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
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
Primate hath ascribed unto it To shut up this Dispute in which we have encountred so many errors the Lord Primate tells us very rightly that on the day of the Passeover Christ our Passeover was slain for us that he rested in the grave the whole Sabbath following commonly called the feast of unleavened bread the next day after that the first fruits of the first or Barley Harvest was offered unto God and that from thence the count was taken of the seven Sabbaths and that upon the morrow after the seventh Sabbath which was our Lords day was celebrated the feast of weeks c. Upon which offering of the sheaf of the first fruits of the first or Barley Harvest which hapned at the time of our Saviours suffering on the first day of the Week he gives this note that Christ rose from the dead upon that day and became the first fruits of them that slept many bodies of the Saints that slept arising likewise after him p 91. And for this note he receives great thanks from Dr. Twisse signifying in a letter to him the great satisfaction which he received from him in opening the mystery of the feasts of first fruits to the singular advantage of the Lords day in the time of the Gospel p. 103. But herein Dr. Twisse may be said to be like those men of whom Tully speaks Qui non tantùm ornarent aliquem suis laudibus sed honorarent alienis For without derogating in the least from the honour due to the Lord Primate I cannot say that the honour of the first opening of this mystery doth belong to him it being an observation which I had both read in Books and heard in Sermons many years before 1640. in which or but the year before the Lord Primate wrote this present Letter to Doctor Twisse But because I have but few Books by me and cannot readily call to mind in what Books I read it I shall content my selfe at this present with the gloss of Deodati on the twentieth verse of the fifteenth Chapter of the first Epistle to those of Corinth where it is said that Christ was risen again and was become the first fruits of them that slept premising onely by the way that Diodati began those Annotations in the Italian tongue about the year 1606. to give his Country-men an insight of the darkness wherin they lived which afterwards he polished and perfected in such manner as they are now come into our hands Now Diodati his note is this viz. that Christ is called the first fruits of them that slept not onely because he was the first in the order of the Resurrection which is in Believers as it were a wakening from sleep but also in the quality of a Chief the cause and pledge of it in all his members inseparably united to him by communion of Spirit Rom. 8. 11. even as under the Law in the first fruits offered to God the people had an assurance of Gods blessing upon all their Harvest In a word as some things are defined or to speak more properly described amongst Philosophers rather by what they are not then by what they are so it is easier to declare to whom the first opening of this Mystery of the first fruits if there be any mystery in it doth not of right belong then to whom it doth SECT VI. The Historian charged for following the Greek Editions of Ignatius in his Epistle to the Magnesians An old Latine Translation of Ignatius preferred by the Lord Primate before any of the Greek Editions and the reason why Proofs from the best of the Greek Fathers that the Sabbath was kept as an holy day by the Primitive Christians The contrary not proved by these two testimonies which are alledged from the Council of Laodicea and the words of Gregory the Great The Council of Laodicea prohibits not the keeping of the Sabbath day but the keeping of it after the manner of the Jews by abstaining from all kind of work The Sabbatarians by imposing a restraint from all manner of work on the Lords day are by Pope Gregory the Great made the Preachers of Antichrist The Lord Primate picks a needless quarrel with the Bishop of Ely THe third charge laid by name on the Historian relates unto a passage cited out of the Epistle of Ignatius Ad Magnesianos in which he doth not stand accused either for falsifying the words of his Author or putting a wrong sense upon them but onely for not consulting with an old Latine copy of Ignatius which he never heard of The Historian had then by him no fewer then four Editions of that Father one published by Mastreus the Jesuite both in Greek and Latine another in both languages published by Vedelius a Genevian with his notes upon it a third more ancient then either of them printed at Paris in both languages also but the year I remember not and a fourth in Latine onely but of a very old Print subjoyned unto the works of Dionysius the Areopagite Out of all which compared together he cited that passage out of the Epistle to the Magnesians against which the Lord Primate hath excepted and is this that followeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Let us not keep the Sabbath in a Jewish manner in sloth and idleness for it is written that he that will not labour shall not eat and in the sweat of thy brows shalt thou eat thy bread But let us keep it after a spiritual fashion not in bodily ease but in the study of the Law not eating meat dressed yesterday or drinking luke-warm drinks or walking out a limited space or setling our delights as they did on dancing but in the contemplation of the works of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. And after we have so kept the Sabbath let every one that loveth Christ keep the Lords day festival the Resurrection day the Queen and Empress of all dayes in which our life was raised again and death was overcome by our Lord and Saviour So that we see he would have both dayes observed the Sabbath first though not as would the Ebionites in a Jewish sort and after that the Lords day which he so much magnifieth the better to abate that high esteem which some had cast upon the Sabbath Against this passage and the inference which is raised upon it the Lord Primate first objecteth saying that there is no such thing to be found in an old Latine copy of the works of Ignatius which is to be seen in the Library of Caius Colledge in Cambridge which for many respects he doth prefer before any Greek Edition then extant And in that old Latine copy saith he there is nothing to be found in the Epistle to the Magnesians touching the Sabbath and the Lords day but these words onely viz. Non amplius Sabbatizantes sed secundum Dominicam viventes in qua vita nostra orta est And thereupon he doth infer that all those other words alledged by
