A Defense of the Sabbath Day, Chapter 3 · Commentary · Section 12 – Section 13
SECT. XII.
A 7th text out of the new Teſtament, which they alleage & abuſe for the Lords day, is Reuel. 1.10. I was in the Spirit on the Lords day &c. Some from this text thinke this Lords day muſt be a Sabbath day, becauſe S. Iohn receiued a Reuelation in it: but fewe doe vrge it thus; & thus there is not the leaſt force of prouing in it; for how will it appeare, that becauſe Iohn had a Reuelation on this day, that therfore it muſt be a Sabbath day? theres no likelihood that euer this can be proued: Ezekiel had a viſion or Reuelation from God, on the 5th day of the monethmonth Ezek. 1.1.2. muſt this 5th. day of the monethmonth be therefore a Sabbath for euer? But I come to the ſecond ſorte, & theſe are the moſt of thoſe which vſe this text; they gather all from the name, that this day is called Lords day: but how they will frame an argument from this name Lords day, to proue it a Sabbath day, I cannot deuiſe.
Thouching their collections from this name I anſwer 1. Let them remember, that ſince they hauehave no com. from Chriſt for this day; & therfore are put too it, to magnifie their reaſon & conſequences, prouided they be neceſſary conſequences as they ſpeake, let them not forget I ſay, when they bring vsus a reaſon hence, that it be not a probable one, but one of their neceſſary conſequences; if I miſtake me nor, they ſhall find ſome what to doe, to proue neceſſarily, from the bare name of a thing.
2. Seing that Paul did voluntarily omit the keeping of the Lords day, when he might hauehave kept it, if he vvould but hauehave ſpake the word, as hath bene ſhowne out of Act. 13.14.42.44. thers no probability therfore to think, that any thing ſhould be intimated here in theſe vvords Lords day, to declare this day now to be a Sabbath day. 3. Foraſmuch as it ſhall hereafter be proued out of M. Perkins, that ſondry of the primitiue Churches, did not obſerue the Lords day, for 300 yeeres after S. Iohns time, who can thinke, that in this Text S. Iohn did ratify the Lords day for a Sabbath, vvhen the Chriſtian Churches, vvhichwhich immediatly ſucceded him, vvere ignorant of it? further, foraſmuch as our Sauiour Chriſt, the Lord of this Lords day, did make it a trauailing day, vvhen he vvas vponupon the earth; it cannot be thought, that S. Iohn did intimate, by theſe words Lords day, that it ſhould be kept as a Reſting day, or Sabbath day; vnleſſe you ſuppoſe; that Iohn the Seruant, put holineſſe in that day, vvherin Chriſt his Lord, put none. 4. You hauehave a Text in Mat. 24.10. beſids many others in Act. 13.42.44. Act. 16.13. Act. 17.2. Act. 18.4. pray that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the Sabbath day. Where our Sauiour Chriſt allowed a conſcience to be made of flying & trauailing on the Sabbath day, that is, the 7th day Sabbath, and that 40 yeers after his death. Were the Patrones of the Lords day, but as vvilling to imbrace the Lords Sabbathes, as they are to vphould the Lords day, here vvere a text for them, that hath, by farr more probability of trueth, then this text hath Reuel. 1.10. but they bewray their partiality, when they will refuſe that which hath better grownds in Gods word, and imbrace that vvhichwhich hath worſe grownds, yea no grownd at all. 5. It is a rule in expounding of Scripture, that vvords that are ſome vvhat ambiguouſe and doubtfull, be ſo conſtrued and expounded, as that they doe not contradict ſome other plaine & expreſſe Text of Scripture: now in the 4th Com. vve hauehave a moſt expreſſe & plaine Scripture, neuer yet repealed, Sixe dayes ſhalt thou labour: now this Lords day, is the firſt of theſe ſixe dayes; wherfore theſe words Lords day, muſt not be ſo expounded, as if vve ſhould Reſt from labour on this day; for ſo vve make a contradiction in Scripture, by ſetting this text againſt the 4th Com.
