The Doctrine of the Sabbath, Thesis 71 – Thesis 97
Thesis 71.
They tell us, That in Joshua's time, when the Sunne stood still, and in Hezekiah's time, when the Sunne went back, that there was as great a perverting of the order of Time as this comes to; and that there is as good reason to alter the time upon such a special and wonderfull occasion as Christs Resurrection, as there was to disorder the course of time then: but the weaknesse of this answer may appear from these things.
1. That in the dayes of Ioshuah and Hezekiah, there was no such monstrous mishapen piece of time cut out, as here is imagined; for though the Sunne stood still, suppose about twelve hours in Ioshuas time, and so made a day of 36 hours; ye… these twelve hours were part of that day, and of that which ordinarily makes the day, viz. the motion of the Sun aboue the Earth, which is ordinarily once in 24 houres, onelyonly the Lord stopt it a while, and so made it a longer day, and yet measured by the ordinary measure of a day, viz. the Sunne compassing the earth; which this night is not.
2. Though some part of the weekly time was changed in some respect; yet no part of sacred and Sabbath time was perverted by either the Sunnes standing still, or its going back, because though these things were longer then ordinary, yet they were but ordinary daies in this sence, viz. because there was no more to either day then that which ordinarily makes a day, to wit, that space of time wherein the Sun circularly compasseth the whole earth. For though a seventh part of time be morally due to God, man having six daies for himselfe; yet this is to be understood, as each day is measured by, and made up of the whole compleat motion of the Sunne circling the earth; now though these daies were longer then usuall in those famous times, yet they were onelyonly such daies as were made by this motion; and hence there was no change or perverting of the time of the Sabbath, but God hath his due then orderly. But here we must make a new and strange beginning of time, by leaving out a whole night, and denying God a seventh day according to ordinary account and reckoning, and must fall to a disorderly beginning, upon pretence of a more then ordinary occasion; which yet we see was not so in those extraordinary times of Hezekiah and Iosuah.
3. In the daies of Iosuah and Hezekiah there was some necessity of prolonging those daies and that in a course of providence, supposing that God would worke wonders by his providence; but what necessity is there to begin the day when Christ did first arise? for this action falling out upon the first day, might sanctifie the whole day which in ordinary course should have begun at Evening: we see the whole fifth of November is sanctified, upon an occasion, which hapned about nine or ten of the Clock: and the Evening of the Passeover was sanctified before the Angel passed over the Israelites at midnight, which was the occasion of the sanctification of that day: what need or necessity was there to leave a whol night out of weekly account, and lose such a part of precious Treasure?
4. It was for the manifestation of the marvellous glory of God in the eyes of all the World, good and bad; to make that violation (as it were) of the course of Time in … of Iosuah and Hezekiah; but what glory doth Christ ga… in the eyes of others, by making the Day to begin at the Time of his Resurrection by the losse of the whole Evening before, out of the account of weekely Time? or what glory doth Christ loose if he should begin the day at Evening when the Iewish Sabbath ended, when as the whole day thu… i… celebrated and sanctified for his glory in respect of his Resurrection upon this Day? and therefore 'tis a great mistake, to imagine as much reason for the violation of the course of Time in respect of Christ Resurrection) which makes so little for the glory of Christ) as there was for the variation of Time in the daies of Iosuah and Hezekiah, which made so apparently and evidently and exceedingly for the glory of God and the honour of those who were Types of Christ?
Thesis 72.
To say that there is a necessity of beginning the Christian Sabbath, when Christ first entered into his Rest (the first moment of his Resurrection) because the Father began the Jewish Sabbath the first moment of his Rest after his six daies Labour, is not solid nor sound: For there was a necessity for God the Father to begin his Rest at the end of his work…: otherwise a morall rule had not bin observed, viz. That a seventh p…t of Time be sanctified; for six dayes being finished in creating the World, there was now a necessity of sanctif…ing the seventh Day wherein his rest began, least a morall rule should be exemplarily broken; but there was no such necessity here; for the whole Evening of the first day may be sanctified upon occasion of Christs Rest on some part of that day, and no morall rule broken hereby: nay there had bin a morall rule broken if the Christian Sabbath had not begun upon this Evening; because hereby God should have lost a Sabbath Day within the compasse of seven dayes as they are measured by the Sun; and this is directly crosse to the morality of the fourth command; for if a whole night be lost (as these men reckon) only Time flowes on (they say) then it must be full seven daies and a halfe before God have a Sabbath to begin: and this absurdity in the course of Time, I believe will not be found, in Iosuahs time nor in altering the beginning of the yeere in Moses time Exod. 12. for …o morall rule was … upon by these and such like alterations.
