The Christian Sabbath Defended, Digression 1
THE FIRST DIGRESSION, WHEREIN.
I. Anſwer is made to Toſtatus his arguments propoſed by Pererius, to proove that the obſervation of the Sabbath was ordeyned by God immediately from the Creation.
II. Herewithall the queſtion is diſputed, whether Adam fell the firſt day wherein he was Created.
THE firſt agrument of Toſtatus propoſed by Pererius is to this effect, the obſervation of the Sabbath had been ſuperfluous to Adam and Eve, ſeeing nothing then could have called them away from the ſervice of God, to wit, they being then in the ſtate of innocency. To which I anſwer, firſt that herein is ſuppoſed ſomewhat wherabout there is much queſtion, namely that Adam fell not before the ſeventh Day. Yet Pererius profeſſeth that it was an opinion well knowne, and confirmed by the conſent of many, and thoſe noble and illuſtrious authors, that Adam fell the firſt day wherein he was created. This ſayth he, ſeemes to have been the opinion of Irenaeus; and Cyrillus and Epiphanius are cited as approovers of it. He addes, that Moſes Barcephas in his booke of Paradice both prooves it, and avoucheth it as the opinion of many others, and eſpecially of Philopenus in his oration, which he wrote of the tree of Life, and of Ephrem in his Commentaries upon Geneſis, and of Jacobus Sabugenſis in his oration of Chriſts Paſſion. To whom may bee added, ſaith Pererius, Diodorus the Biſhop of Tharſis, as he is cited in the chaine of interpreters upon Geneſis, upon thoſe words of the third chapter, we do eate of every tree in Paradiſe. Toſtatus himſelfe as this author writes, was ſometimes of the ſame opinion, though afterwards he changed his minde; and conceaved as more likely, that Adam fell on the Sabbath Day; which Pererius approves not, though that was the opinion of the author of the Daraſh amongſt the Jewes, as David Kimchi writes upon that Pſalme, whoſe title is, A pſalme for the Sabbath; and that ſo by ſinning he profaned the Sabbath. This opinion of Toſtatus and the Jewes, Pererius doth not approve: but the reaſon he gives for his diſſenting from them, in my judgement is very weake. For that it runnes, becauſe the Lord bleſſed that Sabbath Day and ſanctified it, reſting from all his workes which he had made, therefore it was not agreeable, that on that day, ſo ſevere a judgement of the Divine vengeance ſhould be exerciſed. Now I ſay, this reaſon is very weake. For we commonly ſay, the better day, the better deed; and undoubtedly the Lord is holy, as in all his workes, ſo in the execution of condigne vengeance.Ier. 9.2 4. In this he delights, as in the execution of mercy. And it is uſually the Lords courſe, even on the Lords Day, to recompence the wayes of the wicked upon their own heads, in the profanation of his Sabbaths. Secondly, it may ſeeme ſtrange, that Pererius ſhould ſerve himſelfe with this reaſon, namely, of the Lords bleſſing the ſeventh day and ſanctifying it, ſeeing he profeſſeth himſelfe to be of Toſtatus his opinion, interpreting theſe words by way of anticipation, and referring them to the giving of the Law upon Mount Sina. Others were of opinion, that Adam continued as long in Paradiſe, as Chriſt lived here on Earth. But this opinion Pererius thinkes no way probable. Others deviſed a continuance of Adam in Paradiſe for the ſpace of forty dayes, anſwering to our Saviours faſting forty dayes; but this he ſayth hath no ſhew of probability. His own conjecture is, that Adam fell, and was turned out of Paradiſe that day ſenight after he was created: and the grounds of his conjecture are in my opinion, as frivolous as any. As firſt, when he ſaith that eight dayes ſpace was ſufficient to have experience of the happineſſe of that ſtate. For why not as well ſome dayes more or ſome dayes leſſe? nay rather, by continuance in the ſame ſtate, we grow leſſe and leſſe ſenſible of the happineſſe thereof. And the happineſſe of a ſtate is beſt known by the contrary, according to that rule, Carendo magis quàm fruendo quid quidque ſit cognoſcimus. As for the agreement herein which he conceites between Adam and Chriſt, as who is thought of many to have been conceaved in the Virgins wombe on the ſixt day of the weeke, and on the ſame day of the weeke was indeed crucified upon the croſſe; who ſeeth not that this conveniency had been found as well on that day fortnight, or on that day three weekes, and ſo in Infinitum, as on that day ſenight? As ridiculous appeares to be his pretence of complying thus with the antients, whoſe opinion was, that Adam fell the ſame day wherein he was created, which he would apply to that day ſenight after. For why not as well to that day three weekes after, or that day a month after, and ſo in Infinitum? But let us conſider Pererius reaſons whereby he undertakes to ſhew the unlikelihood of Adams falling the firſt day. The firſt is drawn from the forme of Adams temptation, thus, why doe you not eate of every tree of paradiſe? which ſuppoſeth as he ſaith, that they had already eaten of every other Tree in Paradiſe; and Eves anſwer, he ſaith, ſeems to confirm this in ſaying, we eate of the fruit of the Trees in the Garden. But of the fruit of the Tree which is in the mids of the Garden, we eate not; what