they had not used to put them off which was therefore done because every meal among the Jews but more especially their solemn Feasts was in the nature of a Feast upon a Sacrifice as I could prove more largely if it would not be a digression and therefore being about an act of religious Worship they were used to put their shoes off as the custom of those Countries was in like cases For this reason the Turks at this day do alwaies goe barefoot into their Moschs and it was a Precept of Pythagoras recorded by Iamblichus in his Life 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sacrifice and worship God with your shoes off The Romans also did the same at their Feasts as is evident from several places of Martial and others Joshua is likewise commanded by the Angel of the Lord to doe as Moses had done before him Josh 5. 15. Loose thy shoe from off thy foot for the place whereon thou standest is holy and Joshua did so Marinus relates of Proclus that he being about to worship God made use of this Ceremony in the performance of his Devotions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And because the Servants as I conceive were used to attend their Masters to Divine Service as Naaman the Syrian was used to goe along with his Master to the Temple of Rimmon and there to take off their shoes or sandals for them from thence is that proverbial Speech of John the Baptist concerning our Saviour whose Fore runner and Harbinger he was Joh. 1. 27. He it is who coming after me is preferred before me whose shoe latchet I am not worthy to unloose Lastly in allusion to this custom is that passage of Juvenal in his sixth Satyr deinde adamas notissimus Berenices In digito factus pretiosior hunc dedit olim Barbarus incestoe dedit hunc Agrippa sorori Observant ubi festa mero pede sabbata reges Et vetus indulget senibus clementia porcis So that here we have two plain Instances of Institutions in matters of an indifferent nature approved by God but commanded onely by men for an immemorial custome whose original or legislative sanction cannot be traced and perhaps it never had any but crept in by degrees is as much an humane Institution as a possitive Command of whose Author we can give never so clear an account as the Common Law of England is every whit as much of humane institution as the Statute and those Tenures which hold onely by Custom or Prescription are to all intents and purposes as good as those which have Deeds and Charters to produce Wherefore if Custom may be comply'd with in these cases then so may any other humane Institution and if Custom may not then is it unlawfull for us to goe to our Devotions at those times when our Neighbours and Country-men are used to frequent them because this is an Imposition upon our Liberty which is not ty'd up either to place or time any more than to any other indifferent circumstance of action But if the places and times of Divine Worship may be lawfully determined by the Authority of the Church and if they may not then the Church has no power to see that God be worshipped at all for he must be worshipped at some place or time or other then I see no reason why the same Authority may not equally extend to all other indifferent circumstances of action As for the use of Liturgies and Set-forms of Prayer in the Christian Church there is nothing more plain than that as far as we can trace Antiquity they have been constantly used several of the ancient Liturgies are at this day extant among us and the Service both of the Church of Rome and our's is in a great measure taken from thence nay so ancient and in such constant use have they alwaies been in the Christian Church that we have unquestionable Instances of them in the Apostolical times themselves as hath been learnedly observed by a Dr. Lloyd Bishop of St. Asaph Reverend Prelate of our own from Justin Martyr in his second Apology who calls the Prayers of the Christians in his time 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Common Prayers and from Pliny in an Epistle to Trajan very often cited by Learned men in defence of the Christians of the primitive times who being examined by him concerning their Manners and Religion affirmabant hanc fuisse summam vel culpoe suoe vel erroris quod essent soliti stato die ante lucem convenire carménque Christo quasi Deo dicere sécum invicem c. The Learned Prelate whom I have newly mentioned understands this place of Verses answering one another by turns as we speak the reading Psalms and I know not saith he how he cou'd better express it And indeed this must be allow'd to be a very proper and a no less acute and ingenious Interpretation for the Psalms themselves were many of them nothing else but Hymns of Praise and Thanksgiving which were composed for the Service of the Temple and this ancient way of worshipping God by Hymns as well in the heathen World as among Jews and Christians is evident from the Hymns of Homer Orpheus Callimachus and others among the Greeks from Hymns of a like nature to be met with in the Interludes of the ancient Dramatick Poesie in the Odes of Horace and in the Writings of Statius Catullus and others And in allusion to this it is that the same Pliny saies in a Complyment to Trajan Animadverto etiam deos ipsos non tam accuratis adorantium precibus quà m innocentiâ sanctitate loetari gratiorémque existimari qui delubris eorum puram castámque mentem quà m qui meditatum carnem intulerit Among the Christians to be sure the singing of Psalms and Hymns in honour of God and Christ and for the mutual benefit and edification of one another was alwaies looked upon as a special Duty and we have several places of Scripture which do not onely vouch and justifie but also enjoyn this Practice If therefore Hymns and Psalms in which many are to bear their parts cannot possibly be sung but by a Form if they must be composed before they can be sung if this be a true and proper exercise of Devotion and Divine Worship if Praise and Thanksgiving be essential parts of Prayer as is manifest from that Petition in our Saviour's own Form Hallowed be thy Name nay if it be the most exalted and sublime exercise of a devout mind and if all this may be done and in many cases must be done by a Set-form then why may not the same be true of all other parts of Prayer and why may we not from hence conclude that a Form of Prayer as it is alwaies lawfull so it is in some cases necessary to be used it is necessary because Psalms and Hymns cannot be sung without it and it is necessary because in some cases we are enjoyned to sing Psalms or Hymns by