Thesis 73.
It is an ungrounded assertion to say that the Reasons of the change of the Day are the same for the change of the beginning of the Day ▪ …. There was a Type affixed (as hath bin shewen) to that It … Sabbath▪ but I never yet heard of any Type in respect of the beginning of the Sabbath. 2. Divine will and … on changed … viz. That God hath one day in seven given him: but God could not begin the Sabbath with excluding the Evening before Christ arose without breach of this Rule, as hath bin shewen… the day might be kept and changed without breach of that rule, but the beginning could not be changed but there would necessarily follow some breach thereof.
Thesis 74.
To thinke that the Sabbath must needs begin in the Morning, because we read not expressely after Christs Resurrection, that the Night should belong to the day following, nor is there any instance thereof as in the Old Testament and before Christs Resurrection it may be (they confesse) undeniably so found] I say, to thinke the Sabbath must begin in the Morning upon this ground, is somewhat like to his conceit who finding in the Old Testament that the seventh day is to be sanctified; but not finding this expression, after Christs Resurrection, hence he thought there was now no seventh Day to be sanctified. Those who can answer this Objection, may know how to answer thereby their own argument for the beginning of it at Morning, which is just like unto it: if indeed there were cleare Scriptures for the beginning of it at Morning in the new Testament, and none to shew the beginning of it at Evening, the Argument had much weight; but this hath not yet appeared: old Testament evidences are not Apocrypha proofes in morall matters, in these mens consciences, who thus argue for the Morning.
Thesis 75.
To argue the beginning of the Sabbath at Morning, from the congruity and fitnesse of the season for holy Time rather then Evening, is no way faire nor rationall: for 1. There may be as much said (perhaps more) for the fitnesse and congruity of the Evening, if this arguing were evicting; but we know the ground of all superstition hath bin humane wisdome, which puts out the Eagles eyes when it goes about to mend them; and when it would better Gods worship by …oodly seeming… and trapings, it then destroyes it, at least corrupts it; this only may be said that just as we lie downe with our hearts over night, so we finde them commonly in the Morning; the beginning of the Sabbath at Evening will force us in conscience …o lie down over nigh with Sabbath hearts, which marvellously prepares for the receiving of Sabbath blessing… the day ensuing.
Thesis 76.
If therefore the Sabbath doth not begin, neither according to the custome of civill nations, nor at midnight, nor Morning, what Time then must it begin at (from any colour of Scripture,) but onelyonly in the Evening? at Evening therefore after the setting of the Light of the body of the Sun, wherein darknesse begins to be predominant over the Light the Sabbath begins now, as the Iewish Sabbath began in former Times, and here let me say that old Testament proofes may be in this as in many other things, New Testament rules.
Thesis 77.
If the Jewish Sabbath did begin and end at Evening, which was the last day of the Weeke, then the Christian Sabbath the First day of the weeke which immediately succeeds the last, is to begin at Evening also; …f the Sabbath in the fi…st Institution began at Evening, why should not the Christian Sabbath be conformed as neere as may be to the first institution? but we see out of Gen. 1. That as all other daies began at the Evening or darke night, so it was not orderly or possible according to the morall rule God acted by, that the Sabbath should begin upon any other Time then the Evening, nor is it improbable but that Ezekiel fortells this that in the Christian Church, as the Gate for the Sabbath should not be shut untill the Evening, Ezek. 46.1, 2. so by just proportion the time for opening of it, was the Evening before, when the Sabbath began.
Thesis 78.
Now although some deny the beginning of the Sabbath in Gen. 1. to be in the Evening (deceiving themselves and their readers with the ambiguity and various acceptation of the words Evening and Morning) yet this is most evident, That the First day began with Night or darkenesse which is called Night, Gen. 1.4, 5. and consequently ended with day-light; let Evening and Morning therefore be taken how they will, yet its sufficient to prove that which we aime at, viz. that as the first day began with Night, and ended at the end of Day light, so by just consequence every other day did, even the Sabbath it selfe, which still begins the beginning of Night, which is all that which we meane by Evening, when we say that it begins then; which also the holy Ghost calls darkenesse, which darkenesse, Gen. 1.2. he calls Night, vers. 5. and which Night is all one with Evening.