I come novv to anſwer more directly; & firſt for this name Lords day: they take it for graunted that S. Iohn meante it of our Sunday, or Firſt day of the weeke; but it may bedoubted of: for our Sauiour Chriſt was Lord of the old Sabbath, The Sonne of man is Lord, euen of the Sabbath, Mark. 2.28. Wherefore, the 7th day Sabbath may truly be called the Lords day: now be it that our Sunday, or Firſt day of the weeke may alſo becalled Lords day, becauſe Chriſt our Lord roſe on it; So then, if both the 7th day of the weeke, and alſo the 8th day of the weeke, may both be called Lords dayes, it is your parte then to proue that by Lords day, S. Iohn meant that Lords day, which is our Sunday: it may be he meant it of the Lords day, vvhichwhich is Saturday.
Suppoſe vve not with ſtanding, that S. Iohn meante it of our Sunday, vvhat argument can thence be collected? M. Perkins in his Caſes of Conſcience Chap. 16. Sect. 2. argueth thus, that this day is called the Lords day, as the laſt Supper of Chriſt, was called the Lords Supper; and that for this cauſe, that as Chriſt did Subſtitute the laſt Supper in roome of the paſſouer, ſo he ſubſtituted the firſt day of the weeke in roome of the Iewes Sabbath, to be a day ſet a parte for his owne worſhip. Touching this argument, I ſhall not need giuegive any other anſwer, then that reuerend diuine hath put into my mouth: for he doth ingenuouſly confeſſe it in the ſame place, that this is but a probable argument, ſaying, I ſuppoſe, for in theſe points ſtill we muſt goe by liklihoods; that this day is called the Lords day, as the laſt Supper of Chriſt, was called the Lords Supper, &c. Well, if then there can be no arguments drawne from this name Lords day, but ſuppoſitions, & likelihoodes, vvhat hauehave we to doe with them? theſe are no neceſſary conſequence: for how ſhall a Miniſter with a ſafe conſcience, preſſe men peremptorily & neceſſarily to a certaine keeping of the Lords day, vponupon probable ſuppoſitions, likelihoods & vncertainties? can an vncertaine & doubtfull argument, bind men, vntounto a certaine & vndoubted practiſe? Miniſters muſt hauehave a care, and make a conſcience of it, that they doe not bind mens conſciences ſtraiter, then Gods word doth: when God ſpeakes probably & doubtfully, they muſt not ſpeake peremptorily & certainly, this were to make Gods Lawes ſtraiter then they are: if therfore it be but a likely matter that the Lords day is a Sabbath, let Miniſters leaue it & deliuer it to people but as a likely thing, ſo as if they profane it, it cannot be ſaid for certaine, that they ſinne in profaning it: but Miniſters novv a dayes are gone beyond Perkins, where he ſaw but likelihoods, they doe ſee certainties; & dare from ſuch Textes as theſe preſſe mens conſciences, to the certaine & peremptory keeping this Lords day, vponupon paine of damnation; how they ſhall anſwer this to God I know not: it behooueth them to forethinke of it. In the meane ſpace for the people, if they be wiſe, let them not ſuffer their conſciences, to be ſnared, bound, and inthralled, touching the Lords day, by ſuch arguments as theſe.
Yet further, that the vanity of this their collection from the name Lords day, may appeare, ſee it by the like of the day called the paſſeouer day, & of Pentecoſt day, & of the action caled the Lords Supper, had not God added his word & Com. to theſe dayes, & to this action, therby declaring vntounto vsus, vvhat vſe vve ſhould make of theſe dayes, & of this action, who could from theſe names onelyonly, hauehave collected the vſe of theſe dayes, & of the Lords Supper? euen ſo it is here, S. Iohn hath onelyonly & barely named this day, Lords day, & herevnto he hath not added any word touching its vſe, or giuen vsus any reaſon why he ſo called it, what man then can hence collect, from its bare name, what we ſhould doe with this Lords day?