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
we next proceed unto the Confirmation which he hath in hand And therein also pretermitting his whole Narrative touching the carriage of the business in the Convocation of the year 1634. we will pitch only on the examination of this point viz. whether the superinducing of the Articles of the Church of England were not a virtual repealing of the Articles of the Church of Ireland And for the better proceeding in it I think it not unnecessary to produce that Canon which is the ground of the Dispute The Title of it this viz. Of the Agreement of the Church of England and Ireland in the profession of the same Christian faith The Body of it this viz. For the manifestation of our Agreement with the Church of England in the Confession of the same Christian Faith and Doctrine of the Sacraments We do receive and approve the Book of Articles of Religion agreed upon by the Arch-Bishops and Bishops and the whole Clergy in the whole convocation holden at London Anno Dom. 1562. for avoiding of the diversities of opinions and for the establishing of consent touching true Religion And therefore if any hereafter shall affirm that any of those Articles are in any part superstitious or erroneous or such as he may not with a good conscience subscribe unto Let him be excommunicated and not absolved before he make a publick revocation of his error These are the very words of the Canon it selfe and from these words the Observator did conclude that the Articles of England were received in stead of the other but Doctor Bernard makes this construction of the Canon That there was not a reception of the one in stead of the other but the one with the other p. 119. That in the Canon the Articles of England are received not in stead but with those of Ireland p. 120. But which of the two is in the right will be best seen by the Arguments produced on both sides and by the Answers which are made to those several Arguments And first the Observator takes notice of some scandal given unto the Papists and the occasion of some derisions which they had thereby that in the Churches of three Kingdoms professing the same Religion being under the patronage of one soveraign Prince there should be three distinct and in some points contrary confessions and that for the avoiding of this scandal it was thought fit there should be one Confession or one Book of Articles onely for the Churches of England and Ireland not without hope that Scotland would soon follow after And thereupon he doth infer that if the superinducing or receiving of a new Confession be not a repealing of the old there must be two Confessions in the same Church differing in many points from one another Which would have been so far from creating an uniformity of belief between the Churches and taking away thereby the matter of derision which was given the Papists in two distinct and in some points contrary Confessions yet both pretending unto one and the same Religion that it would rather have increased their scorn and made a greater disagreement in Ireland it selfe then was before between the Churches of both Kingdoms The second Argument is taken from these words of Saint Paul Heb. 8. 13. viz. Dicendo novum veteravit prius c. that is to say in that he saith a new Covenant he hath made the first old as our English reads it and then it followeth that that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away that is to say the old being disanulled by the new there must necessarily follow the abolishment of its use and practice So that unless it may be thought that Saint Paul was out in his Logick as I think it may not the superinducing of a new Covenant must be the abrogating of the old His third Argument is taken from the Abrogation of the Jewish Sabbath by superinducing of the Lords day for the day of Worship By means whereof the Sabbath was lessened in authority and reputation by little and little and in short time vvas absolutely laid aside in the Church of Christ the fourth Commandment by vvhich it vvas at first ordained being still in force His fourth and last Argument vvas that the first Liturgy of King Edward the sixth confirmed in Parliament vvith several penalties to those vvho should refuse to officiate by it or should not diligently resort and repair unto it as appears by the Statute 2 3. Edw. 6. c. 1. vvas actually repealed by the authorizing of the second Liturgy of the 5 6. of King Edw. 6. vvhich vvas forthvvith received into use and practice in all parts of the Kingdom the former Liturgy being no otherwise suppressed and called in then by the superinducing of this the Statute upon which it stood continuing unrepealed in full force and virtue and many Clauses of the same related to in the Statute which confirmed the second Upon which Ground it was inferred that the Articles of Ireland were virtually though not formally abrogated by the superinducing of the Articles of the Church of England Of the first and last of these four Arguments Doctor Bernard takes no notice at all and returns but one Answer to the second and third which notwithstanding may serve also for the first and last just as an Almanack calculated for the Meridian of London may generally serve for the use of all Great Britain The Answer is That the Apostles speech of making void the old Covenant by speaking of a new or taking in the first day of the Week to be the Sabbath instead of the last when but one of the seven was to be kept doth not fit the Case for in these there was a Superinduction and reception of the one for the other but in the Canon the Articles of England are received not instead but with those of Ireland which by his leave is not so much an Answer to the Observators Arguments as a plain begging of the Question For if this Answer will hold good in Ireland it might have held good also in the Land of Judaea and the Parts adjoyning where both the Lords-day and the Sabbath the old Law and the Gospel did for a time remain together As for the Doctors Arguments That the Reception of the Articles of the Church of England doth no more argue an Abrogation of the Articles of Ireland than that the Apostles Creed was abrogated by the reception of the Nicene and Athanasian p. 118. it is easily answered For as the Doctor well observes the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds are but Enlargements of the other and that in some particular Points onely in which the Hereticks of those times had disturbed the peace of the Church So that those Creeds are but the Explanations of the other in the Points disputed and were received by the Church with reference onely to the condemnation of some Heresies and the Explication of some Orthodox or Catholick Doctrines which had been opposed by