is the meaning of we eate, but this, we are wont to eate, quoth Pererius. Yet forthwith he himſelfe enervates this interpretation, confeſſing that the meaning may be this, It is lawfull for us to eate. And I willingly confeſſe, that no argument appeares to me ſo plauſible as this, namely that they had formerly taſted of every fruit of the Garden beſides this: for it ſeems very likly, that not till then they were wel prepared for ſatans temptation. And it ſeemes unlikely they would offer to taſte of the fruit forbidden untill they had taſted of all the reſt; then indeed and not til then, the commendation of that as of a more excellent fruit then any of the reſt, might the better allure them both to touch and taſte. But as Pererius propoſeth it, it hath no force; for as much as he corrupteth the Text, the Divells words being not ſuch as theſe, why doe yee not eate of every tree of paradiſe? but running thus; Yea? hath God ſayd yee ſhall not eate of every tree in the Garden? or as Piſcator takes it for a concluſion of a larger diſcourſe; yea in as much as God hath ſaid, ye ſhall not eate of the fruit of every tree in the Garden, ſo giving a reaſon to proove what he objected, namely that God envyed their happineſſe. As for the reaſons which before I have given, they may be anſwered thus. If the benefit of this fruit had been of the ſame kinde with the benefit of others, and onelyonly in degree of excellency above them, then were it no way likely they ſhould begin with this. But ſeeing it was pretended to be of a farre different kinde by Satans ſuggeſtion, not ſo much for ſatisfying the appetite of ſenſe, as for ſatisfying the ſpirituall deſire of the ſoule in knowing good and evill, which the very denomination of the Tree given by God himſelfe did fairely intimate; and this being cunningly improoved by Satan to be a Divine condition, in making them like unto God; this conſideration might well allure forthwith without all further ſtay to have experience of other fruit. Secondly why might they not have taſted of the fruites of other Trees, without any neceſſity of nature urging them, and yet without any luxury at all, but only to acquaint themſelves with the condition of thoſe good Creatures which God had provided for them? Yet again conſidering that this experience made to no other end, ſhould ſo ſenſibly have brought home unto them the goodneſſe of God, in that ſtate of holineſſe and integrity, that it would have exceedingly confirmed them in their obedience to God, and made the motion of the Serpent at firſt hearing diſtaſtfull, and to chooſe to be like unto God in obedience, and thereby in conformity to his holy will, then in forbidden knowledge. And beſides, the taſting of all ſo ſoone, can hardly be juſtified from Luxury or waſt: therefore I reſt in my firſt anſwer. Pererius his next reaſon caryeth a great deale of ſhew, but in ſubſtance leſſe forcible. Certainly the making of the beaſts of the Earth, and of man, might be done in as ſhort a time as it pleaſed God to have it; eſpecially conſidering the opinion of ſome antients, that all things were made together, and that in a ſhort ſpace; ſo mans placing in Paradiſe, and the beaſts brought unto him by God, might be ſoone diſpatched: and ſurely Adams naming of them coſt him no ſtudy; and undoubtedly all this was done before the creating of Eve; ſo that all this might be done before noone, and ſpace enough allowed for the Divells conference with Eve, and his ſeducing her, and her ſeducing Adam. The making of them aprons to hide their nakedneſſe caryeth the greateſt ſhew of requiring longer time; but he who wanted not wit to name the beaſts ſo congruouſly to their natures, wanted not underſtanding to cover themſelves with fig-leaves. As for the Doctors alleaged by him for his opinion; I doe not finde that any of them is expreſſe, or by conſequent direct for that, whereunto they are alleaged; but the inferences made from their wordes are meerely conjecturall. For when hee writes, that Ioſeph in the firſt booke of his antiquities; and Baſil in his Homily of Paradiſe; and Damaſcen in his ſecond booke of orthodox faith and 10. Chapter. ſeeme to be of this opinion; his ground is only this, becauſe as he ſaith, they write that the Serpent in paradiſe did often come to our firſt parents and converſe with them very gently and familiarly, and that thereupon the Divell tooke hint to inveagle the Woman. Now this is but a conjecture of theirs; neither doe they ſay that he was wont to conferre with them; yet all that they ſpeake of may very well be fulfilled in a few houres. That which to this purpoſe he alleageth out of Auſtin de civit. dei lib. 11: c. 21. is onelyonly this, The Apple on the tree forbidden, we are to believe it to be ſuch, as the reſt of other trees, which now they had found to be without hurt; hence it ſeemes Pererius would inferre, that before the Divells temptation they had taſted of them all; but Auſtins ſpeech is indefinite, and verified, in caſe they had taſted but of ſome; and Eve might have taſted of ſome, Adam of other ſome; If it be further urged, that Auſtin delivers it as a reaſon to ſhew how hereby they were made more pliable to yield to Satans temptation: I anſwer that by taſting