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
when God first blessed the seventh day and sanctified it Whence well this question may be raised Whether before the publishing of Moses ' s Law the Sabbath was to be observed by the Law of Nature And that the Lord Primate doth fetch the original of the Sabbath from the beginning of the World is evident from a passage in his Letter to Dr. Twisse p. 78. In which saith he addressing his speech unto that Doctor The Text of Gen. 2. 3. as you well note is so clear for the ancient institution of the Sabbath and so fully vindicated by Dr. Ryvet from the exceptions of Gomarus that I see no reason in the earth why any man should make doubt thereof And yet the matter is not past all doubt neither I am sure of that For other men as eminent in all parts of Learning and as great Masters of Reason as Doctor Ryvet ever was have affirmed the contrary conceiving further that those words in the second of Genesis are spoken in the way of a Prolepsis or Anticipation Gods sanctifying the day of his Rest being mentioned in that time and place not because the Sabbath was then instituted but because it was the occasion of setting apart that day by the fourth Commandment to be a Sabbath or a day of holy repose and rest to the House of Israel Of this opinion was Tostatus in his Comment on Gen. 2. countenanced by Iosephus Antiq. l. 1. c. 2. by Solomon Iarchi one of the principal of the Rabbins and many other learned men of the Iewish Nation as appears by Mercer a learned Protestant Writer and one well verst in all the learning of the Iewes in his Comment on Gen. 2. who addes de proprio that from Gods resting on that day Postea praeceptum de Sabbato natum est the Commandment for sanctifying the seventh day was afterwards given And this opinion of Tostatus passed generally for good and currant with all sorts of people till Ambrose Catharinus one of the principal sticklers in the Councel of Trent opposed him in it who though he grant the like Anticipation Gen. 1. v. 27. disalloweth it here And disallowing it in this place he not onely crosseth with Tostatus but with some of the most learned Christian Writers both of the Church of Rome and the Protestant Churches who hold that the Sabbath was not instituted in the first beginning nor imposed on Adam as a Law to be observed by him and his posterity Of this opinion was Pererius a learned and industrious man of the Romish party in his Comment on the second of Genesis And of this opinion was Gomarus that great undertaker against the Arminians in his Tract De origine institution Sabbati with many other eminent men of both Religions too many to be named in this place and time whose opinions in this point cannot otherwise be made good and justifiable but by maintaining an Anticipation in this Text of Moses though few of them speak their minds so fully and explicitely in it as Dr. Prideaux no way inferiour to the best of those who opine the contrary For what weak proofs are they saith he which before were urged God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it therefore he then commanded it to be kept holy by his people And then he addes Moses as Abulensis hath it spake this by way of Anticipation rather to shew the equity of the Commandment then the original thereof So he in the third Section of his Tract De Sabbato Nor are such Anticipations strange in Holy Scripture for besides that Anticipation in the first of Genesis vers 27. allowed by Catharinus as before was said defended by St. Chrysostome on Gen. 2. Origen on Gen. 1. Gregory the Great in his Morals lib. 32. cap. 9. and finally justified by St. Hierom who in his Tract against the Jewes doth affirm as much we find the like Gen 12. 8. Judges c. 2. v. 1. both which are granted without scruple by Dr. Bound the first who set on foot the Sabbatarian Doctrines in the Church of England The like Anticipation is observed in Exod. 16. 32. as appears plainly both by Lyra and Vatablus two right learned men the first a Jew the second eminently studied in the Jewish Antiquities And yet the observation is much elder then either of them made by St. Augustine who lived long before the time of Lyra in his 62. Question on the Book of Exodus and by Calvin who preceded Vatablus in his Comment on that Tract of Scripture These passages and Testimonies I have onely toucht and pointed at as plainly and briefly as I could for the Readers better satisfaction in the present difference referring for the Quotations at large to the History of the Sabbath Part 1. c. 1. n. 2 3. 4. and there he shall be sure to find them From all which laid together it is there concluded that for this passage of the Scripture there is nothing found unto the contrary but that it was set down in that place and time by a plain and neer Anticipation and doth relate unto the time wherein Moses wrote and therefore no sufficient warrant to fetch the institution of the Sabbath from the first beginning Nor could I find when I had Doctor Ryvet under my eye that his Arguments against Gomarus were of weight enough to counter ballance the Authority of so many learned Writers both Jewes and Christians or to weigh down so many Texts of holy Scripture in which the like Anticipations are observed by Origen Hierom Chrysostome and Gregory the Great men of renown for Piety and Learning in the primitive times and by many other learned men in the times succeeding though otherwise of different perswasions in the things of God But Ryvet and the Lord Primate held the same opinion both of them grounding the first institution of the Sabbath on a Positive Law Legem de Sabbato positivam non naturalem agnoscimus are the words of Ryvet p. 173. which is the