Thesis 79.
And if the Naturall (which some call civill, others the compound) day began first in the Evening, then surely it continued so; or if not, then this disorderly practise should have bin regulated againe, according to the first patterne, as the abuses crept into the Lords Supper were by Paul. 1 Cor. 11.23. and as errors about Marriage wereby our Saviour, telling them that a… initio non suit sic.
Thesis 80.
Nor should it be a wonder why the wise Creator should begin Time with darkenesse, or the lesse noble part of the Day, no more then why the Lord should begin the World with a rude and confused Chaos before a glorious World; the progresse of his wisdome in making the whole World being for the most part from more imperfect things to perfect, from the Chaos to beauty; from the servants, and furniture, to man the Lord and Master of this great house; and so here, from darknesse to light; the Sabbath also being a day of Rest, was it not most proper to begin it then when man begins his rest which is the Night? when also God began Rest from his work in the first Creation.
Thesis 81.
Some convinced by the evidence of the Text, that darkenesse was before light,Weemes on the fourth Command. yet wrastle with their wits to make it neither part of the night nor part of time, but only punctum temporis, and by this shift would make the first day to begin in the morning-light,
Thesis 82.
But was ever any punctum temporis (which is thought to be no part of time) called by the name of Night as this darkenesse is? Gen. 1.4, 5. with 2. Was the World made in six dayes and is there a Heaven and Earth made within the time of this darkenesse, and yet this time of darkenesse to be no part of time, but onelyonly a Mathematicall point, but no reall part of succeeding Time? Zanchy long since hath largely confuted and crusht this Egge-shell, where the Reader may looke; there was not indeed any Celestiall motion of the Heavens to measure this Time by, (for Master Weemes objects tempus est mensura motus) but by this Argument there was no Time till the fourth day, when the Sun and Starrs were created, nor is Time properly mensura mo…us, but as Eternity is the indeterminate duration of a thing together, so Time is the determinate duration of things by succession: which was evidently since Time began on the first moment of creation.
Thesis 83.
Others who acknowledge this first darkenesse to be part of Time, yet will not have it to be part of the Night-time; because light (the habit) they say must go before Darkenesse (the privation) because also this first darkenesse is not so called Night, but the separated darkenesse, Gen. 1.3. when God separated the light into one Hemisphere, and darknesse into another.
Thesis 84.
But this arguing is almost against the expresse Letter of the Text, Gen. 1. wherein it is most evident that light was created, after darknesse had bin some time upon the face of the deepe; which darknesse cannot be part of the Day-light, no more then blindnesse is a part of sight and therefore is a part of the Night, before this conceived separated darkenesse could exist. Beside the separation of darknesse from light doth not make any new darkenesse which is a new denominated darkenesse, but is the same darkenesse which was at first, onelyonly the separation is a new placeing of it, but it gives no new being to it.
Thesis 85.
Suppose also that light and darknesse are contraria privantia, yet 'tis not true either in Philosophy or Divinity, that the habit must alway actually goe before the privation in the same subject; for the privation may be first if it be in subjecto capaci; i. e. In a subject capable of the habit; for silence may be before speech in a man, and blindnesse and deafenesse in a man who never saw nor heard a word, because man is a subject capable of both, and so here darknesse might be before light, because this subject of the first matter was capable of both.
Thesis 86.
Nor is it true in Divinity that the darkenesse and light were at first separated into two Hemispheres; or if they were, yet what orthodox Writer affirmes that the supposed separated darkenesse onelyonly is called Night?
Thesis 87.
