Defense of the Christian Sabbath, Discourse (3 of 3)
But whether we render it Sabbath-day or Sabbath-days the sense is still the same. And the Apostles design in all these places seems to be this, that though to the Iews, to whom it had once been a Law, he doth allow a liberty (till they should be better satisfied) for each to follow his own judgment (without censuring others) as well in this of the Iewish Sabbath, as in the business of Circumcision, and the abstinence from Meats, and their other Rites; yet he would by no means suffer these to be brought upon the Gentiles as a new Yoke to which before they had not been subject.
I say as a new Yoke to which they had not been subject. For though I do admit that by natural light, or the Law of Nature, man ought to allow a competent time for the solemn service of God; and, by a positive Law, that it should be at least one day in seven, that is, after six days of Labour, the seventh to be a day of Rest; and so much to be intended in the Fourth Commandment. Yet, I do not think it to be so determined to this day in order, as to be unchangable to after Ages.
We can be no ways sure, that the seventh day in order from the first raining of Manna, Ex. 16. was the seventh in order from the Creation. And as they did observe it then in order from thence; so when Christ, or his Apostles by direction from him, did put it into a new order, this new order doth as well sute the words of the Fourth Commandment as that former.
I do the rather say that this to the Gentiles is a new Yoke, because I find this to be given as a sign, a covenant, or distinctive mark given to the Jews, as Gods peculiar People, in contradistinction to other Nations; just as Circumcision was. So Exod. 31. 13. My Sabbaths ye shall keep, for it is a Sign between me and you throughout your generations, and ver. 16. The Children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations for a perpetual Covenant, and ver. 17. It is a Sign between me and the Children of Israel for ever. So Ezek. 20. 12. I gave them my Sabbaths to be a Sign between me and them; and ver. 20. They shall be a Sign between me and you, that ye may know that I am the Lord your God. Just as it is said of Circumcision, Gen. 17. 7. I will establish my Covenant between me and thee (saith God to Abraham) and thy seed after thee, for an Everlasting Covenant, to be a God unto thee and thy seed after thee: and ver. 10, 11. This is my Covenant which ye shall keep between me and you, and thy seed after thee, every male-child among you shall be Circumcised, and it shall be a Token of the Covenant between me and you: and ver. 13. My Covenant shall be in your flesh an everlasting Covenant, (not as if Circumcision were to be for ever obligatory; but rebus sic stantibus, so long as things continued in that estate.) And so it is called Rom. 4. 11. He received the Sign of Circumcision, a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith. And such was the Bloud of the Paschal Lamb on the Doorposts of the house, Ex. 12. 7. to be a distinctive mark between the Israelites and the Egyptians; as ver. 13. The bloud shall be to you for a Token upon the houses where you are, and when I see the bloud I will pass over you. And so Ex. 11. 5, 6, 7. That ye may know how that the Lord doth put a Distinction between the Egyptians and Israel.
And our Author himself, pag. 26. doth press the same, and puts great weight upon it, that this Seventh-day-sabbath is often called a Sign for ever between him and them, and a perpetual Covenant, to Distinguish his people from others; that is, the people of the Jews from other Nations. And so to be a Sign for Ever, as Circumcision is an Everlasting Covenant.
Now whatsoever was a Distinctive Mark of the People of Israel, from other Nations, as was that of Circumcision, the Pass-over, and the Seventh-day-sabbath, was at an end and to cease when the partition-wall was broken down between Jew and Gentile, when Christ had made both one, and abolished in his flesh the Enmity, (even the law of Commandments contained in Ordinances,) to make of twain One new man; to reconcile both in One body by the Cross, having slain the Enmity thereby, Eph. 2. 14, 15, 16. Or as it is Col. 2. 14. Having blotted out the hand-writing of Ordinances which was against us, and was contrary to us, (as separating us Gentiles from the Jews, and so excluding us out of Gods Visible Church,) and nailing it to his Cross. From whence he there infers, ver. 16. Let no man Therefore judge you in meat or drink, or in respect of a holy-day (a Festival) or of Sabbaths, (the proper name, at that time, of the Seventh-day Sabbath:) which things are a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ; these being but shadows or empty things, whereas it is the body, (the Substance) that Christ regards. foreign, those are but shadow, but 'tis the Body that Christ looks at. That is (in our language) those are only Circumstantials, but 'tis substance or the Substantials of Religion that Christ and Christianity respects. And, as it is meerly Circumstantial (and doth not at all influence Religion) whether in the Temple or other place God be worshiped (Ioh. 4. 21.) So, whether on this or another day, a Sabbath be kept.
If therefore those Sabbaths (as is shewed) were distinctive Marks or Signs of Gods peculiar Covenant or Contract with the Church of Israel as their peculiar God, in contradistinction to other Nations; then 'tis manifest that those other Nations did not at all keep a Sabbath, or not on that Day; (else how could this be a distinctive Mark?) and therefore to bring this now upon the Gentiles, was to bring upon them a new Yoke.
I add further, that this Iewish Sabbath (as is shewed before) seems to be, not a Continuation of a former Sabbath from the Creation, (which I doubt was either not observed at all, or had long before this time been forgot,) but rather a New Institution or Restitution after their coming out of Egypt (from a new Epocha) at Marah; where God is said to have made a Statute and an Ordinance, Exod. 15. 25. to which Commandment and Statute if they would hearken diligently and give Ear, he would not bring upon them the Diseases which he had brought upon Egypt, For (saith he) I am the Lord that healeth thee, ver. 26. Whereupon follows (in the next Chapter) a sabbath to be observed on the seventh-day from the first raining of Manna, (not from the first Creation.) And with reference to their Rest or Refreshing after their Labour or Bondage in Egypt; (as was that of the Pass-over, to their being passed-over, when the first-born of the Egyptians were slain.) For so he saith, Exod. 31. 13. My Sabbath shall ye keep, for it is a Sign between me and you, that ye may know that I am the Lord that doth sanctifiy you (or separate you to my self as a peculiar people, a holy people;) and ver. 16, 17. The Children of Israel shall keep my Sabbaths (foreign) for a perpetual Covenant; It is a Sign between Me and the Children of Israel for ever; for in six days the Lord made Heaven and Earth, and on the Seventh Day he Rested and was Refreshed. Not that God was Wearied with his Work, and needed Refreshment; but he doth parallel his Rest after his Work of Creation, with their Refreshment after their Labour in Egypt.
And that God had a particular respect to their Rest and Refreshment from their Labour and Bondage in Egypt; is farther evident, not onelyonly from the General Preface to all the Commandments, (I am the Lord thy God which brought thee out of the Land of Egypt, out of the house of Bondage;) but from the Close of this Fourth Commandment, as it is repeated in Deut. 5. 12, 13, 14, 15. (somewhat different from what is in Exod. 20.) where, (instead of For in six days the Lord made Heaven and Earth, &c. Exod. 20. 11.) we have (Deut. 5. 15.) And remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the Lord thy God brought thee out thence, through a mighty hand, and a stretched out arm; therefore the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the Sabbath-day. Which shews that this Sabbath, had a particular respect to that deliverance.