and the day on which it was to be holden he lets us see by a marginal Note p. 90. against whom it is that he bends his forces viz. against Dr. Heylyn Part 2. c. 1. pag. 14. Let us see therefore what he hath to say against Dr. Heylyn in this particular and into what inconveniencies he runs himselfe by the contradiction In order whereunto he must first observe how he states the question and then consider whether his proofs and arguments will come up to it The Israelites saith he by the Law of Moses were not onely to observe their weekly Sabbath every seventh day but also their feasts of weeks once in the year which although by the vulgar use of the Jewish Nation it may now fall upon any day of the week yet doe the Samaritans untill this day constantly observe it on the first day of the week which is our Sunday for which they produce the Letter of the Law Leviticus 23. 15 16. where the feast of the first fruits otherwise called Pentecost or the feast of weeks is prescribed to be kept the morrow after the seventh Sabbath which not they onely but also amongst our Christian Interpreters Isychius and Rupertus do interpret to be the first day of the week p. 87 88. This ground thus laid and some proofs offered quite beside the point in question to shew that the Lords day was called by the name of Sabbath in some ancient Writers he builds this superstructure on it and makes this following Descant on the former Plain song viz. But touching the old Pentecost it is very considerable that it is no where in Moses affixed unto any one certain day of the month as all the rest of the feasts are which is a very great presumption that it was a moveable Feast and so varied that it might alwayes fall upon the day immediately following the ordinary Sabbath And if God so order the matter that in the celebration of the feast of weeks the seventh day should purposely be passed over and that solemnity should be kept on the first what other thing may we imagine could be presignified thereby but that under the state of the Gospel the solemnity of the weekly service should be celebrated upon that day p. 90. Such is the state of the Question and such the inference which ariseth from that stating of it both which are now to be examined as they lie before us And first the feast of first fruits was not otherwise called Pentecost or the feast of weeks as the Lord Primate sayes it was For though two loves in the name of the first fruits of the second or wheat Harvest were to be offered to the Lord on the feast of weeks which being celebrated on the fiftieth day from the sixteenth of Nisan had the name of Pentecost yet was the name of the feast of first fruits appropriated more especially to the second day after the Passover or the sixteenth of Nisan on which the people offered the first fruits of their Barley which in that country was first ripe and from which the Computation of the said fifty dayes was to take beginning And it was thus appropriated for these reasons following 1. Because the sixteenth of Nisan was the first day of their Harvest on which the people were to offer the very first fruits of the increase of the earth which in that Country was their Barley before which time they were not to eat either bread or parched corn or the green ears of it this offering to be made in the Sheafe or Gripe before the Corn was thresht out v. 10. to the end that all the subsequent Harvest by the offering of these first fruits might be blest unto them whereas the offering of the two loves in the name of the first fruits of their Wheat was not until the end of Harvest above seven weeks after when the Wheat was hous'd and threshed and made into bread And secondly the name of the feast of first fruits was appropriated to the sixteenth of Nisan because it had no other name by which it might be dignified above the rest of the fifty and distinguished from them whereas the day on which the two loves were to be offered was eminently known by the name of the feast of weeks and the feast of Pentecost and sometimes also called the feast of the Law because the Law was given that day by the hand of Moses In the next place the Lord Primate either did not understand the meaning of the word Sabbath Levit. 23. 15 16. or if he did he would not seem to understand it the better to carry on some design for the Sabbatarians for by the tenour of his discourse it appeareth most evidently that in both places he understands the word Sabbath in no other sense but as it signifies the weekly Sabbath of the fourth Commandment and thereupon concludes that the computation of the fifty dayes beginning on the morrow after the Sabbath and continuing till seven Sabbaths should be complete even unto the morrow after the seventh Sabbath the feast of Pentecost must of necessity fall upon the first day of the week which is now our Sunday If so the Sabbatarian Brethren are in the right in making the falling of the first Christian Pentecost on which the Holy Ghost came down and sat on the heads of the Apostles three thousand souls being that day added to the Church of Christ to be an argument of some weight for their Lords-day Sabbath and Dr. Heylyn is in the wrong for making the falling of that Pentecost upon the first day of the week to be a matter of casualty the feast of Pentecost not being tyed to a certain day but falling on any day of the week as the year did vary But by his leave by Sabbath in verse 15. And you shall count unto you from the morrow after the Sabbath we are to understand the feast of unleavened bread which with all other of the Annual feasts had the name of Sabbath as appears plainly by many several passages in this very Chapter And this is that which is observed by some of the Fathers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Saint Chrysostom Hom. in Matth. 39. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Isidore Epist 110. l. 3. And secondly by Sabbath in the rest of those two verses viz. Seven Sabbaths shall be complete even unto the morrow after the seventh Sabbath c. we are not to understand the weekly Sabbath but the week it selfe the whole seven dayes which from the last in order but the first in dignity took the name of Sabbath For so we read it in Chap. 18. of Saint Luke where the Pharisee boasted of himself that he fasted twice a week verse 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith the Greek original Jejuno bis in Sabbato saith the vulgar Latine Thus also in Matth. 28. Luke 24. we find 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 prima una Sabbati as the vulgar hath it to denote
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