same with the Lord Primates jus Divinum positivum though in different terms And therefore it can be no marvel if Ryvets Arguments be cried up for vindicating that passage in the second of Genesis in so full a manner that the Lord Primate can see no reason in the earth why any man should make doubt thereof And yet there may be good reason for it though he see it not Now that the seventh day Sabbath was not a part or branch of the Law of Nature which is observed to be a necessary consequent following upon the fixing of the first institution of it in the second of Genesis will evidently appear by the concurrent testimonies of learned men both of the elder and last times It was indeed naturally ingraffed in the heart of man that God was to be worshipped by him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 said the Grecian Orator Imprimis venerare Dium said the Latine Poet. And it was also naturally ingraffed in the heart of man not
spent in some religious Acts of solemn worship though never kept so by the Iewes yet was it but one whole day in a year and that injoyn'd also by a positive Law which if it be sufficient to discharge the obligation laid upon us by the Law of Nature the observation of the Sabbath formerly of the Lords day now may be thought superfluous And if no such whole day were kept or required to be kept by the Iewes Gods peculiar people there is small hope to find it amongst the Gentiles who did too much attend their profit and indulge their pleasures to spend whole dayes upon the service of their gods I speak here of that which the Gentiles did in ordinary and common course as a thing constantly required of them and observed by them and not of any extraordinary and occasional action such as the three dayes fast which was kept in Nineve by the Kings command upon that fearful Proclamation which was made against it by the Prophet Ionah As for the Christians I dare with confidence affirm that the spending of the whole Lords day in the acts of worship was never required of them or of any of them by any Imperial Edict or National Law or Constitution of the Church till the year 1615. at what time it was enjoyned by the Articles of the Church of Ireland as shall be proved at large hereafter when that passage in those Articles comes to be examined The Lord Primates first Proposition being thus blown off we next proceed to the examination of the second that is to say That the solemn day of worship should be one in seven was juris Divini positivi recorded in the fourth Commandment A proposition which will find few Friends and many Adversaries especially as it comes attended with the explication which he makes upon it For first it crosseth with Tostatus a man of as great industry and as much variety of learning as any of the age he lived in and not with him onely but with Thomas Aquinas the great Dictator of the Schools and generally with all the School-men of which thus Dr. Prideaux in his Tract De Sabbato Sect. 3. It is as Abulensis hath it a Dictate of the Law of Nature that some set time be put apart for Gods holy worship but it is Ceremonial and Legal that this worship should be restrained either to one day of seven or the seventh day precisely from the worlds creation A time of rest is therefore moral but the set time thereof is ceremonial which is confessed by those who have stood most on this Commandment and urged it even to a probable suspicion of Iudaisme Aquinas also so resolves it and which is seldome seen in other cases the School-men of what Sect soever say the same whereby saith he we may perceive in what respects the Fathers have sometimes pronounced it to be a ceremony and a shadow and a figure onely In the next place it crosseth with the Sabbatarians of these later times who generally make the sanctifying of one day in seven to be the moral part of the fourth Commandment the limiting of that day to the last day of the week or the seventh day on which God rested to be the ceremonial part of it and it concerns them so to do in point of interest for otherwise they could find no ground for the morality of the Lords day Sabbath and founding that morality on the fourth Commandment and pressing it upon the consciences of the people with such art and industry So that we have three parts at least of this one Commandment viz. the moral part consisting in the setting apart of one whole day but no matter when for Gods solemn worship the Positive part consisting as the Lord Primate saith in sanctifying one day in seven and then the ceremonial part in limiting that day to the seventh day precisely of the creation of the world on which God rested from his labours And strange it were if the judicial Law should not put in also for a share and make up the fourth the man that gathered sticks on the Sabbath day being tried according to this Law and condemned accordingly But here before we shall proceed to the Explication by which the Lord Primate makes his opinion more agreeable to the Sabbatarians then at first it seemed I must ask some of the Lord Primates followers where I shall find the Institution of that positive Law which before we heard of by whom it was ordained and on whom imposed for positive Laws must be declared and enjoyned in terms express or else they are neither Laws nor Positive If they shall say that we may find the Institution of it in the second of Genesis then must it be the sanctifying of that very seventh day on which God rested from his labours and not the setting apart or sanctifying of one day in seven as the Lord Primate would fain have it And secondly if the setting a part or sanctifying of one day in seven as it is juris Divini positive be that which is recorded in the