Furthermore ſome argue out of this Text thus; that this Lords day is ſo called as Chriſts laſt Supper, is called the Lords Supper; novv the Lords Supper is ſo called, becauſe it was inſtituted in remembrance of Chriſt; and ſo this day is called Lords day, becauſe it vvas inſtituted for a Sabbath, in remembrance of Chriſt. Herevnto I anſwer, by deniall of this propoſition that, the Firſt day of the weeke is called Lords day, as Chriſts laſt Supper is called the Lords Supper: in theſe words they affirme, that there is the like reaſon, or the ſame reaſon, of the Lords day, & of the Lords Supper: vvel, novv they hauehave affirmed it, in the next place it is their parte to proue it; for bare affirmations are no arguments; it is not therfore ſo, becauſe they hauehave ſaid it is ſo; for my parte I neuer heard it proued yet, that the Lords day is ſo called, for the ſame cauſes that Chriſts Supper is called the Lords Supper; neither doe I beleeue that euer I ſhall heare it proued. In the meane ſpace, let me ſhew the vanity of this affirmation, & argumentation, by the like, thus.
This Lords day is ſo called, as the earth, is called the Lords earth, & all that is therin: for, the earth is the Lords, & all that therein is, 1. Cor. 10.26. Novv the earth is called the Lords earth, becauſe the Lord made it, & all things therein, to ſerue man in his ordenary & common vſe Geneſ. 1.29. Geneſ. 9.3. and ſo this day, is called Lords day, becauſe Chriſt ordeined it, for mans ordenary & common vſe; that is, for a working day. If they may take liberty to giuegive a bare affirmation, & then argue vponupon it abſurdly, then ſo may I:2. it is ſaid that wee are the Lords, Rom. 14.8. Now wee Chriſtians, were redeemed by the Lord Chriſt, that we ſhould ſerue him in righteouſneſſe & holineſſe, all the dayes of our life, Luk. 1.74.75. and if vve muſt ſerue him all the dayes of our life, then muſt we ſerue him in the ordenary workes of our calings: thus then I may argue; ſo is this day called Lords day, that it may be ſpent by ſeruing God, in the ordenary workes of our calings. 3. Iames is called the Lords brother, Gal. 1.19. Now may a man thus ſay, & argue? this day is called Lords day, as Iames is called the Lords brother: novv Iames is called the Lords brother, becauſe he vvas allied to him; & ſo is this day called Lords day, becauſe it is allied to him? ſee the abſurdety of ſuch collections as are made from this Text. 4. If this firſt day of the weeke, muſt be a Sabbath & reſting day, becauſe called Lords day; then muſt the earth reſt & be no more tilled, becauſe it is called the Lords earth: & then muſt we Chriſtians hereafter reſt from worke eueryevery day, all our liues long becauſe vvee are called the Lords; & the Lords redeemed: thus you ſee the vanity of their arguings from this Text: the like may be ſaid out of that Text, Luk. 17.22. where is mentiō made of the Lords day, or day of the Sonne of man. But peraduenture, they will obiect, that theſe inſtances are not like their caſe: for tis foreign with the article foreign notifying ſome ſpeciall thing and it is to be tranſlated the Lords day, not the day of the Lord: whereto I anſwer 1. for the article, looke into the Textes alleaged by me, & you ſhall find the article there alſo. 2. For the tranſlatiō, that it neither maketh or marreth, whither of the twaine we take is plaine, in that Tranſlatores doe promiſcuouſly render it ſometimes one way, ſometimes an other, ſee 2 Theſ. 1.8. foreign in the fyer of flame, or in flaming fyer, Gal. 1.19. foreign the brother of the Lord, or the Lords brother: ſee Iam. 2.1. and what difference is to be made betwene theſe, the mount of holineſſe, & the holy mount? the Temple of holineſſe, and the holy Temple? and ſo, the day of the Lord, and the Lords day? 3. I will ſhew you two phraſes of neerer affinity then theires, and yet differ as farr as Creation & Redemption: the 7th day Sabbath is called the Feaſt of the Lord, and the anniuerſary Sabbaths are alſo called the Feaſtes of the Lord, Leuit. 24.2.4. and yet the one of theſe is not eueryevery way like the other: for the one is a Signe of Creation, the other of Chriſt & redemption: ſo may it be betwene the Lords day, & the Lords Supper &c.