ſome, yea and without taſting any, they might be well aſſured they might be taſted of without hurt, excepting that which God had forbidden them; and the taſting of all without hurt was no tolerable reaſon to perſwade that in like manner they might taſt of the forbidden fruit without hurt; the Lord having profeſſed unto them, that In the day they did eate thereof, they ſhould die the death. Pererius addes that Auſtin in his twentieth Booke of the City of God, and 26. Chapter, doth not obſcurely give to underſtand, that albeit he thought Adam continued not long in paradiſe, yet that he continued there longer then one day. But I finde no ſuch thing in the place quoted by him. But I gueſſe the paſſage he aimes at, is that wherein hee diſcourſeth of thoſe words of the Prophet Malachy Mal. 3. And the ſacrifice of Iudah and Ieruſalem ſhall pleaſe the Lord as in the dayes of old, and in former yeares; and he inquires, what time that is, which is ſignified by this phraſe, as in the dayes of old, and in the former yeares. And firſt he ſaith, that perhaps thereby may be ſignified, the time wherein our firſt parents were in Paradiſe. And to this he referres that of Eſay Eſ. 65. According to the dayes of the Tree of life, ſhall be the life of my people. And who ſaith hee, knowes not, what that place was where the Lord planted the Tree of life? But then to the contrary he diſcourſeth thus, If a man ſhall ſay thoſe dayes of the Tree of life to be the dayes of the Church of Chriſt which are now current, and that Chriſt himſelfe is prophetically called the Tree of life— and that theſe firſt men lived not any yeares in paradiſe, from whence they were ſo ſoone ejected, that they begate no ſonne there, and that therefore that time cannot be underſtood by this phraſe of Malachy (as in the dayes of old and former yeares) — I paſſe by this queſtion: to wit, of the meaning of the Prophet Malachy. Now had Auſtin ſimply ſayd that our firſt Parents continued not many yeares in Paradiſe, there had beene ſome colour, as if he thought, Adam had continued ſome few yeares, or one yeare at leaſt, in Paradiſe. But neither doth Auſtin deliver this as his owne opinion, but as the diſcourſe of others; and that to proove that the words mentioned in Malachy, cannot denote the time of Adams being in Paradiſe; for as much as they ſpeake of many yeares; but Adam continued not yeares in Paradiſe, which is proved by this, that he was driven from thence before he had begotten any ſonne; which if it be referred to the conception of a child, as in reaſon it ſeemes to be, who ſeeth not that one day, or a night might have ſufficed for that? So that all things conſidered, this place rather makes againſt Pererius then for him. In like ſort, that which he alleageth out of Gregory is onelyonly this, that Man in paradiſe was accuſtomed to the words of God, and converſed with the ſpirit of the bleſſed Angells; ſuppoſe it were ſo, and with God himſelfe, ſo long as he continued in the ſtate of integrity (yet I hope they will give way to the temptation of Satan) yet how little or how long that time continued is not ſpecified. Conſider we now the reaſons to the contrary, delivered partly by Pererius himſelfe, partly by Doctor Willet upon Geneſis. Who on the third Chapter of that booke propoſeth them in this order. Firſt, the Angells that fell, preſently after their Creation ſinned, as our Saviour ſaith, that the Divell did not ſtand or continue in the truth Ioh. 8.44. Hereunto Auſtin conſenteth, Factus continuò ſe à luce veritatis avertit, as ſoone as he was made, preſently he turned aſide from the light of the truth: So it is likely that man alſo—And indeed the inference from Angels to men in this particular, ſeemes to proceede from that which is leſſe likely to that which is more likely. If the angells of themſelves fell ſo ſoone, how much more likely is it, that both Satan would ſet himſelfe with the firſt, to tempt them, and being tempted leſſe ſtrange it is that they ſhould fall. But concerning the angells defection, it doth not follow, either by our Saviours phraſe, or Auſtins phraſe that either of them believed they fell ſo ſoone. But whenſoever that was propoſed unto them, which was the triall of their obedience; had they approoved of it and ſubmitted unto Gods Will, that had beene or thereupon undoubtedly had followed their confirmation, as it was u no them that ſtood; and their not approoving it, their not ſubmitting unto it was their ſinne in part, though according to their ſpirituall nature, it might be in the higheſt degree of ſtomach and pride; like as their approbation thereof who obeyed was in an high degree of zeale and humility. Aquinas profeſſeth it to be more profitable,Sum. Pt. 1. q. …3. art. 6. in. corper…. and more agreeable to the ſayings of the Saints; that the Divell ſinned anon after the firſt inſtant of his Creation. Secondly, Doctor Willets ſecond argument is this;Ioh. 8.44. Our Saviour ſaith that the Devill was a murtherer from the beginning, not of the World, but of mans Creation, therefore at the very firſt he ſet upon them. But that phraſe from the beginning doth not tie us to any ſuch exact calculation. Thirdly, the ſubtilty of the Divell doth inſinuate as much, who