Now as God by Moses did, upon a New occasion (of their Rest from their Labour in Egypt) give a New Epocha or Beginning to a Circulation of Sabbaths, to be reckoned from thence, in imitation of his own Resting from the Work of Creation; Not by the Fourth Commandment (for that speaks indifferently as to any Circulation,) but by this Ordinance at Marah, or at Elim (for 'tis this determines the Circulation to the seventh day after the raining of Manna;) So might Christ as well (by himself or his Apostles) six another Epocha from his Resurrection; (as we have reason to think he did;) and this Equally within the prospect of the Fourth Commandment. This Rest from the Egyptian Bondage, being as much a shadow, of what Christ regards as the substance; as was the escaping of the Egyptian Destruction, of which the Pass-over was the Memorial. And accordingly this Circulation equally to cease with that of the Pass-over, at the coming of Christ; notwithstanding the continuance of the Fourth Commandment, in a New Circulation from another Epocha. It is not indeed expresly said that Christ Bid his Apostles so to do: But as Moses is presumed to do what he did by Gods direction; so the Apostles by Christs direction; to whom he gave Commandments for that purpose, Act. 1. 2, 3.
As to what he says so often; that not one Iott or Tittle of the Law (meaning that of the Decalogue) is destroyed, but doth still continue in force: This, as to the substance of the Duty, I grant. But if his meaning be, that there is not a Word or Letter therein which doth not as literally belong to Us Now, as it did Then to Israel: I cannot assent to it. For it cannot be said of all Us who are under that Law, that God hath Brought us out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of Bondage; or that We are to expect long life, in the land (of Canaan) which he Gave Them.
If he say that our deliverance from spiritual bondage is equivalent to theirs from Egypt, and our land the same to us as Canaan was to them: I grant it. But so is our Lords Day equivalent to their Seventh-day-sabbath, and Christ the true Manna (more than) equivalent to that of theirs, from the raining of which they reckoned their Iewish Sabbaths.
As to what he says of Mat. 24. 20. Pray that your flight be not in the Winter, nor on the Sabbath-day; which he thinks to be understood of the Iewish Sabbath, 38 years after Christs Resurrection. Perhaps it may. For the obstinate Jews, (who would not in their day understand the things that belonged to their peace, but rejected Christ,) did no doubt continue to observe their Jewish Sabbath, and thought themselves obliged so to do: And it would then be as great an Affliction to them, as if their Sabbath were yet in force: But no more a sin to fly on that day, than to fly in the Winter. It would be so to the Christians, if put to flight on the Christian Sabbath (for the case would be the like of both) and they might as well Pray against it: That is, Against their Flight on the Christian Sabbath; as the Iews on the Iewish Sabbath. This therefore makes nothing at all to his purpose. He might as well argue from hence, that it were a sin to labour in Winter; as, on the Iewish Sabbath.
He hath many other little excursions, as little to the purpose, with which I shall not trouble my self or you; having fully answered what seems to me to have any appearance of Argument.
But he takes great pleasure to expose the Name of Sunday. Yet I do not find any more fond of using it, than he. Not, that he would be thought to like the Word, but because he thinks it a Reproach. If he do not like that name, he may call it as we do, the Lords Day, the Christian Sabbath, or (if he think these too good names for it) he may call it the First day of the Week.
But why not as angry with the Monday? or other of the Week days? If on Monday the Heathens (as he would have us think) did worship the Moon, as the Sun on Sunday, why is he not as angry with that? It is as much Idolatry to worship the Moon on Monday, as the Sun on Sunday. True. But that doth not concern the Christians Sabbath (which is what he hath a mind to reproach) and therefore he speaks little of the other, and but seldome: But Sunday is to be snubbed upon every occasion.
He would not have a Sabbath upon Sunday, because he says, on that day they worshiped the Sun. But why upon Saturday if on that day (as he would have us think) they worshiped Saturn?
Now 'tis true that some of the Heathen did worship the Sun, and the Moon, and the Host of Heaven. But that they did worship the Sun more upon Sunday, than they did upon Monday or Tuesday, is more than I know, or he can prove. He tells us, Verstegan says, that the Heathen Saxons did so. But Verstegan is too young an Author to settle this upon his own Authority; unless he can bring Vouchers for it more ancient than himself. It was, I suppose, a Fansy of Verstegan Then (as it is of our Author Now;) But I do not remember that he cites any Author ancienter than himself. And though some others may say the like; Yet I look upon it but as a plausible conjecture, without any good foundation in History. And even the Heathen Suxons are too late for his purpose.
He tells us, p. 88. The Heathen Nations long before Christs Birth did offer Sacrifice to the Sun, and worship it as a God upon Sunday. His proof is from Iob 31. 26, 27, 28. If I beheld the Sun when it shined, or the Moon walking in brightness, and my heart hath been secretly enticed, or my mouth hath kissed my hand, this were an iniquity to be punished by the Iudges▪ for I should have denied the Lord above.
But what is all this to Sunday? It may perhaps be a disclaimer of worshiping the Sun; but says nothing of Sunday.
Doth our Author think the name of Sunday to be as old as Iob's times? If Iob had said, If I have worshiped the Sun upon Sunday, or the Moon upon Monday, and not the Lord upon Saturday; it had been to his purpose: But here is nothing of that. Not a word of what day it was on which they worshiped the Sun.
But I would not have him lay too great a load upon Sunday. For Hesiod tells us (as was said before) that in his time (one of the oldest of the Heathen Writers, though younger than Iob) the Seventh day was Sun-day, not the First. And he hath nothing to shew (more than the bare Name of Sunday) to make us believe that those of the Heathen, who worshiped the Sun, did confine that worship to this day of the Week; or, Did more worship it on this day than on others.
I do not certainly know how Ancient those Names are of Saturday, Sunday, Monday, &c. nor upon what occasion they were first taken up, (nor is it much to our purpose.)
The most ancient Heathen Writer whom I know to have mentioned them is Dio Cassius, who lived about the Year of our Lord 230. Who speaking of the Destruction of Ierusalem and the Temple, tells us that the Iews had such a reverence for Saturn's day, as that they would not Labour on that day for their Defense; which the Romans understanding, did on that day assault them, and prevailed. (Against their Temple and Sabbath both at once.) Not as if the Iews did then call it Saturn's day, (nor am I sure that any other did then so call it,) for they called it their Sabbath-day; But it was that day of the Week which, in Dio's time, was called Saturday.
But Dio speaks of it as a new Thing so to call the Days of the Week, and which the Ancient Greeks (he tells us) knew not. ('Twas therefore not very Ancient.) And therefore he supposeth the Romans to have taken it up from the Egyptians. Not the Old Egyptians of Moses's time, but rather from those about the time of Ptolomy; not of King Ptolomy, but of Claudius Ptolomaeus the Astronomer (or perhaps somewhat earlier) when Astronomy there flourished, and from whom the Romans had it.
In a Christian Writer, I find it earlier than Dio; in Iustin Martyr's Apology, written about the Year of Christ 150. who mentions foreign, the Day of the Sun, as the Christian Sabbath. And Tertullian in his Apology, mentions Saturday and Sunday. And it may perhaps be found in Writers earlier than these, Though I do not at present meet with it. Nor do I think it worth the while to make any great search about it. I grant, that when Christianity was spread among the Gentiles▪ and, with it, the Christian Sabbath; they did (in order to the observing that Sabbath) distinguish their time into Weeks, and thereupon gave Names to each Day. I grant also that the Iews did, before, so distinguish their Time: but I do not find that any other Nation did so. If any think, that All nations did so distinguish, and every Nation, all the World over, call the days by those Names by which they are now called: This I take to be but a Presumption, without proof.
