offered sacrifice on the same day also So was the second day of the month consecrated to the Bonus Genius the third and fifteenth to Minerva the last to Pluto and every twentieth day by the Epicures to their God the Belly Thus also had the Romans their several Festivals in every month some in one month and some in another the ninth day onely of every month being solemnly observed by them and from thence called Nundinae because devoted unto Iupiter the most supreme Deity But what need more be said in this when we have confitentem reum For Dr. Bound the first that set on foot these new Sabbath-Doctrines doth confess ingeniously That the memory of Weeks and Sabbaths was altogether suppressed and buried amongst the Gentiles to whom I shall subjoyn de novo the Lord Primate himself who though he stick hard to prove that the Saturday was held in greater estimation by the Gentiles then all the rest yet he acknowledgeth at the last that they did not celebrate their Saturdayes with that solemnity wherewith themselves did their Annual Festivities or the Jews their weekly Sabbaths p. 85. therefore not kept by them as a Sabbath there 's no doubt of that which was by the first of the two Mediums to be clearly proved The second Medium by which it is proved by the Historian that the Gentiles did not keep the Sabbath is gathered from those bitter scoffs and Satyrical jeers which the Gentiles put upon the Jewes and such of their own people as did Judaize for the observation of the same Of this we have an evâ—dent proof in the Prophet Ieremiah who telleth us in his book of Lamentations how the adversaries of the Jewes did mock at their Sabbath c. 1. v. 7. And adversaries they had of all sorts and of different Countreyes who did mock at them for their observation of the Sabbath day The name derived by Apion from Sabbo an Egyptian word signifying an inflammation in the privy parts from which by resting on the seventh day they received some ease then which what greater scorn could be put upon it by a wretched Sycophant But others with more modesty but as little truth from Sabbo signifying the Spleen with which the Jews were miserably tormented till on the seventh day released from it for which consult Giraldus in his Book De Annis Mensibus By Persius in his fifth Satyre called recutita Sabbata in which their Circumcision and their Sabbaths were both jeered together by Ovid Peregrina Sabbata in his first Book De Remedio Amoris because not known or commonly observed amongst the Romans the men themselves by Martial in his Epigram to Bassa reprochfully nick-named Sabbatarii Accused for spending the seventh part of their lives in sloth and idleness by Seneca apud August de Civit. Dei l. 6. c. 11. Iuvenal Sat. 14. Tacitus Hist l. 5. and therefore fitted with a day of equal dulness the Saturday or dies Saturni as the Latines call it being thought unfit for any business rebus minus apta gerendis as it is in Ovid whose words I shall produce at large because I am to relate to them on another accasion Quaque die redeunt rebus minus apta gerendis Culta Palaestino septima sacra viro The seventh day comes for business most unfit Held sacred by the Jew who halloweth it A fansie not so strange in Ovid as it seems in Philo a Jew by birth and a great stickler in behalf of the Jewish Ceremonies who telleth us that the seventh day was chosen for a day of rest because the seventh number in it selfe was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to say the most peaceable number the most free from trouble war and all kind of contention Yet not more strange in Philo then it is in Aretius a Writer of the Reformed Churches who thinks that day to have been chosen before any other Quod putaretur civilibus actionibus ineptum esse c Because that day was thought by reason of the dulness of the Planet Saturn more fit for contemplation then it was for action Adde more to end as I began with an Etymology that Plutarch derives the name of Sabbath from Sabbi Sabbi ingeminated by the Priests of Bacchus in his drunken Orgies as others do from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies to celebrate those Orgies both with reproch enough to the Jewish Nation who by their riotous feastings and excesses on the Sabbath day gave such a scandal to the Gentiles that luxus Sabbatarius became at last to be a by-word as in that passage of Apollinaris spoken of before Out of all which it may be probably inferred that they that did so scornfully deride the Jewish Sabbaths did keep no Sabbath of their own by consequence that no command for the keeping of it was given to Adam as the common Root of all mankind and therefore no such institution in the second of Genesis as the Lord Primate would fain have it Against these passages proofs the L. Primate makes not any Exceptions and therefore it may be took for granted that the Gentileâ— neither were commanded to keep the Sabbath nor did keep the Sabbath which were the matters to be proved But for an Answer thereunto he sets upon Antithesis a contrary proposition of