of those modern Writers who have either occasionally or ex professo inquired into this matter succeeded any better than the Ancients have done Scaliger's conjecture though approved by Casaubon and other Learned men and of which he was very fond himself is yet upon account of the harshness of the composition which he being so good a Grammarian would have understood had it been any man's conjecture but his own and for other very good reasons rejected by Grotius and Ludovicus Capellus Scaliger's Conjecture is founded upon Levit. 23. 15 16. And ye shall count unto you from the morrow after the sabbath from the day that ye brought the sheaf of the wave offering seven sabbaths shall be compleat Even unto the morrow after the seventh sabbath shall ye number fifty daies and ye shall offer a new meat-offering unto the Lord. From whence he would needs have it that the Jews were used to count their Sabbaths to the Feast of Pentecost from the second day of Unleavened-bread after this manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. reckoning from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to say the second day of unleavened-bread but then it should not have been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Secondly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without an adjection would not nor ever did that can be proved signifie the second day of Unleavened-bread but as they say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in another place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the first day of unleavened-bread and the last day of the Feast so if they had a mind to be understood they must speak out as plainly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 otherwise what second day or what second thing which might be any thing with a seminine gender was meant it would be impossible for any man to divine Thirdly In the place upon which this Conjecture is founded it is not from the second day but from the morrow mimacharath in the Hebrew and in the LXX 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so that it is plain if they had followed either the original Hebrew or the Translation of the LXX with which they were better acquainted in those days and from whence they must have borrowed this way of numbering of their Sabbaths if any such thing had been they would not have said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Fourthly The Jews in this case did not count by Sabbaths but by days for though it be true what Moses saith that from the morrow after the Sabbath seven Sabbaths were to be compleat yet when he speaks of the way of counting these seven Sabbaths he saith v. 16. Even unto the morrow after the seventh sabbath shall ye number fifty days and so the Jews at this day keep their account saying the first after Omer the second after Omer c. till they come to fifty daies as Grotius upon this place-hath-observed Fifthly and lastly which I believe has not yet been taken notice of by any other though it be plain demonstration against Joseph Scaliger's opinion he proceeds upon a mistaken notion of the word Sabbath which in this Text hath two significations but neither of them such as will serve his turn for when it is said from the morrow after the sabbath by the Sabbath is understood the first day of Unleavened-bread which was as hath been shewn of a sabbatical nature let it fall upon what day of the week it would and from hence they numbred seven Sabbaths that is not seven Saturdays or Jewish Seventh-daies but seven times seven daies so as if Scaliger's opinion be true and if the Sabbaths were to be counted after his manner then it would not be alwaies the Saturday or Jewish Sabbath on which the Sabbatum Deuteroprôtum would fall but upon any day of the week indifferently so as for example if the second day of Unleavened-bread were upon the Munday then the next Sabbath after it excluding that day that is the next sabbatical Period of seven daies would be upon the Tuesday come seven night and this according to Scaliger would be the Sabbatum Deuteroprôtum and the Wednesday come six Weeks after would be the day of Pentecost But now it is plain that in that Instance of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Gospel of Saint Luke gives us it is to be understood of the Saturday or of the Jewish Sabbath properly and strictly so called for otherwise the Cavil of the Pharisees instead of deserving that solid and judicious answer which our Saviour gives to it would have been ridiculous and would have needed no answer at all since a Sabbath in the meaning and sense of that place from whence Scaliger borrows his Argument might have been understood of any day of the week let it be what it would and though there were no manner of Sanctity in it But if either Scaliger had he been living would have understood or if any now will needs understand for him the word Sabbath of seven revolutions of the Saturday or first day of the week and will have it that the day of Pentecost was the day after the seventh or last of these then let us suppose the Passover it self to be coincident with the Sabbath in which case the second day of Unleavened-bread will be upon our Sunday and upon the Munday come seven weeks the fifty daies will be compleat upon the Tuesday the first day of the Feast of Weeks or the first day of the Feast of Pentecost ought to fall but in regard there have not yet been seven revolutions of the Saturday come about we must stay yet five entire daies longer that is five and fifty daies and the first day of the Feast of Pentecost must alwaies happen upon our Sunday both of which since they are very absurd and contrary to the express words of the Law which reckons but fifty daies from the second day of Unleavened-bread let that day happen upon what day of the week it will it is manifest what is become of Scaliger's opinion of which as absurd as it is Grotius was pleased to say Sententia ista magnis argumentis à suo Authore desensa est that it was defended by its Authour by great and weighty arguments though for some reasons he thought it necessary to dissent from him and Casauben speaking of the same Conjecture saies Tantum dicam Certum atque indubitatum sententioe Scaligeri Fundamentum esse in verbis Mosis Lev. 23. 15. that is I will onely say this that Scaliger ' s opinion is grounded upon a certain and undoubted foundation of Levit. 23. 15. for we have seen how sandy and infirm and rotten that foundation is and how unable it is to support that little building of a very small conjecture how great soever in the opinion of its Authour which Scaliger would have built upon it Scaliger's pretended solution of this difficulty being thus confuted though in truth much the most ingenious and the nighest to truth of any which have been thought
be offered up at half an hour past seven or as we would say at half an hour past one and Epiphanius in his solution of the sabbatum deuteroprotum of which there hath been so much discourse already doth manifestly suppose the concurrence of two Sabbaths sometimes among the Jews and so doth S. Chrysostom and Isidore likewise which solutions of theirs though they have been already considered and exploded yet if no such concurrence had been ever known they had not onely been false in themselves but also built upon a false foundation The reason why these Learned men who have stood up in defence of the Talmudical Canons have made the difference between our Saviour's Supper and the Jews to arise from thence was this that so it might appear that our Saviour did celebrate his Passover upon the legal day whereas the Jews being governed rather by the Traditions of their Masters than by the Law of Moses to avoid the concurrence of two Sabbaths the Passover that year as they tell us happening upon the Friday transferred it to the next day and so made a coincidence of the Passover and Sabbath together but how indefensible this opinion is we have abundantly seen and I account my self not a little happy that after the gleanings of so many Learned men I have been able to confirm the truth by some new authorities not taken notice of by them The second Expedient thought of by Learned men for the solution of this Difficulty is this that both our Saviour and the Jews celebrated their Passover upon the legal time to the best of their understanding on both sides but that they onely differed in their way of computation our Saviour he went more exactly to work and computed his Passover