would then aſſault them, when they were leaſt able to reſiſt, before they by experience were confirmed in their obedience. In this I confeſſe there are two particulars of very momentous conſideration. Firſt, the Devills ſubtilty to ſet upon them, before they were poſſeſſed and taken up with an holy walking with God. Secondly, that continuance in an holy walking with God could not but confirme them, and make them more ſtedfaſt therein, having as yet no principle of the fleſh in them to make reſiſtance, and to ſuſpect every motion that ſhould ariſe to withdraw them from it. Fourthly, and it was fit, ſaith he, that man ſinning ſhould be caſt out of paradiſe before he had fully taſted of the pleaſure thereof, leſt he afterward might be tormented with the loſſe, and attemted to returne. This reaſon my palate doth not reliſh ſo well; the more Adam ſhould be tormented with the loſſe of paradiſe, the better it ſhould be for him in my judgement, rather then worſe. And as for attempting to returne, I cannot conceave how he ſhould be ſo vaine as to preſume to evacuate Gods judgements, and then againe of any ſuch paradiſe after Adams baniſhment therence, wee read nothing. Fiftly, And it is cleare (ſaith Doctor Willet) by the Serpents firſt on ſet, hath God ſayd ye ſhall not eate of every Tree? that they had not yet taſted of any fruit, but at the very firſt the forbidden fruit was offered, before their appetite had beene ſerved with any other. But firſt I doe not finde, that the Text mentioned hath any ſuch importment; Secondly, this ſuppoſeth, that the taſt of other fruits would have beene apt to hinder the courſe of Satans temptations; but how? in reſpect of giving ſo good content and ſatisfaction, yea but this ſatisfaction was no other then to the ſenſuall appetite; but the Tree forbidden in the very name of it (whence Satan tooke advantage to promote his temptation) ſeemed to promiſe ſatisfaction in a far different kinde, namely to the ſpirituall appetite of the minde. 6. Adam (ſaith he) had not yet eaten of the Tree of life, as it is evident verſe 21. But if they had ſtayed any time in paradiſe it is not unlikely, but they ſhould have taſted of the tree of life, it being in the heart of paradiſe. This at firſt ſeemed to me very conſiderable; but upon after thoughts not ſo. For certainly it aſſured not life, but upon obedience and therefore without obedience the taſting thereof (if acceſſible in that caſe) would have ſtood him in ſmall ſtead. 7. Likewiſe, ſaith he, ſeeing preſently after the Creation they were bidden to encreaſe and multiply, it is no other like but the man ſhould have known his wife in paradiſe, if they had ſtayed there ſo long, and ſo they ſhould have gotten children without ſin. This reaſon is not to be deſpiſed; although to ſtay a day or two in Paradiſe was not to ſtay there long. But conſidering that then they might company together without all ſinne ſo much as in thought, or circumſtance of act, (the want whereof makes even acts naturall in this condition of ours, ſhamefull unto us) why ſhould they deferre the propagation of mankinde; eſpecially conſidering that the child conceaved in the ſtate of innocency ſhould have beene without ſinne. 8. The eighth reaſon is in effect the ſame with that of Broughtons; If Adam had not ſinned the firſt day, the Lion had eaten Graſſe; this in my judgement is a moſt inſipid reaſon. Firſt, becauſe God had ordained, that all beaſts at the firſt ſhould live by Graſſe Gen. 1.30. Secondly, In the arke of Noah, Lions muſt have eaten Graſſe or Hay, or elſe have ſtarved, they had no power to prey upon their fellow paſſengers. Thirdly, if Lyons and Beares at firſt had lived by pray, even after Adams fall, what had become of the reſt of Gods Creatures, Imbelles damae quid niſi praedae ſumus? Laſtly it is well knowne that in theſe dayes, in new England, Beares doe live by Graſſe, and their fleſh for mans meate is accompted better then Veniſon 9. Never any man on Earth, Chriſt only excepted, kept the Sabbath without ſin: the Apoſtle ſaith, he that is entred into his reſt hath alſo ceaſed from his own works, as God did from his, Hebr. 4.10. It is the reſt only of Chriſt, where there ſhall be a ceſſation from all the works of ſin. But that reſt which Adam ſhould have kept in paradiſe was not Chriſts reſt: therefore he kept no reſt there without ſin, he fell then before the Sabbath. This argument I confeſſe ſeemes to be very ponderous and ſavoury, as built upon the Apoſtles diſcourſe Heb. 4. But the propoſition is not ſufficiently proved. For to ceaſe from a mans owne workes (as they are taken from ſinnes) is evidently competent to none but ſuch as have formerly ſinned, which cannot agree to Adam in the ſtate of innocency. Yet it cannot be denyed, but that Adam continued in innocency and without ſinne untill his fall. And ſo long reſted from ſinne, though not in Chriſt, ſave that to reſt from ſinne ſuppoſeth the precedency of ſinne. But albeit this were granted, it followeth not that he fell before the Sabbath; for he might fall on the very Sabbath, which was the opinion of the author of the Jewes Daraſh, mentioned by Rabbi David Kimchi on the 92. Pſalm. 