But when ever those names were first taken up, I do not think they were taken from the number of their Gods (for then they must have had a great many more days in their Week than Seven, if each of their Gods must have a peculiar day:) But from the number of the Planets, which were then reckoned to be Seven, and in this order Saturn, Iupiter, Mars, Sol, Venus, Mercury, Luna. Though we now know the Planets to be more than Seven. (For the Satellites of Iupiter and Saturn are as much Planets as our Moon; but were not then known.) Nor were the Seven Planets always reckoned in the same order; but some had been thought to be above the Sun, which, before these names were given, were accounted to be below it. And therefore these Names must be at least so late. And certainly not so old as Iob's time.
I take them not to be older than what are called the Planetary Hours, but to take their Rise from thence, and the Order of the Names to be thence determined. For having divided the Day into 24 Hours; Beginning with Saturn, the highest of the Planets, they assigned to him the First hour of one day, which thence they called Saturn's day; the Second hour to Iupiter, the Third to Mars, and so in order till they came to the Eighth hour which falls to Saturn's turn again, and so again to the Fifteenth, and the Two and Twentieth; and then the Three and Twentieth to Iupiter, the Four and Twentieth to Mars, and the next hour, being the first of the next day, to Sol. Which day doth thence take the name of Sol or Sunday (next in order after Saturn.) And, in like manner proceeding, the Eighth, Fifteenth, and Two and Twentieth hour of that day will fall again to Sol, the Three and Twentieth to Venus, the Four and Twentieth to Mercury; and then the first hour of the next day to Luna, thence called Monday (next after Sunday.) And, in like manner, the first hour of the following day to Mars; of the next to Mercury; the next to Iupiter, the next to Venus; and then again to Saturn; and so onward as before. And this I take to be the true account of those Names, and in that Order: Saturday, Sunday, Monday, after which (in the Latine Denomination) follow the days of Mars, Mercury, Iupiter, and Venus.
But some of our Ancestors the Saxons, thought fit (as is supposed) to put-in the Names of Twisco, Woden, Thor, Frea, (some of their Princes) instead of Mars, Mercury, Iupiter, and Venus, (as Iulius and Augustus, amongst the Romans, gave their Names to the Months formerly called Quintilis and Sextilis.) From which Saxon Princes we have the Names of Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Fryday: the other days retaining the Names of their respective Planets as they did before.
This account (from the order of the Planetary Hours) Dio gives us of the Names of the Week-days, and of their Order. Why so called, and why in this Order.
He tells us of another account from the Principles of Harmonicks. Because Dia-tessaron (which we call a Fourth) is Reputed a Concord in Musick; therefore they might, beginning with Saturn (skipping two, Iupiter and Mars,) take the Fourth Sol: then (skipping the two next Venus and Mercury) take Luna: And then (skipping Saturn and Iupiter) take Mars: Then (skipping Sol and Venus) take Mercury: Then (skipping Luna and Saturn) take Iupiter: Then (skipping Mars and Sol) take Venus: Then (skipping Mercury and Luna) take Saturn; and so onward as before. But this account seems more Forced, and the former more Natural. Which therefore I take to be the true ground of this Order.
But either way, depending upon the order of the Planets as they were then accounted when these Names were given to the Week-days, it is at least so far evident that they cannot be older than since the Planets were accounted to be placed in this order. And therefore not so old as when Venus or Mercury or both of them were thought to be above the Sun. (For this would quite disturb the Order.) And therefore, certainly, not so old as Iob's time.
Whether on each of these Days they did worship those respective Planets, as so many Gods, I cannot say; nor do I think it.
Nor do I think that each of those Planets have any more Government of their respective Hours, or Days, than of others. For I take the whole foundation as well of These, as of the other parts of Iudicial Astrology, to be purely Precarious; and assigned onelyonly at pleasure, by those whose business it was to amuse credulous people, and thereby to make a Gain of them.
But, whatever were the occasion of the first imposing; these are now the known Names of those days. (And we need no more scruple the use of these Names; than to talk of Pope Pius, Clemens, Boniface, and Innocent; though possibly the Persons so called, had none of those good Qualities.) In like manner as we have a Spring near Oxford which we call Aristotle's Well; not that we think Aristotle was ever there, or was Lord of the place, and much less that he was wont to be there Worshiped; but we so call it as being now the proper name of the place (imposed at pleasure) by which it is known. And so for the days of the Week; whatever were the occasion of the first imposing, they now signify no more than the proper distinctive names by which the days are known.
And why we may not continue so to call them, I know not. We are told Act. 17. 19, 22. of Paul's being at Areopagus or Mars-hill, because that was the known name of the place, without scrupling the reason why it was so called (whether, because Mars had been there worshiped, or for what other reason.) And Act. 28. 11. … a Ship designed by Castor and Pollux, or foreign, without scrupling the reason of that name, or what relation these Stars had to Iupiter, so as to be called his Lads. And when Paul 1 Cor. 8. allows them without Scruple to eat of things offered in Sacrifice to Idols, even though they knew, or had reason to presume them so to be, (unless when they might be suspected to do it with respect to the Idol) as the Apostle argues at large 1 Cor. 8. and again Chap. 10. No doubt we may as lawfully make use of proper Names (whereby persons, times, or places be commonly known) without scrupling the occasion of their first imposition.
And I would desire those Gentlemen (who are so over scrupulous where there is no just occasion, and make it their business to throw Scruples and cast Stumbling-blocks before others,) to consider seriously, whose Work they be doing all that while; and whether it be not as truly and properly superstition to represent and quarel with things as unlawful and sinful, which in their own nature are not so; as it is to introduce things under a pretence of holiness which have in them no such thing. And whether this be not to dote about questions and strife of words▪ Whether these be not of those foolish and unlearned questions which we are advised to avoid; knowing that they gender strifes; and to avoid foolish questions, and genealogies and contentions about the law, for they are unprofitable and vain; and instead thereof to mind those things that are good and profitable to men; to follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace, &c. as we are directed, 1 Tim. 6. 4, 5. 2 Tim. 2. 22, 23. Tit. 3. 8, 9.
They do not consider how much the studying and prosecuting these foolish questions, and needless Scrupulosities, doth eat out the power of Godliness and true Piety, and the substantials of Religion, while we busy our selves about these shadows; about little circumstances which do not at all influence the Substance of spiritual Worship.
There be so many necessary duties, and indubitable truths, in the serious practise of Piety and Godliness, that we need not trouble the heads of men (and make it our business so to do) with doubtful disputations.
It seems to be the design of the New Testament to take us off from the Circumstantials and Scrupulosities of Religion (which commonly produce strifes and contentions to no purpose) and put us upon worshiping God in Spirit and in Truth.
Si Deus est Animus, nobis ut carmina dicunt,
Hic tibi praecipue sit pura Mente colendus▪
Was well enough said of the Poet; and is a good Paraphrase on that, God is a Spirit and will be worshiped in Spirit and in Truth. I have been told long since of a Grave Divine, who when asked, Why he did not Preach against Long hair (which was at that time more Offensive than now it is,) gave this Answer; If he could but Preach Jesus Christ into their Hearts; he should not much concern himself for their Hair.
This Author tells us, p. 49. that our Liberty Gal. 5. 1. doth eminently consist in a Freedome not onelyonly from the Ceremonial Law of old, but also in a Liberty not to be intangled with a new yoke of mens devices. I take needless Scrupulosities to be such; the making of more Sins than God hath made; the making or pretending of those things to be Sins which are no sins, and putting a religious Necessity upon things which are matters of meer Prudence and Discretion. Like those 1 Tim. 4. 3. Forbidding to Marry, or (as I would rather render it) Bidding not to Marry; and, to abstain from Meats, &c. Forbidding things as Unlawful which are not so; is alike Superstitious as to Impose things as holy which are not Holy: and equally contrary to the Liberty there intended.
