The Morality of the Fourth Commandment Still in Force, Answer to prefacer · Section 2
Preface.The ſecond Section.
BUt after in the darker times, as it is thought by ſome, Peter de Bruis, the founder of the Petrobruſians (he was burnt for hereſie 1 126.) began to draw too deep on theſe lees of Judaiſme, which here our Doctor intimates in the ſeventh Section, where he joynes the Petrobruſian with the Ebionites, who indeed were Jewiſh in this point.
2. And poſſibly from the remainders of this doctrine, Fulco a French Prieſt, and a notable hypocrite, as our King Richard compted him, lighted upon a new Sabbatarian ſpeculation, which afterwards Euſtachius, one of his aſſociates, diſperſed in England. I call it new, as well I may. For whereas Moſes gave commandement to the Jewes, that they ſhould ſanctifie one day only in the week, viz. that ſeventh whereon God reſted: They taught the people that the Chriſtian Sabbath was to begin on Saturday at three of the clocke, and to continue till Sun-riſing upon the Munday morning: During which latitude of time, it was not lawfull to doe any kind of worke what ever; no not ſo much as bake bread on Saturday for the Sundayes eating; to waſh or dry linnen for the morrowes wearing. Yea, they had miracles in ſtore, pretended to to be wrought on ſuch as had not yeelded to their doctrine, thereby to countenance the ſuperſtitious, and confound the weake. And which was more than this, for the authority of their device, they had to ſhew a letter ſent from God himſelfe, and left prodigiouſly over the Altar in Saint Simeons Church in Golgotha: wherin the Sabbatarian dream was impoſed forſooth upon all the world, on paine of diverſe plagues, and terrible comminations, if it were not punctually obſerved. The letter is at large reported by Roger Hoveden; and out of him, Anno 1201.as I ſuppoſe, by Matthew Paris: who doe withall repeat the miracles, wherby this doctrine was confirmed. I adde no more but this, that could I either beleeve thoſe miracles, which are there related: or ſaw I any now, like thoſe to countenance the reviving of this ſtrange opinion (for now it is received and publiſhed) I might perhaps perſwade my ſelfe to entertain it.
Exam.
It ſeemes this Author is not of their opinion, who thinke thoſe times wherein Peter de Bruis lived, about the yeare 1126. to have been darker times than the dayes of Gregory; though ſome paſſe ſuch cenſure on thoſe times, accompting them times of darkneſſe, hee is more wiſe than to concurre in opinion with them; and it is a part of his wiſedome (as it ſeemes) to affect, that the world ſhould take notice of ſo much, namely, that he puts it upon ſome only to cenſure thoſe times, as times of darkneſſe Now who are thoſe ſome? not Papiſts I preſume, but Proteſtants rather; and what true Proteſtant can he name that thinkes otherwiſe? we have cauſe to feare that too many for their advantage, can be content to veile themſelves under the vizard of Proteſtants, when in heart they are Papiſts neither is it poſſible, (I ſhould thinke) that any other but ſuch, ſhould thinke any better of thoſe times, than as of times of darkneſſe. It is very likely, this Author is not of opinion, that the man of ſinne is yet revealed, or any ſuch time the Apoſtle prophecyeth of 2 Theſſ. 2. of giving men over to illuſions to beleeve lyes, for not receiving the love of the truth. I much doubt whether he beleeves that Rome is the whore of Babylon, whereof Saint Iohn ſpeaketh, Revel. 17. though he profeſſeth of that whore of Babylon, that it is that City, which in his dayes did rule over the Kings of the earth: yet in that which he accounts light, he can be content to concurre with Calvin, in denying the morality of the fourth Commandement, as touching one day in ſeven to be ſanctified unto the Lord. But whatſoever this Peter de Bruis was, whom he profeſſeth to have drawne too deepe on the lees of Judaiſme, hee avoucheth no teſtimony hereof, but only D. Prideaux his joyning the Petrobruſians with the Ebionites, Sect. 7. Now Hoſpinian profeſſeth that which is directly contrary, of the Petrobruſians; as whom he joynes with the Anabaptiſts, maintaining Feſtos dies omnes ad ceremonias Iudaeorum pertinere, & propterea nullos eſſe debere apud Chriſtianos, quum ceremoniae veteris Teſtamenti omnes Chriſti adventu ſint impletae, & ideo ſublatae. Quorum etiam ſententiae Anabaptiſtae hodie ſuffragari videntur. That all Holidayes belong to the ceremonies of the Iewes, and that therefore none ſuch are to be obſerved by Chriſtians, ſeeing all the ceremonies of the old Teſtament are fulfilled, and abrogated by the comming of Chriſt. And the Anabaptiſts now adayes ſeeme to be of the ſame opinion. In the third Tome of the Councels ſet forth by Binius, and 2. part, there is an enumeration of his opinions in five particulars, and that, as it ſeemes by the cloſe, out of Petrus Cluniacenſis; not one of them is any thing a kin to thoſe Sabbatarian fancies, which this Prefacer inſiſts upon. Petrus Cluniacenſis, as it ſeemes, was the man that moſt oppoſed this Petrus de Bruis. Againſt his errors he wrote a book in forme of an Epiſtle on theſe points. 