For looke as the darkenesse did overspread the whole Chaos ▪ and all the dimensions of it at the same time; why might not the light the habit be extended as far as was the privation before, and that at the same time? there being no globe or dense body of earth and waters (existing as now they doe) at that time created, and consequently no opake and solid body to divide betweene light and darkenesse and so to seprate them into two Hemispheres, as by this meanes it is at this day, unlesse we imagine miracles without necessity; and that God then miraculously did it when there was no necessity of it. For the Element of fire being figuratively called light, it being (as Iunius shewes) proprietas essentialls ignis; being also created in the superiour part of the vast Chaos; might therefore be cast downe by a mighty hand of God (there being no ordinary meanes of Sun or Stars yet created to do it) into all the inferiour Chaos, and so make day. And the ascending of this light upwards againe might make it to be Night: and therefore although God separated between light and darkenesse, yet this separation se…mes to be rather in respect of time, then in respect of place, or two Hemispheres: for the light when it was east downe, separated and scattered the darkenesse, and so excluded it, so that when there was light, there was no darknesse; when darkenesse, there was no light; and thus they succeeding and excluding one another, the Lord is said to separate them one from another, but not into two imagined Hemispheres, by which imagination of two Hemispheres it will be also very difficult to set downe when it was day and when it was night, at this time of the Creation; because in respect of one part of the Chaos it might be called day, in respect of the other Hemisphere of the Chaos it might be called night: and therefore it seems more suitable to the truth, that the descending of the Light, made day thorowout the whole Chaos remaining, and the ascending of it to its proper place successively made night; which as it answers many curious questions about the nature and motion of this light, so it yeelde a more then probable argument, that if the day-light continued twelve houres (which none question) why should not each night continue as long, and therefore that the first darknesse did continue such a time before the creation of the Light?
Thesis 88.
But suppose this locall separation into two Hemispheres was granted, yet it will not follow from hence that this separated darknesse onelyonly is called night, and that the darkenesse before was no part of it: for if the day and night began at the imagined division of light and darknesse, then (this division being in an instant of time) neither could the day be before the night, nor the night before the day, but both exist and begin together; and then it will follow that the beginning of the first day was neither in the morning nor evening, in darknesse nor light, in night nor day; but that it began in the morning and evening, day-light and dark night, together; which is too grosse for any wise man to affirm, nor would the God of Order do it. Againe, if the first darkenesse which was pr…eexistent to this Hemisphericall light and darknesse was no part of the night, then much lesse was it any part of the first day-light; and so no part of the naturall day; which if any should affirm, they must deny the creation of the world in six dayes; for its evident that the Heavens and Earth were made in the time of the first darknesse.
Thesis 89.
To say that this first darknesse was part of the morning, and did belong to the morning-light, as now some time of darknesse in the the morning is called morning, and therefore is called the womb of the morning, Psal. 110.2. is a meer shift to prove the beginning of time to be in the morning, and an evasion from the evidence of truth. For 1. This first darknesse must either be the whole night, consisting as the light did of about twelve houres; and then it cannot possibly be called morning or belong thereunto; or it must be part of the night, and that which came after the light another part of it, and then we may see a monstrous day which hath part of its night before it, and part after it; beside its contrary to the Text, which makes the whole morning together, and the whole evening together, the whole day-light together, and so the whole night together. 2. That darknesse which by an improper speech we make to belong to the morning, in our ordinary account, is the latter part of the night or of the darknesse; but we read not in all the Scripture, nor is it suitable to any solid reason, to make the first beginning of Night or darknesse as part of the morning: Now this first darknesse (which is the beginning of darknesse) is called night, at least is the beginning of night; and therefore cannot be called morning, but evening rather, as we usually call the first beginning of darknesse after day light.
Thesis 90.
That expresse Commandment Lev. 23 32. to celebrate the Ceremoniall Sabbath from Even to Even doth strongly prove the beginning of the morall Sabbath at the same time; for why else is it called a Sabbath of rest, but because it is to be spent in duties of humiliation, as the other Sabbath in duties suitable to the nature of it? and hence the Lords care is greatly exact herein, 1. That no servile work be done, because it is a Sabbath. verse 31, 32. 2. That it be spent and sanctified from Even to Even, (meaning) like as you do your weekly Sabbaths. And hence the Lord saith not, You shall celebrate your day of Atonement from even to even, but (the Lord usually wrapping up arguments in his words) Your Sabbath: as if he should say, You would account it a prophane thing not to celebrate your ordinary weekly Sabbath from even to even, or to do any servile work on that day: this day is a Sabbath, and therefore you must sanctifie it from even to even, and therefore do no servile work herein.
Thesis 91.