his own of purpose to run cross to that which is maintained by the Historian l. 4 c 1. n 8. For wheras it was there affirmed by the Historian that the 7th day was not more honoured by the Gentiles then the eighth or ninth the Lord Primate on the other side hath resolved the contrary affirming that the Heathens did attribute some holiness to the Seventh day and gave it a peculiar honour above the other dayes of the week p. 83. For proof of this he first supposeth a Tradition among the Jewes and Gentiles that the seventh day was not of Moses but the Fathers and did not begin with the Commonwealth of Israel but was derived to all Nations by lineal descent from the Sons of Noah p. 82. But where to find and how to prove this Tradition we are yet to seek the Lord Primate vouching no more ancient Author for it then Tertullian who lived almost two hundred years after Christ our Saviour and relates onely to his own times not to those of old No evidence produced to prove the Proposition or the Supposition out of any of those famous Writers Philosophers Historians Poets Orators who flourished in the heroick times of Learning amongst the Grecians nor from any of the like condition amongst the Romanâ— who lived and flourished before or after the triumphant Empire of Augustus Caesar one passage out of Tibullus excepted onely till we come to Aelius Lampridius an Historian who lived after Tertullian It 's true the Lord Primate cites three Greek verses from as many of the old Greek Poets but they make nothing to his purpose as himselfe confesseth The verses alledged as he telleth us
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
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
those Heresies More easily is the Argument answered importing That the reception into our use the form of the Lords Prayer according to S. Matthew should by the same reason abrogate that of S. Luke being the shorter For first the Lords Prayer as it stands in S. Lukes Gospel was never received into the Lyturgie of the Church and therefore could not be abrogated by the Churches making choice of the other which we find in S. Matthew And secondly it was not in the power of the Church to have abrogated that Prayer as it stands in S. Luke because it is a part of the Gospel of the word of God which the Church hath no Authority to change or alter and much lesse to abrogate All that the Church can be said to have done in this particular is that the Church made choice rather of the Lords Prayer as it stands in S. Matthew then as it stands in S. Luke when it was absolutely in her power to make choice of either No contrariety to be found in any one clause of the said two Pater Nosters nor any the least contradiction to be met with between those three Creeds or any one Article of the same differing no otherwise in a manner but as the Commentary and the Text. But so it is not in the Case which is now before us nor in the supposition of making one general confession of all the Reformed Churches if they were severally subscribed with the Irish Articles He that subscribes unto the Articles of Ireland may without any doubt or scruple subscribe unto the Articles or Confessions of all the Reformed or Calvinian Churches But if he take the Articles of England also into that account he must of necessity subscribe to many plain and manifest contrarieties Against this nothing hath been said but that there is no substantial difference between those Articles as was conceived by the Lord Primate p. 118. that both Confessions are consistent as is affirmed by Doctor Bernards most eminent learned and judicious person p. 121. and finally that there is no difference in substance but onely in Method number of Subjects determined and other circumstantials as is declared by Doctor Bernard p. 119. But if the contrary be proved and that it shall appear that there is a substantial difference between those Articles that the Confessions of both Churches are inconsistent and that they do not onely differ in the Circumstantials of Method Number and the like I hope that then it will be granted that the approving and receiving of the Articles of England was virtually and in effect an Abrogating of the former Articles of the Church of Ireland And for the proof of this I shall compare some passages in the Articles of Ireland as they passed in Convocation Anno 1615. with the Doctrines publickly professed in the Church of England either contained expresly and in terminis in the Book of Articles or else delivered in some other publick Monument of Record of the Church of England to which those Articles relate First then The Articles of the Church of Ireland have entertained and incorporated the Nine Articles of Lambeth containing all the Calvinian Rigours in the Points of Predestination Grace Free-will c. which Articles or any of them could never find admittance in the Church of England by reason of their inconsistency with the authorized Doctrines of it as before was said so that by the incorporating of those Nine Articles into the Articles