The Morality of the Fourth Commandment Still in Force, Consideration of lecture · Section 5
5 In this fifth Section things are ſo carryed, that it is an hard matter to diſcerne the Doctors meaning, eſpecially in relating the different opinions, concealing the Authors of them and the place where they are to be found, and their arguments which here are only ſaid to be derived from the ſanctification of the ſeventh day in the firſt creation of the world, and from the inſtitution of the Sabbath in the fourth commandement: For herence it is ſaid, that they who ſtand for the tranſlation of the Sabbath from the ſeventh day of the week, to the Lords day, as by divine authority, doe draw their arguments for the juſtifying of their Tenet; which I willingly profeſſe, doth ſeeme a prodigy unto me; namely that any man ſhould diſpute thus. In the beginning of the world, the Lord commanded the ſeventh day to be ſanctified, therefore now under the Goſpell, the Sabbath is to be tranſlated from the ſeventh day to the firſt day of the weeke. Or thus, the Lord in the fourth commandement gave in charge to ſanctifie the Sabbath, and tells them, that the ſeventh day (of the weeke) was their Sabbath, therefore the tranſlation of the Sabbath from the ſeventh day of the weeke to the Lords day is of divine inſtitution: As touching the firſt of theſe deductions, that which comes neareſt thereunto, is the diſcourſe of Doctor Andrewes Biſhop of Wincheſter, in the Starre Chamber. The Sabbath had reference to the old creation, but in Chriſt we are a new creature, a new creation, and ſo to have a new Sabbath. And Athanaſius his diſcourſe long agone upon that of Matth. 11. 27. All things are given to me of my Father, Finis prioris creationis Sabbatum, The end of the firſt creation, was the Sabbath day, but the beginning of the ſecond creation is the Lords day: and of this hee diſcourſeth there more at large. And we find manifeſtly this notable congruitie betweene the Sabbath day and the Lords day, that like as God on the ſeventh day reſted from the worke of creation; ſo Chriſt our Saviour riſing on the firſt day of the weeke from the dead, made that the firſt day of his reſting from the worke of redemption. But when I conſider the Doctors ſharp cenſures of weakneſſe, of impudency, of ignorance; it is not credible he ſhould cloſely let flee at ſuch as Athanaeſius and Doctor Andrewes Biſhop of Wincheſter; Neither doe I find thoroughout this whole diſcourſe any notice taken of this ground, whereupon their diſcourſe runnes. It is more likely by farre that ſome meaner perſons, and poore ſnakes are herein ſet up as markes to ſhoot at, and as ſignes to be ſpoken againſt. It is true, many doe prove herence the morality of the fourth commandement; The author of the practice of pietie which goes under a Biſhops name, takes this courſe of his tenne arguments to prove the commandements of the Sabbath to be morall; this is the ſecond; Becauſe it was commanded of God to Adam in his innocency. Biſhop Andrewes in his Patterne of catecheticall doctrine taketh the like courſe, as formerly hath beene mentioned and which is more, profeſſeth This to be a principle: that the Decalogue is the law of nature revived, and the law of nature is the Image of God: now in God (ſaith he) there can be no ceremony, but all muſt be eternall: and ſo in this Image which is the law of nature; and ſo in the Decalogue, whereas a ceremony is foreign, and accordingly that one day in ſeven is to bee obſerved, and conſecrated unto Gods Service, as Chryſoſtome long agoe hath inferred herence; but it is nothing uſuall to inferre herence the celebration of the Lords day. In like manner not one that I know, ancient or late, doe conclude from the fourth commandement, either the celebration of the Lords day, or the tranſlation of the Sabbath from the ſeventh day to the firſt day of the weeke. But herence indeed they inferre (and moſt juſtly in my judgement) that if one day in the weeke were to be conſecrated unto the Lord, by vertue of the morall law, in the dayes of the old Teſtament, much more doth it become us (by the very light of nature) to conſecrate as good a proportion of time to Gods ſervice under the Goſpell; And accordingly to reſt from all workes, that hinder the ſanctification of that day in the exerciſes of pietie, and ſo farre forth as they are found to hinder it, not for any myſterious ſignifications ſake, in which reſpect a very rigorous reſt is moſt