Whether the days be called Saturday, Sunday, Monday, or Alpha, Beta, Gamma, is all one to me, (I take them as I find them:) I think we ought not to foment quarels upon such trifles; and we sin if we do so.
Whether to meet once, or twice, or thrice, on a Sabbath-day, (if so as is most for edification and the real service of God,) is meerly prudential in this or that place, without laying a new religious yoke where God leaves it to Prudence. And if, in Prudentials, things be not managed sometimes with so much Prudence as we think they might, we must be content to bear with such Imprudences as we cannot help; and better so, than to pull-on greater Inconveniences.
Whether to begin the Sabbath at Six or Ten or Twelve a Clock on Saturday-night, is a thing (I think) not worth contending about▪ (so that it be religiously observed as to the Substantials of it,) and for which we ought not to disturb the Church where we live, but to follow righteousness, charity, peace; and avoid foolish questions which gender strife.
And I should not think it much more, whether on this or that day, so the Sabbath be well kept: and I would by no means, on that account, give a disturbance to a Church where it is peaceably settled: 'Tis less material When, than How, a Sabbath be kept. And, in many cases, it must be unavoidably left to Prudence, whether this or that day be called the First or Seventh day of the Week. We are in such cases to study the things that make for Peace, and wherewith one may edify another. Rom. 14. 19. The fruits of the spirit are love, joy, peace, &c. but variance, emulation, wrath, strife, are fruits of the flesh: Gal. 5. 20, 21.
To study and spin out Disputes into too fine a Threed (like that of a Spider out of her own Bowels) is but to pervert the Simplicity of the Gospel of Christ; to make that Abstruse and Difficult, which the Scripture would have Plain and Easy: in Speculatives as well as Practicals. We should mind the substantials of spiritual worship; and not dote upon circumstantials further than as they do really advance the Substance. Refuse profane and old-wives fables, and exercise thy self rather unto Godliness; for bodily exercise profiteth little, 1 Tim. 4. 7, 8. Such are those Col. 2. 20, 21. Touch not, tast not, handle not, (and others of like nature) all which perish in the using, (there is no real advantage doth ac…rew from the use of them; 'tis but labour lost;) or foreign they are but mischievous in their use.
We complain of the Papists (and deservedly) for loading their Worship with a multitude of Ceremonies and mimical Gestures; the number of which would be a Burthen, even though singly they were Tolerable. Being so many Diversions of the mind from Attending the spirituality of the Service. But they have some reason for it. For when much of their Devotion is either to be spoken so low as not to be Heard, or in such a Language as not to be understood, they have need of somewhat to gratify the Eye, when the Ear is not Edified.
And it is almost the same mischief, when mens Minds are amused with Nice Speculations and needless Scrupulosities, whereby they are Diverted from the Substantials of Serious Religion.
Yet I would not so be understood, as if no care were to be had of Corporeal Worship, or the necessary Circumstances attending it. (For God expects the Worship of the Body as well as the Soul, and Religious Actions must have their Circumstances, as Time, Place, Gesture, and the like, as well as other Actions.) But these Circumstantials should be considered as Circumstances (not as the substance of the Worship;) and as Prudentials; so to be managed (as in all other actions) as may, with Decency and Convenience, best advance the spiritual Worship; and may be varied according as the diversity of times and places may require. Not to lay the Weight of Divine Institution upon such little things. As if, because Paul Kneeled down and Prayed (Act. 20. 36.) therefore it were unlawful to use any other Gesture in Praying; Or as if, because Christ bids, when thou Prayest, enter into thy Closet and shut the door (Mat. 6. 6.) therefore we may not pray in the Chamber▪ Parlour, Dining-Room, or Chappel: Or, because Christ did Celebrate the Lords Supper, at Night, in an Upper-room, to Men onelyonly, and but Twelve, and to those Sitting or Lying; therefore we may not do it at Noon or Morning, in a Low-room, to Women as well as Men, in greater Numbers, or in some other Gesture. For though such Circumstances may be Lawful, and sometimes Advisable when convenient; yet to put a Religious Necessity upon them, as of Divine Institution, looks like a piece of Superstition.
And if we consider seriously how great a mischief many times some needless Scruples do create to the Church of God; how great a matter a little fire kindles; and how great hindrance to real Piety; it might justly make us wary how we add Fewel to such a Flame, and rather bear with some things we think amiss, (but may perhaps not be so) than by attempting to remove a suppos'd Evil create a greater Mischief.
As to the present point in question; I have said so much upon the whole, as I think might satisfy the Gentleman if he well consider it. Yet I know, when men have once espoused a notion of which they are fond; and have so long pored upon it as to rivet it in their mind; catching at every little thing that may seem to favour it, and slighting whatever makes against it; (as we find our Author doth very often;) And that hardly any thing can be said so plain, as that there be nothing to be cavilled at, by one who is minded so to do; And that when God hath declared his will as plainly as he thinks fit to do, if men will not be contented with reasonable evidence, he is not obliged to gratify their humours:
When (I say) we consider this; It looks somewhat like what Solomon tells us Prov. 18. 19. of a Brother offended, harder to be won than a strong City; and I must leave the success to God▪ who so teacheth as none like him.
He remits us to two Writers on this Subject, in defense of the Christian Sabbath, Mr. Shepheard and Mr. Hughs (whom I have not read, nor have them at hand,) and Two others whom he names not (nor know I well whom he means, for more than two have since written;) who, he thinks, do tacitly retract somewhat that those before had granted. And divers … have written on this Subject▪ though I have scarce consulted any of them. And particularly I have not seen what is written by Dr. Young or Mr. Warren, whom I find cited in a late Book of G. T. which came out since this was Written and part of it printed. It is very possible, that some of those may have said much of what I now say, or that I may now say somewhat of what they have said before. But, in this, there is no hurt. If in some particulars I vary from some of them; it is not because I slight them, or out of a desire to contradict them, but freely to speak my own thoughts as they do theirs. Nor is it to be expected that all Writers on the same Subject should agree in every particular, (Nor is he to make advantage of it; For p. 3. he owns it is so also with those who are for the seventh day:) But as to the main (I presume) we do well enough agree.
I have been a great deal longer than I did intend when I first began to write.
I shall give you a brief Summe of what I have said to this purpose, as to both Questions. (For the Question is double, though it seem to be but one.)
First concerning the Iewish Sabbath, Whether that be Antiquated and at an end. Secondly, concerning the Christian Sabbath, Whether there be sufficient ground for this to succeed in the place thereof.
As to the first; I agree with him in many things which he prosecutes at large, though not peculiar to his Question; As, That Our Lord Iesus Christ is God; that he is the Lord Iehovah, the God who made the World, who rested the seventh day, who brought Israel out of Egypt, and gave the Law on Mount Sinai: For there is no other God.
But, this I say, he did as God (in Union with the Father and Holy Ghost;) not as Christ (God and Man) our Mediator and Redeemer. For he was not then Man; nor was there occasion of a Mediator and Redeemer before the fall.
I agree also that the Decalogue (or Ten Commandments) is Obligatory to us Gentiles; (as being for the substance of it, a Law before it was so delivered on Mount Sinai.) And that the Fourth Commandment concerning the Sabbath is one of them; which requires after six days of Labour, the seventh day to be a Sabbath or day of Holy Rest. And our Christian Sabbath is such.
But it doth not say, the seventh in course from the Creation, nor doth it appear that the Iewish Sabbath was such, but rather the Seventh day from the first raining of Manna.
I do agree also that God himself did rest on the Seventh day from the Creation, Gen. 2. that is, He did cease to Create.