of Ireland there are as many aberrations from the doctrine of the Church of England Secondly It is said of Christ Num. 30. that for our sakes he endured most grievous torments immediately in his Soul and most painful sufferings in his Body The enduring of which grievous torments in his Soul as Calvin not without some touch of Blasphemy did first devise so did he lay it down for the true sense and meaning of the Article of Christs descending into Hell In which expression as the Articles of Ireland have taken up the words of Calvin so it may rationally be conceived that they take them with his meaning and construction also the rather in regard that there is no particular Article of Christs descending into Hell as in those of England and consequently no such Doctrine of a local Descent as the Church of England hath maintained Thirdly it is declared Num. 50. That the Abstinencies which are appointed by publick order of that State for eating of Fish and forbearing of Flesh at certain times and dayes appointed are no wayes meant to be Religious Fasts nor intended for the maintenance of any superstition in the choice of meats but are grounded meerly upon Politick Considerations for provision of things tending to the better preservation of the Common-wealth But the Church of England not taking notice of any Politick Considerations for the breeding of Cattle increase of shipping or the like as the Statists do nor intending the maintenance of any Superstition in choice of meats as the Papists do retaineth both her Weekly and her Annual Fasts ex vi Catholicae consuetudinis as Apostolical and Primitive Institutions and she retains them also not as Politick but as Religious Fasts as appears by the Epistle for Ash-wednesday taken out of the second Chapter of Joel from verse 12. unto verse 18. and by the Gospel for that day taken out of the sixth Chapter of S. Matthew from verse 16. unto verse 22. And more particularly from the Prayer appointed to be used on the first Sunday in Lent viz. O Lord which for our sakes didst fast fourty dayes and fourty nights give us grace to use such abstinence that our flesh being subdued to the Spirit we may ever obey the Godly motions in righteousness and true holinesse to thy honour and glory which livest and reignest c. Fourthly It is affirmed Num. 56. That the first day of the week which is the Lords day is wholly to be dedicated to the service of God and therefore we are bound to rest therein from our common and daily businesse and to bestow that leisure upon Holy Exercises both publick and private How contrary this is to the Doctrine of the Church of England in the Book of Homilies we have seen already and if it be contrary to the Book of Homilies it must be also contrary to the Book of Articles by which those Homilies are approved and recommended to the use of the Church Besides it is declared in the seventh of those Articles first that the Law given by Moses as touching Ceremonies and Rites do not bind Christian men nor ought the Civil Precepts thereof to be received in any Common-wealth and secondly that no Christian whatsoever is free from the obedience of the Commandments which are called Moral So that the Ceremonial part of the Law of Moses being wholly abrogated there is no more to be observed in any of the said Commandments then that which is naturally and plainly moral For otherwise the Old Testament must be
by Clemens Alexandrinus l. 5. Stromat Eusebius lib. 13. De praeparat Evangel which verses and four others to the same effect he might have found in the History of the Sabbath Part 1. Chap 4. Num. 9. And there he might have found also that those verses had been formerly alledged by a learned Iew named Aristobulus who lived about the time of Ptolemy Philometor King of Egypt The three Poets which I find here cited are Homer Linus and Callimachus the three verses these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But there is nothing in these verses which proves either the Proposition or the Supposition touching the honouring of the seventh day more then any other but onely that the Poets were not ignorant that the works of the Creation were finished on the seventh day as himself acknowledgeth p. 86. Now how these Poets came to know that the Creation of the World was finished on the seventh day is told us by Aristobulus before mentioned namely that the Poets had consulted with the holy Bible and from thence sucked this knowledge 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as his own words are And this may be agreeable enough to the times they lived in For Homer who was the oldest of them flourished about 500. years from the death of Moses which hapned in or near the Reign of Solomon the Son of David the most mighty Monarch of the Hebrews at what time the people managed a great trade in Egypt and held good correspondence with those of Tyre from both of which being Sea-faring Nations the Greeks might come unto the knowledge derived to them from the Book of Moses of the Worlds Creation And as for Callimachus