To imagine (as some do) That the ordinary Sabbath began at another time, because here God makes a new command, that it be from even to even, in opposition to the other Sabbaths beginning; and that otherwise it had been enough to say, You shall celebrate this day as a Sabbath: one may from the same ground imagine, that in other Sabbaths they might do any servile work, because here also … are forbidden it; for it may be as well said, that other … had been enough to say, You shall sanctifie this day as you do other Sabbaths: here therefore is no new institution of time from the beginning of the Sabbath, but of a new Ordinance, together with the application of time according to common and ordinary account: and the Lord expresseth from even to even (which makes up a naturall day) left mans heart (which is soon weary of duties of Humiliation) should interpret it of an artificiall day; to prevent which mistake the Lord had good reason to set the distinct bounds of it from even to even.
Thesis 92.
Nor can this Evening, be fairly interpreted of the former even before Sun set, as taking in that also; for this evening is to begin at the evening of the ninth day, verse 32. which evening of the ninth day is not the evening of that day about two or three of the clock, (for the tenth day onelyonly is called the day of Atonement, verse 27. and therefore part of the ninth day is no part of the Atonement day) but as Iunius well expounds it, at the evening of the ninth day,Vid. Iun. in loc. puta qua nonus dies definit, at that nick of time, which is the communis terminus of the end of the ninth day and beginning of the tenth, you shall then celebrate your Sabbath: which curious exactnesse of the Lord, is partly to expresse his zeal for the full and plenary observation of the day, that he may not lose a moments time of honour, as also to shew what care they should have of holding out from the first point to the last period of that Sabbath.
Thesis 93.
And therefore it is a groundlesse deduction from the Text, to make this day to be of extraordinary length, and so an unfit measure for our ordinary Sabbath. And to say that there was a ceremony in beginning this day at even, is but gratis dictum, and can never be made good, unlesse it be by such fetches of wit which can mould the plainest History into the Image of a goodly Allegory,August. ep. 48. a most impudent course of arguing in Austins judgement, and in his time.
Thesis 94.
If the Sabbath do not begin at evening, why did Nehemiah (an exemplary Magistrate) command the Gates to be shut, when the Gates of Ierusalem began to be dark before the Sabbath? Nehem. 13.19. was it not left the Sabbath should be prophaned that night, by bringing in of wares and burdens thorow the Gates, as well as in the ensuing day? is it not expresly said, that he set his servants at these Gates that there might be no burden brought in upon the Sabbath day? is it not expresly said that he set the Levites to keep the Gates to sanctifie the Sabbath day? verse 19, 22. Now if this … was no part of the Sabbath, how could they then be said to sanctifie the Sabbath thereby?
Thesis 95.
To imagine that Nehemiah did this to prevent the prophaning of the Sabbath day after, is as if a man should shut his doors at noon against such Thieves as he knows will not come to hurt him untill mid-night be past. It would be weaknesse in a Magistrate to take away any considerable part of the week which God allows for labour to prevent that evil on the Sabbath which he knows he is sufficiently able to prevent at the approach of the day it self: for Nehemiah might easily have shut the Gates in the morning, if the Sabbath had not begun before; and might have better done it, then to cut so large a Thong out of the week time to prevent such defilement of the Sabbath day.
Thesis 96.
When therefore the Gates of Ierusalem began to be dark, or as Iunius renders the words, quum abumbrarentur portae, i. when they were shaddowed by the descent of the Sun behind the mountains which compassed Ierusalem, and so did cast a shadow of darknesse upon the Gates of the City, somewhat sooner then in other places lesse mountainous; this shadow, being no part of the dark night, is truly said to be before, or (as the Hebrew is) before the face or looking out of the Sabbath; for although the Sabbath be said to begin at Sun-set, yet tis to be understood not of the setting of the body of the Sun visibly, but of the light of the Sun when darknesse begins to be predominant over the light, and men are forced to forsake their work; now just before this Nehemiah shut the gates, at the common term and end of the six daies labour, and the Seventh dayes rest; and therefore tis a weak objection which some make, to say that this evening was not part of the Sabbath, because the Gates are said to be shut before the Sabbath.
Thesis 97.
Its said the women who prepared spices for our Savio… body, that they rested the Sabbath, which is evident to be in the evening; and this they did not superstitiously (as some say) but according to the Commandment, Luk. 23.53, 54, 55, 56. if therefore these women began to rest according to the commandment of God upon the evening, then the evening by the same Commandment is the beginning of the holy Rest of the Sabbath. It is not onelyonly the commandment of God, that one day in Seven be sanctified, but also that it be sanctified from even to even.