10. That place laſtly makes to this purpoſe, Pſalme 49.13. Adam lodged not one night in honour; for ſo are the words if they be properly tranſlated; the word is foreign which ſignifies to lodge or ſtay all night: and thus diverſe of the Rabbins doe expound this place of Adam; and he quotes Rabbi Nathan. R. Menachem, and Midras Tehillim. It cannot be denied but this place is very pregnantly appliable unto Adam, as the firſt and chiefeſt object on whom this truth is verified; as being in the chiefeſt honour that ever man had on Earth, Lord of all the World, and the Father of mankinde, and placed in Paradiſe; and the verbe properly ſignifies pernoctare, to continue a night. OnelyOnly it is of the future tenſe, which yet to beare the ſignification of the time paſt is nothing ſtrange in the Hebrew, though it hath not alwayes Vau converſivum, the ſigne of ſuch converſion. And the very word Adam is here expreſſed, and we are very apt uſually to accommodate unto Adam without all reference to this queſtion, or conſideration of the propriety of the Hebrew word ſignifying pernoctare. But let us returne to that from whence we have digreſſed. Be it ſo that Adam continued in his integrity untill the end of the ſeventh day; doe we not read expreſſely, Gen. 2.5. that God tooke the man and put him in the Garden of Eden, that he might dreſſe it and keepe it; therefore God had worke for him to doe, even in things of this World as well as hee hath for us. And Martin Luther profeſſeth as much;Tom 6. in Gen. c. 2. v. 3. It followes from hence ſaith he, that if Adam had stood in his innocency, yet he ſhould have kept the ſeventh day holy, that is, on that day he ſhould have taught his children, and childrens children, what was the will of God and wherein his worſhip did conſiſt, he ſhould have prayſed God, given thanks and offered. On other dayes he ſhould have tilled the ground, looked to his Cattell. And Selncecerus treads in Luthers ſteps, treating upon the Commandement of the Sabbath. Why then ſhould it be thought ſuperfluous to ordaine ſome dayes for the works of this World, and one day for the ſervice of God? And is it likely that Eve was about the ſervice of God, when the Divell aſſaulted her? was ſhee not too neare the forbidden Fruit? it was within her ſight, and the Fruit within her reach. 2. They urge that Vacation from ſervile workes was then in vaine, ſeeing nothing could then be laborious and troubleſome unto him. I anſwer; though it were no paine to him to keepe the Garden and dreſſe it; yet this muſt needs take up his thoughts while hee was about it, and many a Gentleman in theſe dayes finds leſſe imployment then Adam had; will it therefore follow that the obſervation of the Sabbath is ſuperfluous?
3. The third reaſon is, that if this Commandement were then given, it ſhould oblige all men; but it is plaine that the Gentiles never obſerved it, neither doe we reade the Patriarchs did. I anſwer, there is no ſoundneſſe in all this. For touching the Gentiles, we have no Hiſtory before the Flood, nor till a long time after; in which ſpace of time, this Doctrine of the inſtitution of the Sabbath being carried onelyonly by tradition, might eaſily bee obliterated. The Scriptures Divine are the moſt ancient Records in the World; but it followes not, that becauſe the Scriptures doe not Record how the Patriarches did obſerve the Sabbath, therefore they obſerved it not; but much rather, becauſe, the Scriptures Record, that The Lord bleſſed the ſeventh Day, and ſanctified it, therefore the Patriarches did obſerve it. And the truth is, untill the comming of the Iſraelites out of Egypt, wee reade not of the Church of God any where but in ſingle Families. Neither doe wee reade of the Patriarches before the Flood or a long time after that they kept any Day conſecrate to GODS Service; will it therefore follow, that thoſe holy Patriarchs did ſet no time at all apart for Gods ervice? yet is it generally acknowledged as by the light of nature, that ſome time ought to be ſet apart for Divine ſervice. And formerly I have ſhewed out of Manaſſes Ben Iſrael, that whereas the Lord enjoyning to the Iſraelites the obſervation of the Sabbath, bids them remember that they were ſervants in Egypt; this the antient wiſe men among the Jewes doe aply in this manner, Cogita in Egypto ubi ſerviebas, etiam ipſu Sabbato per vim te coactum ad labores; thinke with thy ſelfe, how that in Egypt where thou ſervedſt, that by force thou waſt conſtrained to worke, even on the Sabbath. So that the obſervation of the Sabbath was a duty even in thoſe dayes. Obſerve farther that in the fourth Commandement, the Jewes are charged to looke unto it, not onelyonly that their children and their ſervants did obſerve the Sabbath, but alſo, the ſtranger that was within their gates. Now theſe kinde of ſtrangers commonly called Strangers of the gate, and thereby diſtinguiſhed from Strangers of the Covenant; were ſuch as were not circumciſed, though accompted Proſelytes in the firſt dege e. And on them was uſually impoſed no other burthen, beſides the obſervation of the ſeven precepts of Noah, as Schindler obſerves upon the roote foreign. Which ſeven precepts of Noah are alſo reckoned up by the ſame Schindler in the roote foreign; and albeit the obſervation of the