The Lords Day Vindicated, Tract · Section 18 – Section 19
SECT. XVIII.
HE produces, Page, 90. the Argument of Tradition from the Apoſtles in the univerſal Church theſe 1600 Years, for the Obſervance of the Lord's-day. Whereto his Anſwer is, that no Tradition can add to, take from, lay aſide, or alter any Word of Chriſt, or Duty of Man. But, yet ſuch a perpetualand epidemical Tradition may ſerve for a good ſubſervient Proof for that which is founded upon, and deduced from Scripture; as the caſe is here; for we have proved by many Arguments from Scripture, the Abolition of the Seventh-Day-Sabbath, and the ratification of the Lord's-Day.
He anſwers to ſuch a general and laſting Tradition for the Sanctification of the Lord's-day: That he has already proved that the Seventh Day is the Lord's-day ſpoken of, Rev. 1.10. But I think, I have diſproved that Proof.
Page 91: He himſelf recurs to Tradition, and undertakes to prove that throughout ſeveral Centuries there have been Churches, who aſſembled themſelves themſelves for religious Worſhip on the Seventh Day. And, ſo this is ſet as a Bar againſt, and a Counterplea to that Prime, Primitive and univerſal Tradition for the Lords-day: To which, I anſwer in general: 1. That a few Exceptions againſt a general Rule, do rather confirm than weaken it. 2. Every Antiquity or Tradition will not, cannot, ſerve to prove either Practice or Doctrin to be commendable or orthodox, nor derogate from what is ſo. For, the Denyal of the Deity of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt is as ancient as the Apoſtles Days; in which Corinthus was ſuch an Heretick; and the Ebionites, Photinians and Arains have handed down that damning Doctrin to our Socinians. 3. Scarce any Church, ſince the Apoſtles Days, have been without out their Flaws, in Doctrin or Worſhip or both; and we doubt not, but this hath been one of them, if it can be proved to be practiſed. 4. In many Churches, where they did obſerve the Seventh-day, as a Day of publick Aſſemblies; yet in them the Lord's-day was alſo kept and obſerved; and that too, as the chief Day: For on the Lord's-day all, in general, were ingaged to wait upon God's publick Worſhip, not ſo on Saturdays. On the Lord's-day all the Ordinances of the Goſpel were adminiſtred, not ſo on Saturdays: And ſo ſtill the Lords-day had the Preheminence even in thoſe very Churches: Which general Anſwers may be enough to ſtop the Mouths of all his ancient Witneſſes: Yet, I will take a little Pains, and imploy a little Time, to inquire into the Particulars; for I think they neither deſerve nor require much of either. As to his firſt Inſtance, if all the following be ſuch, I am ſure they are ſtark naught; yea, they are not at all. For, he aſſerts, that in the Apoſtles times the Seventh Day was obſerved as the publick Day of divine Worſhip: Here he muſt meau by Chriſtins, or elſe he trifles: But he can never find in all the Scripture, that in the Apoſtles Days there was ever one Society of Chriſtians gathered on the Seventh Day: Indeed, St. Paul did go on that Day into the Aſſemblies of the Jews, to preach the Goſpel to many of them, which he could not conveniently do on any other Day: But never did he invite any to keep that Day, never did he aſſemble afterward on that Day; when he was ſeparated from their Synagogues finding them imperſwaſible and obſtinate. But, now we can produce ſeveral Chriſtian-Aſſemblies on the Firſt day, the Lords day, after our Saviours Reſurrection, in which our Lord appeared to them: And 'twas then their Cuſtom to Aſſemble, and bring their Publick Alms to the Publick Treaſure; wherefore I cannot but marvel at this bold Aſſertion.