But I do not there find, that Man did so rest, or that there was any express command for him so to do on that day; much less for ever after, on every Seventh day in course from the Creation. How much may be thought to be implyed in those words, he blessed and sanctified it, I will not dispute; However, it is but by Implication not by any express command; such as our Author demands for the Christian Sabbath.
Nor do I find that ever it was observed by Man till after the Israelites coming out of Egypt, or expresly commanded so to be.
Nor do I find that any other Nation (beside the Jews) did anciently so much as divide their time by Weeks. Since the times of Christianity they have: But that they did so, long before that time, I do not find.
I do agree also that after Israels coming out of Egypt they did observe a Sabbath, Exod. 16.
But it was from a new command, (at Marah or Elim) which appeared New to them, not a continuation of a constant practise; and it was from a new beginning (the Seventh day from the first raining of Manna,) and as a distinctive sign or token, of Gods being their God in a special manner, as contradistir guished to other nations; (as himself owns p. 26. and 28.) and as a memorial of their Refreshing after their Bondage and Labour in Egypt, and feeding them with Bread from Heaven.
I do presume also that, they did, from this first raining of Manna continue a circulation of Weeks for a long time, and perhaps till the time of our Saviour.
Yet we are not sure but that it might be intermitted in the seventy years of the Babylonish Captivity, and the day forgotten; and then restored a-new by Nehemiah (from a new beginning) Neh. 13. as he restored the Feast of Tabernacles (Chap. 8.) which had been intermitted from the days of Ioshua the son of Nun to that day. But I rather think, the memory was preserved (by Tradition) during those seventy years.
I agree also that the Church of the Jews was the most visible Church of God, but I am loth to say (with him, p. 79.) it was the whole visible Church; For I presume there might be many Good men of other Nations, who worshiped the true God (of whom we have no History,) though not joined to the Jewish Church, nor were (that I know of) obliged so to be. Such was Melchizedek (whoever he were) not of the seed of Abraham, much less of Israel. And such was Iob, and his Friends from divers Countries (of whom, were it not for the story of Iob, we should have had no knowledge,) nor are we to think these were the onelyonly persons of those Countries who worshiped the true God. And how many such were in other Nations, we cannot tell. Who might, if they had opportunity, join as Proselites with the Iewish Church, when established. But I do not think they were necessarily obliged so to do, or to keep the same Sabbath with them.
For I take it to be true, even before Christs coming, that God is no respecter of persons; but in every nation, he that feareth him and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him. Act. 10. 34, 35. Whether Iew or Greek, Rom. 2. 10, 11. 1 Pet. 1. 17. Which are but Quotations from Deut. 10. 19.
Nor do I find that any Nation, except the Iews, did observe the Iewish Sabbath. But I rather take it to be a distinctive sign of them from other Nations, Ex. 31. 13, 17. as Circumcision and the Pass-over were; which, when the wall of partition was taken away, ceased also.
Yet, as to what was Moral in them (the Circumcision of the heart being pointed at by that of the Flesh; and the old leaven of malice and wickedness to be put away instead of that of Bread; and a rest from Sin of more respect with God than that from Labour;) we have instead thereof, Baptism, in the room of Circumcision; the Lords Supper, in the room of the Pass-over; and the Lords Day or Christian Sabbath, instead of the Iewish. And, as that took date from the raining of Manna after their deliverance from Egypt; so ours from the Resurrection of Christ, the true Manna.
I agree also that the Apostle, and other Christians, even after Christs Resurrection, did go to the Temple and the Jewish Synagogues on their Sabbath days (and did there assist at Prayers, and Reading the Law, and other services common to Jews and Christians) on a like account as when we now meet to hear a Sermon, or keep a Fast or Thanksgiving on a Week-day.
But so they did as to Circumcision, and other Iewish Rites. As when Paul circumcised Timothy, and joined in the Jewish Rites of Purification, Act. 21. on account of those believing Iews who were yet zealous of the Law: To testify to them that he had been misrepresented by those who said he did teach the Iews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, and that they ought not to circumcise their Children, nor to walk after the Customs. Whereas indeed he taught that Gentiles ought so to forbear, (as being a new yoke to which before they were not subject,) but as to the Iews which were amongst the Gentiles he did allow them (if not yet satisfied of their Christian Liberty) so to practise. For he puts a great difference between the Gentiles, and the Iews among the Gentiles; of which I doubt our Author doth not take notice; else he would not tell us (p. 39.) of Paul's writing one thing, and practising another. He preached and wrote against Circumcision as to the Gentiles; but allowed it to the Iews; and himself practised it, As to Timothy (a Jew) but not as to Titus who was no Iew. And the like we may say as to the Iewish Sabbath on their Seventh day.
As to what Services were peculiarly Christian (as breaking of Bread) they did it not at the Temple or Synagogues, but foreign at home, or from house to house, Act. 2. 46. and on another day, the first day of the Week, Act. 20. 7.
Now this is all that he hath to urge, for the Iewish Sabbath in particular: which he cannot shew to be commanded to all the World (but rather to them in particular in contradistinction to the rest of the World,) nor that it was a Seventh day from the Creation, but from the first raining of Manna. For the Fourth Commandment saith nothing of this Sabbath in particular, but onelyonly of the seventh day after six days of labour.
As to that Imperious demand, p. 40, 48, 64. Where is there any such Power recorded in Scripture to be given to any Man or Men whatsoever, after Christ had said It is finished, to alter the Seventh-day Sabbath instituted by our Lord Iesus Christ? I doubt he hath forgotten that the same God who gave the Law of the Ten Commandments, gave also the Ceremonial Law; and if it were the Lord Iesus Christ who gave the one, it was he that gave the other also. And will he then ask Where is there any power recorded in scripture to be given to any man or number of men to abolish Circumcision and the rest of the Mosaick Rites instituted by the Lord Iesus Christ? I know no such power recorded in Scripture to be given, as to Circumcision and the rest, more than as to the Iewish Sabbath. And we find them both put together Col. 2. 11, 16. Or will he say, Where is any Power recorded in Scripture to be given to any Man or Men, (after Christ had said It is finished,) to appoint Elders and Deacons and other Officers in the Christian Church, and give Orders concerning it, which Christ (before he so said,) had not given? Yet we know Circumcision was abolished, and such Officers and Orders given. So that all this is but Flourish.
As to that of Christ having said It is finished; whatever be meant by that, we know that the whole Order and Constitution of the Christian Church was settled after that time: And whatever else be signified by it, it is not meant that there was nothing to be done further concerning it; For, if so, to what purpose did Christ give Commandments to his Apostles, of things pertaining to the Kingdome of God after his Resurrection, if nothing were to be further done?
And if we consider the Apostles deportment; We do not find them any where insist Authoritatively upon a Power given them from Christ, to Abrogate Circumcision or the like, and thereupon to proceed pro imperio. But they Argue it from the nature of the thing, That what was Typical of Christ, was at an end now Christ is come; That what was Distinctive of the Jews from other Nations, was now to cease when the partition wall was broken down; That what were but shadows as to the Substantials of Religion, were now to pass away, as beggarly Rudiments, Christ regarding the Body or Substance not the Shadows; foreign, these are but shadows in comparison of what Christ came to settle, foreign, but 'tis the Body (the Substance) that Christ respects, Col. 2. 17.