fourth Commandment as the Lord Primate sayes it is then must it also be the same very seventh day on which God rested as before there being no other day but that commanded to be kept holy in that Commandment or mentioned to be blessed and sanctified by the Lord our God And on the other side if sanctifying the seventh day precisely on which God rested from his labours either as mentioned in the fourth Commandment or instituted in Gen. 2. be onely juris ceremonialis but a matter of Ceremony as the Sabbatarians would fain have it then as they leave no room at all for the Lord Primates positive Law in either Scripture so do they furnish the Church with a better Argument against themselves concerning the Antiquity and use of Ceremonies then hath yet been thought of But leaving them to free themselves from these perplexities at their better leisure we must next see what satisfaction will be offered to the Sabbatarians who make the sanctifying of one day in seven to be the moral not the positive part of the fourth Commandment And herein we shall find the Lord Primate very ready to give them all possible contentment And therefore he ascribes so much morality to his positive Law as to make it immutable and unchangeable by Men or Angels which is one of the chiefe priviledges of the moral Law and then he fixeth the first Institution of it on Gen. 2. which makes it equal in a manner to the Law of Nature if not part thereof And first saith he I mean here such a jus Divinum positivum as Baptism and the Lords Supper are established by which lieth not in the power of any Man or Angel to change or alter pag. 105. This makes it somewhat of kin to a moral precept of which the School-men have afforded us this general Aphorism Praecepta legis naturalis esse indispensabilia that is to say that the
precept of the Moral Law or the Law of Natures are not to be dispenst withal upon any occasion or necessity whatsoever it be and much less to be changed and abrogated at the will of man which explanation not to dispute the mutability or immutability of a positive Law will find as many Adversaries as the proposition as that which crosseth with the Doctrine of some of the first Martyrs in the Church of England and with the first Reformers and other leading men of the Protestant and Reformed Churches And first it is resolved thus by Mr. Tyndal a man sufficiently famous for his great pains in translating the Bible into English who suffered Martyrdom in the year 1536. As for the Sabbath saith he we be Lords over the Sabbath and may yet change it into Monday or into any other day as we see need or may make every tenth day a holy day onely if we see cause why Neither was there any cause to change it from the Saturday but to put a difference between us and the Jewes neither need we any holy day at all if the people might be taught without it And somewhat to this purpose though not in terms so fully significant and express we find affirmed by John Frith a man of much learning for his age who suffered Martyrdom in the year 1533. Our fore-fathers saith he which were in the beginning of the Church did abrogate the Sabbath to the intent that men might have an example of Christian liberty c. Howbeit because it was necessary that a day should be reserved in which the people should come together to hear the word of God they ordained in stead of the Sabbath which was Saturday the next day following which is Sunday And although they might have kept the Saturday with the Jew as a thing indifferent yet they did much better Which words of his if they seem rather to demonstrate the Churches power in altering the time of worship from one day to another then the mutability of the precept on the which it was founded I am sure that Zuinglius the first Reformer of the Church among the Switzers will speak more fully to the purpose Hearken now Valentine saith he by what wayes and means the Sabbath may be made a ceremony if either we observe that day which the Jewes once did or think the Lords day so affixed unto any time Vt nefas sit illum in aliud tempus transferre that we conceive it an impiety it should be changed unto another on which as well as upon that we may not rest from labour and hearken to the word of God if perhaps such necessity should be this would indeed make it become a ceremony But Calvin speaks more plain then he when he professeth that he regarded not so much the number of seven Vt ejus servituti Ecclesias astringeret as to enthral the Church unto it And this is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as much as can be comprehended in so narrow a compass More largely Vrsine the Divinity Reader in the University of Heidelberg and a great follower of Calvin in all his writings who makes this difference between the Lords day and the Sabbath That it was utterly unlawful to the Jewes either to neglect or change the Sabbath without express Commandment from God himself as being a ceremonial part of Divine Worship but for the Christian Church that that may design the first or second or any other day to Gods publick service so that our Christian Liberty be not thereby infringed or any opinion of necessity or holiness affixt unto them Ecclesia verò Christiana primum vel alium diem tribuit ministerio salva sua libertate sine opinions cultus vel necessitatis as his own words are Chemnitius yet more plainly for the Lutheran Churches who frequently affirms that it is libera observatio a voluntary observation that it is an especial part of our Christian liberty not to be tied to dayes and times in matters which concern Gods service and that the Apostles made it manifest by their example singulis diebus vel quocunque die that every day or any day may by the Church be set apart for religious exercises And finally as Bullinger Bucer Brentius cited by Dr. Prideaux in his Tract De Sabbato è nostri◠non pauci besides many others of the Reformed Churches by telling us that the Church hath still a power to change the time of worship from one day to another do tacitly infer that the Church hath power to change that time from the seventh day to the tenth or twelfth as well as from the first day of the week to the third or fourth so they which teach us that the sanctifying of one day in seven is not the moral part of the fourth Commandment do imply no less Of which opinion beside Tostatus and the Schoolmen before remembred we find also Calvin to have been Lib. Instit 2. c. 8. 