from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or astronomical conjunction of the Sun and Moon while the Jews not being it seems so good Astronomers proceeded onely by the sensible phasis which was about a day after but to this though it may be sufficient to answer with Bochartus that all this is gratis dictum fine ullo teste vetustatis that it is spoken without any the least colour of authority to vouch it yet it is farther true that Maimonides does expresly affirm that it was a Tradition of Moses from Mount Sinai that they should compute their New-moons by the phasis and that as long as the Sanhedrin lasted and all the while the Doctours of the Mishna and the Gemara lived till the days of Abijah and Rabba they had no other way of computation and so it is also expresly asserted in that passage of Clemens Alexandrinus of which I have already made so much use 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. that the Jews never celebrate any of their feasts or solemn days but they compute them from the phasis of the moon The third Expedient is that of Ludovicus Capellus who pretends as I remember to solve the difficulty by the Embolism or Intercalation of a day at the end of the month foregoing which being observed by the Jews but not by our Saviour makes the Jewish Passover a day later than his but to this though we may answer as to the former that it is perfectly precarious it is onely faid and not proved yet there is one place of Scripture yet behind which will serve for a sufficient Confutation of all these three Expedients it is Joh. 13. 29. when Judas went out to betray his Master it is said of his fellow Disciples that some of them thought because Judas had the bag that Jesus had said unto him Buy those things that we have need of against the feast which Feast if it be meant of the Passover as it can be meant of no other then we have here an express Testimony of the Disciples themselves and certainly that is as good authority as can be produced that the Passover was not yet come For as for those that expound it of the Chagigah they do not consider that upon the first day of Unleavened-bread as this must be if it were not the day before it was unlawfull either to buy or sell But besides these three there has another way been thought of as insufficient in my opinion as any of the former and that is that as the Jews now a-days do use to keep the fifteenth and sixteenth of Nisan both of them with a Paschal solemnity that they may be sure to avoid a mistake as to the time of the conjunction of the two Heavenly bodies so from thence there are some that will needs infer that this was the ancient practice and at that rate that night when our Saviour supped with his Disciples was no less the Passover night than that which followed it But first it is to be considered that there is no testimony of antiquity that can be produced to prove that this was the ancient practice and therefore it is precarious Secondly The ancient Jews if they did practise it yet the practice of the modern can be no argument to prove it because what they doe is propter dubium conjunctionis luminarium as Scaliger observes whereas the Ancients went altogether by the Phasis Thirdly Maimonides observes that even in old time those Jews that were in captivity or lived in foreign Countries were used to observe two days together because they could not certainly tell what day the Sanhedrin at Jerusalem had consecrated for the New-moon But as this exception is an argument that it was not the general practice so the reason given of it proves that at Jerusalem this custome never obtained for there they could not be ignorant what day the Sanhedrin had pitched upon Fourthly When the Friday on which our Saviour suffered is called by Saint John 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the preparation of the Passover it is certain it could not be the Passover it self for the preparation was onely in order to it and was of necessity a day before it Fifthly The place of St. John which I have produced upon the former head is every whit as good an argument upon this for had that day upon which Judas went out to betray his Lord been a Passover as well as that which followed next after it certainly the Disciples could never have been so silly and so ignorant of their own customs and Nation and of the Law of Moses as to suspect he was gone to buy any sort of provision at a time when nothing could either be bought or sold Sixthly and lastly it is an unanswerable argument against this and all other ways of making our Saviour's Supper a properly Paschal or Sacrificial Feast that He himself was that Lamb of God whom all the mosaick Passovers represented and that he might unquestionably approve himself to be so and unexceptionably fulfill the legal Types it was necessary that he should suffer at the true time when the Passover was to be killed and therefore that true time could not possibly be come when he supped with his Disciples So
as I suppose appointed by the Congregation de propaganda side the Committee that manage the interest of the Faction to buz in my ears as an argument to discourage me from publishing what I had spoken that my Sermon would have the honour of being translated into French for the use of Monsieur Barillon that a complaint would be made by the French Ambassadour in a memorial on set purpose that I had broken the Peace between the two Nations and that a Fellow of a College that had not so much as a Pupil to take his part had presumed barely with the assistance of his Sizar a worthy Squire to so redoubted a Knight to levy actual War upon the most potent and formidable Prince that these latter Ages of the World have seen though I was not sensible that I had said any more than they themselves who made use of this advantage against me are every day speaking among one another with a bitterness of Language peculiar to the men that use it though for this perhaps the French King is to thank them that they take no more liberty with him than they do with their own rightfull Sovereign and natural liege Lord the one for subverting the Protestant Religion and the other for maintaining it which shews them to be a People so very hard to be pleased that I am resolved never to be a servant to such difficult Masters for as Aristophanes saith rightly in the entrance into his Plutus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Neither indeed when all comes to all have I said any more than what most of the Princes and States of Christendom have publickly complained of by their Ambassadours and Agents in the Court of France and what is sufficiently justified by that excellent Person Dr. George Hickes a great ornament of Learning and as able a Champion for the established Religion as ever the field of controversie hath afforded hath verified to a tittle in his judicious Sermon concerning the True Notion of Persecution a Discourse which I wish with all my heart those of the Separation would take the pains to reade that complain so much but so unjustly of the subject of it So that I think upon the whole matter Sorbiere's case and mine are very different from one another though that were the example that was used to fright me for I have not spoken contemptibly of the French Nation which I have always accounted of as a gallant People valiant in War and always excelling in all the arts of Peace much less have I dared to vilifie the awfull Majesty of so great a King whose Sovereign Power I do as much acknowledge to be an image of the divine inviolable sacred and never to