The Morality of the Fourth Commandment Still in Force, Defense of thesis
Defenſio Theſium de Sabbato.
13 I Take notice of Tertull, Iuſtin Martyr:] true; but they alter not my judgement: Theſ. 1.And why? I finde in them onelyonly a bare aſſertion, and that of a thing ſo remote from their times, that they could not know it otherwiſe then by relation. From the Scripture they had none; happily they had it from ſome Jewes. Galatinus alleadgeth ſome. But I oppoſe Jewes to Jewes. Philo Iudaeus de opificio Mundi not onelyonly is of a contrary opinion, but holdeth alſo that it was a feaſt common to all Nations, foreign. And peradventure ſome ſuch thing is meant by Heſiod his foreign. And it is not unlikely that God made the obſervation of the day a memoriall of the Creation. But I will not enlarge that diſcourſe. It ſhall ſuffice that Philo Iudaeus, and Aben Ezra alſo and others thinke otherwiſe, whoſe judgement our Orthodox In Decalog.Divines doe, if not all, yet for the moſt part follow. Read them upon the ſecond of Geneſis.
14 What the Patriarks did in point of religion, I thinke they did it by Divine direction. Yee know that 2.foreign did never pleaſe God; wherefore the Moſaicall Lawes (other then thoſe that had reference to the Church as nationall, and delivered out of the Egyptian bondage) are to be thought not introductory, but declaratory. Out of queſtion thoſe that concerned the ſubſtance of the ſervice which ſtood in ſacrifices, and I thinke concerning the circumſtance of time, and place.
The place; for there where God appeared, there did they erect their altars: yea, and in the ſtory of Rebecca it is plaine that ſhee went to a ſet place to Geu. 25.conſult the Lord. And why ſhall not the time come under the ſame condition?
15 The foreign muſt receive an anſwer from that which is added in confirmation of the 13 Theſis. It is but an ungrounded conjecture.
16 Where had Rhenanus that opinion? his varying from thoſe whom I anſwered on the 13 Theſis ſheweth that hee was not of Iuſtin Martyr or Tertullian his opinion, and yet giveth no reaſon that may move to credit him, or countervaile what I have alleadged for my opinion.
18 Yes, there is more, if you compare Deut. c. 5. with Exodus c. 20. but I meant not onelyonly that, but other paſſages which make the Sabbath a ſigne of Gods reſidence ſanctifying the Jewes, &c. which I expreſſed in the next theſis.
19 Bedes conceipt may paſſe for an allegory built upon a witty accommodation of the literall ſenſe which other fathers obſerved before him. But that cannot be the literall ſenſe of the Commandement. You will not deny it, if you grant that the Sabbath was inſtituted before the fall, which I thinke more then probable, though the Broughtoniſts haſten the fall before the Sabbath. And I cannot without good reaſon yield that the patriarchs had no ſet time for divine ſervice, I meane a weekely time.
31 True it is, that Chriſt did reſt from ſuffering upon the ſeventh; but the laſt enemy death was not apparently overthrowne untill the reunion of his ſoule, and body, till he roſe againe for our juſtification, &c. Therefore did the apoſtles make that the conſummation of redemption in Chriſts Perſon.
35 You cannot finde in all the 14. to the Romans that the Apoſtle is poſitive in the doctrine of dayes, he expreſſeth a mutuall indulgence untill men had attained foreign concerning the liberty from Moſes Law. Neither doth he beare out the Gentiles againſt the Jewes, but qualifie rather the deſtempered zeale of the Gentiles that were too hot againſt the Jewes; Senſus dictorum ſumendus eſt ex cauſis dicendorum, It is plaine that there was a queſtiō, whether the Chriſtian gentile ſhould be preſſed to obſerve the ceremonies whereunto the chriſtian Jewes were pertinaciouſly addicted? but never was there (for ought I read) a queſtion whether the Jewes ſhould keepe the Lords day? for I think they never refuſed it. Had there been ſuch a quarrell, I would enlarge the ſenſe of that Chapter, as you doe, to our queſtion, but ſeeing there was not, I ſee not how it ſhould be reaſonably done.
36 I ſay not that the Apoſtles imprinted any holineſſe upon the firſt day of the weeke; It was Chriſts reſurrection that honoured that day, which (I ſay) the Apoſtles were to reſpect, not arbitrarily, but neceſſarily. You may perceive the reaſon in my Theſes. You cannot obſerve from the beginning of the world any other inducement to the inſtitution of feaſts, but Gods worke done on the day; If it were not a continued worke, as the dwelling in Tabernacles.
But you thinke the Apoſtles did not preſcribe the obſervation of that day; No? you confeſſe they made choice of it, and were moved ſo to doe by the reaſon which I alleage, And were they not ſcattered over all the world? & where they came did they not all give the ſame order for the ſacred aſſemblies? And ſhall we thinke that this could be done without an apoſtolicall preſcript?
