every afternoon in her Chappel or Closet officiated by her own Chaplains according to the Liturgy of the Church of England might give some hint to the Prince her Husband to cause the like religious offices to be performed in some part of the Afternoon in the City of Heidelberg and after by degrees in other the Cities and towns of his Dominions In the Netherlands they have not onely practice but a Canon for it it being thus decreed by the Synod of Dort Anno 1574. Publicae vespertinae preces non sunt introducendae ubi non sunt introductae ubi sunt tollantur that is to say That in such Churches where publick Evening prayer had not been admitted it should continue as it was and where they were admitted they should be put down And if they had no Evening Prayers there is no question to be made but that they had their Evening Pastimes and that the Afternoon was spent in such employments as were most suitable to the condition of each several man And so it stood till the last Synod of Dort Anno 1618. in which it was ordained that Catechism-Lectures should be read in their Churches on Sundayes in the Afternoon the Minister not to be deterred from doing his duty propter Auditorum infrequentiam though possibly at the first he might have few Auditors and that the Civil Magistrate should be implored ut omnia opera servilia quotidiana c. That all servile works and other prophanations of that day might be restrained quibus tempus pomeridianum maxime in pagis plerumque transique soleret wherewith the Afternoon chiefly in smaller Towns and Villages had before been spent that so they might repair to the Catechizing For both before that time and since they held their Fairs and Markets their Kirk-masses as they used to call them as well upon the Lords day as on any other and those as well frequented in the Afternoon as were the Churches in the forenoon France and even in Geneva it self the New Rome of the Calvinian party all honest Exercises shooting in peeces long-bows cross-bows c. are used on the Sunday and that in the morning both before and after Sermon neither do the Ministers find fault therewith so they hinder not from hearing of the Word at the time appointed And as for the Churches of the Switzers Zuinglius avoweth it to be lawful Die dominico peractis sacris laboribus incumbere On the Lords day after the end of Divine Service for any man to follow and pursue his labours as commonly we do saith he in the time of Harvest And possible enough it is that the pure Kirk of Scotland might have thought so too the Ministers thereof being very inclinable to the Doctrine of Zuinglius and the practise of the Helvetian Churches which they had readily taken into their Confession Anno 1561 but that they were resolved not to keep those holy dayes which in those Churches are allowed of all Holy dayes but the Lords day onely having been formerly put down by their Book of Discipline Nor could I ever learn from any of my Acquaintance of that Kingdom but that men followed their necessary businesses and honest recreations on the Lords day till by commerce and correspondence with the Puritan or Presbyterian party here in England the Sabbatarian Doctrines began by little and little to get ground amongst them On all which premises I conclude that the Authors of that Homily had neither any mind or meaning to contradict the Ancient Fathers the usages and customes of the Primitive times in the general practice of the Protestant and Reformed Churches and therefore that the words of the Homily are not to be understood in any such sense as he puts upon them The Doctrine of the Church of England is clear and uniform every way consonant to it self not to be bowed to a compliance with the Irish Articles of the year 1615. and much less with the judgement and opinion of one single person in 640. No Sophistry in all this but good Topical Arguments and such as may be more easily contemned then answered And so much toward the exonerating of the fourth charge the most material of them all in which the Historian stands accused for opposing the Doctrine of this Church in the Book of Homilies to which he had formerly subscribed SECT IX The Historian charged for mistaking the affairs of Ireland in two particulars which he ingenuously confesseth The great cunning of the Puritan faction in effecting their desires in the Convocation of Dublin Anno 1615. which they could not compass here in England The Historian accused for shamelesness c. for the second mistake though onely in a point of Circumstance the Articles of Ireland being called in and those of England received in the place thereof by the Convocation though not by Parliament The Lord Primates narrative of this business he finds himself surprized in passing the Canon and makes use of a sorry shift to salve
contrary to the New which is denied in the first clause of this Article and secondly this Article must be contradicted by the Book of Homilies which in another of these Articles is approved as before was said As Adversaries to which truth the Author of the Book entitled The Faith Doctrine and Religion professed and protected in the Realm of England c. being a Commentary on the 39. Articles Perused and by the lawful Authority of the Church of England allowed to be publick doth account all such as have taught and published first that whereas all other things were so changed that they were clean taken away as the Priesthood the Sacrifice and Sacraments this day that is the Sabbath day was so changd that it yet remaineth and secondly that the Commandment of sanctifying every seventh day as in the Mosaical Decalogue is Natural Moral and Perpetual If so then no such thing required of Christians as to dedicate