I confeſſe vve may be bould to render a reaſon, why Chriſts Supper was called the Lords Supper; becauſe vve hauehave a vvord of inſtitution added to the name, declaring its nature vſe and end, as 1. Cor. 11.20 23.24.25. but it is not ſo with the day, called the Lords day, Reuel. 1.10. Yee hauehave nothing but its bare name mentioned, & not a word of the reaſon of the name, nor of the vſe and end of the day, ſo named; wherefore all conſequences from hence, muſt be as ſaith M. Perkins before quoted, but ſuppoſitions, probabilities, & likelihoods.
Some argue thus, that which in Scripture, is called the Lords, that is to be conſecrated to the Lord, and to his worſhip. I anſwer, as vvell may they thus argue & conclud, that becauſe the earth is called the Lords, it muſt therefore be co ſecrated ſo to God, as it muſt reſt & be tilled no more, & be imploied vvholly and onelyonly to Gods vvorſhip. And ſo Chriſtianes being called the Lords muſt reſt from vvorke, and onelyonly worſhip God.
Some Miniſters argue thus, that this day is called Lords day, by way of excellency, as excelling all other dayes of the weeke, & therfore it muſt be a Sabbath day; for Sabbath dayes excell all other dayes. Herevnto I anſwer, that eueryevery excellency of a day, maketh not that day a Sibbath day, vnleſſe it excelleth as a Sabbath day: for example, good friday, & ſo eueryevery friday ſince, doe excell all other dayes of the weeke, in this regard, that on it Chriſt ſuffred his bitter paſſion for vsus; & yet is not eueryevery friday ſince a Sabbath day. Hallow Thurſday, excelleth all dayes of the vveeke, in this, that on it Chriſt aſcended vp into heauen; & yet is not Thurſday become a Sabbath day. So the Lords day excelleth all others in this, that on it Chriſt roſe, & yet is not the Lords day a Sabbath day, ere the more for this excellency; As the Miniſter excelleth all other men, for a Miniſter; & yet he is not therfore a Magiſtrate, ſo the Lords day may excell all other dayes, for a reſurrection day; and yet it is not therfore a Sabbath or Reſting day. Loe, with what idle ſtuffe, they fill peoples heads withall, to boulſter out their fancies.
Others there are, who thinke their bare naming of the day (Lords day) is argument ſufficient to convince any man, & to proue that the Lords day, muſt be a Sabbath day; ſo ſtrong they are in conceipt, & ſo weake in argument: and thus they argue; why this day which we keepe it is called in the Scriptures, by S. Iohn, the Lords day, is it not? well & what would you hauehave more then? is not this enough for any reaſonable man? I anſwer, if it be called the Lords day, then the Lords day let it be ſtill for me; I goe not about to giuegive it any other name, albeit it may be queſtioned: but this is that I ſay, that S. John did not call this day, Sabbath day, did he? if hee had called it Sabbath day, as he called it Lords day, then would I beleeue it had bene a Sabbath day; but now I beleeue that it is but a Lords day, & not a Sabbath day; becauſe S. Iohn called it but Lords day, not Sabbath day.
Their laſt vpſhot, vvhichwhich is a note that they are at non plus, is to quaeries, in ſteade of proofes; as thus; I but vvhy thinke you, this day was called Lords day, rather then any other? there was ſomething in it extraordenary doubtleſſe &c. I anſwer, tis true, ſomething in it there vvas, & ſomething extraordenary too, as namely, it was called Lords day, becauſe on it Chriſt roſe from the dead, & ſo he did not vponupon any other day: But if any thing they will hauehave more then this, let them ſhew vsus vvhat it is, & proue it when they hauehave done, but let them leaue this idle begging of queſtiones of vsus, the which is a moſt frequent thing with them.
Thus you ſee what poore hould they hauehave for this new Sabbath, from this text, Reuel. 1.10. full little did S. Iohn thinke when he wrote this Reuelation, & mentioned the Lords day in it, that euer Chriſtians after him, would hauehave ſo abuſed this name, to the ſeting vp of a new Sabbath vponupon it.