They do not Command, but Argue. They do no where pretend that God or Christ had given them Authority to Abrogate a Law which God had made: But Argue (from the nature of the thing) that the Law was ceased; and was not intended to Oblige longer: That the Law was now Antiquated or Expired when the End for which it was made was attained: That the Types were at an End, when the Thing Typified was Exhibited: That the Distinctive Marks were now no more of Use, when Jews and Gentiles were United: That the Elements or Rudiments (foreign) which God (for reasons best known to himself) thought fit for the Training-up of his Church while as in a State of Minority (wherein a Child though Heir of All doth little differ from a Servant) should now cease when it comes to full Age, Gal. 4. And to the same purpose Heb. 8. He argues that the Old Covenant was at an end when a Better Covenant was come in the room; citing that of Ier. 31. Behold the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a New Covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Iudah: Not according to the Covenant which I made with their Fathers when I led them out of the land of Egypt, For this is the Covenant that I will make, That I will put my laws into their Mind, and write them in their Hearts. Meaning, instead of an outward Ceremonial Service, he would establish a service more Spiritual. From whence he concludes the Antiquation of the Former: In that he saith a New Covenant, he hath made the first Old: Now that which Decayeth and waxeth Old, is ready to Vanish away▪ They do not claim a Power, to Abolish a Law of Gods making; But prove by Argument, that these Laws are Antiquated or Expired; as not being intended, by the Law-maker, to bind longer than till such a time. As Rom. 7. The Woman is bound by the Law to her Husband as long as he lives; But if the husband be Dead, she is free from the Law: Not that the Law is Abolished; but the Case is Altered.
And it is from these Considerations that he Argues against Circumcision Col. 2. 11. and the Iewish Sabbath, ver. 16. For as to the Substantials of the Service, provided a Sabbath be duly kept, it is much one whether on the Seventh or the First day. Now these (Substantials) are (he tells us p. 83.) a lively spiritual Converse with the Father, Son and Holy-Ghost, in private Duties and publick Ordinances (where they can be had,) and in a Holy Rest all that day, saving emergent cases of Necessity and Mercy. Which may be equally done on either day.
But as to those who were not satisfied with these Arguments; (if they were such as were before under those Commands) he doth not urge his Authority; He leaves them to practise according to their own judgment (but without censuring others) till they shall be better satisfied, as in Rom. 14. But as to the Gentiles, who had never been under these Laws, the case was otherwise. Which makes him argue otherwise with the (Gentile) Galatians, Ephesians, and Colossians, than with the Christian Iews at Rome.
And as to his Question, p. 47. When, where, and by whom, it was taken away, I say Then, there, and by the same, who took away Circumcision and the other Mosaick Rites. That is, Fundamentally by Christ at his death who nailed them to his Cross, after which they ceased to be Obligatory; But Executively and Practically by his Apostles, and the Christian Church, according as they did (leisurably and in time) come to understand their Liberty.
All which we are to presume they did according to such directions as Christ gave them. For (as this Author observes p. 80.) Paul, in those Primitive times, when the Ceremonial Law was fresh in memory, and the Gospel newly preached, had much a do t…e move the first converted Iews from Circumcision and other Ceremonials, (and so from their Iewish Sabbath;) therefore these things were to wear off by degrees, and not to be torn from them all at once.
And this I think is enough (to a person not prejudiced) as to the Removal of the (then) Iewish Sabbath; appointed by Moses after their coming out of Egypt, on the seventh day from the first raining of Manna, and not given to all the world, but to be a distinctive sign of them from other Nations.
Now as to the other Point in Question, the Observation of the Lords day: I would ground that originally on the Fourth Commandment; which doth appoint a Seventh day of Holy Rest, after Six days of Ordinary Labour. Which doth directly concern the Substantials of Worship (that a Sabbath be kept and God thus served), but whether on this or that day of the Seven, is meerly Circumstantial, and (as Paul calls it) a Shadow, in comparison of the Body or Substance, which is, he tells us, what Christ respects.
But then as to that, Why the First day rather than another? I answer, First, Here was a much more memorable Accident, of Christs Resurrection; than was that of Raining Manna, from whence the Jewish Sabbath takes its date, as the Seventh day from it (not from the Creation) or that of the Quails the Night before, (the first day that God fed them by Miracle from Heaven,) And therefore stands as fair for beginning such a Circulation of Weeks and Sabbaths.
We are told Ier. 16. 14, 15. and Ier. 23, 7, 8. Behold the days come (saith the Lord) that it shall no more be said, The Lord liveth that brought up the Children of Israel out of the land of Egypt; But, The Lordliveth that brought up the Children of Israel out of the North Country. Not, that the former deliverance was to be forgotten; but a greater than it did make it (comparatively) to disappear (as when the light of the Sun doth obscure that of the Moon and Stars;) And so here, the Resurrection of Christ to be commemorated paramount to that of former Mercies.
Next, in pursuance of this Occasion, we find our Saviour did on that day of his Resurrection, appear to Mary Magdalen and the other Women, declaring to them the Doctrine of the Resurrection▪ then, to the two Disciples going to Emmaus, Preaching to them (at large) the same Doctrine, and Celebrating with them the Lords Supper; and afterward (the same day) to those assembled at Ierusalem (with other Sabbatical works) and solemnly Blessing that Convention. And if our Author by blessing the Seventh day Gen. 2. would have us understand an Institution or Command to observe it; We have as much here; Christ joined in this Assembly, and Blessed it. For so much is intimated in that his solemn Benediction (a first and second time, Ioh. 20. 19, 21.) Peace be unto you; and he Breathed on them saying, Receive ye the Holy Ghost.
He did so a second time on the same day the next Week; he Assembled with them (in Religious Services) and Blessed them.
He did (according to his Promise made on that First day of his Resurrection) send on them that miraculous Effusion of the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost, which being the Fiftieth day from his Resurrection, was therefore the first day of the week as was that of the Resurrection. On which day of Pentecost we find them also otherwise exercised in Religious Employments, and attested further by a miraculous conversion of three thousand souls.
We find St. Paul at Troas Act. 20. Preaching to the Disciples assembled (as it seems their manner was) on the first day of the week to break bread; that is, to celebrate the Lords Supper.
That such Assemblies were wont to be at Corinth, on the first day of the Week, the Apostle presumes, or takes for granted; and gives direction for a Collection to be then made, 1 Cor. 16.
And he had so done before, as he there signifies, to the Churches of Galatia; presuming or taking for granted, that they also did so use to meet on the first day of the Week.
And we have no reason to doubt but that such Meetings were wont to be in other Churches. We cannot doubt but that other of the Apostles did disperse themselves in other parts of the World, though we have not a like account of their Travels, as we have of Paul's recorded by St. Luke: But we are to presume (though it be not recorded) that their Doctrine and Practise was consonant to his; and that accordingly they had such weekly meetings on the Lords Day as these Churches had of whom we have the History.
Hence that day had the name given of the Lords day, foreign, as we find it called Rev. 1. 10. (as that of the Sacrament is called foreign the Lords Supper, 1 Cor. 11. 20.) which name it retaineth to this day, and for such purpose.
And all this, I think, is sufficient for us to continue our Observation of the same day. I am sure 'tis much more than he can shew for his seventh-day Sabbath for more than two thousand five hundred years from the first Creation.
It is not necessary that we have express words of Command Recorded. We have no Record in Scripture of such express words of Command for the Seventh-day Sabbath, till after Israels coming out of Egypt; nor for the Worshiping of God by Sacrifice; nor for other things which yet were Duties before any Record of such express words of Command. It is enough if we can otherwise Collect it to be Gods Will, according to the best light we have.