followeth in that Statute Be it enacted c. that all the dayes hereafter mentioned shall be kept and commanded to be kept holy dayes and none other that is to say all Sundayes in the year the feasts of the Circumcision of our Lord Jesus Christ of the Epiphany of the Purification with all the rest now kept and there named particularly The like ennumeration we have also in the Book of Common-prayer the publick Liturgy of this Church by Law established where we shall find it thus expressed That these shall be accounted holy dayes and none other that is to say all Sundayes in the year the feast of the Circumcision the Epiphany with all the rest before specified in the Act of Parliament Nor doth the Church onely rank the Lords day with other holy dayes in that enumeration of them but hath appointed the same Divine offices the Letany excepted onely to be performed upon the Saints days other festivals as upon the Sundays each of them having his proper Lesson Collect Epistle and Gospel as the Sunday hath and some of them their proper Psalms also which the Sunday hath not And as for the attendance of the people it is required with as much diligence upon the Saints dayes and other Festivals as upon the Lords day by the Laws of this land For so it is enacted in the Statute of the first of Queen Elizabeth viz. That all and every Person and Persons inhabiting within this Realm c. shall diligently and faithfully endeavour themselves to resort to their Parish Church or Chappel c. upon every Sunday and other dayes ordained and used to be kept as holy dayes then and there to abide orderly and soberly during the time of common prayer preaching or other service of God Nor was it only enacted that men should diligently repair to their Church or Chappel as well upon the other holy dayes as upon the Sunday but that the same penalty was imposed on such as without any reasonable let did absent themselves as well upon the one as upon the other For so it follows in that Statute viz. That every person so offending shall not alone be subject unto the censures of the Church but shall forfeit for every such offence twelve pence to be levied to the use of the poor of the same parish by the Church-wardens of the same c. Which grounds thus laid the Lord Primates Argument from the Book of Homilies will be easily answered For if the weight of his argument lie in the first words cited out of the Homily that in the fourth Commandment God hath given express charge to all men that upon the Sabbath day which is now our Sunday c. and therefore that the Sunday or Lords day may be called a Sabbath this will prove nothing but a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or a contention about words and not within the compass of the Homily neither it being declared in the former words of the same Homily that we keep now the first day which is our Sunday and make that our Sabbath that is our day of rest So that the destinating of the Sunday or first day of the week for the day of rest makes it at the most but a tanquam to the Sabbath neither entituling it to the name nor prerogatives of it But if the weight of the Argument lie in these words viz. That men upon the Sunday or Lords day should cease from all weekly and work-day labour c. and also give themselves wholly to Heavenly exercises of Gods true Religion and service For the first part thereof touching the forbearing of all weekly and work-day labour is no otherwise to be understood but of such labours as are prohibited by the Laws of the Realm or otherwise may prove an avocation from Gods publick service at the times appointed for the same And as for the last words touching mens giving of themselves wholly to heavenly exercises of Gods true Religion and service they are of a far differing meaning from the Article of the Church of Ireland for which the Lord Primate chiefly stickleth in which it is declared that the first day of the week which is the Lords day is wholly to be dedicated to the service of God For certainly there is a great difference between the dedicating of a day wholly to the service of God as in the Articles of Ireland and the giving of our selves wholly to heavenly exercises as in the Homilies of England the one implying that no part of the day is to be otherwise spent then in the service of God no place being left either for necessary business or for lawful pleasure the other that in the Acts and times of publick worship we should give our selves wholly that is our whole selves souls and bodies to the performance of those heavenly exercises which are then required It had before been told us in this very Homily that nothing in the fourth Commandment was to be retained but what was found appertaining to the Law of Nature but it appertaineth not to the Law of Nature either that one day in seven should be set apart for Religious worship or that this one day wholly be so imployed vel quod per totam diem abstineatur ab operibus servilibus as Tostatus hath it or that there be an absolute cessation during the whole day from all servile works By consequence there is no more required of us by the Law of Nature in this case but that at the times appointed for Gods publick worship we wholly sequester our selves yea our very thoughts from all worldly business fixing our souls and all the faculties thereof upon that great and weighty business which we are in hand with That does indeed appertain to the Law of Nature Naturale est quod dum Deum colimus ab aliis abstineamus as Tostatus hath it and to this point we have been trained in the Schools of Piety Orantis est nihil nisi coelestia cogitare as was said before So that the meaning of the Homily in that place will be onely this that for those times which are appointed by the Church for the assembly of Gods people we should lay by our daily business and all worldly thoughts and wholly give our selves to the heavenly exercises of Gods true Religion and service as in the Homily we are willed And that this only was the meaning of the Homily in that place may be convincingly concluded from the reasons following First from the improbability that the Authors of that Homily should propound a Doctrine so evidently contrary to the Declaration of the Act of Parliament in the 5 6. of Edw. 6. which was then in force and unto which not onely the Commons and the Lords Temporal but even the Lords Spiritual and the King himselfe did most unanimously concur or that the Queen should authorize a Doctrin in the Book of Homilies as by ratifying the 39. Articles she must be supposed to have done
