The Doctrine of the Sabbath, Thesis 53 – Thesis 69
Thesis 53.
For this dawning toward the first day of the week is meant of the Artificiall Day, or the Light of the first Day of the week, as the word dawning implies, and the evidence of their fact in comming to the Sepulcher demonstrates as much; for it is not the scope of the Evangelist to set down when the first day of the week began, but at what time of the first day of the week such and such actions …ell out: any thing done in any Time of the day, whether at six, or nine, or two of the Clock may be said to be done that day; but it will not follow that they are therefore done in the beginning of that Day: I meete with two Exceptions here.
1. Some say that it might be meant of the Artificiall day if the words had run thus, viz. at the Dawning of the day; or the first Day of the week about the dawning of the day; but the dawning toward the first day, This phrase (they say) seems to describe beginning of such a day a… stands in Relation to the whole week, and all the other dayes of the week, which are to be taken for naturall dayes: But, 1. There is I hope a first Artificiall day of the week as well as a Naturall. 2. This Artificiall day doth not in this account exclude the Night before as part of this first Day, and consequently the Naturall Day consisting of Night and light; therefore it may well stand in relation to the other dayes of the Week which were naturall; for although the Evangelist sets down particularly when these things about the Resurrection of Christ happened to be, viz. at the dawning towards the first day of the Week, yet we that begin the Sabbath at Evening may and do use the same phrase, and yet so speake of the Artificial day upon which some event begins, as not to exclude the Night before upon which the Naturall Day begins. 3. Compare the Evangelists; and the dawning in Matthew towards the first day, will be found to be all one with this phrase, viz. The first day about or at the dawning of it: for that which Matthew calls dawning to the first day, Marke calls early in the Morning, the first day of the Weeke at the rising of the Sunne; and Luke calls upon the first day of the Week very early in the Morning: whence it is evident that Matthews drawning to the first day is all one with about the rising of the Sun upon the first day: so that this difference between dawning toward the first day, and dawning upon the first day seemes to be an English Cabalisme, and a meere curiosity exhaled and extracted out of the words, rather then any solid Truth which the Text holds forth or the Spirit of God aimed at.
2. A second exception is; that though the word Day in Scripture be taken for the Artificiall day, yet never when the word first, second, or third Day, &c. are joyned together; and they point us to the first of Genesis, where when the first or second day is mentioned, its constantly meant of a Naturall and not an Artificiall Day. But 1. This is a great mistake; for the Day for the Levites Travell (which was not in the Night but upon the Artificiall day) is called the fourth Day, Iudg. 19.5. And the 5th day, verse 8. 2. This Artificiall day may be called the first day as that it may involve the Night before, (where we make the Sabbath to begin) as well as the Night after, on which they make the Sabbath to end; and thus the Naturall day may be here comprehended also (which they plead for) the same day which Artificially begins at day-light, may naturally begin the night before.
Thesis 54.
If we should suppose that this Day is meant of the Artificiall Day, yet there is a harder knot to be unloosed in the words of Matthew, who affirms that this Day-light or Day-dawn was the End of the Sabbath. Whereby it seems that the Sabbath began at the dawning of the day before, and therefore it ends at the dawning of the first day following: and hence they infer that the day-light of this first day cannot belong to the night of the Jewish Sabbath, which immediately went before. And I confesse the argument is strong and undeniable, as the words lie under the glosse. We must therefore enquire more narrowly into the true translation of the words, and their meaning.
Thesis 55.
That therefore which we translate the end of the Sabbath, is in the Original foreign. Which words are variously translated; we shall onelyonly observe that the Gr. word foreign hath a double signification, in frequent use among Greek writers.
1. S…mewhile it signifies Late Time, or the extream and last time of the continuance of any thing: as, foreign, i. e. the late time, or latter time of the Day.
2. Sometime it signifies a long Time after: as, foreign, i. a long time after the Trojan war: Now in this place it is to be translated and in this latter sence, thus, A long time, or a good while after the Sabbath was ended, as it began to dawn to …h… first day of the week, &c. which interpretation if it be made good will clear up this difficulty, viz. that the Jewish Sabbath did not end at the dawning of the First day of the week, but long before: nor indeed durst I incline to this interpretation, if I did not see the Evangelists (the best interpreters one of another) making the same to my hand.
Thesis 56.