The Baſis of traditionary Structue, being ſo viſibily ſunk and come to nought, makes me ſuſpect that the erected Stories thereof, will tumble and fall: So that 'tis clear, we have the Apoſtle Examples, the Churches Uſe in their days, and their Commands againſt the Seventh day, and for the Lords day, as a ſufficient Demurr to all his future Tradition: Into which I now deſcend, and muſt ſay that I have ſearched the Magdeburgenſes for his Quotations, but cannot find them where he quotes them; and therefore believe that the Author uſed either another Edition, or another that is various either in the Bulk, or in the Pages. I found in them the Eliberine Council, but there he Twenty Third Canon hath nothing of a Faſt upon a Sabbath day. As to the other Authors, I have them not, and know not where to get them, that I might peruſe them; neither is it needful; for the matter of theſe Quotations, makes very little for his Cauſe: For whoever conſiders them, will find, 1. That very many, if not moſt of them, declare the Eſtabliſhment and Separation of the Dominical day for Divine Service. 2. That another great part of them, prove the Obſervation or keeping both of the Dominical day, and the Sabbath, in very many of the Churches. 3. Theſe tell us that the Sabbath was kept as a Faſt, by the moſt (if not by all) of the Churches that kept it; and the Lords-day as a Feſtival, which all our Eccleſiaſtical Writers acknowledge as before: And ſo evince that it was not kept with ſo equal Authority as the Lords day. (So does Dr. Young at large) which alſo ſhews that they never obſerved it as the ancient Sabbath; or 'twas enjoyned in the Fourth Command: But upon a new Account, or for a new Reaſon; even becauſe our Lord Chriſt lay dead in the Grave on that day; Therefore they would Faſt and Humble themſelves, becauſe their Lord and Saviour was on that day in his loweſt Humiliation: (So far were they from this Gentleman's Opinion, that his State of Death was his Reſt after his Work of Redemption) and they would obſerve the Firſt day with Praiſes and Holy Rejoycings, as the Chriſtian Feſtival; becauſe 'twas the Lords day of Triumph over his Enemies, even of his Reſurrection. Theſe include the greateſt part, by far, of his Hiſtorical Examples, and a very few are left which do not expreſly acknowledge theſe things: And they that do not expreſs them, may well be thought to include them. I mean, though ſome of theſe Quotations do not verbally tell us that when they kept this Sabbath, they alſo kept the Lords day, yet it may well be preſumed they did ſo; ſeeing 'twas the common Practice of ſuch Churches, to obſerve both of them in the foreſaid manner. Such an one, for Example, is that of Socrates Scholaſticus, who tells us (for I have examined him, and find he does verbatim tell us) in a manner all the Churches in the World do Celebrate, and Receive the Holy Myſteries, every Sabbath day after other: Yet the People inhabiting Alexandria and Rome, of an old Tradition, do not uſe it. Yet doubtleſs, they alſo obſerved the Lords-day, ſeeing 'twas that which Conſtantine, had before by Edict enjoyned the Churches to do. And he ſaith in the very next Page, and in the ſame Chapter of this Quotation, that at Caeſarea in Cappadocia, and at Cyprus, the Prieſts and Biſhops do Preach and Expound Holy Scripture at Evening-Prayer, on the Saturdays and Sundays by Candle-Light; and therefore we may well preſume that the other Churches did, which before he ſpake of: Theſe being ſome of theſe all. As for his Hiſtorical Account, when the Lord's day was brought into Scotland, viz. An. 1208. It may be very well anſwered, that the initiating, or bringing in of the Dominical day, does not refer to the day it ſelf, but only to the Authority that introduced it; even that in that Year it began to be Eſtabliſhed by the Authority of a Council; which before it had not been: Or if it refer to the day it ſelf, it may not ſimply be underſtood, as if that day were never taken notice of at all in Scotland, as a Sanctified day: (For who ca believe this? ſeeing 'twas all along obſerved by the reſt of the Churches, as his own Quotations acknowledge.) But reſpectively, as now 'twas by Authority enjoyned to be ſtrictly kept and ſanctified, and to be ſolitarily ſeparated to Divine Service: Whereas before, they were Looſe and Profane in their Carriages upon it. All which is moſt probable, and very well concurrs with the truth of the Hiſtory. And therefore this Hiſtory does not, nor that of Englands late due Obſervance of the Lords day; or their keeping Markets on that day, &c. till the ſame Century, or any other evacuate the Series of an Univerſal and Conſtant Tradition for the Lord's day: For even in theſe Nations, the Lords day might be then acknowledged to be the day of Divine Worſhip; though not ſo ſtrictly and duly kept; as we know in this very laſt Century among our Selves, Plays, Interludes, all manner of Sports, ſelling of things in our very Streets, have been permitted and practiſed. Yet ſtill the Lords day acknowledged in the Church to be the day of Divine Worſhip. And it cannot well be ſuppoſed that thoſe Chriſtian Churches, (as England and Scotland) who obſerved the Seventh day, becauſe on it our Saviour lay in the Grave (not becauſe 'twas commanded in the Fourth Precept, nor becauſe 'twas the Creator's Reſt after his Work) ſhould alltogether neglect and diſregard the Firſt day, ſeeing 'twas the day of his Conqueſt, and the Entrance into his Glorious Exaltation. This I thought convenient to ſay to thoſe Hiſtorical Collections of his, and muſt leave a more particular and exact Anſwer of them to thoſe who have better Helps, and more Leiſure to examine them.