Sabbath were none of them expreſſe; yet in as much as the Lord gives expreſſe charge that the ſtrangers within their Gates ſhould obſerve the Sabbath, it ſeemes it was comprehended under one of them; And therefore ſome thinke it was comprehended under that which was called foreign Benedictio Dei; that is, the worſhip of no other God, but the Creator of Heaven and Earth; and by name, my worthy friend Maſter Joſeph Mede; as I have ſeene in a Manuſcript of his touching the interpretation of the word foreign in the Acts; and hereof he gives this reaſon; namely that the obſervation of the ſeventh day was the badge of this, namely of worſhipping the Creator of Heaven and Earth, according to that, the Sabbath is a ſigne between me and you, that I Jehovah am your God, becauſe in ſix dayes the Lord made Heaven and Earth, the Sea and all that in them is, and reſted the ſeventh. Now if the obſervation of the Sabbath were comprehended under the ſeven precepts of Noah, undoubtedly it was in force, and practiſe amongeſt the Patriarchs, and that not only after, but before the flood; for undoubtedly they all worſhipped the Lord God Creator of Heaven, and Earth. 2. We have notable evidence for the obſervation of the Sabbath Day, even among the Gentiles. And firſt, the diſtinction of the whole courſe of time into weekes, for the antiquity thereof is remarkable, and now lately juſtified by Rivetus againſt Gomarus with great variety of learned obſervation, and that eſpecially by Claudius Salmaſius that renowned Scholar and Antiquary, one of them who with great inſtance urged Rivetus not to ſuffer Gomarus to paſſe unanſweared in this point. It is true, as Rivetus obſerves, that Cauſabon writing upon Suetonius l. 3. 52. and upon theſe words, Diogenes the Gramarian was wont to diſpute at Rhodes on the Sabbath, profeſſeth his opinion, that the obſervation of weekes now a dayes generally receaved; was not commonly receaved before the dayes of Theodoſius, though he confeſſeth, that long before it was in uſe among the Grecians, eſpecially thoſe of Aſia. Yet Rivet makes it good, and that out of Tertullian, that long before it was in uſe among the Latines. Ioannes Philoponus in his Commentary upon the Hiſtory of the Creation, a book commended by Photius in his Bibliotheca. lib. 7. cap. 14. and lately ſet forth at Vienna in Auſtria, writes thus; All men doe agree in this, that there are ſeven dayes only, which by revolution in themſelves doe complete whole time, whereof what reaſon can wee give, but that which Moſes gave? to wit, that in ſix dayes the Lord made the World, and reſted the ſeventh. And Clemens Alexandrinus and Euſebius prove the ſame out of Homer, foreign, The ſeventh day was that, wherein all things were finiſhed; and out of Callimachus, and out of Linus in diverſe paſſages to the ſame purſe, as Rivetus hath ſhewed in his anſwer to Gomarus. And further, that in the French Kings library, there is a Chronology of George Syncellus, from Adam to Diocleſian; wherein Salmaſius obſerves, that the computation of times by weekes was before the computation of times by moneths and yeares was found out by Aſtrologers; and that the ancient fathers diſtinguiſhed the ſpaces of times only by weekes: and that the Caldean Aſtrologers having obſerved the courſe of the Sunne, Moone, and other planets were the firſt that beſtowed on the ſeven dayes of the weeke the names of the planets; and that by the teſtimony of an antient author Manuſcript. Zoroaſtres and Hyſtaſpis were the authors of theſe demonſtrations. But that this circuit of ſeven dayes was in uſe before Zoroaſtres and the firſt authors of Aſtrology. But the Jewes kept themſelves as to the diſtinction of times by weekes, ſo to call the dayes by their order, the firſt, the ſecond; and that the Pythagoreans did the like—and called the firſt day of the weeke foreign like as the Helleniſts called it foreign. In the yeare, 1627. There was ſet forth a book at Venice (as the ſame Doctor Rivet writes) intitled Theſaurus praeceptorum Iſaaci Atiae Iudaei; in the firſt part whereof and 157. praecept touching the Sabbath, he writes to this effect, that the holineſſe of that ſacred day is ſo well known, that it were ſuperfluous to uſe many words in the explication thereof; ſeeing it is found to have impreſſion in the very hearts of the Heathens themſelves; becaaſe there is none that knoweth not, that when his highneſſe to whom none can approch, built this wonderfull frame, he reſted on the ſeventh day. 2. And thus ere I am aware, I am fallen upon the holineſſe of the day, acknowledged generally by the Heathens themſelves as this Jewiſh writer conceaved. Theophilus Antiochenus an antient Father in his ſecond booke written to Autolycus, acknowledgeth the celebrity of this day amongſt all men, though the reaſon thereof was not ſo well known to moſt; to wit as drawn from Gods reſt on that day after he had created the World. Tertullian alſo acknowledged the Heathens to ſolemnize the ſeventh much after the ſame manner that the Jewes did; confirmed by the learned obſervation of Iacobus Godefridus, notwithſtanding ſome exceptions made againſt it. And that this was the practiſe of the Romans he proves farther out of Tibullus and Ovid, namely