be mentioned without reverence and honour as I do that of our Royal Master himself the best of Princes the Father of his Country the delight of Mankind the wonder of this Age and the inimitable Example of all that are to come but yet I think it to be such an image as it would be inexcusable Idolatry in me who am an English Subject to fall down and worship And as my case is very different from that of Sorbiere so are my circumstances too for he they tell me for the indignities he put upon the English Nation the bravest people that the Sun beholds was deservedly turned out of all but I am humbly bold to tell Your Lordship and the rest of my Superiours that I have nothing out of which to be turned and that I should think my self comparatively happy in respect of what I am now if I could be placed in his circumstances without the crime that occasion'd them and as I am a stranger to his circumstances and his crime so I thank God I am as far removed from his Principles too for he and his two friends Mersennus and Gassendi were of the Religion of Malmsbury if they had any at all as appears by their joint admiration of the Book De Cive the Latin Leviathan that sports himself in foreign waters as the English one does upon the British Coast but I own no principles that destroy the very nature and being of obligation and are by consequence enemies to Mankind But it is easie to discern that all I have yet said is by no means a satisfactory answer to Your Lordship's question why the edition of this Sermon hath been so long delayed for the Additions to it are not so considerable that the twentieth part of all this time need to have been taken up about them and though indeed when I am brought to this pinch I cannot give a good account of such a slow and dilatory proceeding yet a true one I will be sure to give and it is this that when I had written and printed off ten sheets of this discourse which is as much as I now publish I launched out I know not how or why into things merely Philological and foreign to the subject and as it is usually when men are got into a Labyrinth they do but lose themselves the more for endeavouring to get out so one digression bringing on another I found I had wander'd so far out of my way that the subjects I now employ'd my thoughts upon began to speak another Language from that in which the former part of my discourse was written They that have a Talent at censuring will be apt to say that this proceeded out of nothing else but a certain vanity and affectation of appearing learned and it may be this was indeed the very cause since it will be difficult to assign a better though I am not sensible of it and so far as I know any thing of my self but how few are there that do understand themselves I have no such thing as pride or affectation in my nature and in truth it would be very inexcufable in me to be proud of any thing or to appear as if I were so and much more to resolve industriously in spite of the Subject or the Company I am in to be talking of matters in which neither are concerned because this is an humour so tawdry and impertinent and touches my imagination with so satyrical impressions upon it self that of all things in the World it would appear the most despicable to me if it did not make me sick as it always does and no man can properly be said to despise that which he fears But whatsoever were the true reason of so extravagant a ramble from the subject and the Text whether it proceeded out of vanity and foolish ostentation or whether it were onely what some that know me will be apt to plead in my behalf that I am naturally inclined by my constitution to digress from every such Subject which I undertake which I believe to be a true account of the business for I scarce ever set upon any thing in my life but I was always pestered with a multiplicity of thoughts as perfect strangers to the Subject and to one
to a permission of Eating the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we Translate things Strangled and to the Repealment of the prohibition of Blood as to the Idolothyta or things Offered up in Sacrifice upon the Table of Idols For they could not eat whatsoever was sold in the Shambles without eating many times such meat as was not killed with that exquisite Accuracy for the draining of the Blood which was peculiar to the Jews and derived afterwards to the Christians from them A particular Instance of this exceeding Care and Sollicitude of theirs we have 1 Sam. 14. v. 32. And the people flew upon the Spoil and took Sheep and Oxen and Calves and slew them on the ground and the people did eat them with the blood that is lying upon the ground the Blood could not so easily be drained out of the Orifice that was made and besides the Blood flowing about them polluted and the ground where they lay and defiled the Skins of the Beasts that were killed which put the whole Animal in a state of Levitical Uncleanness and that which made the touching of Blood to contract a Defilement was this that by the Levitical Sanctions the Blood was of an Expiatory nature and was always Offered up by the express Command of God before the door of the Tabernacle as long as the Israelites sojourned in the Wilderness and so being spilt by way of Expiation it was supposed to be Defiled with the Guilt of the Owner and his Family who were afterwards to partake of the Flesh and therefore was Unclean as all Expiatory Sacrifices were as is manifest not only from the reason of the thing Expiation being a Translation of Guilt and Guilt the cause of Uncleanness but also from the Rites of the Sin and the Trespass Offering which in some cases were by reason of their uncleanness to be burnt without the Camp and the Skins of these Sacrifices did not belong to the Priest as in some other cases because they were unclean Now though it is true that after the Children of Israel were settled in the Land of Canaan this Custome of bringing all Animals to be slain at the door of the Tabernacle was omitted and indeed was utterly Impracticable by reason of the great distance of many parts of Judea from the Temple and Tabernacle yet notwithstanding God did not by this lose that Right which he had appropriated to himself in the Blood but it was in the nature of a tacit or supposed Sacrifice in behalf of the Owner and those that partook with him of the Flesh though it were not sprinkled by the Priest before the Lord as the Law of Moses if by reason of Distance it had not been impossible would have required By this it appears how the Beasts that were killed in this place of Samuel came to be defiled and unlawfull to be eaten Let us now see which was the thing I first intended what care was taken by Saul for the redress of this neglect or at least to make some amends for it v. 33 34. Then they told Saul saying Behold the people sin against the Lord in that they eat with the blood And he said ye have transgressed roul a great stone unto me this day And Saul said disperse your selves among the people and say unto them bring me hither every man his Ox and every man his Sheep and slay them here and sin not against the Lord in eating with the Blood And all the people brought every man his Ox with him that night and slew them there Nay it is probable that the Blood was also sprinkled from the hands of the Priests for it follows in the next Verse And Saul built an Altar unto the Lord the same was the first Altar that he built unto the Lord. Now the reason of that Command of his of rouling a Stone to the place where the Beasts were to be