To conclud, ſince they will be ſo confident, as to collect a neceſſary inſtitution, from a bare nomination, I deſire them firſt to proue it, that this name Lords day vvas of diuine impoſition: there is cauſe to doubt; there are many names in ſcripture, that are not diuinly impoſed, as Mars ſtreete, Purim, Mathew, &c. ſo may this be too: and the rather conſidering that this name Lords day, was vnknowne in the Church for many yeeres after Chriſt: for, all the 4 Euangeliſts named it by the old name, the firſt day of the weeke, onelyonly: and ſo did S. Paul, Act. 20.7. it might therfore be ſo named firſt by the Church, & afterwards by S. Iohn in his Reuelations: now if this name might be humane, then may the inſtitution & vſe of it be humane alſo.
SECT. XIII.
Thus you hauehave ſeene their Scriptures, & what pittifull worke, they hauehave made with them; the feebleneſſe & inſufficiency whereof, being ſingly conſidered of, & well viewed, they full well ſeeing, though loath to confeſſe it; now they hauehave a new deuiſe, & thats this, albeit (ſay they, or ſome of them) that theſe Scriptures, cannot proue the Lords day a Sabbath, ſinglie & a lone conſidered, yet put them all together & they vvill proue it. Quae non proſunt ſingula multa juvant.
Hereunto I anſwer, it is well that at laſt they are forced to confeſſe it, that none of their Scriptures can proue the point, alone & by themſelues ſingly; by yeelding this, they hauehave fairly yeelded their cauſe: for, I deſire of them, to ſhew me in one argument, framed out of all theſe textes together, how they can proue the Lords day a Sabbath; any better then they could out of them all ſinglie and alone conſidered one after an other: the vvhichwhich can not be done. For, it is vvith theſe textes ſinglie, and together, as it is vvith a ſingle cipher, and a multitude of ciphers; if a ſingle cipher ſtandeth for nothing, then add to it an hundreth more ciphers, they increaſe not the number, the totall ſumme of them will be nothing ſtill; an 100 ciphers cānot make one ſingle vnity: And ſo it is vvith theſe Textes, if eueryevery one of them ſinglie and alone, hauehave no force of prouing the Lords day a Sabbath, then add them all together, & if there vvere an hundreth more of them, and all of them ſhall proue nothing: arguments doe not chang their nature being a multitude, from that they vvere ſingle: vvee eſteeme not of arguments by number, but by vveight: many probabilities, cannot make one infallibility.
When a Chapman is to buy of a Merchant, many particular things of one kinde, packed together; the Chapman, leaſt he be deceiued, will take them aſunder, & viewe them ſinglie one by one: but if the merchant, dares not ſuffer him, to looke vponupon them, & trye them eueryevery one ſingly, but will enforce him to take them in the groſſe & in the lumpe, whithout a particular ſight; the Chapman needeth none other argument then this, to perſwade him that there is packing (as they calle it) & that this Merchant, is about to play the crafty merchant (as they ſay) vvith him: & ſo it is heere, if now their textes, muſt be no longer viewed & ſcanned, ſeuerally & ſinglie one by one, but we muſt hauehave them thruſt vponupon vsus, in the lumpe, all ioyned to gether, vvho can but ſuſpect iugling, and double dealing? vvas it euer knowne that ſuch deuices vvere vſed? but all this is ſtill to hold, ſuch as they hauehave once taken, in fetters of blindneſſe & ſuperſtition: theſe cannot ſay as Paul ſaid, that they hauehave renounced the hidden things of diſhonestie, not walking in craftines, nor handling the word of God deceitfully, 2. Cor. 4.2. If to refuſe a ſingle triall of eueryevery text they bring particularly by it ſelfe, be not out of ſome hidden diſhoneſtie, craftineſſe, & handling the word of God deceitfully, I cannot tell what is.
And thus much be ſpoken in anſwer vntounto all their Scriptures, both out of the old & new Teſtaments, in all which you ſee, they cannot proue vntounto vsus, ſo much as one Lords day, kept for a Sabbath, no not in all the Scriptures. In the next place, we are to come vntounto their reaſones; & if their Scriptures cannot proue the point, I truſt their reaſones & conſequences ſhall doe as little, vnleſſe their reaſons be growne more potent then the Scriptures are.