that they did feriari reſt on the Saturday as the Jewes did. And Manaſſes Ben Iſrael in his 35. queſtion upon Exodus writes thus, Ne Agareni quidem, Veneris diem religioſiſſimè colentes quem Algama vocant, Sabbato nomen, ſuum eripuerunt: hauddubiè ita providente Deo, ut omnium animis aeternitas ejus imprimeretur. The very Agarenes, moſt religiouſly obſerving the Friday, which they call Algama, have taken from the Sabbath its name: doubtleſſe God ſo providing, that the eternity thereof ſhould be imprinted in the minds of all men; Belike as a teſtimony of Gods reſt from his workes in the Creation, therewithall to maintaine an acknowledgement of God the Creator. More then this, Salmaſius acquainted Rivetus with ſome collections made by the forementioned Georgius Symellus out of certaine apocryphall bookes, one whereof is called foreign, the litle generation, the other foreign, the life of Adam, in which the author obſerves through many weeks, that the ſeventh day was a day of reſt; and that he conceaved the author of that booke to have been a Jew, tranſlated by ſome Helleniſt, who makes mention of the Lords Day: And Doctor Willet alleageth Philo calling the ſeventh day foreign, a feſtivall of all Nations. So little neede have wee to ſticke upon that in Heſiod, foreign, the ſeventh is an holy day; which ſome obſerve to have beene ſpoken, not of the ſeventh day of the weeke, but of the ſeventh day of the monethmonth rather, wherein Apollo was borne (which yet is alleaged by Clement and Euſebius as for the ſeventh day of the weeke) what is wanting herein, being ſo plentifully ſupplyed other wayes.) And whereas Gomarus being convicted of the evidence of this truth, betakes himſelfe to a new courſe, as to ſay that this practiſe of Heathens was taken from the Jewes, and not from the ancient Patriarchs; Doctor Rivetus brings a manifeſt place out of Ioſephus to refute that conceite of his; As who profeſſeth that this cuſtome of the Gentiles had beene foreign long agoe. And how unlikely is it, that either the Egyptians, or the Nations bordering upon the Jewes ſhould take this from the Jewes, when we conſider Solitum inter accolas odium, as Tacitus obſerves, the accuſtomed hatred between borderers; Hiſt. lib. 1.eſpecially between the ſeed of the Woman, and the ſeed of the Serpent *1 Cor. 2.14.; and how diſtaſtfull the things of God are unto naturall men, even foliſhneſſe unto them, neither can they know them, becauſe they are ſpiritually diſcerned. And Homer, and Linus, and Callimachus, fetch the ſeventh day from the very Creation, as whereon the making of all things was finiſhed. I come at length to the fourth Argument.
If the Patriarches had obſerved the Sabbath, Moſes would have mentioned the religious obſervation thereof by their anceſtors, to encourage them. I anſwer 1. it is not likely they were ignorant of the practiſe of their anceſtors. The Chaldee paraphraſe upon the Pſal. 92. ſuppoſeth Adam to have beene the author of the Pſalm that is intitled for the Sabbath. 2. If for Gods ſake who delivered them out of Egypt, they would not obſerve it, neither would they obſerve it for their anceſtors ſake. 3. Moſes makes no mention of their anceſtors practiſe in ſetting apart any time for the ſervice of God; ſhall we therefore deny that by the ſuggeſtion of light naturall ſome time is to be ſet apart for this?
The Fathers profeſſe that no other poſitive precept was given to Adam then to abſtein from the Fruit of a certaine Tree. I anſwer, Chryſoſtome profeſſeth expreſſely, that from the beginning God hath ſhewed that one day in the circle of the weeke is to bee ſet apart for ſpirituall operation; Likewiſe the teſtimonies of Athanaſius and Epiphanius are expreſſe for the acknowledgment of the inſtitution of the Sabbath immediately from the Creation, as before hath beene ſhewed. Indeede both as touching the ſetting apart of ſome time in generall for Gods ſervice, and the proportion of one day in ſeven in ſpeciall, is more then poſitive.
Divines teach that before Chriſts comming the Gentiles might obtaine ſalvation by obſerving the morall Law, and the Law of nature, with ſome light of Divine faith, and ſupernaturall aſſiſtance of God. I anſwer. 1. of what reputation thoſe Divines hee ſpeaks of, deſerve to bee with us, let every Proteſtant judge. 2. yet wee know that the Gentiles might have evidence enough of the holineſſe of the ſeventh day; and that God left not himſelfe without witneſſe in this, even to Heathens is ſo notorious, that we may juſtly wonder, to obſerve how the monuments of the dignity of the ſeventh day were ſo ſtrangely preſerved among them. 3. Yet where teſtimony ſufficient was wanting not onelyonly for the particularity of the day, but for the proportion of time; wee doe not hold theſe to be morall ſo abſolutely, and in ſuch a degree, as to ſay that failing in this alone in ſuch a caſe ſhould prejudice any mans ſalvation; though we ſay with Chryſoſtome that God by the ſtory of the Creation hath ſufficiently manifeſted that one day in the weeke ought to be ſet apart for Gods Service; and with Azorius the Jeſuite, that it is moſt agreeable to reaſon, that after ſix worke dayes one day intire and whole ſhould bee conſecrated to divine worſhip.