killed was this That they were to be laid athwart it with their Nâ—â—ks hanging down that so the blood might flow with the greater freedom out of the Orifice which was made and might fall upon the ground without defiling the Bodies of the Animals themselves as I have already taken notice in another Discourse upon a very different Occasion from this and in another Language The Jews continue Obstinate to this day in a Religious abstinence from Blood notwithstanding their Temple be demolished and they do not so much as pretend to any thing of Sacrifice till it be rebuilt and I know a Learned Jew with whom I had for some years a particular acquaintance who was so scrupulous in this point that he would never eat any kind of Flesh which he had not killed himself But before I pass any further I will take notice of one cause of Saint Paul's Condescention as to the business of Abstinence from Blood which I did not think of before And that is That besides what I have said of its Levitical Pollution which it seems they that were the Patrons of this Opinion did not apprehend to be abolished by the fulfilling of all those legall Sacrifices in and by the Sacrifice of Christ they considered further that God having appropriated the Blood to himself which Property and Right of his they did not conceive him ever to have relinquisht they looked upon it as a kind of Sacrilege to seed upon Blood and therefore abstained from it upon the same Pious principle upon which they would have abstained from Robbing of Hospitals or Colleges or from Pilfering the Ornaments of Churches and seizing the Revenues of the Ecclesiastical State a sort of Piety so necessary to the honour of God and to the prosperity and happiness of the Church that it ought by no means to be discouraged though in a mistaken Instance much more if Saint Paul himself foresaw which we cannot tell but he might that Sacrilegious humour of the Saints which our times have experienced when the Church was swallowed up at one Morsel and the Kingdome at another when all that was Sacred and Devoted to the service of Almighty God was converted to profane uses by Thieves and Robbers in the disguise of Saints with as little reason as that for which Dionysius of Syracuse divested Apollo of his Golden Ornaments upon Pretence that they were too heavy and too hot for Summer and that in Winter they would not keep him warm We see therefore that it was not a bare Infirmity without any colour or pretext of Reason that was dispensed with in these cases for such Dispensations if they be once allowed there can be no end but Confusion and the utter Subversion of all manner of Government and Order We see upon what reasons and prejudices these Scruples were founded and how necessary it was at that time to Comply with them We see likewise that they were not matters of small Weight and Moment they were not things looked upon on both sides to be of an indifferent nture they were not Controversiae de Nugis
thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where the calling of assemblies is rendered by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the great or high day which in other places is termed an holy convocation by which is meant the first and last day of the three great Feasts which were kept for seven days together in the first and last of which there was a more extraordinary concourse of the People and besides a Sabbath or day of Rest from all manner of secular imploiment which notion if Boâ—â—artus had understood so thoroughly as he should have done if he had known that the seventh day of a Feast was as well 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a great or high day as the first though it was not equally so for by this time most of those that lived at any distance from Jerusalem were gon home he would not have uttered these words Quin apud Jadaeos nullum fuit Festum in quod non quadret hoc nomen that there was no Feast-day among the Jews which might not properly enough be called a great or high day for which he cites that Text of Joh. c. 7. v. 37. speaking of the last day of the Feast of Tabernacles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the last day that great day of the Feast neither is this any more than what is usual in our own Age as Bochartus could not chuse but know for what day or night is so guilty of excess and riot as that which is the last of the Carnival in Popish Countries and here among our selves the Solemnities of Twelftide and Candlemass are in a manner equal to that of Christmass day Procopius himself whose Authority is produced by Bochartus may be sufficient to put him to silence his words are these expresly asserting a great or high day to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is every day which is termed an holy convocation as the first and seventh day of Vnleavened-bread the day of Pentecost the tenth day of the 〈◊〉 Tisri and in one word every more remarkable â—â— extraordinary Feast-day But you see he expresly tells â—â— as to the Feast of the Passover that onely the first and seventh were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 great or high days â—â—â— the same is to be understood of the Feast of Pentecâ—â— or Weeks and of the Feast of Tabernacles for the latter of which we have the express Authority of Saint Joâ—â— it being absurd to call the seventh day of the Feast 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the great or high day of the feast if all the seven daies were so as well as that so that Bechartus his darling Testimony does sufficiently conâ—â—â—â— that opinion which he endeavours to establish upon it for that which he designs to prove is that the second day of Vnleavened bread upon the approach of which he supposes our Saviour to have suffered was a great or 〈◊〉 day which this Testimony will by no means doe nor that of Procopius neither Since therefore it is agreed â—â— all hands that our Saviour did not suffer upon the seventh day of Vnleavened-bread or upon the approach of it what can be more plain than that he underwent his Passion upon the approach of the Feast at that very time when the Paschal-lamb was to be slain and from hence it is though I did not intend to have betray'd that Secret now that Easter sunday by the ancient 〈◊〉 Church was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the great or 〈◊〉 Sunday as I have seen it in their Liturgies both in Manuscript and printed For although the Tessarescaidecatitâ— so called from their following the Jewish account celebrated their Easter upon any day of the week indifferently as Eusebius Epiphanius Saint Austin Theodoret and Philastrius assure us yet it was the general way of the Church which we retain to celebrate it upon the Sunday after the anniversary of the Passion which being coincident with an ordinary or weekly commemoration of 〈◊〉 Resurrection which every Sunday is was called the 〈◊〉 or high Sunday as well because of the concurrence 〈◊〉 it were of two Holydaies in one as for that this being our Christian Passover it answers to the first day of Unleavened bread which was an Holy Convocation among the Jews The last place mentioned by Bochartus is Matt. 26. 