For first, Mark, who writ after Matthew, and is best able to interpret his words, expresly saith, that the Sabbath was past when the women came to the Sepulchre; his words are foreign. The Sabbath being past, Mar. 16. 1. Hence therefore, if Matthews words should be translated, Late on the Sabbath, or towards the end of the Sabbath, then the Sabbath was not already past (as Mark affirms) but drawing toward an end. Mark therefore telling us, that the Sabbath was ended, and yet not telling us when it ended, why should we not Harmonize the Evangelists by Mathews words, which tels us that it was long before? 2. The time of the coming of some of the women to the Sepulchre, as it was upon the first day of the week, so it was some time within the night: and hence Mark tels us it was very early, Mark 16.2. which cannot be at the rising of the Sun onelyonly when tis said also that they came to the Sepulchre; for that is not foreign, valde mane, or very early. Again, Luke tels us that it was foreign, very early or in the depth of the night; for so the word foreign frequently signifies the time of the night when Cocks crow. I forbear to instance in Greek Writers, because the Evangelist Iohn clears up this most fully, who expresly saith, that it was foreign, it being yet dark: and though it be said Mark 16.2. that the women came to the Sepulchre about rising of the Sun; yet Piscator and others interpret that of their last actuall coming to it; their preparation for it being very early, while it was yet dark night; and it seems there was two comings by several of them to the Sepulchre: for its evident that Mary (who had most affection) came to the Sepulchre while it was yet dark, the rest of them possibly preparing thereunto. However the Evangelists be reconciled, this is evident, that the first stirring of the women about that work from which they abstained upon the Sabbath day, was very early in the depth of the morning Darknesse, before the Day-light, when some would begin the Christian Sabbath: and from hence it follows, 1. That if the Sabbath was not past even before this dark time of the night began, but rather ended when the first day of the week began to dawn: then it will follow, that these holy women did not rest the Sabbath according to the Commandment; for we see they are this night busie about those things which they did forbear to do because of the Sabbath, Luke 23.52. 2. Hence it will also follow, that if the Sabbath was not ended before this dark time of the night, but onelyonly at the dawning of the Day-light, then our Saviour could not arise from the dead the First day of the week, but within the dark night of the Jewish Sabbath: for Mary came when it was dark, and the Lord Christ was risen before she came, and how long before no man can tell; but its evident that Christ arose the first day of the week, Mark 16.9. and therefore the Sabbath was ended long before. 3. If therefore the Sabbath was past at the dark time of the night, how then can the Sabbath begin at morning Light; and if it was past when it was thus dark, when then could the Sabbath end, but when this night did first begin? and if this was so, it was then truly foreign, a good while after the Sabbath was ended when this dawning toward the first day began, according to the interpretation given.
Thesis 57.
It is true indeed that this time of darknesse is called morning; and hence some would infer that the Sabbath begins in the morning: but suppose it be so called, yet it is not called morning Light, at which time they plead the Sabbath should begin; and it is improperly called Morning, because (as hath been formerly shewn) it is preparatively so, men usually preparing them for the work of the Day-light following. Morning is also frequently taken in Scripture for any early time, Eph. 3.5. and so this night of the first day of the week, wherein the women arose to their work, was an early time, and therefore called morning. Again, suppose a double morning be acknowledged (as there was a double evening) yet it will not follow that this morning belongs onelyonly to the day following, for it may belong to the night before; for as where there are two evenings spoken of, the former belongs to the day, the latter to the night: so if we grant two mornings, the latter morning may belong to the day ensuing, and the former to the Night preceding; if therefore any plead for the beginning of the Sabbath at the morning light, these places of the Evangelist will not bear them out in it, it being dark morning when Christ arose; if they say it begins in the dark morning, then let them set exactly the time of that dark morning wherein Christ arose, and when they would begin it; but no wit of man I feare is able to demonstrate this.
Thesis 58.