If this Gentleman think himself obliged to keep the Jewish Sabbath also: this doth not hurt us. This, I think, was the case of the Christian Iews at first. I do not much question but that they did, as other Christians, observe the Lords Day. The doubt was, whether they were not to observe also the Jewish Sabbath as before they did. And these Believers who were yet zealous of the Law, and thought themselves obliged, together with Christianity, to observe the Law of Moses, did no doubt think themselves equally obliged to the Iewish Sabbath. Those who thought themselves obliged to be Baptized, and to be Circumcised also, thought themselves in like manner obliged to observe the Lords day and also the Iewish Sabbath. And (till they should be better satified) the Apostles permit (the Iews) so to do.
If this do not satisfy him; I have yet two Expedients for him.
1. Let him begin his Week on Monday▪ and then Sunday will be the Seventh day. Whether the Seventh in course from the Creation, I cannot tell; nor can any Man living inform me. But it will at least be the Seventh day of His Week.
2. If he be not satisfied with this: My next Expedient is thus. Let him take a Voyage round the World, as Sir Francis Drake did. Going out of the Atlantick Ocean West-ward by the Streights of Magellan to the East-Indies; and then, from the East, returning by the Cape of Good Hope (the usual way) homeward. And take with him as many as please of those who are of his mind. And let them keep their Saturday-Sabbath all the way. When they come home to England, they will find their Saturday to fall upon our Sunday; and they may thenceforth continue to observe their Saturday-Sabbath on the same day with us. Which is the second Expedient.
If you ask, How this can be? I will make it very plain, that so it will be, and so it must be. For, Supposing the Earth to be Round, and the Sun moving from East to West; you must allow that it comes sooner to the Eastern parts than to the Western. It will sooner be Noon in Holland than in England, and sooner here than in Ireland.
If you ask, How much sooner? We say, that Fifteen Degrees of Longitude West-ward, makes it an Hour later. As if he Embark about Dover, Yarmouth, or other Port on the East-side of England, and Sail as far West-ward as the West of Ireland (or a little farther) it will be an Hour later, and not be Noon there till it be One a Clock at the place where he Embarked. And so in proportion, an Hour for every Fifteen degrees. And accordingly, when he hath gone round the whole Circle of Three hundred and Sixty Degrees, (that is Four and twenty times Fifteen,) it will be later by Four and twenty hours▪ That is, it will be but Saturday-noon with him, when it is Sundaynoon with those who staid here. That is, His Saturday will be Our Sunday. And thenceforth his Saturday-Sabbath will be the same day with our Sunday-Sabbath ever after.
And this, I think, should fully satisfy him. For he tells us, p. 39. The variety of the time of the Sun-rising or setting in different Climates doth no way disturb; for that a day longer, or shorter is still a day, and but a day▪
Most certain it is he who shall have thus Sailed round the World will have had one day fewer than those who staid here. So it was with Sir Francis Drake and his Company: And so it hath been with all who have taken such a Voyage, (as many have done, for it is not a rare case:) and so will be to any who shall so do.
What he would resolve upon this case, or what he thinks Sir Francis Drake was to do when this happened; I cannot tell.
If he would go on to reckon the days according as they had happened to him in his Voyage; then this Expedient must fully satisfy him. For then he keeps his Saturday-Sabbath on our Sunday.
If he thinks the account should be rectified when or before he comes home, and call the days thenceforth as he finds those to do that staid here, what shall be come of that day he hath lost? and which day of the Week shall he reckon that to be?
And When must he rectify that account? when he comes home, or somewhere by the way? For it would be just the same, if, before he come at England, he should have landed in France or Spain, or on the Coast of Africk, or even at the East-Indies; and all the way from thence, he would still be a day behind them. And so he would be with every Ship that in his way he should meet with. If he and such other Ship meet at the Isle of St. Helens to take fresh water, his Saturday will be their Sunday; and on which of the two days are they to keep their Sabbath? or must they keep it one on the one day, and the other on the other?
If he say that the account is to be rectified by the way (before he comes home) then Where? or When? and by What rule? For when ever he doth so rectify it, he must then begin to call Sunday what just before he was to call Saturday.
If he say, This must be left to Discretion, when, and where: Then must it be matter of discretion (and not determin'd by the Fourth Commandment) on which of the two days in question the Sabbath shall be kept.
But then here will again come in our amazing demand (as p. 48, 86, 87.) What man or men, without an high Usurpation of the Divine Authority, contrary to the First Commandment shall, with pretended good intentions, assume an authority of their own heads, to appoint (for this or that place; suppose the Streights of Magellan) what day shall be the Lords holy Sabbath? Who, but our Lord Iesus Christ, that is Lord of the Sabbath, hath power to institute a Sabbath day? If the Church or any part thereof be once admitted to have such Power, what Bolts or Locks will be strong enough for such a Door, to keep it from letting in upon the Churches of Christ what soever pleaseth those in Power?
I shall not much trouble my self to answer all this Warmth. But (when that is over) if at or near the Streights of Magellan (a place, I think, not inhabited, or not by Christian,) a Colony be planted by some from hence, and some from the East-Indies; those who come thither from hence will (according to their account) call that Saturday, which those who come thither from the other side will (according to their account) call Sunday: Must they have no Sabbath at all? (that's against the Fourth Commandment:) Or must they by consent agree upon the day? (this I should think, if he would give me leave:) Or must they keep it some upon one day some on the other? This I would by no means advise, if it may be avoided: Because it would be a manifest confusion and disorder; And they would not both (if either) be the Seventh-day in course from the Creation: And which of them is so, is not possible for any man to know. And it would be more for common Edification that they do agree upon a common day. And not much matter, whether of the Two.
This Gentleman, if he can consider of it calmly, I am apt to think will be of the same mind; and think it better to have such a Sabbath than none at all; and that the little circumstance, whether on this or that day, should be disregarded in comparison of the Substantials of the Duty.
There be many things which the Word of God or the Divine Law doth determine in Thesi, which when in Hypothesi they come in practise, will require the intervention of Prudentials or Humane Laws. The Eighth Commandment says, I must not Steal, or take unduly from my Neighbour what is His: But, What is Mine, and what is my Neighbours, will depend much upon Humane Laws; and, what shall be reputed a Trespass on my Neighbours land; or, a forfeiture of his right. The Seventh Commandment says, Thou shalt not commit Adultery: But it will depend much upon Humane Law, what shall be reputed a Good Marriage. The Sixth Commandment says Thou shalt not Kill: But it will much depend upon Humane Law what shall be reputed Self-defense, or a Just War, or a Forfeiture of Life. The Fifth Commandment requires us to Honour and Obey our Parents; But, in many cases, 'tis Humane Law that is to determine, who is to be reputed the Father. If a Widow be left whith Child by a former Husband, and marry another before that Child be born (which sometime happens;) 'twill be a point in Law, not in Divinity, to whether of the Two Fathers this Son shall be Heir. And if my Father require me to part with what Estate is my own, 'twill be a point in Law, how far I am required to obey such a Command. (And the like as to other Superiours, as well as Natural Parents.) And those Laws which seem Absolute (as Thou shalt not Kill, Thou shalt not Steal, &c.) Have yet their Tacite Limitations implied. For no man doubts but there are cases wherein to Kill may be lawful; as in Self-defense, in a just War, and for Capital Crimes; And in such cases, to take from our Neighbour what was His. And, notwithstanding the Command of Honour thy Father and Mother, or that of Children obey your Parents in all things; there may things happen, wherein we are not obliged to do what they bid us. And in all such cases there is room for Prudence to interpose. Not, to Abrogate or Repeal a Law of God; But to judge what is the true Intent of that Law. So not withstanding that Command of the Sabbath, In it thou shall do no manner of work; yet our Saviour tells us, The Priests in the Temple profane the Sabbath and are blameless; and against the Pharisees superstitious rigour he argues, not onelyonly from his own Authority (The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath-day) But from the Reason of the Law, The Sabbath was made for Man, and not Man for the Sabbath; and consequently is so to be understood as may be for the Good of Man (spiritual and bodily) not for his Hurt. And our Author allows the emergent cases of Necessity and Mercy; And no man doubts but that if a House be on Fire, we may Labour to quench it. In all which cases Prudence may be used, but must not (upon that pretense) be Abused. Not as if it were left to our Prudence, whether or no the Law of God shall be Obeyed; But, what is, in such cases, the true Intendment of the Law of God. And there needs no other Locks or Bolts (as our Author speaks) to confine Prudence in such cases, than in all other Prudential Acts. So when the Fourth Commandment requires us to keep holy the Sabathday; it may yet, in many cases, depend much upon Prudence or Humane Laws, which day shall be reputed the Sabbath. And if this Author tell us, it must be the Seventh in course from the Creation; We are never a whit the nearer. For though he take great pleasure, on all occasions, to exclaim against Tradition; yet he must admit a great deal of Tradition to intervene before he can prove this or that day to be a Seventh in course from the Creation.