5. But they said Not on the Feast day lest there be an uprore 〈◊〉 the people Which place to speak truly proves nothing either way For thus much is certain that the Jews were wont to put to death notorious Malefactours and such some of them looked upon our Saviour and others would have had him thought to be upon the Preparation of their solemn feast-Feast-days when there was a general conslux of the People that so the Punishment might be of greater example but at this time because of the great reputation and esteem which our Blessed Lord had gained among the People it was resolved among the Chief-priests and Scribes that his Crucifixion should not be on the Feast-day lest the Concern of the People for him might occasion a Tumult but now it being clear that the Concourse would be in a manner equal either on the first day of Unleavened-bread or on the day before it when all that were to partake of the Passover were actually come to Jerusalem to prepare themselves in order to it we must refer it wholly to the Providence of God who put it into the hearts of the Chief-priests and Scribes upon occasion of Judas his betraying him to doe what they designed at a time when they did not design it that so he might approve himself to be Christ our Passover as Saint Paul calls him and the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world in the Divine Decree but not to be brought actually to the Slaughter untill this fulness of time For this reason it was that not a bone of him was â—â—â—ken when the Theives who were crucify'd together with him not being yet actually dead were dispated this way because a bone of the Passover was not tâ— be broken for this reason he expired at the ninth hour that is about three in the afternoon the very time whâ—â— the Passover was to be killed for this reason he cameâ— Jerusalem as Bochartus himself ingeniously and learâ—ly observes upon the tenth of Nisan the time whâ— the Passovers according to the Law of Moses were 〈◊〉 be set by for Sacrifices on the fourteenth and for the same reason it was as the same Learned man conjectures that he began to preach in the thirtieth year of his age which being the perfect age of a man in his full strength and vigour answers to the Passover of a year old and â—â— continued preaching till his thirty fourth year where if you take years for daies in the Prophetick style 〈◊〉 entring upon his Preaching in his thirtieth year will 〈◊〉 as it were his setting apart in order to his being a Saâ—â—â—fice in the thirty fourth Lastly Our Saviour himself expresly saies Matt. 26. v. 2. Ye know that
Giauhari with which his admirable skill in Oriental Learning hath supply'd him but that the Passover if it happen'd to fall upon a Friday was ever called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is that which he and divers others contend for this is that which I deny because first it must be acknowledged to be precarious having no Authority of any Hebrew Calendar to vouch it in the second when the Friday is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is an elliptical way of speaking which must be supply'd thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and if it be asked What is meant by those words the answer will be that It is the day before the Sabbath and so a man would think by the same way of construing that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was the day before the Passover and not the very day of the Passover it self but thirdly if the Jewish Calendar must be called in to determine this important Question which has exercised the wits of so many Learned men we may remember that in the sixth of Saint Luke's Gospel there is mention made of the second Sabbath after the first which in the Greek is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and which no question was a day of special remarke in the Calendar of those times and because it is very apposite to my purpose after the vain attempts of Scaliger Cloppenburge Capellus and Grotius I will now give a clear Explanation what is meant by it It is plain therefore that the Sabbath being a period or revolution of seven daies the first Sabbath of Nisan must of necessity fall upon one of the daies inclusively of seven and for the same reason the Passover being a Feast of seven daies it must alwaies have a Sabbath for one of the number which being either the Passover it self or one of the daies of Unleavened-bread it was for that reason of greater Solemnity because it was at once a commemoration of the Divine Rest after the Creation of the World and of his Goodness in their Deliverance out of the Land of Aegypt and it had besides the daily morning or evening Sacrifice the celebration of the Passover or the Chagigah into the bargain and this Sabbath is that which is properly called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or rather 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the second Sabbath after the first of Nisan which must of necessity fall either upon the Feast of the Passover it self supposing the first day of that month to fall upon the Sabbath or else upon one of the daies of Unleavened-bread Now if you consider how many places of Scripture there are which have been already produced which do manifestly savour its falling upon the Sabbath that year when our Saviour suffered upon the Cross if you consider what Solemnity the conjunction of the Sabbath would add to that of the Passover if you reflect upon this that no Execution could be done upon the Feast-day it self which was a Sabbath in which it was not lawfull to doe any Work Exod. 12. 16. or for the Bodies of men to remain or be upon the Cross Joh. 19. 31. and that upon the first day of Unleavened-bread in the morning they that lived at a distance from Jerusalem were used to repair to their respective homes Deut. 16. 7. because it not being without great detriment to their affairs that many of them were forced to repair from the uttermost parts of Judaea to Jerusalem while God by a Miracle preserved their Flocks and their Substance at home from the Incursion of the neighbour Nations Exodus c. 34. v. 24. who not being miraculously restrained would have made use of this occasion at once to enrich and revenge themselves for the Injuries they had received he was pleased upon so necessary an occassion to dispense so far with the fabbatical Rest as to suffer every man to depart to his own home upon the first day of Unleavened-bread notwithstanding it had in other respects all the solemnity and strictness of a Sabbath by which means it would have come to pass if our Saviour had been crucify'd upon that day that he would not have been slain by all the Congregation of Israel as the Law required the Paschal-lamb to be Lastly If you shall observe what in this case is very material to be considered that if our Saviour had not suffered upon the usual time when the Passover was to be considered that if our Saviour had not suffered upon the usual time when the Passover was to be killed that is to say upon the fourteenth of Nisan but upon the fifteenth or upon the first day of Unleavened-bread he would not in this have represented the Passover but the Chagigah or Peace-offering of the days of Unleavened-bread neither would he so fully have answered the Legal Types being no otherwise typify'd by the Chagigah than he was by all Sacrifices whatsoever which though they did all of them point at that great Sacrifice which was in the fulness of time to be offered up once for all yet the Passover and the Sin and Trespass-offering had some sort of preheminence above the rest in this umbratical designation as is manifest from his being called so frequently the Lamb and the Lamb of God and the Lamb without blemish and Christ our Passover and from his suffering without the Gate to answer the typical adumbration of the Sin offering which was for this reason burnt without the Camp certainly from