11. 34. besides Simler in Exod. 20. Aretius in his common places Loco 55. Franciscus Gomarus in his Book De origine Institutione Sabbati Ryvet in Exod. 20. p. 190. to whom Chemnitius may be added for the Lutheran Churches In one of which it is affirmed that the sanctifying of a seventh day rather then of the eighth or ninth juris est Divini sed ceremonialis And if it be ceremonial only though of Gods appointment it must be subject unto change and mutability as well as Circumcision and the Passover or any other of the legal or Mosaical Ordinances And by another it is said that it can neither be made good by the Law of Nature or Text of Scripture or any solid Argument drawn from thence Vnum è septem diebus ex vi praecepti quarti ad cultum Dei necessariò observandum that by the fourth commandment one day in seven is of necessity to be dedicated to Gods service which does as plainly contradict the Lord Primates second Proposition as the Explication of it is found contrary to the rest before The second way whereby the Lord Primate doth strengthen and support his positive Law and makes it to come more near to the Sabbatarians of these later times is by his fixing the first Institution of it on the second of Genesis which makes it equal in a manner to the Law of Nature if not part thereof For that the institution of it in the first beginning is the very same with making it a part or branch of the Law of Nature may be inferred first from these words of Tostatus in Gen. 2. Num Sabbatum cùm à Deo sanctificatum fuerit in primordio rerum c. whether the Sabbath being sanctified by God in the infancy of the World had been observed by men by the Law of Nature And secondly it may be inferred from Dr. Prideaux in his Tract De Sabbato Sect. 2. Some saith he fetch the Original of the Sabbath from the beginning of the World
onely that some time should be set apart for the worship of God of which we have so many evident examples in the Greeks and Romans that no man can make question of it but that in all the Acts of worship a man should totally abstract himself from all worldly thoughts which might divert him from the business he was then about Orantis est nihil nisi coelestia cogitare as we learned when School-boyes But that this time should rather be the seventh day then any other is not a part or branch of the Law of Nature never accounted so by the Ancient Writers nor reckoned so by some of those of note and eminency who otherwise are great friends to the Lords day Sabbath Certain I am that Theodoret doth not so account it who telleth us that the observation of the Sabbath came not in by nature but by Moses ' s Law Sabbati observandi non natura magistra sed latio legis which is short but full Nor is it so accounted by Sedulius another of the ancient Writers who ranks it amongst the legal ceremonies not amongst those things quae legi naturali congruunt which are directed meerly by the Law of Nature nor by Damascen amongst the Greeks who doth assure us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to say that when there was no Law enacted no◠no Scripture inspired by God that then there was no Sabbath neither nor finally by our venerable Beda who lived about the same time with Damascen and was of the same judgement with him in this particular for he assures us That to the Fathers before the Law all dayes were equal the seventh day having no prerogative before the others which he calls naturalis Sabbati libertatem the liberty of the natural Sabbath and by that liberty if I rightly understand his meaning men were no more restrained to one day then unto another no more unto the seventh then the fourth or eighth Tostatus to the same effect for the middle times who telleth us That howsoever the Hebrew people or any other before the giving of the Law were bound to set a part some time for religious duties Non tamen magis in Sabbato quà m in quolibet aliorum dierum yet were they no more bound to the Sabbath day then to any other For this last age though I could help my selfe by many good Authors yet I shall rest content with two that is to say the Lord Primate himselfe and Doctor Ryvet before named who build the institution of the Sabbath on a positive Law and not upon the Law of Nature And therefore if the instituting of the Sabbath in the first beginning be in effect to make it all one with the Law of Nature as was inferred from Dr. Prideaux and Tostatus it must needs follow thereupon that the Sabbath not being lookt on as a part of the Law of Nature could not be instituted as the Lord Primate saies it was in the first beginning SECT III. The sanctifying of the Sabbath in the first beginning imports a Commandment given to Adam for the keeping of it No such Commandment given to Adam in his own personal capacity nor as the common root of mankind The Patriarchs before the flood did not keep the Sabbath The Sabbath not observed by the Patriarchs of the line of Sem nor by the Israelites in Egypt That the Commandment