which was so plainly and professedly contrary to her own Injunctions Secondly from the strong Alarm which was taken generally by the Clergy and the most knowing men of the Laity also at the coming out of Doctor Bounds Book about the Sabbath Anno 1595. In which book it is declared amongst other things that the Commandment of sanctifying every seventh day as in the Mosaical Decalogue is Natural Moral and Perpetual That there is great reason why we Christians should take our selves as straightly bound to rest upon the Lords day as the Jewes were upon their Sabbath that there should be no buying of victuals upon that day no Carriers Packmen Drovers or other men to be suffered to travel no Scholars to study the Liberal Arts no Lawyers to consult the case of their Clients or peruse their Evidences no Justices to examine Causes for preservation of the peace no Bells to ring upon that day no solemn Feasts or Wedding Dinners to be made on it with so many other prohibitions and negative precepts that men of all sorts and professions looked upon it as a common grievance Thirdly from the great care which was presently taken by such as were in Authority to suppress those Doctrines the said Book being called in by Arch-Bishop Whitgift both by his Letters missive and his visitations as soon as the danger was discovered Anno 1599. and a command signified in the Queens name by Chief Justice Popham at the Assizes held at Bury in Suffolk Anno 1600. that the said Book should no more be printed though afterward in the more remiss Government of King James it came out again with many Additions Anno 1606. Fourthly and finally from the permitting of all sorts of Recreations even common Enterludes and Bear-baitings in the so much celebrated Reign of Queen Elizabeth as also by the Declaration about Lawful sports published by King James An. 1618. and revived afterwards by King Charles Anno 1633 which certainly those godly and religions Princes would neither have suffered nor have done had they conceived it to be contrary to the Doctrine of the Church of England of which they were such zealous Patrons and such stout Defenders No breaking of Subscription here by the Historian no crossing or opposing of the Doctrine of the Church of England in the Book of Homilies and consequently no such need of Sophistry to elude the Lord Primates Argument which was drawn from thence as the said Honourable Person N. N. must believe there was SECT VIII A further Argument to prove the meaning of the Homily as before laid down The high esteem which the Church of England hath of the ancient Fathers as also of the usages of the primitive times with her respect unto the neighbouring Reformed Churches No restraint from labour on the Lords day imposed by the Council of Laodicea Beza's opinion of the liberty in those times allowed of Law-suits and Handy-crafts prohibited in great Cities on the Lords day by the Emperour Constantine but Husbandry permitted in the country Villages Proof from Saint Jerome Chrysostom Augustine that after the Divine service of the day was ended the rest of the day was spent in mens several businesses Husbandry first restrained in the Western Churches in the Council of Orleans Anno 540. and by the Edict of the Emperour Leo Philosophus in the Eastern parts about the year 890. Several restraints laid on the Lords day by the Council of Mascon Anno 588. Pope Gregory offended at such restraints and his censure of such as did enioyn them The liberty allowed in the Lutheran Churches on the Lords day as also in those of the Palatinate till after the year 1612. Nor in the Churches of the Low-Countries till the year 1618. Not onely servile Works but Fairs and Markets continued on the Lords day in those Countries till the same year also Necessary labour permitted on the Lords day in the Reformed Churches of the Switzers and honest Recreations in the French and Genevian Churches as also in the Kirk of Scotland The conclusion and application of the last Argument IT hath been proved sufficiently in the former Section that the passage alledged by the Lord Primate from the Book of Homilies and that twice for failing is capable of no such sense and meaning as he puts upon it for if it were the Homily must not only contradict it self but the Authors of it must be thought to propound a Doctrine directly contrary to the Queens Injunctions and the publick Liturgy of this Church and several Acts of Parliament which were then in force And which is more the whole body of Gods people in this Land by following their necessary business and lawful pleasures upon the Sunday or Lords day when no attendance at the place and hours of Gods publick service was required of them must be supposed to have run on in a course of sin against Gods Commandments and of contempt and disobedience to the publick Doctrine of the Church for the space of 80. years and upwards without contradiction or restraint which to imagine in a Church so wisely constituted and in a State founded on so many good Lawes cannot find place with any man of sober judgement But there is one Argument yet to come of as much weight and consequence as those before that is to say that if any such restraint from labour and honest recreations was by the Doctrine of this Church imposed on the people of God this Church must openly oppose the Doctrine of the ancient Fathers the laudable usages and customes of the Primitive times together with the general practise and perswasion of all the Protestant and Reformed Churches in these parts of the world a matter so abhorrent from the principles of the first Reformers and from the Canons and Determinations of this Church and the Rulers of it that no surmises of this kind can consist with reason The Church of England hath alwayes held the Fathers in an high regard whether we look upon them in their learned and laborious writings or as convened in General National and Provincial Councils appealing to them in all Differences between her and the Church of Rome and making use of their authority and consent in expounding Scripture witness that famous challenge made by Bishop Jewel in a Sermon preached at Saint Pauls Cross Anno 1560. in which he publickly declared that if all or any of the learned men of the Church of Rome could produce any one sentence out of the writings of any of the ancient Fathers or any General or National Council for the space of the first 600. years in justification of some Doctrines by them maintained and by us denied he would relinquish his own Religion and subscribe to theirs Witness the Canon made in a Convocation of the Prelates and Câ—ergy of England Anno 1571. Cap. De concionatoribus by which it was ordered and decreed that nothing should be preacht to the people but what was consonant unto the Doctrine of the old and
