Seven questions of the sabbath briefly disputed, after the manner of the schooles. Wherein such cases, and scruples, as are incident to this subject, are cleared, and resolved, by Gilbert Ironside B.D.

CHAP. 18. The Arguments for the Negatiue are breifly set downe.

FOR the Negatiue it is said.

First, that whatsoeuer is of Diuine institution is to be found either in the naturall, or positiue law of God; for all lawes are writen constitutions, say Civilians. And the Schooleman giues the reason, for otherwise they werea 1.1 no lawes, but snares for mens consciences, and stumbling blocks, not only * to the simple, but to wise men themselues. But that the first day of the weeke should be the Christian mans Sabbath, is not found to be writen, either natu∣rally vpon the heart; or positiuely in the Scripture,

either expresly in the letter: or implicitly to be dedu∣ced by necessary, and vndeniable consequence: Not naturally vpon the heart; for then it were a principall of nature, which no man affirmes; Nor positiuely in Scripture, for then the text might be produced; not by vndeniable consequence, for we shall see the weaknesse of all these deductions, which hitherto are, or, as I conceiue, may be made; and in this poynt we must wholy be guided by probabilities, saith M^r Per∣kins.

If any man except against the sufficiency of this enumeration, and conceiue it to be a diuine ordinati∣on, because it hath authority from the practice of the Apostles, and their example recorded in Scripture.

I answere, that in deed the Papists make much vse of this Maxime.b 1.2 Bellarmin maintaines the fast of Lent to be a necessary observation, by no other way. But me thinks, when a man speaks of holy things, to which the consciences of men are bound vnder the obligation of sinne; it is too much loosenes to say, we are bound to follow the examples of Gods Saints, when no precept can be produced. For only the ex∣amples of Christ in such things, which are mo••rall vertues: or wherein he dischargeth the office of a Me∣diator, and wherein he is proposed unto us to be im∣mitated by us, are to be admitted for necessary in∣structions, and obligations. And surely were it o∣therwise, so that a man should distinguish betweene a divine precept, and a divine ordination (as the Iesuite Lainez did in the Councell of Trent) what a wide

gappe were opened to usurpe upon mens consciences? S^t Augustines rule is safe, I beleeue not, what I read not. If any man say, that this daies observation was an Apostolicall tradition; we shall I hope giue him sa∣tisfaction, when we come to those arguments, which formerly were made to this purpose.

Secondly, if Christ had given any command to for∣beare the Iewish Sabbath, and in its roome to obserue the Lords day; the Apostles, holding their first Sy∣node, would doubtlesse haue expressed as much in their letters to the Gentiles; for they professe by that their decree, to lay upon them all necessary burthens in regard of outward observations. But the keeping of the Lords day in the place of the Iewish Sabbath, is an outward observation, and the Apostles burthen them not therewith; therefore &c. The Argument gathers strength from the circumstance of the text; because the question was at that time, which also oc∣casioned the Synode, betweene the Iewes, and Gen∣tiles, how farre forth they were bound to the law of Moses, of which the Sabbath was one speciall branch.

[Ob.] If any man say, that Baptisme was an outward ob∣servation, and yet they burthened them not there∣with, and therefore no marvaile if they silenced the Lords day; as also that the Apostles prescribed nega∣tively, not affirmatiuely,

[Sol.] I answere to the first, that Baptisme was already made knowne unto them, both by precept, and pra∣ctice, to be a necessary Sacrament of the Gospell, and therefore needed not to be then repeated. And to the

second, that indeed their directions were only nega∣tiue; and from hence we may well inferre, that the first Christians were tyed to no affirmatiues, but such only, as were expresse duties commanded by precept of the Gospell; But the observation of the Lords day is affirmatiue, and no where so precepted. Therefore &c.

Thirdly, whatsoever is of divine institution, and (as they say) by necessity of precept laid upon the whole Church of Christ, is to be observed, as a necessary meanes unto salvation by the particular members thereof, unlesse we be debarred therefrom by some inevitable impossibility; for he that is guilty of one, is guilty of all. But that the obseruation of the Lords day, ever since Christs resurrection, or ascension, hath been a necessary duty, without which, if it might pos∣sibly haue beene observed, no salvation were to be had, were desperate rashnesse to affirme. For many doubtlesse there were, which never kept the Lords day in the Apostles time: as most beleeving Iewes, and many beleeving Gentiles. Many also in these times very seldome, or never keepe a Sabbath, by rea∣son of their callings: as workers in Mines, Colepits, Shepheards, Cookes, Physitians; whose salvation not∣withstanding we may not doubt; Ergo. &c.