And surely its of deepe consideration to all those who would have the beginning of the Sabbath to be just at the time of the Resurrection of Christ, on the morning, That not any one of the Evangelists do set forth, or ayme to set forth the exact time of Christs Resurrection: they tell us indeed the exact time of the womens preparation, and comming to the Sepulchre, and of the Earthquake and feare of the Souldiers, and that these things were done in the morning; but none of them points out the time of Christs rising; nor is it their scope to shew exactly when he rose, but only to shew that he was risen and that he appeared to many being risen, who came to seek for him. Now assuredly, if it had been the mind of God that his people should begin the Sabbath when Christ began his resurrection, he would have pointed out the exact time when he did arise, that so they might exactly begin the Sabbath; but none of the Evangelists point out the time, nor is it their scope exactly so to doe; nay, they do exactly point out when other matters hapned about the womens comming to the Sepulchre, but this is not made mention of; onelyonly we may gather by laying many things together about what time it should be, & therefore I marvell at them who would prove the beginning of the Sabbath at the time of Christs Resurrection from the four Evangelists speaking exactly to the time of the womens rising in the morning to visit Christs Sepulchre, but not a word of the main thing this drives at, which is the exact time of Christs rising.
Thesis 59.
Those that would have the Sabbath begin at morning, alledge Iohn. 20.19. where tis said, That the same day at even, which was the First day of the weeke, Iesus came among his Disciples, when the doors were shut, which (say they) was within night; and therefore the night following belongs to the day before, which was the Christian Sabbath: which place compared with Luke 24.33. does further cleare up (as they say) this truth; for the two Disciples who went to Emaus and met Christ, are said to return to the Disciples when they are thus met together; which evening cannot (say they) be possibly meant of the First evening before Sun-light was set, because the day being far spent, ver. 29. and they constrained him to abide with them (which argues that it was late) and the distance of Emaus from Ierusalem being sixty furlongs, or eight miles excepting a half; so that it was impossible for them to travell so long a journey in so short a time, within the compasse of the first Evening; Hence therefore its meant of the second evening, which was within night, which yet we see belongs to the day before. But there are many things considerable to evacuate the strength of these reasonings.
Thesis 60.
For first, this invitation our Saviour had to stay by the two Disciples, was probably to some repast, some time after high noon; possibly to a late Dinner rather then a late Supper toward the latter evening; and if so, then the Disciples might easily come from Emaus to Ierusalem before Sun-set within the former evening; for the word toward evening, foreign may be as well understood of the first evening toward two or three of the clock, as of the second; and if it be objected, that before the first evening the day could not be said to be Far spent; yet if the words be well observed, no such translation can be forced from them, for the words are foreign. i. the day hath declined; which is truely said of any time after high-noon, and therefore might be a fit season to presse our Saviour to eat; as may appeare by comparing this with a parallel Scripture. Iudges 19.8, 9. which is almost word for word with this place of Luke: for the Levites father invites him to eat something after his early rising, vers. 8. which was too soon for supper, and therefore seems to be rather to a Dinner which they tarried for untill after high-noon, or as 'tis in the Originall, foreign i. untill the day declined, (just as it is here in Luke;) and then when dinner was ended he perswades him to stay still, because the day was weake, and (as we translate it) toward evening; (as here the Disciples tell our Saviour) and yet after these perswasions to tarry, as late as it was he departed and came to Ierusalem before night, and from thence to Gibeah (without any Miracle too) before Sun was set, or the latter evening; and verily if we may give credit to Topographers, Gibeah was almost as far from Bethlem (from whence the Levite came) as Ierusalem was from Emaus: and therefore if the Levite came with his cumber and concubine so many miles before the second evening, notwithstanding all the Arguments used from the day declining, and that it was toward evening; why may we not imagine the like of these Disciples at Emaus much more? who had no cumber, and whose joy could not but adde wings to a very swift returne to the eleven before the second Evening, notwithstanding the like arguments here used in Luke, 24.29. And yet secondly suppose that they invited our Saviour to Supper, yet the former Evening beginning about two or three of the Clock in the after noon, our Saviour might stay some time to eat with them, and yet they be timely enough at Ierusalem before the second Evening: for suppose our Saviour stayd an houre with them or more, after two or three of the Clock, yet if a strong man may walke ordinarily three mile an houre, why might not the tydings of this joyfull news make them double their pace, whether on foot or horseback, no mention is made of either, and so be there within an houre and half or thereabout before the second Evening could come?
Thesis 61.
And although our Saviour appeared to them when the dores were shut, yet it is not said that the dores were shut because it was Night, but for feare of the Iewes and their Pursevants; that they might not rush in suddenly upon them, which they might doe in the Day as well as in the Night: and though this was a poore safeguard from their enemies yet it was some, and the best which they had, or at least could thinke of at such a time; and if our Saviour came to them when they were at Supper, Mark. 16.14. and if the ordinary time of the Iewes supper was a little after or about Sunset (as might be demonstrated) then the second Evening was not as yet begun, no not when Christ came, much lesse before the other two came, who were there from Emaus before.