all this you cannot chuse but see it absolutely necessary to confess that on the year of our Lord's Passion the first day of Unleavened-bread and the Sabbath were co incident with one another and that the Sabbatum Deuteroprotum was alwaies either upon the fifteenth of Nisan or else inclusively from that to the one and twentieth What the true meaning of this Sabbatum Deuteroprôtum or the second Sabbath after the first as we render it should be has been a Mystery which has been hid from Ages and which it is now my happiness for the better adjusting the true time of our Saviour's Passion and for the farther vindication of the Scripture History which receives at once light and credit by being solidly explained now first of all to discover Erasmus upon this occasion gives a pleasant Specimen of Monkish Ignorance and Saint Jerom so long ago have Learned men been ignorant of the true meaning of this passage in Saint Luke consulting Gregory Nazianzen upon this question was answered onely with a Jest instead of giving his opinion De vocis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 interpretatione saith Grotius dici ferme potest quot capitatot sententioe Syrus Arabs Tanto quam nos sumus illi seculo loco propiores satis manifeste ostendunt se quid hoec vox velit ignorâsse and of this disagreement among the Ancients as to the meaning of this place you may see abundance more in Isaac Casaubon in his fourteenth Exercitation against Baronius Neither have any
allusion as this is that saying of Moses to his Maker Exod. 32. 32. Yet now if thou wilt forgive their sin and if not blot me I pray thee out of thy book which thou hast written And then vers 33. And the Lord God said unto Moses whosoever hath sinned against me him will I blot out of my book Not that we must entertain so gross and so unworthy conceptions of God Almighty as if he entered down all humane or other Occurrences in a certain Journal without which if they did not escape his cognizance he would loose the memory of them as if he kept an Album Amicorum a Catalogue or List of his Friends and Favorites without which they would ship out of his mind but it is an allusion to the Genealogical Tables of the Jews in which such as dyed without Issue as being of no use in carrying on the series and account of time were used by those who transcribed the publick Genealogies for the common use or the private Pedigrees for the use of particular Families to be omitted and consequently in after Ages forgotten of which I have spoken more largely in that Disquisition which I have mentioned concerning the Brother's marrying the Brother's wife in the Levitical Law and this is plainly the meaning of that Passage Psal 109. 13. Let his Posterity be cut off and in the Generation following let their name be blotted out that is when the Genealogies come to be transcribed for the use of the next Generation let their names as barren and supersluous and dying without Issue be omitted Whereâ—ore the Precept of writing of the Law or the Commandments upon the Posts and Gates of their houses must be explained by vers 18. Ye shall lay up these my words in your heart and in your soul and this was that which they were to teach their Children vers 19. that is not the whole Law which those tender apprehensions could not receive or attend unto much less comprehend the entire Systeme and Model of so intricate a Dispensation but only the general Rules of Life and Practice in which it was but requisite they should be trained up from their infancy and childhood that the exercise and love of Vertue and Religion might be the more habitual to them in their age and for this reason they were used to instruct them particularly in the Decalogue as Children now a daies are used to be taught the Apostles Creed the Lord's Prayer and the Ten Commandments which contain the general Heads of Devotion Articles of Belief and Rules of Practice The very reducing the general Rules of duty both with respect to God and Man under ten general Heads the putting them not less than twice by themselves into Tables of Stone by the Finger of God himself that is by a supernatural operation of the Divine Will notwithstanding there is nothing in the Commandments themselves which is not more largely insisted upon in the body of the Law and branched out into many particular cases is a sufficient argument that these ten Words or Precepts or Commandments were intended for the use of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or vulgar sort of men to give them a general scheme of their duty though for their satisfaction in particular cases whether of religious scruple or civil right they were to betake themselves to the Judges and Officers of their respective Tribes and from thence if they were not satisâ—y'd they were to appeal to Jerusalem in that manner which has been already declared Letters were so scarce in those early times among the Jews as well as among other Nations that to be able to write and reade especially to reade the Law after the traditionary way of which I shall speak more by and by was that which qualify'd men for the highest employments in the Jewish State and therefore it is observable that Shoter and Sopher and Shophet in Hebrew as they are names very like in sound so they are also in signification and were all of them frequently expressive of the highest power and authority among them Sophrim and Shophtim are joyned together as exegetical and declaratory one of another 2 Chron. 34. 13. and so are Shophtim and Shotrim Deut. 16. 18. In the first of which places the Seventy render it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Scribes and Judges and in the latter they are termed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Judges and Promulgers of Judicial Edicts and Letters as Andreas Masius in his learned and elaborate Notes upon Joshua would have it but by his favour I do not allow that interpretation but am rather of opinion that this word is synonymous with the former 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is an Introduction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Introductour or Instructour in any Skill or Knowledge and so Plutarch calls his little Book 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is of the instruction or information of Youth and so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will be interpres enarrator Doctor Legis an Expositor or Teacher of the Law and consequently a Judge of those Controversies that were to be decided out of it or it is one that was used to bring out the Law among the People who were not allow'd the use of it or could not make use of it at home to reade and explain it and address himself to them in practical and popular exhortations as the People spake to Ezra the Scribe Neh. 8. v. 1. To bring the book of the Law of Moses and then v. 2. And Ezra the Priest brought the Law before the Congregation Neither were they onely by means of this skill of reading and interpreting the Law capacitated to be the prime Judges and Officers among the People but also by writing and keeping the Genealogies which was no question another Imployment of theirs they had opportunity of knowing all the People and of being better known to them of understanding their qualities and conditions and serving themselves accordingly of them and by being necessary to all conveyances and settlements of right between man and man which will always be done in writing where such a thing as writing is to be found they did by this means aggrandize and enrich themselves and had a mighty stroke with their respective Clients so that it is no wonder the Scribes are mentioned in the Gospel as men of so great authority and sway amongst the Jews this being a name for the reasons above given of the greatest dignity and power among them and so in the first of Macchabees the fiâ—th Chapter and forty second verse the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Scribes of the people are manifestly the Leaders and the Chiefs among them and Acts 19. 35. he who in our Translation is called the Town clerk a man of principal credit and authority among the People of that place is in the original called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Scribe and though I am ready to grant that this word does not always denote so