of the Sabbath was peculiar onely to the Jewes proved by the testimony of the Fathers and the Jewes themselves That the seventh day of every week was not kept holy by the Gentiles affirmed by some of their own best Authors and some late Divines The Jewes derided by the Gentiles for their seventh day Sabbath The Lord Primates Antithesis viz. that the seventh day was more honoured by the Gentiles then the other six not proved by any ancient Author either Greek or Latine The three Greek Poets whom he cites do not serve his turn and how they came to know that the Creation of the World was finished in seven dayes which is all they say The passage of Tertullian in his Tract Ad Nationes as little to his purpose as the three Greek Poets The meaning of that Author in his Apologeticum cap. 16. not rightly understood by the Lord Primate whose Arguments from Tibullus Lucian and Lampridius conclude as little as the rest The observation of the Sabbath and other Jewish Ceremonies taken up by the later Gentiles not upon any old Tradition but by Imitation The custome of the Romans in incorporating all Religions into their own and the reason of it BUt there is one Conclusion more which follows on the instituting of the Sabbath in the first beginning and is like to afford us more work then the other did For if it be all one to bless and sanctifie the seventh day in the beginning of the World as to impose it then on Adam to be kept and sanctified as some say it is it may be very well concluded that if no such commandment was then given to Adam the Sabbath was not blessed and sanctified in the first beginning Nor can it stand with Piety Reason that it should be otherwise For to suppose that God did set apart and sanctifie the seventh day for a day of worship and yet that no Commandment should be given for the keeping of it what is it but to call in question the most infinite wisedom of Almighty God which never did any thing in vain unless perhaps we may conceive with Tornelius that the Angels solemnized this first Sabbath with joyful shouts and acclamations as he gathereth from Iob 38. 4 6. Or that the WORD the second person in the Syntax of the blessed Trinity did take our humane shape upon him and came down to Adam and spent the whole day with him in spiritual exercises as is affirmed by Zanchius with an ego non dubito as a matter which no man need make doubt of but he that listed For if any such Commandment was given to Adam it must be either given him in his own personal capacity or as he was the common root of all mankind which was then virtually in his loyns as Levi is said by the Apostle to have paid Tithes unto Melchisedeck because he was then virtually in the Loyns of his Father Abraham when those Tithes were paid But no such precept or command was given to Adam in his own personal capacity for then the Sabbath must have died and been buried in the same grave with him nor was it given to him as the common root of all mankind for then all the Nations of the World had been bound to keep it the contrary whereof we shall see anon In the mean time let us take with us the Authority of the Ancient Writers by some of which it is affirmed that no commandment was given by God to our Father Adam but that he should abstain from eating of the fruit of the Tree
Bishops of his party should at an Ordination take the subscription of the party ordained to both Articles the Articles of England not being received instead but with those of Ireland p. 120 121. A sorry shift but such as was conceived to be better then none though as good as nothing But leaving this Dispute to another place as before was intimated we now proceed to the Examination of some other passages in the Lord Primates Letter unto his Honourable Friend in which he first chargeth the Historian for speaking inconsiderately in saying that before that time viz. Anno 1615. The Lords day had never attained such credit as to be thought an Article of the Faith though of some mens fancies And why was this so inconsiderately spoken Because saith he he that would confound the ten Commandments whereof this must he accounted for one unless he will leave us but nine with the Articles of Faith had need be put to learn his Catechisme again But this I look on as a flourish or a fansie onely For I hope the Lord Primate doth not think the Historian so extremely ignorant as to mean there a justifying and salvifical faith but that he takes faith there in the general notion as it importeth a firm perswasion and beliefe that those things are undoubtedly true which are commended to him by the Church in which he liveth or found in any creditable and unquestioned Author And in this notion of the word the matter of a Commandment being made a Doctrine may be called an Article of the Faith without any such scorn as to be put to learn the Catechism again The Articles of England by such as write of them in Latine are called Confessio Ecclesiae Anglicanae praeter Confessionem Anglicanam quam mihi ut modestam praedicabant c. saith the Arch-Bishop of Spalato In like manner and in the same sense and signification as the Articles of the Belgick Churches and the Kirk of Scotland are called confessio fidei Ecclesiarum Belgicarum Confessio fidei Scoticana sit de caeteris that is to say the confession of the Faith of those several Churches By which name the Articles of Ireland being also called by a most eminent learned and judicious person as Doctor Bernard sets him out p. 121. and the new Doctrine of the Sabbath being made a part of that Confession it may be said without any absurdity or being put to School again to learn the Catechisme that till that time viz. 1615. the Lords day never had attained that