The Christian Sabbath Defended, Section 4
The fourth Section.
Preface.NEither was hee the onelyonly one, that hath ſo determined. For, for the firſt, that to keepe holy one day of ſeven, is not the morall part of the fourth Commandement, our Doctor hath delivered in the third ſection, that not Toſtatus onelyonly, but even Aquinas, and with him all the ſchoolemen have decreed upon it. Nor was there any that oppoſed it in the ſchooles of Rome, that I have met with, till Catarinus tooke up Armes againſt Toſtatus: affirming, but with ill ſucceſſe, that the Commandement of the Sabbath was impoſed on Adam in the firſt cradle of the World, there where the Lord is ſayd to bleſſe the ſeventh Day, and to ſanctifie it.
2 As for the Proteſtant ſchooles, beſides what is affirmed by Calvin, and ſeconded by the Doctor in this following diſcourſe, this ſeemes to be the judgement of the Divines in the low Countries. Franciſcus Gomarus, one knowne ſufficiently for his undertakings againſt Arminians publiſhed, An. 1628. a little treatiſe about the originall of the Sabbath, and therein principally canvaſed theſe two queſtions. Firſt whether the Sabbath were ordained by God immediately upon the Creation of the World? Then whether all Chriſtians are obliged by the fourth Commandement, alwayes to ſet a part one day in ſeven to Gods holy worſhip? both which he determines negatively.
And Doctor Rivet one of the foure profeſſors in Leyden, although he differs in the firſt, yet in the ſecond, which doth moſt concerne us Chriſtians, they agree together: affirming alſo joyntly that the appointing of the Lords Day for Gods publique ſervice, was neither done by God himſelfe, nor by his Apoſtles, but by the authority of the Church? For ſeconds, Gomarus brings in Vatablus, and Wolfgangus Muſculus; and Rivet voucheth the authority of our Doctor here. For ſo Gomarus, in the aſſertion and defenſe of the firſt opinion againſt this Rivet. De quibus etiam cl. & doctiſſ. Doctor Prideaux in oratione de Sabbato conſenſionem extare, codem judicio (by Rivets information) libenter intelleximus.
I will adde one thing onelyonly, which is briefely this. The Hollanders when they diſcovered Fretum le Morire An. 1615. though they obſerved a moſt exact accompt of their time at Sea; yet at their comming home they found, comparing their accompt with theirs in Holland, that they had loſt a day; that which was Sunday to the one being Munday to the other. Which of neceſſity muſt happen as it is calculated by Geographers, to thoſe that compaſſe the World from Weſt to Eaſt, as contrary, they had got a day, had they ſayled it Eaſtward. And what ſhould theſe people doe when they were returned? if they muſt ſanctifie preciſely one day in ſeven, they muſt have ſanctified a day a part from their to her Countreymen, and had a Sabbath by themſelves; or to comply with with others muſt have broken the morall Law, which muſt for no reſpects be violated. See more hereof at large in Carpenters Geogr. p. 237.
Exam.That Calvin hath any where ſo determined this Prefacer hath not prooved, but ſhamefully diſmembred him, thereby to make him to deliver ſomething abſolutly which he delivers onelyonly conditionally, and that in oppoſition unto Papiſts, who will have the Lords Day to be kept not onelyonly for order and policy ſake but by reaſon of ſome myſtery; and this Calvin profeſſeth to be Jewiſh. Aquinas his words are theſe, Habere aliquod tempus deputatum ad vacandum Divinis, cadit ſub praecepto morali: ſed in quantum in hoc praecepto determinatur ſpeciale tempus in ſignum creationis Mundi, ſic eſt praeceptum ceremoniale. To have ſome time deputed (wherein) to reſt for things Divine, falls under the morall precept. But for as much as in this precept is determined a ſpeciall time in ſigne of the Creation of the World, ſo it is a praecept ceremoniall. Where I doe obſerve firſt, that this ceremoniality is apparently aſcribed to the ſeventh day, and that conſidered as a ſigne of the Creation, and not to one day in ſeven. And this indeed may well be the concurrent opinion of Schole Divines. As for Abulenſis, of what authority is he to preponderate any one of our Divines? nay, I appeale to every humane conſcience, whether no more be morall in this precept, then to ſet ſome time apart for Gods ſervice. For what? is it nothing materiall, whether we ſet apart for divine Service, one day in a weeke, or one day in a