of those five there is but one material and of any consequence in the main concernments of the Cause the other four being either extrinsecal or of less importance more then to shew that nothing in that History which was found liable to exception should escape uncensured Assuredly it had been a work more proper for so great an Antiquary a man so verst and studied in all parts of Learning to have returned a full and complete Answer to that History had he found it answerable then to except against some few passages in it of no greater moment and by so doing to justifie and confirm the Author in all the rest Exceptio firmat regulam in non exceptis is a good old rule and which I might crave leave to use to my best advantage but that I am resolved to try my fortune and make good those passages against which the Lord Primate hath excepted To the defence whereof with all due reverence to his Name and Memory I shall now proceed Noster duorum eventus ostendat utra gens sit melior And first the Lord Primate tells us this that when he gave himselfe to the reading of the Fathers he took no heed unto any thing that concerned this Argument as little dreaming that any such Controversie would have arisen amongst us p. 74. And I concur with him in words though perhaps not in meaning also there being none who reads the Fathers with care and caution who can suppose that any Controversie should arise about the Sabbath against the morality whereof the Fathers generally declare upon all occasions The Lord Primate tells us of Saint Augustin pag. 75. That purposely selecting those things which appertained unto us Christians he doth wholly pretermit that Precept in the recital of the Commandments of the Decalogue To which Testimony though this alone may seem sufficient to confirme the point I shall adde some more And first the said Saint Augustine tells us that it is no part of the Moral Law for he divides the Law of Moses into these two parts viz. Sacraments and Moral Duties accounting Circumcision the New Moons Sabbaths and the Sacrifices to appertain unto the first ad mores autem Non occides c. and these Commandments Thou shalt not kill Thou shalt not commit Adultery and the rest to be contained within the second The like saith Chrysostom that this Commandment is not any of those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which naturally were implanted in us or made known unto our conscience 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but that it was temporary and occasional and such as was to have an end where all the rest were necessary and perpetual Tertullian also in his Treatise against the Jewes saith that it was not Spirituale aeternum Mandatum sed temporale quod quandoque cessaret not a spiritual and eternal institution but a temporal onely Finally to ascend no higher Justine Martyr more expresly in his Dispute with Trypho a learned Jew maintains the Sabbath to be onely a Mosaical Ordinance and that it was imposed upon the Israelites 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because of their hard-heartedness and irregularity And as for the Lords day which succeeded in the place thereof the Fathers generally think no otherwise of it then as an Ecclesiastical Institution not founded upon any precept either of Christ or his Apostles but built perhaps upon some Apostolical practice which gave the Church authority to change the day and to translate it from the Seventh on which God rested to the First day of the week the day of our Saviours Resurrection And though the Lord Primate to gain unto the Lords day the Reputation of having somewhat in it of Divine Institution ascribes the alteration of the day to our Lord and Saviour page 76. yet neither the Author whom he cites nor the Authority by him cited will evince the point And first the Author will not do it the Homily De Semente out of which the following proof is taken being supposed by the Learned not to have been writ by Athanasius but put into his Works as his by some that had a mind to entitle him to it as generally all the Works of the Ancient Fathers have many supposititious writings intermingled with them Secondly the Authority or Words cited will not do it neither though at first sight they seem to come home to make proof thereof The words are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to say the Lord translated the Sabbath from the seventh day of the week to the Lords day or first day of the week Which words are to be understood not as if done by his Commandment but on his occasion the Resurrection of our Lord upon that day being the principal motive which did induce his Church to make choice thereof for a day of Worship For otherwise the false Athanasius whosoever he was must cross and contradict the true who having told us that it was commanded at the first that the Sabbath should be observed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as his own words are in memory of the accomplishment of the worlds Creation ascribes the institution of the Lords day to the voluntary usage of the Church of God without any Commandment from our Saviour 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. We celebrate saith he the Lords day as a memorial of the beginning of a new Creation which is plain enough In the next place it is acknowledged by the Lord Primate That generally the word Sabbatum in the writings of the Fathers doth denote our Saturday p. 74. Which notwithstanding either because it was affirmed by the Historian History of the Sabbath Part 2. Chap. 2. Num. 12. that the word Sabbatum was not used to signifie the Lords day by any approved Writer for the space of a thousand years and upward or not to leave the Sabbatarian Brethren at so great a loss in that particular he would fain find out one though but one of a thousand who hath used it to denote our Christian Festivities also Where not that the Lord Primate doth not say as indeed he could not that the word Sabbatum was used to signifie the Lords day but onely to signifie the other Festivals of the Church the Christian Festivities as he calls them in which how much he is mistaken we shall see anon That one here meant and mentioned is Sidonius Apollinaris Bishop of Auvergne in France who describing the moderation of the Table of Theoderick King of the Goths upon the Eves and the excess on the Holy-day following he writeth of the one that his Convivium diebus profestis simile privato est that his Table on the working-dayes was furnished like the Table of private men but of the other dayes or Festivals he telleth us this De luxu autem illo Sabbatario narrationi mâ—ae supersedendum est qui nec latentes potest latere personas that is to say that his excess or Sabbatarian luxury required