credit as to be thought an Article of the Faith But to make the matter sure and beyond exception I must put Dr. Bernard in mind of a Book entituled The Humble Advice of the Assembly of Divines assembled at Westminster by the Authority of Parliament concerning a Confession of Faith In which Confession of the Faith it is said expresly that As it is in the Law of Nature that in general a due proportion of time be set apart for the worship of God so in his word by a positive moral and perpetual Commandment binding all men in all ages he hath particularly appointed one day in seven for a Sabbath to be kept holy unto him which from the beginning of the world to the Resurrection of Christ was the last day of the week and from the Resurrection of Christ was changed into the first day of the week which in Scripture is called the Lords day and is to be continued to the end of the world as the Christian Sabbath The institution and keeping of the Lords day here is made an Article of the Faith an Article of that Confession of the Faith which by the Assembly of Divines whereof the Lord Primate was nominated to be one was recommended to the two Houses of Parliament and yet I trow the Lord Primate wil not send the whole Assembly to learn their Catechism again unless it were one of the Catechisms of their own making either the larger or the lesser 't is no matter which But the Lord Primate stayes not here he goes on and saith That he that would have every thing which is put into the Articles of Religion to be held for an Article of Faith should do well to tell us whether he hath as yet admitted the Book of the ordination of Bishops and the two volumes of Homilies into his Creed both which he shall find received in the Articles of Religion agreed upon in the Synod held at London Anno 1562. But unto this it may be answered that the Book of the Ordination of Bishops and the two Volumes of Homilies may be so far taken into the Historians Creed as to believe as much of either as is required of him in the Book of Articles For he may very warrantably and safely say that he does verily believe that the second Book of Homilies doth contain a godly and wholesome Doctrine and necessary for those times that is to say the times in which they were first publisht and that the Book of Consecration of Arch-Bishops and Bishops and ordering of Priests and Deacons doth contain all things necessary to such Consecration and ordering and that it hath nothing that of it self is superstitious or ungodly All this the Historian doth and may believe without making it an Article of his Faith except it be in that general notion of the word which before we spake of and in which notion of the word the Article of the Consecration of Arch-Bishops and Bishops c. may as well finde a place in the Confession of the Faith of the Church of England as that Article of the Parity of Ministers hath found admittance in the Confessions of the Belgick Scotish and other Reformed Churches For in the Belgick Confession Art 31. it is thus declared quantum vero attinet Divini verbi Ministros ubicunque locorum sint eandem illi Potestatem Authoritatem habent ut qui omnes sint Christi unici illius Episcopi universalis unicique Capitis Ecclesiae Ministri The French Confession bearing this Title Gallicarum Ecclesiarum Confessio fidei that is to say The Confession of the Faith of the French or Gallick Churches as the Scotish Confession is called Confessio fidei Scoticana doth affirm as much viz. Credimus omnes veros Pastores ubicunque locorum collocati fuerint eadem aequali inter se potestate esse praeditos sub unico illo capite summoque solo universali Episcopo Jesu Christo And so no question in the rest The Consecration of Arch-Bishops and Bishops may as well be an Article of the Faith amongst us in England as the Parity of Ministers amongst those of France or the Low-Countries These Interlocutories being thus passed over the Lord Primate comes at last to his final and definitive sentence for what remaineth after the Verdict is once given but that Judgment in the Case be pronounced accordingly And the Judgment is given us in these Words viz. By the
which grew in the middle of the Garden as namely by Tertullian adversus Iudaeos Basil de jejunio Ambrose Lib. de Elia jejunio c. 3. Chrysostom Hom 14. 16. on the Book of Genesis Austin de Civitate l. 14. c. 12. As also by many other Christian Doctors of all times and ages who from hence aggravate the offence of Adam in that he had but one Commandment imposed on him and yet kept it not By others it is said expresly that Adam never kept the Sabbath as certainly he would have done at some time or other if any such Commandment had been given him by the Lord his God as namely by Iustin Martyr in his Dialogue with Trypho the Iew Tertullian in his Book adversus Iudaeos which may be gathered also in the way of a necessary consequence from the words of Eusebius De Praep. Evang. l. 7. c. 8. and those of Epiphanius adversus Haereses l. 1. n. 5. Whose words we have laid down at large Hist of Sub. p. 1. c. 1. n. 5. This is enough to prove that no command for keeping of the Sabbath day was given to Adam in his own personal capacity and no more then so besides the necessary expiring of the Sabbath with him had it been so given And that it was not given to him as the common Root of Mankind will appear as plainly by the not keeping of that day by any which descended from him till it was declared unto the Israelites in the fall of Mannah and afterwards imposed upon them by the fourth Commandment for if it had been kept by any it must have been by those of the godly Line from whom our Saviour was to derive his Humane nature and yet it hath been proved out