month, or one day in a yeare, or one day in twenty yeares, or one day throughout the whole courſe of a mans life? what conſcience can be found ſo cauteriate as to juſtifie this? If ſo, then let him proceed and ſay, it is nothing materiall whether wee conſecrate unto God one houre in a day, or one houre in a weeke, or one houre in a month, or one houre in a yeare, or but one houre throughout the whole courſe of a mans life. So that I preſume every ſober man by the very light of nature, will be driven to confeſſe that not only ſome time ought to be ſet apart for Gods worſhip (as the Schoolemen commonly teach) but that a convenient proportion of time ought to be deſtinated unto this. Now let reaſon it ſelfe judge, whether any more convenient proportion of time can be deviſed for this then the proportion of one day in ſeven. And herein let us oppoſe Azorius to Toſtatus (if Toſtatus doe oppoſe the morality of one day in ſeven,Inistitut. part. 2. l. 1. cap. 2. which is more then I finde) a Papiſt to confront a Papiſt; who plainly affirmeth, Rationi maximè conſentaneum eſſe, that it is moſt agreeable to reaſon, that after ſix worke dayes one day ſhould bee conſecrated to the ſervice of God; Eſpecially ſince God hath diſcovered unto us that this is his good pleaſure, namely that one day in ſeven ſhould be conſecrated unto his ſervice. Firſt, that we might not be left at large to our own hearts, to proportion out the time for Gods Service. Secondly, for the maintenance of uniformity herein amongſt his people; who being left unto themſelves might, and in all likelyhood would have run different wayes. And that God hath from the beginning manifeſted as much, Wallaeus hath ſhewed out of Chryſoſtome in his 16. Homily upon Geneſis. Wallae. diſſert. de Sabbato.Now even from the beginning God inſinuates unto us this Doctrine, teaching that in the circle of the weeke, one intire day is to be ſegregated and ſet apart for ſpirituall operation, and to the ſame purpoſe are Clemens Alexandrinus, Euſebius, Theodoret, and Auguſtine alledged by him. Catarinus is in this place brought in quite againſt the hayre; ſeeing it is not herein, that he is ſo much as pretended to oppoſe Toſtatus, but rather as touching the originall inſtitution of the Sabbath. Yet why he ſhould ſay that Catarinus hath herein had ill ſucceſſe, I know no reaſon (neither doth this author once offer to give any) eſpecially conſidering that the very Romiſts doe acknowledge, that the Sabbath was inſtituted immediately from the Creation. Their words are theſe;In Apoc. 1.10. The Apoſtles and faithfull abrogated the Sabbath which was the ſeventh day and made holy-day: for it the next day following being the eighth day in compt from the Creation—not onelyonly otherwiſe then was by the Law obſerved but plainely otherwiſe then was preſcribed by God himſelfe in the *They meane the third, but indeed it is the fourth.ſecond Commandement, yea and otherwiſe then he ordained in the firſt Creation, when hee ſanctified preciſely the Sabbath Day, and not the day following. Rivetus cites diverſe Popiſh authors affirming the ſame with Catarinus, contrary to the opinion of Toſtatus, and notwithſtanding Pererius his concurrence with Toſtatus; no leſſe then ſix Papiſts of note, Steuchus Eugubinus in Coſmopaea ad cap. 2. Gen. Gilbert Genebrard in his chronology at the firſt yeare of the World. Jacobus Salianus in his Annalls of the old Teſtament at the firſt yeare of the World, and the ſeventh day. Who expounds alſo Tertullian, who is pretended to be of the contrary opinion. Cornelius a lapide on the 2. cap. of Geneſis. Emanuel Sa. And laſtly Ribera on the Epiſtle to the Hebrewes cap. 5. Num. 8. So that it ſeemes Catarinus did on this point oppoſe Toſtatus with very good ſucceſſe. Neither doth the Doctor on whom this Prefacer relies, ſhew any ſufficient cauſe of rejecting Catarinus, or bring ought ſufficient to juſtify Toſtatus. It is true, Toſtatus brings divers reaſons for the confirmation of this opinion, and I have no cauſe to doubt but they were anſwered by Catarinus who oppoſeth him herein; neither doe I finde any exception taken againſt his anſwer, either by the Prefacer or by Doctor Prideaux himſelfe. And therefore I might content my ſelfe, ſeeing nothing but Toſtatus his authority is propoſed, to anſwer authority with authority: yet I am content alſo to conſider his reaſons as they are propoſed by Pererius.