not to be spoken of because it could not be concealed from those who lived most retiredly If either the Lord Primate or Sirmondus the Jesuite could infer from hence that the word Sabbatum was used by Apollinaris to signifie or denote our Christian Festivities much less the Sunday or Lords day I shall miss my mark They say it is a sign of ill luck for a man to stumble at the threshold and never was such a stumble made by a man of learning in the first beginning of a work for clearly Sabbatarius luxus relates not to the Lords day nor the other Festivals but is there used proverbially to signifie that excess and riot which that King used at his Table on the dayes aforesaid The proverb borrowed from the Jewes and the riotous feastings on the Sabbath It s true the Jews did commonly fast till noon upon their Sabbath till the devotions of the morning were complete and ended on which account they tax the Disciples of our Saviour for eating a few ears of Corn on the Sabbath day Matth. 12. 2. but then it is as true withal that they spent all the rest of the day in their riotous feastings not onely with plenty of good cheer but excess of wine In which regard whereas all other marketing was unlawful on the Sabbath dayes there never was restraint of selling Wine the Jews believing that therein they brake no Commandment Hebraei faciunt aliquid speciale in vino viz. quòd cùm in Sabbato suo à caeteris venditionibus emptionibus cessent solum vinum vendunt credentes se non solvere Sabbatum as Tostatus hath it And for the rest of their excesses Saint Augustine telleth us that they kept the Sabbath onely ad luxuriam ebrietatem in rioting and drunkenness and that they rested onely ad nugas luxurias suas to luxury and wantonness they consumed the day languido luxurioso otio in an effeminate slothful ease and finally did abuse the same not onely deliâ—iis Judaicis in Jewish follies but ad nequitiam even to sin and naughtiness Put altogether and we have luxury and drunkenness and sports and pleasures enough to manifest that they spared not any dainties to set forth their Sabbath Tertullian hath observed the same but in fewer words according to his wonted manner who speaking of the Jewes in his Apologeticum adversus Gentes Cap. 16. hath told us of them that they did Diem Saturni otio victui decernere devote the Saturday or Sabbath unto Ease and Luxury But before either of them this was noted by Plutarch also an Heathen but a great and grave Philosopher who layes it to their charge that they did feast it on their Sabbath with no small excess but of wine especially and thereupon conjectureth that the name of Sabbath had its original from the Orgies or feasts of Bacchus whose Priest used often to ingeminate the word Sabbi Sabbi in their drunken ceremonies From whence we have the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies to triumph dance or make glad the countenance And from hence also came 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the sirname of Bacchus or at the least some Son of his mentioned in Coelius Rhodiginus as is observed by Dr. Prideaux in his Tract De Sabbato This said the meaning of Apollinaris will be onely this that though Theoderick kept a spare Table on the other dayes yet on the Festivals of the Church he indulged unto himself a kind of Sabbatarian luxury that is to say such riotous feasting and excess as the Iewes used upon their Sabbath Nothing in this to prove that the word Sabbatum was used by any approved Writer for the space of a thousand years and upward to signifie either the Lords day or any of the Christian Festivities as the Lord Primate would sain have had it which notwithstanding partly by the diligence of our Sabbatarians and their active Emissaries and partly by the ignorance of some and the easiness of the rest of the people the Sunday or Lords day is generally called by no other name then by that of the Sabbath he who shall call it otherwise then the vulgar do being branded commonly with profaneness or singularity And yet if any of these fine fellows should be asked the English of the Latine word Sabbatum they could not chuse but answer that it signified the seventh day of the week or the Saturday onely Or if they should every Clerk Notary and Register in the Courts of Judicature would deride them for it who in drawing up their Processes Declarations Entries Judgements and Commissions never used other Latine word for Saturday but Dies Sabbati as long as any of those forms were written in the Latine tongue And they continued in that tongue till toward the later end of the late long Parliament in which it was ordered that all Writs Declarations and other legal instruments of what kind soever should be made in English the readiest way to make all Clerks Atturnies Registers c. more ignorant of Grammar learning then they were before SECT II. The Lord Primates judgement of the Sabbath delivered in two Propositions His first Proposition for setting apart some whole day for Gods solemn worship by the Law of Nature found both uncertain and unsafe no such whole day kept or required to be kept by the Jewes or Gentiles His second Proposition neither agreeable to the School-men or the Sabbatarians nor grounded upon Text of Scripture He reconciles himself with the Sabbatarians by ascribing an immutability to a Positive Law but contrary therein to the first Reformers and other learned men of the Protestant and Reformed Churches He founds the Institution of the Sabbath on Genesis 2. An Anticipation or Prolepsis in that place of Gen. maintained explicitly by Josephus and many of the most learned of the Jewish Rabbins as also by Tostatus and his followers amongst the Christians implicitly by those who maintained that the Sabbath was not instituted in the first beginning The like Anticipations frequent in the holy Scripture and justified by many of the Ancient Fathers and not a few learned men of the later times The Sabbath not a part of the Law of Nature BUt now before we can proceed to such other passages which the Lord Primate hath excepted against in History of the Sabbath either by name or on the by it will be necessary that we know his own Judgement and Opinion in the ground of this Controversie as well concerning the morality of the fourth Commandment as the true ground and institution of the Sabbath And to find that we must consult his Letter to Mr. Ley in which he telleth us That for his own part he never yet doubted but took it for granted that as the setting of some whole day apart for Gods solemn worship was juris Divini naturalis so that this solemn day he means the Sabbath should be one in seven was juris Divini positivi