37. & 43. I conjoyne them, becauſe one anſwer will cleare both; Let us then firſt agree, what it is for a thing to be Liberae obſervationis. The Queſtioniſt in his interpretation, which commonly is received, leaveth a poſſibility for an alteration by humane auctority, if any reaſon ſhall perſwade a conveniency ſo to doe; though ſo long as publike auctority commandeth it, he will have it dutifully obſerved.
Whereupon will follow a Conſectary or two. Firſt, that this Law doth not immediately bind the conſcience, becauſe Merè humani Iuris poſitivi.
Secondly, that Extra ſcandalum, a man may tranſgreſſe it. For example, a Tradeſman may worke in his Chamber, if no body bee privy to it.
If this be the Commentary upon Libera obſervatio (and if it be well inquired into, you will finde that I doe not miſtake the meaning) then I profeſſe I cannot like of ſuch a Libera obſervatio.
For I am perſwaded that if all Chriſtendome ſhould meete, and have never ſo plauſible a ground, they cannot alter the day de jure, though de facto they may; but it is worſe then p…eviſhneſſe ſo to doe. And why? they cannot alter the firſt ground, Chriſts riſing upon that day. Secondly, they cannot alter the uniforme order that upon that undenyable ground was ſet down by the Apoſtles themſelves, which were infallibly guided by the Holy Ghoſt.
And out of theſe grounds I deduce, that the Law doth immediately bind their conſcience.
And that it is to be obſerved, even where it may be tranſgreſſed without any ſcandall.
Chriſt and the Apoſtles were not abſolutely bound to lay ſuch a foundation of the Lords Day, and ſo it was Liberae inſtitutionis; but they having layd it, I deny that it is now Liberae Obſervationis; ſo that under God I know no power that can alter it.
The Fathers ſpeake of the Jewiſh Sabbath, and Theſ. 49.Allegorize that as it was carnally uſed by the Jewes. But we ſhall wrong the Fathers, if we thinke they held that there was no Morality in the Letter of the Commandement.
For though there were a myſtery figured in it, yet they doe not deny that there was a morall proportioning of time for Divine Service preſcribed therein, which is the ſeventh part of the weeke.
It is one thing to ſay that all our life time we muſt be religious in our converſation, and keepe a ſpirituall Sabbath; anotherthing to affirme that we muſt not have a ſolemne weekely day, wherein to intend onelyonly Divine worſhip.
This laſt point the Fathers doe not ſay, the former they doe, and to argue from their Omiſſion, is to extend their words beyond their meaning; at leaſt, their meaning is not adaequate to the ſenſe of the Commandement.
No nor to their practiſe; For they did conſtantly obſerve a ſeventh part of the weeke, which I ſay is the firſt principle contained in the fourth Commandement.
Though I deny not but there is moreover a limitation to the ſeventh day from the Creation expreſt, which Chriſt and his Apoſtles altered; but this alteration cannot overthrow the firſt principle; they may both well goe together.
To the particular allegations out of the Fathers I will anſwer no more then, that what they ſay is true, but doth not contradict what I hold. For the myſticall ſenſe doth not overthrow the literall of the Commandement. And they underſtand the ſeventh day preciſely from the Creation, which we confeſſe altered, and ſpeake not of the divine Ordinance, for the apportioning of time, but the carnall obſervation of the Jewes.
And your anſwer to the firſt Queſtion grounded on the Fathers words may paſſe for good; but there is more in the Commandement then ſo.
Your Anſwer to the ſecond I cannot ſo well approve, becauſe it is Excluſive.
As for your third anſwer, That the fourth Commandement is not the Law of nature, but a poſitive law; take the Law of Nature for Morall Reaſon, then I think there is more then meere poſitiveneſſe in it. For morall reaſon teacheth to honour the day whereon the work is done; and that morall reaſon which gave this in charge was Apoſtolicall, and ſo of a commanding power in both. And then you ſee that it is neither meerely poſitive, nor meerely naturall, but mixt, and ſo binding accordingly, ut ſupra ad Theſin. 37. & 43.
You adde two Queſtions.
1 Whether ſeeing the Lords day ſucceeds the Jewiſh Sabbath, wee are to keepe it in the ſame manner, and with the ſame ſtrictneſſe?
Firſt I hold in my Theſes, that our Lords day doth properly ſucceed the Sabbath inſtituted at the Creation.
Whereupon I ſeparate all the Acceſſories from Moſes Law.
Secondly, The Jewes did miſconſture the ſtrickneſſe of their Sabbath, as appeareth by the many corrections of our Saviour in the Goſpell, and his Generall Rule: The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.
Thirdly, They held that they might not ſo much as kindle a fire, or dreſſe Meat upon that day, grounding their conceipt upon the Texts that are Ex. 35. & cap. 16.
But both Texts ſeeme to be wreſted; for that Exod. 35. about kindling a fire, muſt be limited by the verſe going before, and is not to be underſtood of any other kindling of fire, then for following of their Trades or Servile workes, as they are called. And ſo Munſter, Vatable, and others upon that place cenſure their miſtake.