I am apt to think also, that when he hath well consider'd the case of Sr. Francis Drake (and many more since that time, who sailing round the world, as he did, have lost a day,) he will come to one of these two Resolutions: Either that when he comes back to England he must continue to call that Saturday which on his account was so; (and then his Saturday-Sabbath will be the same with our Sunday:) Or else that his account must be somewhere rectified in his Voyage by skipping a day; and then and there beginning to call Sunday what, just before, he was to call Saturday.
Now because there is nothing in Nature to determine where this must be; nor is there any thing of divine Institution (that I know of) to determine where it shall be; It seems to me to be Prudential, or most rational, (if nothing intervene to counterbalance it,) to be at what we call the first Meridian, from whence we reckon the Degrees of Longitude, East-ward, 1, 2, 3, &c. and so onward till we come round to 360, at the same Meridian again; and thence begin to reckon onward 1, 2, 3, &c. as before, for another round.
This first Meridian, in Ptolemy's time, was accounted to be about the Western part of the African shore; as being the most Western part of the World then known. Of later times, Geographers have been pleased to remove it more West, about the Islands called Azores, or the Flemish Islands. But all agree to place it between our Continent and that of America. And if from that Meridian, from whence we reckon the beginning of Longitude, we reckon also the beginning of Days; then the last of Saturday must there end, and the first of Sunday must there begin. And therefore at that Meridian the sailers round the World should rectify their account, calling it Saturday on the one side of it, and Sunday on the other; that being the latest of Saturday, and the soonest of Sunday.
He will tell me perhaps, that, by this account, if We keep our Sabbath on Sunday, those in New-England must be said to keep theirs on Monday, as being on the other side of that Meridian. And 'tis true, it would so follow. And therefore I did interpose, if nothing else do intervene to counterbalance it. And this is what I did at first intimate, as disputable, whether we and they in New-England are to be said to keep our Sabbath on the same day.
But it is the same case as to the whole Continent of America. And the same resolution will reach all.
And therefore, the thing being once settled by the common consent of all, I would by no means advise to change the day.
For the placing the first Meridian is purely Arbitrary. It might as well have been placed beyond America, (if men had so pleased, and that America had been known in Ptolemy's time) as on this side: (And we might have numbred our Degrees of Longitude Westward, as now we do Eastward:) And may be so reputed now, if men so please (as it is now reputed about 10 or 15 degrees more to the Westward than it was in Ptolemy's days.)
And it is purely Arbitrary, where to begin to change the name of the day which is to be so called; whether at the First Meridian, or else-where.
And consequently 'tis purely Arbitrary or Discretional, whether in America such day shall be called Sunday or Monday. There is nothing in the fourth Commandment, nor in the Word of God, to determine it.
But it so happening, that America hath been peopled from Europe, traveling Westward from hence (without taking notice that we cross the first Meridian,) we have reckoned the days (and so named them) according as they appeared to those upon their Voyage who went thither. Whereas if it had been peopled (I mean, as to the Christians there) from Asia and the East-Indies (by people coming thence to the other side of America) what there is now called Sunday, would (for the like reason) have been called Monday: and the Fourth Commandment equally observed either way.
And upon a like account Christians in the East-Indies, and in China and Iapan, traveling Eastward from hence thither, do call their days there according as they appeared to fall out to them in the course of their Voyage.
Now 'tis true, that some part of the day which we here call Sunday, is coincident with some part of what is so called in Iapan, and also some part of our Sunday (though not the same part) is coincident with part of theirs in America. But very little of theirs in the East of Iapan, with theirs in the West of America. About Eleven a clock at night in the one (or yet later) before it begins to be one a clock in the morning in the other, (scarce an hour in common) according to our ancient Maps. (Our later Maps make it somewhat more, as if it might be Ten at night in the one, when it begins to be Two in the morning at the other.) Yet these pass for the same sunday. And 'tis well enough so to reckon.
But it is Prudentially so: Because the chief Trade and intercourse of America, is with Europe; not with Asia. And therefore it is considered as lying West from Europe; rather than as East from Iapan. And accordingly it is so placed in our Maps. And though we continue to reckon our Longitude as from a Meridian between Us and America, yet the account of our days we begin as from a Meridian beyond it, between America and Asia.
Which is not said to raise new scruples, (as if I would advise an alteration of a received computation; which is well enough as it is; and I know not how to mend it:) But to shew there is an unavoidable Necessity of leaving much to Prudential considerations, What day shall be reputed sunday, and what the sabbath, in this or that place. And therefore it cannot reasonably be thought the design of the fourth Commandment to confine us to such Circumstantial Niceties, which do not at all influence the substantials of Worship.
The fourth Commandment requires the seventh day of Holy Rest, after six days of ordinary Labour. But of a Seventh day in course from the Creation to be so observed, it saith nothing: Nor is it possible for us to know. The Iews observed a seventh day in course from the first raining of Manna; but I do not know how that concerns us; or, if it did, how we shall know which is that day? (for this Gentleman will not allow Tradition to be a good proof.) We observe a seventh day in course from what (we think) the Apostles did observe. If we mistake our reckoning (which I think we do not) it is not a Culpable Ignorance; for it is according to the best Light we have. This day we are in possession of, and the Christian Church hath so been for many Hundred years. And he that would dispossess us of it, must shew a better Title. (The old rule is, Possidentis potior est ratio.) To change meerly for change sake, is Foolish. If he would lay a Divine Necessity on us to observe the Iewish Sabbath from the first raining of Manna (if at least that be the day by them observed in our Saviours time;) he must make it clear to us, which is that day (by a better argument, if he can, than Tradition:) And, that we are of necessity obliged to that day; which was (himself acknowledges) a distinctive sign of them from other Nations, as Circumcision also was. And if this distinctive mark (when the partition wall is broken down) do as much cease as that did: 'Tis as truly superstition now to put a necessity upon it, as upon Circumcision. Which though the Apostles would, for a while, permit to the Jews; (to whom it had once been a Law) till they should be better satisfied; Yet would by no means allow to the Gentiles, to whom it had not before been a Law. And I think the case is just the same of the Iewish Sabbath as contradistinguished to the Lords day.
I am Yours, &c.
FINIS.
End of the text · John Wallis, Defense of the Christian Sabbath (1692)