of very good Authors that it was never kept by Abel Seth Enos Enoch or Methusalem nor finally by Noah himselfe though called in Scripture by the name of a Preacher of Righteousness the proofs whereof may be found at large in the History of the Sabbath Part 1. Chap. 2. Num. 6 7 8 9. And if it were not kept by those of the godly Line we have no hope to find any thing for the keeping of it in the house of Cain or in the families of any of the other Sons of Adam whose extreme wickedness grew so abominable in the sight of God that he was forced to wash away the filth thereof by a general Deluge After the Flood we find the world repeopled by the Sons of Noah the godly Line being as ignorant of the Sabbath as the rest of the Nations for it hath been sufficiently proved out of very good Authors that neither Sem nor Melchisedech if a different person from him nor Heber nor Lot ever kept the Sabbath and that it was not kept by Abraham or any of his Sons as neither by Iacob Ioseph Moses or any of the House of Israel as long as they remained in Egypt in the House of Bondage for which see Hist of Sab. Part. 1. c. 3. n. 4 5 7 8 9. And if we find no such observance in the House of Sem who were more careful of their wayes and walked agreeably to the declared will and pleasure of Almighty God it were in vain to look for it in the House of Iaphet or in that of the accursed Cain the founders of the Europaean and African Nations or amongst any others which descended from the Sons of Sem who pass together with the rest by the name of Gentiles Now that the Gentiles were not bound to observe the Sabbath is proved by divers of the Fathers and many of the greatest Clerks among the Iewes whom affirm expresly that the Commandment of the Sabbath was given to none but those of the House of Israel Of this mind was St. Austin Epist 119. De Gen. ad lit l. 4. c. 11 13. Epist 86. Ad Casalanum in all which places he appropriates this Commandment to the Iewes or Hebrews St. Cyril in Ezek. h. 20. Theodoret in Ezek. 20. Procopius Gazaeus in Gen. 21. And for the Iews it was a common opinion received amongst them that the Sabbath was given to them onely and not to the Gentiles as Petrus Galatinus proves from the best of their Authors who thereupon inferreth Quod Gentes non obligantur ad Sabbatum that the Gentiles were not bound to observe the Sabbath The like may be gathered from Iosephus who in many places calls the Sabbath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or a national custome Antiq. lib. 4. cap 8. de bello lib. 2. cap. 16. to whom I shall now adde another of later date of my Lord Primates own commending that is to say Manasses Ben Israel who telleth in his Book De Creatione that the observation of the Sabbath was commanded onely unto the Israelites and that all the Duties which the Heathen were tied unto were comprised in the precepts given to the sons of Noah as is affirmed in the Letter to Dr. Twisse p. 78. And that the Sabbath was not kept by the Gentiles as well as not imposed upon them by any Commandment the Historian hath made good by two several Mediums whereof the first is taken from the writings of the Gentiles themselves by which it doth appear that they gave no greater respect to the Saturday then to any other day whatever and that though they celebrate the seventh day as a festival day yet was it not the seventh day of the weeek but the seventh day onely of every month which might happen as well upon any of the six dayes as upon the Saturday And so it is observed by Philo a right learned Jew who puts this difference between the Gentiles and the Jews that divers Cities of the Gentiles did solemnize the seventh day 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 once a month beginning their account with the new Moon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but that the Jewes did keep every seventh day constantly Nor was the seventh day of the month on which they sacrificed to Apollo esteemed more holy by the Gentiles then their other Festivals on which they tendered their Devotions to their other Gods and in particular was not accounted more holy then the first or fourth which Hesiod placeth in the same parallel with the seventh in this following verse viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In which if any should take notice that the attribute of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or holy is affixt unto the seventh day onely the Scholiast on that Author shall remove that scruple A novilunio exorsus tres laudat omnes sacras dicens septimam etiam ut Apollinis natalem celebrans and tells us that all three are accounted holy and that the seventh was also celebrated as Apollo's birth-day As for the first day of the month as is observed by Alexander ab Alexandro it was consecrated by the Greeks to Apollo also the fourth to Mercury the eighth to Theseus because he was derived from Neptune to whom as Plutarch saith they