1. Of the Baptiſme of children. 2. Of the authority of the booke of the Acts of the Apoſtles. 3. Of the authority of the Epiſtles of Saint Paul. 4. Of the authority of the Church. 5. Of the authority of the old Teſtament. 6. Againe, of the baptiſme of children. 7. Of Temples, Churches, and Altars. 8. Of the veneration of the holy Croſſe. 9. Of the ſacrifice of the Maſſe, and of the truth of Tranſubſtantiation. 10. Of prayers for the deceaſed. 11. Of praiſing God by Hymnes and muſicall inſtruments. Thus Bellarmine relates the heads of that diſcourſe of his; not any of which, for ought I perceive, ſavoureth of any ſuch Sabbatarian fancie, as this Author driveth it unto. At length I got into my hands Bibliotheca Cluniacenſis, and therein the writing of Petrus Cluniacenſis againſt the Petrobruſians. Upon all which, one Andreas Puercetanus Turonenſis, hath written certaine notes, wherein upon theſe words in the Preface Contra haereſes Petri de Bruis, hee writes thus; Of this Peter of Bruis who gave name to the Petrobruſian heretiques, no mention is found, neither in the hiſtorians, who write the ſtory of thoſe times, nor with them, who then, or a little after, contrived the Indices of haereſies and hereſiarches. Alphonſus à Caſtro (as I thinke) was the firſt, who after this our Author, remembred him, lib. 3. 5. Baptiſma. haereſ. 5. and writes that he was a French man of the province of Narbon. Although Bernard the ſonne of Guido writes that Pope Calixtus the ſecond, in the yeare 1128. on the eight of the Ides of Iune held a Councell at Tolouſe with Cardinals, Archbiſhops, Biſhops and Abbats of the Province of Gothia, Gaſcony, Spaine, and hither Britany. In which Councell, amongst other things ordered there, all thoſe haeretiques were damned and driven out of the Church, who counterfeiting a ſhew of religion, did condemne the Sacrament of the Lords body and blood, the Baptiſme of children, and all Eccleſiaſticall Orders, and the bands of lawfull marriages. All which hereſies as invented by Peter Bruis, and propagated by Henry his ſucceſſour, our Peter in this Treatiſe of his doth purſue. So that this whole ſtory ſeemes very obſcure; and yet the two latter points mentioned by this Andreas, I doe not find to be any of the opinions laid to the charge of Peter Bruis by thoſe that were contemporary with him. For Petrus Cluniacenſis reduceth all his hereſies (as hee calls them) but to theſe five heads. 1. He denyes that children before they come to the age of underſtanding can be ſaved by the Sacrament of Baptiſme, and that anothers faith can profit him, who cannot uſe his owne; becauſe by their opinion, not another mans faith but his owne with Baptiſme ſaveth him, the Lord profeſſing, that whoſoever ſhall beleeve, and bee baptized, hee ſhall be ſaved; but whoſoever will not beleeve ſhall be damned. 2. That there ought not to be any fabricke of Temples or Churches, that ſuch as are made, ought to be throwne downe; that holy places for prayers are not neceſſary for Chriſtians, becauſe as well in a Taverne as in the Church, as well in the Market-place, as in the Temple; before an Altar, or before a ſtable God doth heare being called upon, and heareth them who are worthy. 3. He commands holy croſſes to be broken in peeces and burned, becauſe the repreſentation of ſuch an inſtrument, whereupon Chriſt was ſo direfully tortured, and cruelly ſlaine, is not worthy of any veneration or ſupplication; but in revenge of Chriſts torments and death, to be diſgraced with all manner of ignominy, and to be hewen in peeces with ſwords, and burnt with fire. 4. He doth not only deny the truth of the Lords body and blood daily, and continually to be offered in the Church by the Sacrament; but determines it to be altogether nothing, and that it ought not to be offered unto God. 5. He mocks at the ſacrifices, prayers, almes, and other good workes, which the faithfull that are living performe for the faithfull that are departed, and maintaines that they are nothing profitable to one that is dead. Now in all this I find nothing at all that ſavoureth of any Jewiſh opinion concerning the obſervation of the Sabbath. And more than that; when I conſider the matter of theſe Articles for the moſt part, and the courſe of thoſe times to make worſe of their opinions (who ſpake or wrote againſt the ſuperſtitions of thoſe times) then there was juſt cauſe, I begin to ſuſpect that this Peter of Bruis might be an honeſt man, and more orthodox than they who procured his death. And is it not wonderous ſtrange, that none of the Hiſtorians of thoſe times ſhould make any mention of him? And that may be the reaſon, why we finde no mention at all made of him in the Booke of Acts and Monuments. And Philip Mornay in his myſterium iniquitatis, Pag. 309, 310.makes an apologie for this Peter de Bruis, as being a pious man, and thereupon hated, and finally martyred by the Papiſts.