Thesis 62.
It is said by some that if it was not very late, then the Arguments of the Disciples to perswade Christ to stay were weake; but it seemes (say they) they were strong because its said they constrained him] but we know that much affection will some time urge a weake argument very far, for stay of some speciall friend; and when arguments will not prevaile, it will hold them and constraine them by force; and thus it seemes the Disciples dealt with our Saviour; their constraining him was not so much by force of Argument as violence and force of love, for so the words in the Originall (foreign) properly signifies: and hence it seemes that there was day enough above head to travaile farther in; otherwise what need such violent perswasions to stay with them? and for any to say, that the Paralell of the Levites Fathers perswasions to stay, upon weake grounds, is not the same with this, because his Arguments might sure well not to begin a long journey when it was past noone, which was the case there; but its a reason of no force to perswade to go farther when a man is in a journey already: which is the case here, I say this answer is against the Practise of love in common experience; men weary in their journey may stand in more need of perswasions to stay then they that have not begun to travaile at all, nor was the Levites journey long from Bethlem to Gibeah.
Thesis 63.
Nor is it an Argument of any weight from Iohn 39.1. because the two Disciples are said to abide with Christ that Day, that therefore the night following did belong to that day (they staying as it is supposed all night) and consequently that the Day begins in the Morning; for these Disciples comming to Christ at the tenth houre or foure of the Clock in the afternoone, there were then two houres remaining untill Night (the Iewes artificiall Day continuing from six to six) within which time our Saviour (who can do much worke in a small time) might sufficiently instruct them (for that time) within the space of two houres; and why might they not depart before the night came, and so stay with him onelyonly so short a time? And yet if they did stay that Night, they might notwithstanding be said to stay that artificiall day onelyonly, without reference to any Night before or after, or to any part of the Morning following that Night, when 'tis probable they departed if they did stay with him all that Night.
Thesis 64.
Those who think that Paul would never have Preached till midnight Acts 20.7. if that night had not been part of the Sabbath which began the Morning before, much lesse would he after this long Sermon have communicated with them in the Sacrament, ver. 11. unlesse it had been the Sabbath Day, may do well to consider these things. 1. That the cause of taking in so much of the Night following for Preaching till midnight was extraordinary, viz. Pauls early departure never to see their faces more; and to say that if this Night was no part of the Sabbath, it was then unreasonable to hold them so long at it, is an assertion which wants reason, if we do but consider the shortnesse of his time, the largenesse of Pauls heart, speaking now for his last, and the sweetnesse of their affections as might easily enable them to continue till midnight and upward, with cheerfulnesse, and without thinking the duty tedious, and unreasonable long. Paul therefore might begin his Sermon some part of the Day-light, which was part of the Sabbath Day, and continue it till midnight following, and yet this night be no part of the Christian Sabbath, because it was an extraordinary cause which prest him hereunto. 2. That there is nothing in the Words which will evince the Sabbath to continue so long as Pauls Sermon did; for suppose those who begin the Sabbath at Evening, that it should be said of such, that being met together the first day of the Week to break Bread, their Teacher being to depart on the morrow, Preached▪ unto them and continued his speech till midnight, will this argue a continuance of the same day? No verily, and the like reason is here. 3. That the Lords Supper might be and was administred before Pauls Sermon; for there is a double breaking of bread in the Text: the one is of common bread, Verse 11. after Paul had Preached; the other is of holy bread in the Eucharist, verse 7. for the Syriak calls Tha… breaking of the bread which is mentioned verse 7. the Eucharist or Lords Supper; but that which is mentioned, verse 11. Common bread; and the Greek word foreign, implies as much, and hence also its spoken of one man principally, viz. That when he had broken bread and eaten, and talked a long time till breake of the day, he then departed, it being some ordinary repast for Paul after his long Preaching and before his long journey, and is not therefore any Sacramentall eat…ng; the manner of which is wont to be exprest in other words then as they are here set down; if therefore Pauls eating verse ▪ 11. was common Bread, it cannot be then affirmed that the Eucharist was then administred after Sermon at midnight, and yet they pertaking of the Sacrament this day, verse 7. it seems therefore that it was administred some time before this extraordinary course of Preaching began.
Thesis 65.