2. From Papiſts this Prefacer proceedes to Proteſtants, and tells us that this ſeemes to be the judgement of the Divines in the Low-Countries; for proofe whereof he produceth none but Gomarus and Rivetus; both which are well knowne to be oppoſite in the point of the originall inſtitution of the Sabbath. And as touching the morality of one day in ſeven, both Wallaeus and Thyſius two profeſſors of Divinity in the Univerſity of Leyden, are well known to differ from them both; and Hyperius a low Countreyman too. As for Calvin, I have already ſhewed how he makes nothing for this Prefacer; and that they catch advantage from him moſt unreaſonably by diſmembring him. Wallaeus ſhewes the ſame to be the judgement of Martin Luther, namely, that one day in the weeke at leaſt ought to bee conſecrated to Divine Service; and out of Melancthon, that all the ceremoniality in the fourth Commandement is reſtrained to the obſervation of a certaine day, that which remaines beſides therein commanded continuing morall.*In Apoc. 1.10. Beza likewiſe affirmes that the ſanctifying of every ſeventh day as touching the Service of God, is of morall obligation and unremoveable. The like Wallaeus ſhewes to have beene the judgement of Bucer, Peter Martyr, Zanchy, Iunius, Viretus Calvins Colleague, Danaeus, Antonius Fayns, Matthias Martinius, and in a manner all that have written upon their Belgick Catechiſme. By this, the Reader may conſider the modeſty of this Prefacer, when hee profeſſeth that it ſeemes to bee the judgement of the Divines in the Low-Countries, that one day in ſeven to be ſet apart for Gods ſolemn worſhip is not of the morality of the fourth Commandement. But Wallaeus proceeds and ſhewes the ſame to have been the judgement of Ʋrſinus, and Paraeus of the Palatinate; of Alſtedius Profeſſor at Herborne; together with Lansbergius and Feſtus Hommius, all maintaining the morality of one day in ſeven, to bee conſecrated to Divine Service. And in the cloſe profeſſeth, hee could adde the teſtimonies of many Engliſh and Scottiſh Divines, who ever have beene accompted Orthodox, concurring in judgement with the former on this point.
…veſtig. Sab. cap. 5. ſect. 4.Laſt of all conſider, what is Gomarus his owne opinion; to wit, that we are not ſo preciſely bound to this proportion of time, but that wee may allow a better. The condition of Divine worſhip (ſaith he) commanded in the fourth Commandement requires that not only certaine dayes (for order and for Gods better ſervice ſake) be obſerved, but alſo that ſufficient dayes be obſerved; it cannot be inferred from this that God hath not defined a certaine day to us, that it is indifferent whether we make choyce of one in fifty, or in an hundred, or one in a thouſand. Sect. 5.Then proceeding to define what are ſufficient, hee acknowledgeth that the dayes ſet apart for this muſt bee either as frequent or more frequent, then one day in ſeven. And in this anſwer of Gomarus to an argument of Wallaeus made for the morality of one day in ſeven doth Rivetus reſt;Explicat. decalog p. 486. namely that to us who are eaſed of the burthen of Iewiſh ceremonies, the dayes conſecrated to Divine Service may be more, they may not be fewer. And addes of his own, that we cannot in charity require of our ſervants the labour of ſo many dayes (to wit of ſix) without ſome reſt. As for the ſeconds which this Prefacer ſaith Gomarus brings, to wit Vatablus, and Wolfgangus Muſculus, this is nothing to the preſent purpoſe. For theſe are not brought in by him in the point of the morality of one day in ſeven, but onelyonly in the point of the originall inſtitution of the Sabbath; but this is his jugling courſe to mendicate ſome ſhew of authority to ſerve his turne where ſubſtance falleth him.
3. As for the Hollanders who in travailing about the World Weſtward had loſt a day, that is, came to obſerve our Chriſtian Sabbath one day too late; when this Prefacer askes hereupon, what ſhould thoſe people doe when they were returned; I will not anſwer by adviſing them to travaile the World over againe Eaſtward, that they may finde the day which they had loſt, by travailing round the World Weſtward; much leſſe that they ſhould renew their travailes the ſame way till they had loſt ſix dayes more, that ſo their Sabbath might concurre with the Sabbath of their Countreymen at home: but according to the particulars propoſed by him; namely to concurre now with their Countrymen a day before their time, that ſo they might make amends for that time which they had loſt, if any neede of amends, and not rather for uniformities ſake. For when in the dayes of Joſhuah the Sunne ſtanding ſtill one day was as long as two dayes, yet this was nothing materiall to the altering of their Sabbath, much leſſe when the Sunne went backe 10. degrees in the diall of Ahaz, while King Hezechiah reigned. No ſober man I thinke will ſay, the morall Law was broken by this, though one weeke in Joſuahs dayes contained more time by 12. houres, then any former weeke, and another weeke in King Hezechiahs dayes was found to bee many houres longer then his fellowes.