2. Of any Sabbatarian ſpeculation (as this Prefacer calleth it) that Fulco the French Prieſt lighted on, this Author gives no evidence. For as for Roger Hoveden, I doe not finde, that he attributes any ſuch unto him. He writes much in his commendation, as that The Lord magnified him in the ſight of Kings, Fol. 448. pag. 2.and gave him power to give ſight to the blind, to cure the lame, the blind, and others of their diſeaſes. That Harlots and Uſurers, were by his preaching taken off from their lewd courſes. That hee foretold the Kings of France and England, that except they gave over their hoſtility the ſooner, one of them ſhould ſhortly dye of an evill death. But of any Sabbatarian ſpeculation hee was addicted unto I finde no mention. It is true, King Richard ſometime called him ſimply Hypocrite, not notable Hypocrite, as this Author expreſſeth it, affecting rather to ſpeake with a full mouth, than according unto plaine truth. And is it much if Kings take liberty to call men as they think good, eſpecially when they are provoked by them, as King Richard was by this Prieſt, as appeares by the ſtory which is well worth the relating, to obſerve both the preſent wit of that King, and the liberty of Prieſts with Princes in telling them their faults in thoſe dayes of yore. For on a day that Prieſt Fulco came to King Richard, and in very bold manner ſpake to him thus: I tell thee O King as from Almighty God, that thou make ſpeed to beſtow in marriage thoſe three wretched daughters, that thou haſt, leſt ſome worſe thing befall thee. Thou Hypocrite, quoth the King, thou lyeſt againſt thine owne head, for I have no daughter at all. Truly I doe not lye, quoth the Prieſt, for as I ſaid, thou haſt three wicked daughters, one of them is Pride, another Covetouſneſſe, the third Luxury. When the King heard this, he called his Earles and Barons that were about him, and ſaid, Heare the admonition of this hypocrite, who ſaith I have three wicked daughters, and commands me to marry them. Therefore I beſtow my Pride upon the proud Templers; my Covetouſneſſe upon the Monkes of the Ciſtercian Order; and my Luxury upon the Prelates of the Churches. Who though they profeſſed ſingle life, yet as Mr. Moulin obſerves in a like caſe of popiſh Prieſts, did not profeſſe continencie, they might be luxurious enough, and that not only in wayes naturall, but in wayes unnaturall alſo. This was a biting anſwer of the King, which the Hiſtorian no way liked, and therefore he cryes out in a poeticall ſtraine, O nimis indignum miſeris inferre cachinnum. But throughout no mention at all of any Sabbatarian ſpeculation that Fulco was poſſeſſed with. Indeed of Eustachius, who was one of his followers, we reade afterwards, fol. 457. p. 2. what wonderous workes were wrought by him, and what were the effects of his preaching among them, namely, that In London and divers other places in England, they would no more preſume to make the Lords dayes their market dayes. And that in every Church there ſhould be a lampe, or ſome light burning continually before the Lords body; and that Citizens and others would have an Almes veſſell upon their table, to lay aſide therein ſome proviſion for the poore. And that hereupon the Devill raiſed up againſt him ſome Miniſters of iniquity, who ſaid unto him, It is not lawfull for thee to put thy ſithe into anothers harveſt; to whom he anſwered, The harveſt is great, but the labourers are few. Therefore the foreſaid Abbat being thus rebuked by the miniſters of Satan, hee would no longer trouble the Prelats of England with his preaching, but returned unto his owne home in Normandy from whence hee came. Seven leaves after this, we find in the ſame Author, to wit, fol. 466. p. 2. That this Abbat of Flay returned into England, and preaching the Word of God from City to Citie, forbade all to make the Lords dayes their market dayes. For he ſaid that this Commandement for obſervation of the Lords day came from heaven. So that this ſpeculation of his was dominicall rather than Sabbatarian. And the mandate concerning this, is there ſet downe at large, pretended to have come from Heaven to Jeruſalem, and to have been found on the Altar of Saint Simeon in Golgotha; which whether it were feigned by him, or by others, and received by him on the faith of others, the Author ſpecifies not. But at the end thereof he ſhewes how that this Predicant comming to York, was there honourably entertained by the Archbiſhop, and Clergie, and whole people of that Citie; and albeit theſe things, you will ſay, were