Nor will it follow that the Sabbath begins in the Morning, because the Morning is set before the Night in the Psalm for the Sabbath, Psal. 92.1, 2. for 1. The scope of the Psalmist is not to set forth when the Sabbath begins: but how it is to be sanctified, and that is, not onelyonly by shewing forth the loving kindnesse of God every Morning or day time (for that perhaps, many will readily do) but also in the Night, when men may think it too unseasonable or too late: and therefore in a holy gradation from the lesse to the greater, he first makes mention of the Morning. 2. The Hebrew word for every Night, is, in the Nights; and therefore (suppose that this Psalm is specially applyable to the Sabbath, which we know some question) yet this place will as soon evince the Sabbath to begin in the Night before the Morning, and to be continued in sweet affections the night after, as that it should begin in the Morning and be continued the night after; so that this place will not clear this cause, nor is there any weight in such kind of reasoning….
Thesis 66.
Nor will it follow from Levit. 7.15. with 22.29, 30. and Ex. 12▪10. that because the …esh of the peace Offrings was to be eaten the same day, and nothing to be left untill the Morning (something like this being spoken also of the Passeover) that the day therefore begun in the Morning: for in Leviticus there is a double Commandment, 1. To eat the flesh of their peace offerings the same day; but yet because when they have eaten, some bones and o…fals might remain, hence, 2. They are commanded to leave nothing till the Morning, which doth not argue that they had liberty to eat it as long as they might keep it, but that as they had liberty no longer then the same day to eat it, so nor liberty any longer then the next Morning so much as to keep any of the relicks of it: And as for the Passeover (a place much urged by some) they were to kill it on the fourteenth day, Exod. 12.6. which they might eat the night following, verse 8. yet so as to leave nothing of it till the Morning, verse 10. This night following i… not therefore any part of the fourteenth, but of the 15th. day: for at midnight there was a cry verse 30, 31. and this night they went from … to Succoth, verse 37. with 46. and this time is expresly called the morrow after the Passeover, Numb. 33.3. nor is there any inconvenience or rule broken to kill the Passeover upon one day and continue eating of it some part of another, the Passeover being a Feast of more dayes then one.
Thesis 67.
Nor doth it follow that because our Saviour tells Peter, Mark 14.30. Luke 22.34. that this Day, even this Night (viz. of the Passeover) he should deny him, that this Night therefore was any part of the precedent day; for it may be as fairly interpreted to belong to the day following that Night. Nor is it necessary to determine this word Day always to a determinate time of 24 houres, of which the Night was a part, but onelyonly of a speciall season of time: for so tis frequently figuratively taken without any respect to a day of 24 or 12 hours, viz, for a speciall season of Time wherein some speciall providence of God doth appeare and is put into execution, as Isay 29.18. and 25.9. and 27▪ 1. Exod. 14.13. 1 Sam. 4.7, 8. 2 Sam. 4.5, 7, 8.
Thesis 68.
It answers many objections produced against the beginning of the day in the Evening, for the Morning, to consider, that the word Day is frequently taken in Scripture for an artificiall day, and that the word Morrow frequently signifies a new artificiall Day, which in respect of, and reference unto, the artificiall day going before or following after, is no part thereof; but as the Proverbe is, to morrow is a new day: and thus tis taken, Iohn 12.12. Iohn 6.22. Act. 21.7, 8. 1 Sam. 14.24. Acts 23.31.32. 2 Sam. 11.12, 13. Exod. 10.4.13. Deut. 21.22, 23. Iosh. 8.29. and 10.26. Exod. 7.4.11, 12, 17. with 8 6. to 13. Exod. 14, ult. with 34.2, 4, 28. Deut. 9.9.11. Whence onelyonly let this be noted that to argue from hence, that to morrow Morning or to morrow day light is the beginning of the naturall day, because its called a new or another Day, is not solid: nor also that although the Night following the artificiall day, be not so frequently called to morrow, yet sometime it is so called, 1 Sam. 30.17. where the evening of their morrow stopt David, i. that night.
Thesis 69.
There are some who confesse that the Jewish Sabbath began at the evening ever since the Creation unto the time of Christs resurrection▪ but now they tell us that it begins in the morning, because of Christs Resurrection (the cause of it) which began then; so that as this makes the change of the day, so it makes a change of the beginning of the day from evening till morning when the Resurrection of Christ began: but the feeblenesse of this opinion will appear from these ensuing considerations.