commonly conceived to bee enjoyned to the Jewes. I doe wonder the Canoniſts are reckoned amongſt thoſe, who doe build the celebration of the Lords day, upon the conſtitution of the Church and affirme this abſolutely; when in the next Section many Canoniſts are alleaged out of Azorius, as maintaining the divine authority of the Lords dayes: and one of them, Sylveſter by name, profeſſing it to be opinionem communem. And 22. q. 44. art. 1.as for Schoole-men, it is apparant, that Dominicus Bannes, puts a manifeſt difference betweene the Lords day and other feſtivities, which are ex inſtitutione eccleſiae. And whereas Bellarmine is alleaged as the mouth of the Schoolemen, to affirme abſolutely, that the celebration of the Lords day, is by the conſtitution of the Church, and that in diſtinction from them who ſay it was ordered by the Apoſtles: I find no ſuch matter in the place quoted, but rather the contrary, both confirming, that one day in a weeke is to be conſecrated to the Lord by law divine, and whereas it was not fit, that now the Saturday ſhould be it; therefore the Sabbath was turned into the Lords day by the Apoſtles; his words are theſe, Ius divinū requirebat ut vnus dies hebdomadae dicaretur cultui divino: non autem conveniebat ut ſervaretur Sabbatum. Itaque Sabbatum ab Apoſtolis in diem Dominicum verſum eſt; likewiſe Sixtus Senenſis ſaith, that the inſtitution of the Lords day is of the Apoſtles. as I have ſhewed in my anſwer to the preface S. 5. It is true that which is here reported of Brentius, as who profeſſeth it to be left indifferent to the Church to ordain one day in ſeven, or on day in fourteene to be conſecrated; which whether it be not an unreaſonable conceit, I am willing to appeale to the judgement of Doctor Prideaux, yet Gemardus the Lutheran will not follow Brentius in this (as I have ſhewed in my anſwer to the preface and 5. Section) For hee acknowledgeth the celebration of the Lords day, to be juxta Apoſtolorum conſtitutionem, And as for Chemnitius what he writes hereof, is not expreſſed, but for the divine authority of the celebration of the Lords day, I have repreſented the joynt conſent of ſome 11. or 12. of our moderne divines in the place before mentioned; Beſides the concurrence of the ancient Fathers, not one of them being ſo much as pleaded for the oppoſite Tenet; and laſtly the generall anſwer of Chriſtians in the times of perſecution, when they were demanded in this manner Dominicum ſervaſti, haſt thou kept the Lords day; for uſually it was this, Chriſtianus ſum, intermittere non poſſum: I cannot omit it, for I am a Chriſtian. The firſt opinion (to wit of thoſe who maintained the divine authoritie, of the celebritie of the Lords day by the old Teſtament) is here cenſured for inclining much to Judaiſine, but it is not expreſſed wherein. And it is apparant, they doe not maintaine the obſervation of the ſeventh day. Certainely this is delivered in reference to ſomewhat, that is not thought fit to be expreſſed; yet the prefacer did expreſſe it, imputing unto them whom he oppoſeth, that they doe obſerve the Jewiſh Sabbath, not in reſpect of the Jewiſh day, but of the Jewiſh manner obſerving it, to wit, in the way of a rigorous reſt. But I know none that maintaines any other reſt from works, then as they are avocations from ſacred ſtudies and meditations: whereas the Jewes obſerved it for ſome myſterious ſignification ſake, and thereupon were tyed to a more rigorous reſt. But let them ſpeake plainly, and ſay we are too rigorous in thinking ſports and paſtimes unlawfull on the Lords day. And herein I appeale to every Chriſtian conſcience; whether theſe be not as great avocations from ſacred ſtudies and meditations, as the workes of our ordinary callings. Then againe which of us comes neareſt to Judaiſme herein? Is it not againſt the Jewes, that Auſtin profeſſeth? Melius eſt orare quam ſaltare, Better to goe to plough then to dances; and Foeminae vcſtrae melius lanam facerent quam ſaltarent. Better it were your women ſhould ſpin wooll then dance: as their courſe was in their feſtivalls. Againe, why ſhould their opinion be Jewiſh, by maintaining it out of the old Teſtament; rather then out of the new? Then, who are they that maintaine it onelyonly by the old Teſtament? And laſtly, not one that I know (neither doe I thinke it can be juſtly obtruded on any) doe maintaine the ſucceſſion of the Lords day, in the place of the Jewiſh Sabbath, either by the originall