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
some labours on that day and permitted others The Judges in that age used to hold their Courts of Judicature even in the hours and times of Gods publick service by which means many were necessitated to absent themselves from the publick meetings of the Church and neglect their duties unto God Many of the Artificers also which dwelt in great Towns and populous Cities whose penny was more precious with them then their Pater noster used to do the like For remedy whereof it was ordained by the Emperours Edict Vt omnes Judices urbanaeque plebes cunctarum Artium officia venerabili die Solis quiescant But on the other side it was permitted unto those who lived in Countrey Villages to attend their Husbandry because it hapneth many times Ut non aptius alio die frumenta sulcis vineae scrobibus mandentur that no day is more fit then that for sowing Corn and for planting Vines And then he gives this reason for it Ne occasione momenti pereat commoditas coelesti provisione concessa lest otherwise by neglect of convenient seasons they lose those benefits which their God had bestowed upon them And if the toyles of Husbandry were not onely permitted upon that day but in a manner seemed to be enjoyned by the former Edict no question but such worldly businesses as did not take men off from their attendance at the times of the ministration might be better suffered And so Saint Hierom doth inform us of Paula a devout and religious Lady that she caused her Maidens and other Women which belonged to her to repair diligently to the Church on the Lords day but so that after their return operi distributo instabant vel sibi vel caeteris vestimenta faciebant they betook themselves unto their tasks in making garments either for themselves or others Nor doth the Father censure or reprove her for it as certainly he would have done had any such Doctrine been then taught and countenanced in the Church of Christ touching the spending of the whole day or the Lords day wholly in religious exercises It appears also by S. Chrysoft that after the Divine duties of the day were finished which held but 1 or 2 hours in the morning unam aut duas hor as ex die integro as it is in Origen the people were required only to spend some time in meditation at their coming home 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and were then suffered to pursue the works of their several callings Saint Austine in his Tract De rectitudine Catholicae Conversationis adviseth us to be attent and silent all the time of Divine service not telling tales nor falling into jarres and quarrels as being to answer such of us as offend therein Dum nec ipse verbum Dei audit nec alios audire permittit as neither hearkning to the word of God our selves nor permitting others But for the residue of the day he left it in the same estate in which he found it to be disposed of by Gods people according as their several necessities and occasions required of them Thus have we seen as well the Doctrine as the Practise of the African and Eastern Churches Let us now turn our selves towards the West and we shall find that some in France had begun to Judaize so far as to impose many of those restraints on the Lords day which the Jewes had put upon their Sabbath viz. that none should travel on the Lords day with Waines or Horses or dress Meat or make clean the House or meddle with any manner of domestick business Which being taken into consideration by the third Council of Orleance Anno 540. it was there ordained that since those prohibitions did savour more of the Jew then of the Christian Die Dominico quod ante licuit licere that therefore whatsoever had formerly been lawful on that day should be lawful still Yet so that for the satisfaction and contentment of those troublesome Spirits who would not otherwise submit to the Determinations of the Council it was thought convenient that men should rest that day from Husbandry and the Vintage from sowing reaping hedging and such servile works quo facilius ad Ecclesiam venientes orationis gratia vacent that so they might have better leisure to go unto the Church and there say their prayers This as it was the first restraint from Husbandry on the Lords day which had been made by the Canons of the Church so was it seconded by a Canon made in the Synod of Mascon in the 24. year of Ganthram King of the Burgundians Anno 588. and followed by another in the Council of Auxerre in France under Clotaire the second about two years after In both of which it was decreed Non licere die dominico boves jungere vel alia opera exercere that no man should be suffered to yoke his Oxen or do any manner of work upon the Sunday But then we must observe withall that these Councils acted onely by their own Authority not charging those restraints on God or on his Commandment it being positively declared by the Canon of the Council of Mascon that the Lord did not exact it of us that we should celebrate this day in a corporal abstinence or rest from labour who onely looks that we do yield obedience to his holy will by which contemning earthly things he may conduct us to the Heaven of his infinite mercy Which Declaration notwithstanding the Doctrine of it selfe was so offensive to Pope Gregory the first that partly to encounter with some Christians of the Eastern Countries who still observed the Jewish Sabbath and partly to prevent the further spreading of these restraints in the Western parts which made men seem to Judaize on the Lords day also he pronounced such as were active in promoting the practise and opinion of either side to be the Preachers of Antichrist qui veniens diem Sabbati diem Dominicum ab omni opere faciet custodiri as his own words are Less forward were the Eastern Churches in imposing any of these new restraints upon the people then the Western were the toiles of Husbandry it self not being prohibited in the Eastern parts of the Empire til the time of Leo Philosophus he began his Government Anno 886. who grounding himself on some command of the holy Ghost and the Lords Apostles which neither he nor any body else could ever finde decreed by his Imperial Edict ut omnes in die sacro c. à labore vacent Neque Agricolae c. that all men whatsoever as well the Husbandman as others should on the Lords day rest from all manner of work So long it was before any such general restraints were laid upon Gods people either in the West or East In all which time we neither find that the setting of some whole day apart for Gods solemn worship was lookt upon as Juris Divini naturalis which is the Lord Primates own opinion or