And that it is a miſtake againſt the meaning of the Commandment, I gather from hence: For the Jewes that will not put their owne hands to kindle a fire, will hire Chriſtians to doe it for them; as if the Commandment did not reach Servants and ſtrangers within their gates; and they offend as much in doing it by others, as if they did it by themſelves. But ſo doe they uſe to abuſe the Scripture, and confute their Gloſſes by their owne practice.
As for the 16. Chapter of Exod. which ſeemeth to forbid the dreſſing of Meat, I hold that miſtaken alſo. Read the Chapter and mark whether you can finde that upon the ſixth day they were to dreſſe any more then ſerved for that day, and to lay up the reſt undreſſed untill the Sabbath; at what time (I hope) they were to dreſſe it before they did eat it.
And indeed only the providing of Manna is there forbidden, and a promiſe (whereof they had experience) that it would not putrifie upon the Sabbath, though they kept it till then, whereas upon other dayes it would.
And in this ſenſe doe I underſtand the ſevere puniſhment of him that gathered ſticks upon the ſeventh day, it was becauſe he then made his proviſion, and did it, it ſhould ſeeme, with an high hand. Numb. cap. 15.
As for recreations I can ſay nothing, but that ſeeing the Lords day is to be the exerciſe of that life which is ſpirituall, and as a foretaſt of that which is eternall, it were to be wiſht that wee did intend thoſe things as farre as our frailty will reach.
But Vivitur non cum perfect is hominibus, and wee muſt be content to have men as good as we may, when it is not to be hoped they will be as good as they ſhould.
Yet we muſt take heed that we doe not ſolemnize our feaſt vainly as either the Iewes or Gentiles did.
Againſt whom Nazianzene is very tart, & Tertul. in his Apolog.
In the Civill Law we finde a diſpenſation for Husbandmen in caſe of neceſſity, contrary to the Jewiſh policy, Exod. 34.
Which is followed by our Law. Edward. the 6. Wee may in apparrell and diet, be more liberall and coſtly on feaſts then on other dayes.
A foreign were Corporall feaſts joyned to the Euchariſt, wherein the rich did feed the poore.
Which afterward for inconvenience was removed out of the Church.
I meane the Corporall feaſt (although in Saint Auſtins confeſſions you ſhall find, that in Saint Ambroſe days there were foreign at the Toombs of Martyrs which Saint Ambroſe tooke away.
But though the foreign were taken out of the Church, yet upon thoſe dayes the rich relieved their poore Brethren.
Which they little thinke of, that for feare of breaking the Sabbath have taken away Hoſpitality.
Some men are over-nice in this point, more nice then Chriſt himſelfe, Luc. 14. who on the Sabbath went to a feaſt, and that was to a wedding feaſt.
And why not? ſeeing the Sabbath is Symbolum Aeternae, not only quietis, but Laetitiae; therefore reſembled to a feaſt without the toyle of Acquiſition.
So that the Sabbath is not violated by feaſts, if wee exceed not Neceſſitatem Perſonae, though Natura wee doe.
Now Neceſſitas Perſonae requireth that more be imployed in providing feaſts; as a Kings diet then a Subjects, a Noble then a Common mans, a Colledge then a ſingle Perſon:
But we muſt take care Ne quid nimis in victu, joy &c. Alogia which S. Auſtin reproves Epist. 86. ad Caſulanum muſt not be uſed.
And we muſt keepe the Apoſtles rule; Whether wee eat or drinke, we muſt doe all to the glory of God.
And it were to bee wiſhed, that the old practice, whereof there is a Patterne in the Kings houſe, & ſome Cathedrall Churches, were every where in uſe.
That at ſix a Clock in the Morning Prayers, were every where appointed for Servants and ſuch as were to prepare dinner, to goe then to Church, at whoſe returne the Maſters might goe with the reſt of their familie.
As for other recreations, if they be not oppoſite or prejudiciall to Piety, they may well ſtand with the ſolemnizing of the Sabbath and other feaſts.
Too much Auſterity doth rather hurt then good; eſpecially in thoſe dayes, wherein Indulgence, where of we have Patternes in Gods Synchoreticall Lawes, is extorted from thoſe that are in Authoritie, by the generall corruption of the time.
Wherefore I would diſtinguiſh in ſuch caſes betweene the Precept and permiſſion.
The Precept ſheweth whereunto men ſhould tend and be exhorted; and it were to be wiſhed they would follow, and keepe the Lords Day, as they are directed by the Canon and Injunction.
The Permiſſion ſheweth what muſt be tollerated for the hardneſſe of mens hearts.
Vacation from bodily labour is required both Perſe; for it is a figure of our freedome from thoſe Animall toyles in the Church Triumphant, and alſo Propter aliud, that we may the better intend our ſpirituall life.
To conclude all, ſeeing all agree that it muſt be obſerved, and differ onelyonly upon what ground and how farre; ſeeing to fetch the authority from God, and to keepe it with all reaſonable ſtrictneſſe maketh moſt for Piety, in a doubtfull caſe, I incline thither, though I condemne not them that are otherwiſe minded, wiſhing that ſobriety of judgement to all in ſuch diſputes, which Saint Paul commendeth Rom. c. 14.
FINIS.