inſtitution of it, as from the creation, or by the fourth commandement; yet upon theſe nullities is founded the imputation of both impudency and ignorance, in oppugning the received opinion of Divines: That confidently taken up for a received opinion among divines, which is in no tolerable ſort proved; not one Ancient alleaged for it, and but two Papiſts quoted; the one of which I have ſhewed to be of a plaine contrary opinion. And of Proteſtant Divines, I have repreſented no leſſe then eleven, maintaining the Apoſtolicall and divine conſtitution of the Lords day, beſides Gerardus the Lutheran, to affront Brentius; Nay, Doctor Prideaux himſelfe Sect. 7. maintaines that it is of Divine authority; and as I remember, in the veſpers at the laſt act unalterable by the Church; That the Prieſthood being changed, there is made alſo a change of the law we beleeve, becauſe the Apoſtle ſaith it Heb. 7. 12. & it is well if the Schoolemen make the word of God their principles; but of what Law? of the morall law, or of the tenne commandements; or any one of them? (yet we willingly confeſſe a change of one particular in one of them) & not rather of the law of ſacrifices; & ſuch a change as to ſet an end to them. That herence the Schoolemen conclude that at this day, the morall law bindeth not, as it was publiſhed and proclaimed by Moſes; but as at firſt it appertained no leſſe to the Gentiles then to the Iewes; this I ſay is a myſtery: And to confeſſe a truth, when I met with this, in a certaine manuſcript of one Brewers, it ſeemed to me a very wilde diſcourſe, from this place of the Apoſtle to inferre ſo much; but now I meet with it in a lecture, of ſo judicious and learned Divine as Doctor Prideaux, I will ſuſpend my judgement, and waite untill I heare what thoſe Schoolemen are, and where it is that they make ſuch inferences; that being made acquainted with them, I may judge of them according to my capacity, as they deſerve. Certainely Zanchy in the place quoted, makes no ſuch Inference from that place, Heb. 7. 12. yet the Doctrine which he delivers is good and ſound, though the inſtance he makes of the Sabbath, too weake to prove it, as appeares to all that acknowledge the Commandement of ſanctifying the Sabbath to be given to Adam, immediatly after his creation; who deſerve to be accompted more hot ſpurres then they, in whom The deſire of prey doth over-runne the ſent? Now what one of our Divines can be alleaged to derive the authority of the Lords day from the law of Moſes? I am verily perſwaded, not one: The ſanctifying of the Lords Sabbath they derive from thence, and the ſanctifying of one day in ſeven, but not the authority of the Lords day: But if it may appeare otherwiſe, that the Lords day by good authority is ſubſtituted in the place of the ſeventh to become our Chriſtian Sabbath, ſuch as our Saviour fore-prophecied of Matth. 24. 20. then from the fourth commandement, they may make bold to conclude, that it ought to be ſanctified. And this Zanchy himſelfe juſtifies in the place quoted Chap. 19, as before hath beene ſhewed. And our booke of homilies expreſly tell us, that now Sunday is become our Sabbath. But we keepe not the ſeventh day, the reſt on that day being ceremoniall, and prefiguring the reſt of Chriſt that day in his grave.
And as for the authority whereby wee have ſubſtituted the Lords Day in the place of the ſeventh, we anſwer, that we are not they that have ſubſtituted, but the Apoſtles have ſubſtituted it unto our hands; God having marked out that day unto them by a worke nothing inferior to the worke of Creation; to wit, the worke of Chriſts Reſurrection, ſuch a worke as brings with it a new Creation, and therewithall a new Sabbath, as Doctor Andrewes obſerves out of the ancients, and delivered as much in the Starre Chamber. And whereas under the Law the Jewiſh Sabbath was called the Lords Day; Now under the Goſpell the firſt day of the weeke is called the Lords Day in the language of the holy Ghoſt in the new Teſtament. And whereas our Saviour gives us plainly to underſtand, that wee are to have a Sabbath under the Goſpell Math. 24. 20. as the aforementioned Doctor Andrewes doth obſerve in his patterne of Catecheticall doctrine, In common reaſon, and in the conſcience of a Chriſtian what day ought to be this our Sabbath rather then the Lords Day, ſo called in the language of the holy Ghoſt; eſpecially conſidering that not that day of the yeere, but that day of the weeke is called the Lords Day, as by moſt generall acknowledgement of all the ancients hath beene ſuppoſed. And to urge one place more out of the old Teſtament, then here is in a violent manner obtruded upon us, Pſal. 118. 