He gives us Page 102. Thomas Aquinas's Opinion concerning the Fourth Command, (whom I ſuppoſe to be the ſame Thomas before quoted for the ſame) that ſome part of it is Moral, and ſome Ceremonial, &c. Which Opinion of his, how heterodox ſoever the Author deems it, I doubt not, but it is very Orthodox, and the Truth of God clearly evinced by the Light of Nature: And that no Perſon ſhall ever be Condemned for not obſerving a Seventh day of the Week, (much leſs for not obſerving the Laſt day of the Week) intirely to God's Worſhip and Service, without the Revelation of the Fourth Command to him; no more than he ſhall be Condemned for not believing in the Lord Jeſus, without the Revelation of the Goſpel.
SECT. XIX.
BUt enough of this before, which invites me to reflect upon one Particular which I intended to have replyed to, in its proper place: But I know not how 'twas then neglected, which is Page 79. An Anſwer to another Objection againſt the Morality of the Seventh-day-Sabbath, viz. That the Decalogue in not at all in force to the Gentiles: Which Objection methinks, ſhould not be ſo crudely produced, nor in ſuch an unlimited and unqualified manner; for I dare to aſſert, That that One, whoever he was, that this Author intends, does hold that the Decalogue in one reſpect does, and in another does not oblige the Gentiles. That it does oblige them as to the Morality and Subſtance of every one of the Ten Commands, (the Fourth not excepted) That it does not oblige them, as thoſe Ten words were Engraven on Tables of Stone, as they were delivered to the Iſraelites upon the Mount, in ſuch a dreadful and formidable manner, as Moſes was the Receiver of them from God's Hand, and their Conveyer to the People: Which to be his Senſe, his very Production of the Preface for his Argument, ſufficiently proves. Which (we doubt not) is a moſt Orthodox Opinion; and not only the Judgment of One, but of almoſt (if not altogether) all our learned and ſolid Divines. For, how can that oblige the Getiles, which they never heard, nor were in a Poſſibility to know? As Millions of them never were; and Millions more may never be: Who never heard of a Deliverance from Egypt, nor of a Moſes, nor of a burning Mountain, nor of horrible Thundrings and Lightnings, nor of ſuch a Deliverance of that Law? And the Gentiles, who have, by Gods gracious and bleſſed Providence, theſe things brought to their Cognizance, are not obliged to them, as given by Moſes, but as given by God; not to them, as delivered out of the Land of Egypt, and out of the Houſe of Bondage, which was peculiar only to the Iſraelites and thoſe that came out with them; not to them, as having a ſhare and Poſſeſſion in the Land of Canaan, (the Motive to the Fifth Command,) for that was only peculiar to the Iſraelites: So then the Decalogue does not oblige all Man-kind, as 'twas given to the Iſraelites, and as urged upon them with their ſingular and peculiar Obligations, but as 'twas engraven upon the Humane Nature in our firſt Creation, as the moral Perfection of the rational Creature, ſo it obliges all the Gentiles, as well as the Jews. His Argument of the Deliverance of the then whole viſible Church, is a Miſtake; for there were ſome of the viſible Church, who were not among them, as Jethro, Moſes's Father-in-Law; and we believe more with him, ſeeing he was a great Man, or a Priest of Midian, Exod. 3.1. whoſe Faith in, and Worſhip of the True God are clearly ſeen, Exod. 18.8, 12. Wherefore this Deliverance of the Jews, could not ſo effect them or appertain to them: But, ſuppoſe that theſe Motives could have a typical and remote Influence, and lay ſome kind of moral Obligations upon the Heathens that may have the Tydings thereof ſent among them, it cannot be well imagined how it could ever affect, or be a Motive to thoſe Nations that never had the leaſt Notice thereof; and conſequently, the Decalogue, thus given by Moſes, is not in force toward the Gentiles as ſuch; for ſo 'twould equally oblige them all.