acted in times of darkneſſe; yet this Prefacer ſeemes to be of another opinion, though little pleaſed with Euſtachius his Sabbatarian ſpeculation. Here alone is mention made of the bounds he ſet to the obſervation of the Lords day, namely, that it was to continue from Saturday three of the clock in the afternoone, untill the Sun-riſing on Munday, in which time he would have them doe nothing but that which was good, and if they did, to amend their errors by repentance. A very reaſonable motion in my judgement; and if he had extended it to all the dayes of the weeke, yea, and houres too, I ſee no cauſe why for this hee ſhould be cenſured either as an hypocrite, or heretique. But as for the ſtrictneſſe of obſervation here mentioned, as namely, That during the foreſaid time, it was not lawfull to doe any kind of work what ever, no not ſo much as to bake bread for the Sundayes eating; to waſh or dry linnen for the morrowes wearing. I finde no ſuch thing preſcribed by Euſtachius, in the relation made by Roger Hoveden; and if Pariſienſis hath any ſuch, ſurely hee tooke it not out of Roger Hoveden; from whom yet this Prefacer affirmes he tooke that which he writes hereof. Nay it is directly contradictory to the Tenet of Euſtachius, as who determineth the obſervation of the Lords day to begin at three of the clock in the afternoone of the Eve preceding, in which time is found ſpace both to bake bread for the Sundayes eating, and to waſh or dry linnen for the morrowes wearing, if the weather hinder not. And as for the extenſion of the dominicall obſervation thus farre, in reſpect of the bounds thereof; I find no other doctrine preached by Euſtachius, than by the Lawes of the Kings who governed this Land, was ordained long before, even before the conqueſt. For not only King Ina commanded, That no man lay or ſpirituall, free or bond, ſhould labour on Act. & Mon. fol. 114. col. 2. & fol. 715. col. 1. & 2.the Sunday: and Edward the elder with Gythrum the Dane, made a law againſt all labour, buying and ſelling upon the Sabbath. Item, for no execution to be done on the Sunday: but amongſt King Edgars lawes, one was, That the Sunday ſhould be kept holy from Saturday at noone, till Munday in the morning. King Canutus alſo commanded celebration of the Sabbath from Saturday at noone, till Munday morning, forbidding markets, huntings, labours, and Court-keeping's during the ſaid ſpace. And it ſeemes to be the generall practiſe of Chriſtendome to allow (or command rather) a preparation for the ſanctifying of the Lords day; as appeares by the obſervation of Evening prayers, the day before, warning whereunto is uſually given at three of the clocke, by the ringing of a bell, or as in ſome places eſpecially in the winter ſeaſon, an houre ſooner, and ſchollars accordingly give up ſchoole, and preſent themſelves at Evening prayer. And we commonly account Saturday to be halfe holiday, and warning thereof is uſually given at noone by chiming the bells. And whereas we reade Exod. 31. 15. Six dayes ſhalt thou doe thy worke, and the ſeventh day foreign Schindler renders it Sabbathum Sabbathuli, and interprets it thus; Sabbathum is from evening to evening, Sabbathulum is that which of the profane day is added as a little Sabbath. And as for the ſtrict abſtinence from dreſſing of meats on Saturday, which this Author imputes to Euſtachius as his doctrine, but without all ground that I know: we are ſo farre from any ſuch Sabbatarian ſpeculation, that none of us (in my knowledge) doe think it unlawful to dreſſe meats on the Lords day. And wheras the Prefacer addes that they had miracles in ſtore pretended to be wrought on ſuch as had not yeelded to their doctrine, thereby to countenance the ſuperſtitious and confound the weaks. What one of an hundred in reading this would not imagine, that Euſtachius wrought theſe miracles for the countenancing of his former ſtrictneſſe: whereas yet on the contrary, neither doth it appeare, that he taught or obtruded upon them any ſuch ſtrictneſſe, preaching onelyonly againſt marketting on the Lords day. Neither were thoſe ſtrange accidents which here are called miracles, any miracles wrought by him: But the Monke, Roger of Hoveden writes, That the Lord Ieſus Chriſt, whom wee muſt obey rather than men; who by his Nativity, Reſurrection, and Advent, and ſending the Holy Ghoſt upon his Diſciples, did advance this day, which we call the Lords day, and dedicated (as) moſt celebrious; ſhewed miracles of his power, upon ſome tranſgreſſors of the Lords day in this manner. On a