A Threefold Treatise of the Sabbath, Section 2 – Section 3
SECTION II. Of the conceit of an Anticipation or Prolepſis, and what it is.
TOſtatus his conceit of an Anticipation in the words, was, ſaith Catherinus, ineptum commentum; and is indeed contrary to the plaine meaning of Moſes his whole narration, and the letter of text.
Here its fit in the firſt place to ſhew what is an Anticipation.
It's the ſetting down of a thing in order of ſtory before, which cometh to be ſo in order of time afterwards.
The Reaſon of every ſuch Anticipation is from the Penman of the Hiſtorie, who writeth down things not as they were of old at the firſt, but as they then were, when he wrote the ſtory.
Such an Anticipation here, ſome of them only ſo ſay, or do reſt on others who affirme it, without allegation of reaſons for this their conception, and brain birth.
But there is one of late who hath produced his grounds for it.
1. Becauſe, ſaith he, the words may be thus tranſlated:
And God hath bleſſed the ſeventh day, and hath ſanctified it.
Anſ. 1 None ſo tranſlate the words, otherwiſe than the former in verſe 2. Perfecit & requievit, no advantage to be taken more in the word hath bleſſed, and hath ſanctified, than in ſaying, He bleſſed and ſanctified.
Hath, is but an Engliſh particle, and not of force in the Hebrew▪ in the Greek, or Latine, which yet if we adde to the other verbs, as, He hath ended, and hath rested, ſpeaking of that ſame time, would be abſurd.
Anſ. 2 Thus to deviſe a Tranſlation from all that have Engliſhed the words, as a reaſon to build thereon a new conceit, is no ſound dealing, but a perverting of the true ſenſe.
2. For that diverſe places are named elſewhere, by an Anticipation, ſaith he.
Anſ. This will not conclude, therefore here is an Anticipation, becauſe there:
For in thoſe other places, there evidently appeareth the grant of the Prolepſis, why of neceſſitie it ſhould be ſo taken: there would elſe manifeſtly be an untruth uttered, which cannot be here underſtood, when the words are taken, as they be in the text, as then, and at that time ſo.
Yet theſe two reaſons, (for no more I finde) are onelyonly the weak under propers of their fancie.
SECTION III. Arguments againſt this Anticipation or Prolepſis.
Argument 1.
WHere the words may be taken literally without danger of any untruth, contradiction, or abſurditie, there is no figure and anticipation.
For in a plain narration, to take the words figuratively, is to abuſe the Scripture, and to make it as a noſe of wax.
But theſe words, He bleſſed and ſanctified, applied to that ſelf-ſame ſingular day in which he reſted, have in them no falſhood, no contradiction, no abſurdity: Therefore here is no Anticipation.
Let any ſhew wherein the falſhood, the contradiction or obſurditie, in ſo applying and underſtanding of the words is; if they cannot, they muſt give over Abulenſis commentum & figmentum.
Argument. 2.
EVery Prolepſis is onelyonly in places, or in the deſcription of things, and actions done by men, but not of Gods divine inſtitution, no inſtance can be given hereof.
But theſe words are not ſpoken of any place, nor act, nor thing of men, but an act of Gods inſtitution, who is ſaid to bleſſe and ſanctifie the day; and are words of his divine inſtitution. And therefore here is no Anticipation till it can be proved, that one may ſo differ from all other in holy Story.
Argument. 3.
In every Anticipation, the name, act, or thing foreſpoken of in order of Storie, hath its dependance, and riſe from ſome thing following, yet before in order of time. For this is an Anticipation, as is before ſhewed: and it is moſt true, in every ſuch figure: See it in inſtances.
In Bethel is a prolepſis: Gen. 12. 8. from Gen. 28. 19.
In Gilead is a prolepſis: Gen. 31. 31. from Gen. 31. 47.
In Gilgal is a prolepſis: Ioſh. 4. 19. from Ioſh. 5. 9.
In Bochim is a prolepſis: Iudg. 2. 1. from Iudg. 2. 5.
In Exo: 16. 33, 34. which act was when the Tabernacle was built, and the Teſtimony made afterwards: Exo. 25. and 26. and 27. on which the truth of this act of Aaron dependeth.
In 1. Sam. 17. 54. is a prolepſis, for the act of David here mentioned could not be true, till afterward he won the ſtrong hold of Zion, and got Ieruſalem: 2. Sam. 5. 7.
In all theſe, and in every other prolepſis, there is ſuch a dependance ſo clear and evident, as none can doubt of the truth of the figure, except we would faultie the narration with an untruth.
But now theſe words in Gen. 2. 3. have not their truth dependant upon any thing after recorded in Scripture, which was before this act of God in time.
For who can ſay truely, and ſollidly prove it, that the words in Exo. 20. 11. were the inſtitution of the Sabbath in time before this in Geneſis.
For tis manifeſt that the Sabbath was kept before the promulgation of the Law. Exo. 16. 30.
And again the words in Exo. 20. 11. ſhew us, not what new thing God did then, but what he had done, when he reſted the ſeventh day, from his ſix dayes works in the Creation,
For as God telleth them what he had done in the very firſt ſix dayes in the beginning, ſo he told them what he did that very ſeventh on which he reſted from his work; he bleſſed, and hallowed it, and made it the Sabbath.