by Clemens Alexandrinus l. 5. Stromat Eusebius lib. 13. De praeparat Evangel which verses and four others to the same effect he might have found in the History of the Sabbath Part 1. Chap 4. Num. 9. And there he might have found also that those verses had been formerly alledged by a learned Iew named Aristobulus who lived about the time of Ptolemy Philometor King of Egypt The three Poets which I find here cited are Homer Linus and Callimachus the three verses these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But there is nothing in these verses which proves either the Proposition or the Supposition touching the honouring of the seventh day more then any other but onely that the Poets were not ignorant that the works of the Creation were finished on the seventh day as himself acknowledgeth p. 86. Now how these Poets came to know that the Creation of the World was finished on the seventh day is told us by Aristobulus before mentioned namely that the Poets had consulted with the holy Bible and from thence sucked this knowledge 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as his own words are And this may be agreeable enough to the times they lived in For Homer who was the oldest of them flourished about 500. years from the death of Moses which hapned in or near the Reign of Solomon the Son of David the most mighty Monarch of the Hebrews at what time the people managed a great trade in Egypt and held good correspondence with those of Tyre from both of which being Sea-faring Nations the Greeks might come unto the knowledge derived to them from the Book of Moses of the Worlds Creation And as for Callimachus who was the latest of the three he lived not till 700. years from the time of Homer which hapned in the Reign of Seleucus Nicanor the first King of Syria of the Macedonian Race or Linage when the Jewes were under the command of one or other of the Princes of Greece as Successors to Alexander the Great in his Eastern Conquests Now for Tertullian on whose Authority the Lord Primate doth most rely we find him cited pag. 84. in two several places each place relating to a several Tract of that learned Writer The first is taken from the first Book and thirteenth Chapter of his Tract inscribed Ad Nationes published first amongst the rest of his Works in the Edition of Rigaltius and not long after in a small volume by it selfe at Geneva Anno 1625. with Gothofred his Notes upon it supposed by some to be but the rude draught of his Apologetick adversus gentes but whether it be so or not we must take it as it lies before us and the words are these viz. Qui solem diem ejus nobis exprobratis agnoscite vicinitatem non longè à Saturno Sabbatis vestris sumus Where first it is to be observed that Tertullian speaks not this of the ancient Gentiles but applies himself to those onely of the times he lived in and therefore no fit Author either to prove the Proposition That the Heathens did attribute some holiness to the seventh day and gave it a peculiar honour above the other days of the week unless he mean it of the Heathens amongst whom he lived much less to justifie the perpetual Tradition of the seventh day which the L Primate will not have to be derived unto them from the Common-wealth of Israel but the Sons of Noah And secondly we may observe that many of the Gentiles at that time when Tertullian wrote that Tract unto them had taken up many of the Jewish customs amongst others the observation of their Sabbath whose riotous feastings on the same might be communicated very readily unto all the rest But this can be no proof at all for the times preceding especially before the Jewes began to intermingle in the Provinces of the Roman Empire and much less serve to fill up that vast vacuity which was between that intermingling and the Sons of Noah Pass we on therefore to the next taken from the Apologetick Chap. 16. to which for the better understanding of the former passage we are referred by Gothofredus Aequè si diem solis saith Tertullian laetitiae indulgemus alia longè ratione quà m religione solis secundo loco ab eis sumus qui diem Saturni otio victui decernunt exorbitantes ipsi à Judaico more quem ignorant Which words of his though the Lord Primate would apply as spoken of because they are spoken to the Gentiles I doubt not but upon examination of the Authors meaning we shall find it otherwise which passage by the Scholiast is thus glossed Quod autem ad diem solis attinet alio ratio est à cultu solis quae nos eum diem qui est à Saturni secundus à Judaeis superstitiosè observatur celebrare persuadet nam illi nesciunt suam legem explosam jam exoletam refrixisse Pamelius gives this note upon it That the Christians celebrated the Sunday ut distinguantur à Judaeis qui diem Saturni id est Sabbatum solenniter etiamnum otio decernunt to the end they might be distinguished from the Jewes who devoted their Sabbath which the Romans call by the name of dies Saturni unto ease and eating What the effect is of the Scholiast and his Paraphrase we shall see anon In the mean time we may observe that Tertullian doth not say secundo loco à vobis sumus that we are in the next place to you by which he might understand the Gentiles but secundo loco ab eis sumus qui diem Saturni otio victui decernunt who dedicate the Saturday unto sloth and luxury which must be understood of the Jewes and of none but them And whereas the Lord Primate layes the strength of his Argument on the last words of his Author viz. Exorbitantes ipsi à Judaico more quem ignorant that is to say that the Gentiles by consuming that day in ease and riot had deviated from the custome of the Jewes of which they were ignorant yet certainly those words are capable of no such construction For certainly the Gentiles by consuming that day in Rest and Riot could not be said to deviate from the custom of the Jewes whose riotous feastings on their Sabbath had made them a reproch to the Greeks and Romans nor could they in any sense be said to be ignorant of the Jewish custome in that kind which Plutarch had before observed and charged upon them In the next place the Scholiast applying the former passage to the Jewes alone and their superstitious observation of their Sabbath or Saturn's-day gives us this gloss on the last words which are now before us viz. Nam illi nesciunt suam legem explosam jam exoletam refrixisse that is to say that they were ignorant that the Law by which their Sabbath had been ordained was repealed abrogated