who was the latest of the three he lived not till 700. years from the time of Homer which hapned in the Reign of Seleucus Nicanor the first King of Syria of the Macedonian Race or Linage when the Jewes were under the command of one or other of the Princes of Greece as Successors to Alexander the Great in his Eastern Conquests Now for Tertullian on whose Authority the Lord Primate doth most rely we find him cited pag. 84. in two several places each place relating to a several Tract of that learned Writer The first is taken from the first Book and thirteenth Chapter of his Tract inscribed Ad Nationes published first amongst the rest of his Works in the Edition of Rigaltius and not long after in a small volume by it selfe at Geneva Anno 1625. with Gothofred his Notes upon it supposed by some to be but the rude draught of his Apologetick adversus gentes but whether it be so or not we must take it as it lies before us and the words are these viz. Qui solem diem ejus nobis exprobratis agnoscite vicinitatem non longè à Saturno Sabbatis vestris sumus Where first it is to be observed that Tertullian speaks not this of the ancient Gentiles but applies himself to those onely of the times he lived in and therefore no fit Author either to prove the Proposition That the Heathens did attribute some holiness to the seventh day and gave it a peculiar honour above the other days of the week unless he mean it of the Heathens amongst whom he lived much less to justifie the perpetual Tradition of the seventh day which the L Primate will not have to be derived unto them from the Common-wealth of Israel but the Sons of Noah And secondly we may observe that many of the Gentiles at that time when Tertullian wrote that Tract unto them had taken up many of the Jewish customs amongst others the observation of their Sabbath whose riotous feastings on the same might be communicated very readily unto all the rest But this can be no proof at all for the times preceding especially before the Jewes began to intermingle in the Provinces of the Roman Empire and much less serve to fill up that vast vacuity which was between that intermingling and the Sons of Noah Pass we on therefore to the next taken from the Apologetick Chap. 16. to which for the better understanding of the former passage we are referred by Gothofredus Aequè si diem solis saith Tertullian laetitiae indulgemus alia longè ratione quà m religione solis secundo loco ab eis sumus qui diem Saturni otio victui decernunt exorbitantes ipsi à Judaico more quem ignorant Which words of his though the Lord Primate would apply as spoken of because they are spoken to the Gentiles I doubt not but upon examination of the Authors meaning we shall find it otherwise which passage by the Scholiast is thus glossed Quod autem ad diem solis attinet alio ratio est à cultu solis quae nos eum diem qui est à Saturni secundus à Judaeis superstitiosè observatur celebrare persuadet nam illi nesciunt suam legem explosam jam exoletam refrixisse Pamelius gives this note upon it That the Christians celebrated the Sunday ut distinguantur à Judaeis qui diem Saturni id est Sabbatum solenniter etiamnum otio decernunt to the end they might be distinguished from the Jewes who devoted their Sabbath which the Romans call by the name of dies Saturni unto ease and eating What the effect is of the Scholiast and his Paraphrase we shall see anon In the mean time we may observe that Tertullian doth not say secundo loco à vobis sumus that we are in the next place to you by which he might understand the Gentiles but secundo loco ab eis sumus qui diem Saturni otio victui decernunt who dedicate the Saturday unto sloth and luxury which must be understood of the Jewes and of none but them And whereas the Lord Primate layes the strength of his Argument on the last words of his Author viz. Exorbitantes ipsi à Judaico more quem ignorant that is to say that the Gentiles by consuming that day in ease and riot had deviated from the custome of the Jewes of which they were ignorant yet certainly those words are capable of no such construction For certainly the Gentiles by consuming that day in Rest and Riot could not be said to deviate from the custom of the Jewes whose riotous feastings on their Sabbath had made them a reproch to the Greeks and Romans nor could they in any sense be said to be ignorant of the Jewish custome in that kind which Plutarch had before observed and charged upon them In the next place the Scholiast applying the former passage to the Jewes alone and their superstitious observation of their Sabbath or Saturn's-day gives us this gloss on the last words which are now before us viz. Nam illi nesciunt suam legem explosam jam exoletam refrixisse that is to say that they were ignorant that the Law by which their Sabbath had been ordained was repealed abrogated
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
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
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
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