Therefore its to be concluded, from the nature of a true Prolepſis, and the dependance of that which is firſt ſpoken, upon that which maketh it ſo in time, that here is no Anticipation.
Argument. 4.
IN every Anticipation the thing ſo ſpoken of, is generally known to be come to paſſe before the Penman wrote it: as thoſe former inſtances do ſhew.
If here then were a Prolepſis, Gods bleſſing and ſanctifying the ſeventh day, ſhould have been known generally, and the inſtitution before Moſes tyme, who wrote this hiſtory of Geneſis.
If they will not acknowledge it was ſo known before Moſes wrote Geneſis, then is there no Anticipation.
If they grant it to be generally known, then muſt they yeeld that the Sabbath day was before the giving of the Law, and generally ſo known.
If they ſay it was known unto all Iſrael onelyonly after the giving of the Law; then I ask them.
1. What Sabbath that was, which was knowne to Iſrael at the raining of Manna?
2. How they know that Moſes wrote Geneſis after the time of the giving of the Law? If only it was generally knowne from that time, and not before, from whence hee muſt take occaſion (as they ſay) to inſert the words into the ſecond of Geneſis and third verſe, by way of a Parentheſis.
Argument 5.
THey have no ground whereupon to ſettle their Prolepſis: no Scripture have ever any of them alleadged, but either the ſixteenth of Exod. or the twentieth, and eleventh verſe.
But in neither of theſe can they fetch their riſe for it Not out of Exod. the ſixteenth, for there are no words of Gods bleſſing and ſanctifying the day, mentioned in all that chapter.
Not out of Exod. the twentieth, for the reaſons forenamed in the third argument: Therefore in the words Gen. 2. 3. is no Prolepſis.
Argument 6.
EVery Anticipation in holy Story hath its ground for it within ſome convenient ſpace of time.
Uſually and commonly the thing anticipated is recorded within the ſame book where the Prolepſis is.
Sometime in the ſame chapter, Jud. 15. 14. 17. and 2. 1. 5. Gen. 31. 21. 47.
Sometime in the ſame verſe of the chapter, as in Gen. 33. 17.
Sometime in the next chapter, as in Joſh. 4. 19. and 5. 9.
Moſt uſually in the ſame book, though ſomewhat farther off in chapters, as in Gen. 12. 8. and 28. 19. yet the ſpace then within a mans age.
Seldome in any other book, though ſometime, as that in the firſt of Samuel 17. 54. and in the ſecond of Sam. 5. 7. when there is a continuation of the ſtory of the ſame perſon, whoſe act is the ground of the Anticipation, as is cleare in this inſtance of David, where the Anticipation and the act of David are within the terme of his life.
But here is a ſuppoſed Anticipation, not of a few yeares, or the age of a man, but the ſpace of one world, for 1657 yeares, and then into another for the ſpace of 450 and odde yeares, in the whole 2450 and more yeares. A monſtrous birth of a leaping Prolepſis for ſo many generations, not to be aſſented unto.
Argument 7.
IN every true Prolepſis, the very ſelfe ſame ſingular thing is to be underſtood in the Anticipation, and that whereon it dependeth: As Bethel in Gen. 12. 8. is the ſelfe ſame in Gen. 28. 19. not another Bethel.
But the ſeventh day in Gen. 2. 3. is not the very ſelfe ſame ſingular and individuall ſeventh day in Exod. 20. 11. as it was confeſſed, but the ſame in likeneſſe, ſaith one, and in ſucceſſive revolution; but the nature of an Anticipation doth not admit of ſuch a diſtinction. And here note further, that the words of Exod. 20. 11. whence they doe ground their Prolepſis, have not the word ſeventh day in them: for in Exod. 20. 11. it is ſaid, Wherefore the Lord bleſſed the Sabbath day and hallowed it. But in Gen. 2. 3. it is ſaid, He bleſſed the ſeventh day: ſo as Moſes kept not to the word preciſely, as he ought, if in Gen. 2. 3. there were a true Prolepſis. Therefore there is none.
Argument 8, and laſt.
EVery true Prolepſis is raiſed upon a ſure ground, and not upon a meere and uncertaine ſuppoſition, as is manifeſt in all the former inſtances, and in any other that may be produced.
But this Prolepſis is grounded upon a meere and uncertaine ſuppoſition, which is this, that Moſes wrote his ſtory of Geneſis after he heard the Law promulgated upon Mount Sinai, where he heard God to bleſſe and ſanctifie the ſeventh day to Iſrael: and therefore in writing of Geneſis he occaſionally Pererius is of opinion, that Moſes wrote Geneſis in Midian: Euſeb. Caſarienſis holds it written before the Iſraelites comming out of Aegypt lib. 7. cap. 2. de Praepa. Evang.inſerted the words in Gen. 2. 3. by way of a Parentheſis.
But till they can prove this, every one may ſee their ſandy building, and withall admire, that any learned men dare thus to wraſtle with their wits to overthrow a divine inſtitution.
Thus much for this Anticipation.