14. This is the day which the Lord hath made, let us rejoyce, and be glad in it, is evidently ſpoken of that day wherein the ſtone which the builders refuſed was made the head of the corner. Now by that ſtone the holy Ghoſt chiefely underſtands the Lord Chriſt, Mat. 21. 42. Marc. 12. 10. Luc. 20. 17. Acts 4. 11. 1 Pet 2. 7. and when was hee made the head of the corner, but in the day of his Reſurrection; the Apoſtle profeſſing, that He was Rom. 1. 4.declared mightily to be the Sonne of God touching the ſpirit of ſanctification by the Reſurrection from the dead. And under what ſtile did they reject him, and condemne him as a blaſphemer but for making himſelfe the Son of God? As for the rigorous obſervation of the reſt preſcribed unto the Jewes; as from kindling of fire, and dreſſing of meate; ſome qualifie that rigour, conceaving that kindling of fire was forbidden onelyonly for the works to be done about making the Tabernacle. This being delivered as a preface, Exod. 35. 2. when the free will offerings were now to be receaved for the promoting of the workemanſhip of that which formerly was commanded. And that dreſſing of meate was not forbidden them, no not in the gathering of Manna, as ſome thinke; if then, yet not as a generall courſe to be obſerved for ever; And as touching the Table that Nehemiah kept, thus we reade. Moreover there were at my Table, an 150. of the Iewes and rulers which Nehem. 5. 17. 18.came unto us from among the Heathen that are about us. And there was prepared daily an Oxe, and ſix choſen Sheepe, and Birds were prepared for me—and hee was ſo farre from conſciouſneſſe of profaning the Lords Sabbath herein, that hee concludes thus, Remember me O my God in goodneſſe, according to all that I have done for this people. But ſuppoſe they were tied ſo ſtrictly to ſuch a reſt, as from workes not ſervile, onelyonly in ſeeking againe, (as Zanchy inſtanceth the condition of a worke ſervile) but even from ſuch as tended to the refreſhing of their natures; yet the reaſon hereof depended upon the myſterious ſignification of this reſt, as formerly I have repreſented out of Lyra, from which ceremoniality wee are abſolved, and conſequently freed from that rigorous reſt depending thereupon, and reſt onelyonly from works ſo farre forth as they are avocations from Sacred Studies and meditations, as Calvin expreſſeth it; and this wee accompt a morall reſt, diſtinguiſhed from ceremoniall. And whereas the Doctor tells us that ſuch a like diſtinction is infirme, being content to ſay nothing to confirme it, ſave that the Text (as hee ſaith) affords it not: I had thought the very light of nature had beene ſufficient to embolden us to conclude, that where the ſanctification of the day is commanded, therewithall is commanded abſtinence from all ſuch things as would hinder the ſanctification of it, And as for the text it ſelfe, it is apparent that neither the kindling of the fire, nor dreſſing of meate is particularly forbidden in the fourth Commandement. Neither doth hee ſo much as obtrude upon his adverſaries that they derive the ſanctification of their chriſtian Sabbath from ought in the old Teſtament, ſave from Gen. 2. 3. and from the fourth Commandement. In neither of which doth he deale fairely; but is content to confound things that differ, as if in this particular he affected to fiſh in troubled waters; and we have better evidence (and indeed it is our only evidence therence) out of the old Teſtament, for the feſtivity of the Lords day, then he is willing to take notice of, namely out of the Pſal. 118. 24. Neither is it poſſible he ſhould be ignorant thereof, howſoever hee doth diſſemble his knowledge of it. Yet I hope it is enough for us to finde evidence for it in the Sunſhine of the Goſpell; and indeed here alone we have the originall obſervation of it, though that it ſhould be obſerved, is as evidently prophecied in the old Teſtament, as that Chriſt is the ſtone which was firſt refuſed of the builders, and after made the head of the corner, adding only this unto it, that the day wherein the Lord did this, and made ſo glorious a worke, marvellous in the eyes of men, was the day of the reſurrection, which I ſuppoſe no intelligent Chriſtian will deny, I come unto the 6. Section.