Fourthly no outward observation is under precept in the Ecclesiasticall Law, which concernes not the kingdome of God,* 1.3 defined, to be Righteousnesse, peace, ioy in the holy Ghost; and therefore is the Gos∣pell called Evangelium Regni, the Gospell af the king∣dome,

and the Law of the Spirit: This proposition is laid down by the Schoolemen for a Maxime in Di∣vinity, and is thus proved by way of induction; for thec 1.4 Gospell commands only such observations, which are either meanes of Grace, as the word, and Sacraments: or wherein the use, and excercise of grace doth consist: as the duties of love towards God, and man; But that the first day of the weeke should be ob∣served Sabbath, nothing concernes the kingdome of God within us, because its neither a meanes of grace, nor exercise of grace.

[Ob.] If any man say, the keeping of the Lords day Sab∣bath is both these; first a meanes of grace, by reason of the word, and Sacraments then administred; and an exercise of grace; for then we returne prayses, and send vp our prayers to the throne of grace, and mani∣fest our loue both to Christ, and our brethren.

[Sol.] I answere, that he wholy mistakes; for the questi∣on is not, whether the duties done upon the day, be either meanes, or exercises of grace; for this is of it selfe manifest; but whether the keeping of this day Sabbath, more then an other, be such. The day is one thing, the duties are an other; these belong to the king∣dome of God, preserving, and encreasing them in us: that is but a circumstance of time, and of it selfe no∣thing in this respect. All things of this nature, as time, place, manner, are not (precisely, and of themselues considered) of the essence, or necessity of grace; and therefore are not commanded in the Gospell, but left to the wisdome, and descretion of the Church.

Fiftly, that day, which cannot be kept universally through the whole world, was never commanded the whole Church of Christ by an Evangelicall Law; for the law of the Gospell is given to all nations. But the first day of the weeke, which is the Lords day, ob∣served in memory of the Lords resurrection, cannot be thus universally kept, considering the diversity of Meridians, and the unequall rising, and setting of the Sunne in diverse Climates in the world. Some of our adversaries foresaw this objection, but could never a∣voyd it; only they tell us, that it was so with the Iewes in regard of their Sabbath; and therefored 1.5 affirme, that they were not bound to keepe their Sabbath upon that precise, and just distinction of time, called the seventh day from the Creation. For the Sunne stood still in Iosuah's time; it went back ten degrees (fiue houres) in Hezekia's time; besides the variation of the Climates throughout the world. Vpon this they inferre two things. 1. that God by his prerogatiue might dispence with men in these cases: 2. that the Commandement meaneth not the determinate se∣venth from the Creation, but indefinitely a seventh. But what absurdities doe hence follow?

First, they seem to affirme, that the standing still, and the going back of the Sunne, made an alteration in the day, as it was the seventh from the creation. Indeed they made it longer, and to consist of a grea∣ter number of houres for the present; but what is this to the number of seven? One and the selfe same day may be longer in Summer, shorter in Winter, yet

keeps its ranke amongst the other daies of the week for place, and number.

Secondly, they affirme that the Iewes were not bound to any determinate day, not to this seventh, but a seventh. Expresly contrary to the words of Mo∣ses,* 1.6 the seventh is the Sabbath.

Thirdly, there is the same reason in all the forena∣med particulars between the Iewes Sabbath, and the Christians. If therefore their day were indefinitely a seventh, ours must also be indefinitely a first; and by this meanes they say, and unsay with one, and the same breath; the first day is our Sabbath by divine in∣stitution, and yet not the first, but a first; which is to yeeld the question.

Sixtly, there is the same reason of keeping a deter∣minate set Sabbath under the Gospell, that there is of preaching, praying, and administring the Sacraments, Ordaining of Ministers, doing works of mercy at set-times. For I think no man is so farre infatuated with this paradox, as either to preferre the Sabbath before these: or to sever the day from the duties, which are the main end of the daies observation. But all these are commanded in generall, not prescribed in particu∣lar when, or where, or how; so all things be done decently, and in order; We no where read how often in a year we must receive the Sacrament of the Lords supper; how often we should hear a Sermon: or when to give, or how much either publikely, or privatly. If therefore there be no set times appointed for the maine duties of religion under the Gospell, there is

no set time appointed to be kept Sabbath. There∣fore &c.