certaine Saturday after three of clocke, a certaine Carpenter of Beverlac, as he was making a woodden peg, contrary to the wholeſome admonitions of his wife, fell to the ground, taken with a palſie. The like ſtory followeth of a woman, which this Author, according to the Monks phraſe, is content to call Miracles. Now when we heare of as ſtrange a thing as this to have fallen out not long ſince in Bedfordſhire; as namely, a match at Foot-ball, being appointed on the Lords day in the afternoone; while two were in the Belfrey, and one of them tolling a bell to call the company together, there was heard a clap of thunder and lightning, ſeene by ſome ſitting in the Church-porch, as it came thorow a darke lane towards the Church, and flaſht in their faces who ſate in the Churchporch, and ſcared them; thence it went into the Church, and turning into the Belfery, tript up his heeles who was tolling the bell, and ſtruck him ſtarke dead; and the other with him blaſted in ſuch manner, that ſhortly after he dyed; we doe not call this a miracle, though we count it a remarkable judgement of God, and ſuch as deſerves to be conſidered, and ſeriouſly laid unto heart by all, to admoniſh them to take heed, that they be not found in like manner profaners of the Lords day. In like ſort when upon freſh relation we heare of the like ſport at Foot-ball on the Lords day, at a place called Tidworth, after Evening prayer in the Church-yard, and that therein one had his legge broken, which thereupon gangrened, ſo that forthwith he died thereof; we doe not call this a miracle; only it calls to our mind that of the Prophet, The Lord hath ſo done his marvellous works, that they ought to be had in remembrance. And we find that ſuch like judgements have been obſerved by Chriſtian Emperours, thereupon moved more ſtrictly to give in charge the obſervation of the Lords day, as Ludovicus Pius by name, as thus, Didicimus quoſdam in hoc die opera ruralia exercētes fulmine interemptos, quoſdam artuum contractione multatos, quoſdam viſibili igne abſumptos, ſubito in cinerē reſolutos, poenaliter occubuiſſe. Proinde neceſſe eſt, ut primum Sacerdotes, Reges, & Principes, cunctique fideles huic diei debitam obſervationem atque reverentiam devotiſſimè exhibeant; We have knowne ſome buſied in workes of husbandry on this day, to have beene ſlaine with lightning, ſome puniſhed with the contraction of their limbes, ſome with viſible fire conſumed, on a ſudden turned into aſhes, and ſo to have periſhed, as by way of puniſhment. Wherefore it is a neceſſary duty that in the firſt place Prieſts, then Kings, Princes, and all faithfull perſons, moſt devoutly exhibite due obſervation and reverence unto this day. The other miracles mentioned by the Monke are of another nature; as of a cake bak't on the hearth on Saturday after three a clocke in the afternoone, and how that part of it reſerved to the morning, and being then broken, blood came out of it, and another of the like nature; and two more. I ſay, theſe are of Roger Hovedens relation, not of Euſtachius his preaching; whom the Monke relates to have been in great eſteeme of the Clergie in thoſe dayes, and to have prevailed much with many of the people, though for the generall he could not bring them off from their marketing on the Lords day. Yet what are theſe to be talkt of in compariſon to thoſe which are compriſed in two bookes of miracles, written by Cluniacenſis? and albeit thoſe times may be accounted times of darkneſſe, in compariſon of ages fore-going, yet this Prefacer is ready to make anſwer, that that is but the opinion of ſome. But whereas hee ſaith, That this ſtrange opinion is now revived and publiſhed; firſt I deſire to know his meaning. For as for a preparation to the Sabbath, and that to begin from about three a clock in the afternoone, the whole Kingdome obſerves it; as for the ſtrict obſervation thereof, here mentioned, I have ſhewed that Euſtachius ſpeakes of no ſuch thing. If hee did, what is that to thoſe who ſuffer for ſtanding for the ſtrict obſervation of the Sabbath, againſt thoſe who would have the Lords day, at leaſt in part to be a day of ſports and paſtimes? Can he ſhew this to be their opinion? If he can, why doth he not? And if from three a clock on Saturday in the afternoone, people doe prepare for the Lords day, and abſtaine from ſuch workes, diſpatching both their baking bread, and other works in the morning, what danger or detriment is hereby likely to ariſe either to our faith or manners? What danger either to Prince, Church, or State?