the first day of the week wholly to the service of God or to rest thereon from our common and dayly business as it is positively determined in this Article of the Church of Ireland Adde here those desperate consequences which have been raised by some men from these Sabbath-Doctrines It having been preacht in some of the Pulpits in this Kingdom as Mr. Rogers tells us in his Preface to the Book above mentioned that to do any servile work or business on the Lords day is as great a sin as to kill a man or commit adultery that to throw a Bowle to make a Feast or dress a VVedding Dinner on the Lords day is as great a sin as for a man to take a knife and cut his childs throat and that to ring more Bells then one on the Lords day is as great a sin as to commit a wilful murder Most desperate consequents indeed but such as naturally do arise from such dangerous premises Fifthly it is declared Num. 71. that we ought to judg those Ministers to be lawfully called and sent which be called and chosen to the work of the Ministry by men who have publick Authority given them in the Church This serves to countenance the Ordination of Ministers beyond the Seas ordained if I may so call it by the imposition of the hands of two Lay-Elders for each single Presbyter without the assistance or benediction of the Bishop and is directly contrary to the Book entituled The form and manner of making and consecrating Bishops Priests and Deacons according to which Book justified and approved by the 36. Article of the Church of England no Priest or Presbyter can be otherwise ordained then by the laying on of the hands of the Bishop Sixthly it is declared Num. 74. That God hath given power to his Ministers not simply to forgive sins which prerogative he hath reserved onely to himselfe but in his name to declare and pronounce unto such as truly repent and unfainedly believe his Holy Gospel the absolution and forgiveness of sins VVhich Doctrine how contrary it is to the Doctrine of the Church of England hath been shewed at large in the tenth Section of this Book To which I shall now onely adde that for the better encouragement of the penitent party to make a true and sincere confession of his sins that so the Priest may proceed to Absolution on the better grounds it is ordered by the 113. Canon of the year 1603. That if any man confess his secret and hidden sins to the Minister for the unburthening of his conscience and to receive spiritual consolation and ease of mind from him the said Minister shall not at any time reveale and make known to any person whatsoever any crime or offence so committed to his trust and secrecy except they be such crimes as by the Laws of this Realm his own life may be called into question for concealing the same under pain of Irregularity By incurring of which pain of Irregularity he doth not onely actually forfeit all those spiritual promotions of which he is at that time possessed but is rendered utterly uncapable of receiving any other for the time to come Seventhly it is declared Num. 80. That the Bishop of Rome is so far from being the Supreme head of the Universal Church of Christ that his works and Doctrine do plainly discover him to be that man of sin foretold in the holy Scriptures whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth and abolish with the brightness of his coming Of which opinion the Lord Primate also was as is affirmed by Doctor Bernard p. 162. where he telleth that the Lord Primate had in two learned Sermons given his judgement at large that the Papacy was meant by Babylon in the seventeenth and eighteenth of the Revelation But there is no such Doctrine concerning Antichrist in the Book of Articles or in any other publick Monument or Record of the Church of England but the contrary rather And this appeareth by a prayer at the end of the second Homily for Whitsunday viz. That by the mighty power of the Holy Ghost the comfortable Doctrine of Christ may be truly preached truly received and truly followed in all places to the beating down of Sin Death the Pope the Devil and all the Kingdom of Antichrist In which words the Pope the Devil and the Kingdom of Antichrist being reckoned as the three great enemies of the Church of Christ it must needs be by the Doctrine of this Church in the Book of Homilies that the Pope and Antichrist are as much distinguished as either the Devil and the Pope or the Devil and Antichrist which no man of reason can conceive to be one and the same Eighthly the Church of England in the tenth Article speaks very favourably of the will of man in the act of Conversion and all the other Acts of Piety which depend upon it viz. That we have no power to do good works pleasant and acceptable to God without the grace of God by Christ preventing us that we may have a good will and working with us when we have that good will according to that memorable saying of Saint Augustine the greatest Champion of Gods grace against the Pelagian Heresies Praevenit nos gratia Dei ut velimus subsequitur ne frustra velimus Whereas it is declared in the Articles of Ireland that man is meerly passive in the work of his own Conversion velut inanimatum quiddam as was said by Luther the Article affirming Num. 32. That no man can come unto Christ unless the Father draw him that is to say unless the Father doth so draw him that nothing be ascribed to mans will either in receiving of Grace preventing or working any thing by the assistance of Grace subsequent or Grace concurring no other kind of drawing by our Heavenly Father being allowed of in this Act in the Schools of Calvin For on this ground Calvin dislikes that saying of Saint Chrysostome that God draws none but such as are willing to come