Seventhly, That, which is expresly against Christi∣an liberty, was never commanded by Christ, or his Apostles; but to have the conscience burthened with any outward observations, putting Religion in them, as being parts, and branches of Gods worship, is di∣rectly against Christian liberty; for how is he free, that is thus bound to times, and daies? We have then only exchanged, not shaken off the Iewish bondage. If any man say, that this was both the argument, and error of the Patrobrusians of old, and Anabaptists of late; he is much mistaken, for they pretend not to Christian liberty, when the conscience is not burthe∣ned immediatly from God; but to unchristian licence, and confusion, to be exempted from the lawes of men, and decent order of the Church.

Eightly, There is no duty, I think, essentiall in reli∣gion, ordained by Christ, or his Apostles, of which we find not either exhortations in respect of perfor∣mance: or reprehensions in regard of their neglect, ei∣ther in the Gospell, the Acts, or the Epistles; But the keeping of the first day of the week Sabbath, is no where pressed, or exhorted unto; the neglect thereof no where reproved, or forbidden in all the new Te∣stament. Ergo.

[Ob.] If any man say, it is frequently mentioned with ap∣probation:

[Resp.] I answer, that so are divers things besides, which are no divine institutions, binding the Church of

Christ; as extream unction, the Presbytery, womens vayles, widdowes; these are mentioned with honour: but so is not the manner of observing the Lords day, which is now cried up; nor any divine institution thereof. Whereupon these things will necessarily fol∣low. That either the Apostles never held this obser∣vation to be a divine precept: or that having given it for such to the primitive Christians in the Churches planted by them, they never failed in the observation thereof; which is not imaginable, considering what grosse abuses, and prophanations were found amongst them: or lastly, that the Apostles knowing the Lords day, which they had injoyned thē as a divine precept, to haue been neglected, winked & connived thereat; though so ready (even with the rod) to reforme all o∣ther disorders; which also cannot be well conceived.

Ninthly, Had the obseruation of the Lords day-Sabbath been of divine institution, it is very probable, that the* 1.7 Apostle, reproving the Corinthians for go∣ing to Law one with another under the heathen Iud∣ges, would not have omitted the advantage of this circumstance. For plain it is, that their pleadings were ordinarily upon the Lords day. By their going to Law therefore they not only scandalized the Gospell, and devoured one another; but were also prophaners of that day, which Christ himselfe had Commanded to be kept holy; it being impossible at once to keep a Sabbath, and attend a Court of Iudicature under an Heathen Iudge. But the Apostle makes not the least mention of this circumstance, though so pregnant and

advantagious to his purpose; it is therefore very like∣ly, there was not as yet any divine precept for the Lords Day.

Tenthly, if Christ had appointed this day, because it was the day of the Resurrection; then the Eastern Churches, which followed S^t Iohn, did ill, and trans∣gressed this ordinance of Christ, when they kept their Easter (which only, and properly is the day of Christs resurrection) upon any other day: as it happened in the Leviticall account. And sod 1.8 Pope Victor may well be justified, who did excommunicate them for this offence; but the Disciples of S. Iohn, though perhaps they did not so well, yet cannot be simply condem∣ned for evill doers, and to have been justly excommu∣nicated by Pope Victor: as Iraeneus in his Epistle to Victor makes it appear. Ergo &c.

Eleventhly, Had it been a divine institution, doubt∣lesse those Fathers, and Synods, that have spoken so much in praise of the day, displaying the glorious prerogatives thereof, to commend it thereby to Christian mens observation, would never have omit∣ted this, which is the greatest of all the rest. But nei∣ther the Councell of Palestina, setting down the seve∣rall Benedictions of this above other daies: nor the Councell of Matiscon in France attributing the ir∣ruption, and prevailing of the Gothes, and Vandalls, to the neglect of this day: nore 1.9 S. Cyprian, nor Leo, which have writen large panegyricks hereof, ever af∣firmed a divine institution.

Twelfthly, That, which the Orthodox condemne

to be indeed Popery, should not be consented unto by us; especially by such of us, as would be held the great Reformers of the Church, and therefore startle at the very sight of harmlesse ceremonies, because they have been polluted by Papists; as the Crosse after Baptisme, Surplice &c. But that the Lords day is not only a part of the Churches order, and policie, but of Gods worship also, and is more holy, then other daies (as it must needs be, if from divine authority) is con∣demned byf 1.10 Reformists in the Papists; farre there∣fore be it from our adversaries to Symbolize with them.