his dam and on the eighth day thou shalt give it me Levit. 22. 27. When a Bullock or a Sheep or a Goat is brought forth then it shall be seven days under the dam and from the eighth day and thenceforth it shall be accepted for an offering made by fire unto the Lord. And Grotius observes out of Pliny l. 8. c. 51. Pecoris foetum sacrificio purum esse die septimo that Sheep and Lambs are fit for sacrifice on the seventh or eighth day and not till then for that is plainly the sense of Pliny whose words are these Suis foetus sacrificio die quinto purus est pecoris die octavo which confirms what I have said that seven and eight in these instances are all one the latter being only by inclusion of the two terms or by the return of the Septenary or Sabbatical period into it self The same Grotius upon Gen. 17. 12. in which place the first institution of Circumcision is contained uses a passage out of Aristotle in his 7th de animalibus wherein he imagines the reason of Circumcision upon the seventh or eighth day may be found where speaking of infants he says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Children dye frequently before they be seven days old Which is the reason why at that age they usually give them their names having then some hopes when seven days are past that they may continue to live and doe well And he also produces the opinion of Maimonides why Circumcision was not performed till the eighth day Quia antè eum diem infirmior infans quà m ut par sit dolori Because before the eighth day the child was usually so weak that this operation could not be performed without danger of life or too great extremity of pain But now that this reason of Maimonides is no reason at all is plain from this That the Circumcision was never anticipated though the child should prove never so vigorous and strong as it is plain there is great difference in the strength and vigour of children from the very birth as well as afterwards when they come to greater age neither was it ever deferred any longer though at the age of eight days the child should prove never so weakly and unlikely to live This therefore instead of being a solid reason is but a Maimonidism or a Rabbinical dream The same may also be said of Aristotle's reason why children had their Names given them upon the seventh day among the Greeks which term if it were not by custom either anticipated or prorogued according to the differing degrees of health which is the general account why the seventh day above others was pitched upon then this was either no reason at all or which is still worse so very bad a reason as does sufficiently betray and expose it self It is therefore more likely that Aristotle was mistaken in his account and that the true Original of this custom was from the Jews who were used upon the eighth day to perform the Ceremony of Circumcision at which time also the Name was probably given to the child And I think it may be pretty plain from all this that the reason of Circumcision upon the eighth day and of not offering up any animal in sacrifice till then was the same in both cases and had a mystical allusion to the septenary number or to the return of the Sabbatical period into it self as an act of homage or obedience to him who rested the seventh day when he had finished the wonders of his Power Goodness and Wisdom upon the other six From this custom of symbolical swearing by the number seven or with the Pythagoreans by the number four or perhaps from both of these causes it came to pass that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greek which signifies properly to count or number is also found to have the signification of swearing as appears by comparing two of the Greek Scholiasts the one the old Interpreter of Homer and the other of Apollonius the Writer of the Argonautiques together that upon Homer is Il. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 264. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Upon which the Scholiast saith thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Ceneus was the Son of Elatus and King of the Lapithoe once a beautifull Virgin but being deflowred by Neptune she requested of him that she might be turned into a man which request of hers was not only granted but she became invulnerable into the bargain and was the most redoubted Hero of that time insomuch that on a certain time fixing his Spear in a place where the Gods were to pass by he would oblige them all to number that is to swear by his Spear at which Jupiter was so angry as well he might that he resolved to be revenged and immediately set the Centaures upon him who though they could not pierce him being invulnerable yet made a hard shift to ram him down by the weight of massy Oaks and Ashes into the earth of which Apollonius in his Argonautiques thus speaks and then follows over again the very same Story as it is told by Apollonius where the Scholiast relating the same Fable though not so particularly as the Interpreter of Homer does what the first calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to number he expresly renders by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to swear 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he compelled all that came by to swear by his Spear And then afterwards adds as the reason why Jupiter was so severe upon him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This calamity befell him because he would neither sacrifice nor pray to the Gods but only to his own Spear Neither does it necessarily follow because the Pythagoreans were used to swear by the Tetractys which implies indeed that there was something of Divinity in it that therefore the Tetragrammaton was pointed at or that any respect was had in it to the four letters of which the Name of God either in Greek or Hebrew was composed but only to that root of number and proportion which I have mentioned in which the seeds and principles of all natural Productions were contained 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the source and fountain of everlasting nature which word nature is it self only one way of expressing the fruitfulness and plenty of the divine Being in which as in their proper Fountain and Original all the possibilities of things are in a powerfull and hidden manner contained and from which their actualities proceed so that God and nature are indeed but two words for one and the same thing Hanc Deus melior litem natura diremit said Ovid. And Seneca Vis illum fatum vocare non errabis Hic est ex quo suspensa sunt omnia causa causarum Vis illum â—rovidentiam dicere Recte dices Est enim cujus consilio â—â—ic mundo providetur ut inconcussus eat actus suos â—xplicet Vis illum naturam vocare non peccabis Est enim â—x quo nata sunt