Lastly. Authorities also are not wanting.g 1.11 Socrates affirmes, that the Apostles never intended to establish Lawes concerning Holy-daies to be observed by Christians, but to be unto them the Masters of true piety, and holinesse. And because (saith the Hi∣storian) no man is able to produce any precept to this purpose, upon authenticall record; plaine it is, that the Apostles left these things to the liberty, and ap∣pointment of men. The historian speaks indeed of Easter in that place, but first he delivers for Maxims, and Principles that which hath been said. Secondly, that question of Easter (as I conceive) differs not any thing from this of the Lords day: viz. whether the day celebrated by the Church in memory of Christs resurrection ought necessarily, and by vertue of Di∣vine precept to be the first day of the week only.h 1.12 S. Augustine also made it not only will-worship, but the service of the creature, which is Idolatry, to ob∣serve

any day, as commanded of God; and answering what the Manichee (against whom he wrote) might object, viz. that Christians themselves diligently observe the Lords day, and Easter; true (saith the Fa∣ther) we solemnly keep all these, but the time is not that, which we obserue, as if it were cōmanded; but we look wholy to those thins, to which the times lead.i 1.13 S. Hierom likewise makes the Quaere, whether our Christian Lords-day incurre not the Apostles prohi∣bition in his Epistle to the Galathians, and resolves negatively upon these grounds. They differ, (saith he) from those there condemned; first, materially, for they are not the same daies; Secondly formally, for our daies have not in them any holinesse, and necessity from divine institution, as theirs had; but are at liber∣ty to be kept upon any day whatsoever; Thirdly, in regard of their end, which in ours is only to preserve order, and to avoid confusion in our Ecclesiasticall Assemblies. The book of Homilies affirmeth plainly, that Christian men did of themselves without any divine precept follow the example of God comman∣ding the Iewes a Sabbath, & so took upon them the observation of the Lords day; we have also the unani∣mous consent of al the reformed Churches of God at this day in Christendom. Adde hereunto the suffrages (not to say the sufferings) of our own Martyrs in those Marian daies. How the tenent came to be chan∣ged M^r Rogers, in his preface to his Comment upon the Articles of Religion established in the Church of England, hath at large set down. Lastly, M. Perkins

(who, I think, was one of the first, that took up this te∣nent) speaks waveringly, and doubtfully herein. And surely his modesty is to be commended, if you com∣pare it with the violence of his followers, with whom any man of contrary judgement is tantùm non a re∣probate. But* 1.14 wisdome is justified of her children.

Notes

• a 1.1

  Leges con∣stituuntur, cum promul∣gantur, alio∣qui constitati∣ones positivae non essent nisi in laqueum & offensiones, & scandalum nedù•• insipi∣entum, sed & sapientum. Gers.
• b 1.2

  Ab Aposto∣lis per doctri∣nam spiritus sancti institu∣ta, & omni∣bus saeculis post Apostoli∣ca tempora succedentibus celebra••a est. Bel. de bonis oper. lib. 2. cap. 34.
• * 1.3

  Rom. 14.17.
• c 1.4

  Lex nova in exterioribus illa solum prae∣cipere debuit, vel prohibere, per quae in gratiam intr••∣ducimur, vel quae pertinen•• ad rectum u∣sum gratiae ex necessitate. A∣quin. 1.2. q. 108. art. 2.
• d 1.5

  Practice of piety.
• * 1.6

  Exod. 20.10.
• * 1.7

  1. Cor. 6.••.
• d 1.8

  Apud Euseb. lib. 5. c. 24. 'O 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Soc. lib. 5. c. 21.
• e 1.9

  Cyprian. ep. 66.
• f 1.10

  Paraeus in cap. 14. ad Rom. Ames. Bell. enervat.
• g 1.11

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Soc. ib.
• h 1.12

  Hoc in iis culpat Apo∣stolus, & in omnibus, qui serviunt crea∣turae potius, quàm creatori; nam nos quo{que} & dominicam diem & Pas∣cha solenniter celebramus, sed quia in∣telligimu•• quò perti∣neant, non tempora obser∣vamus, sed quae illis sig∣nificantur temporibus. Aug. cont. Adam. Man. c. 16.
• i 1.13

  Dicat ali∣quis, nos quo{que} simile crimen incurrimus, observantes diem domini∣cam; ad quod qui simpliciter respondet, di∣••et, non eosdem Iudaicae ob∣servationis dies esse, quos nostros, ne in∣ordinata con∣gregatio po∣puli fidem minueret, in Christo, quòd non celebrior sit dies illa; qui verò acutius respondere co∣natur, illud affirmat, om∣nes dies ae∣quales esse. Hier. in Gal. c. 4. Tyndall in his answere to Sir Thom. Moores first booke. Fr••ths Decla∣ration of Bap∣tisme. Barnes suppli∣cation to the King.
• * 1.14

  Mat. 11.19.