| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
 Bad Advertisement? News & Reviews: Are you a Christian? Online Store: |
THE FIRST BOOKE.PREVIOUS CHAPTER - NEXT CHAPTER - HELP
Exodus 31:15,16. Wherefore the children of Israel shall keepe the Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations: it is a signe between mee and the children of Israel, for ever. CHAPTER - THAT THE SABBATH WAS NOT INSTITUTED IN THE BEGINNING OF THE WORLD. (1) The entrance to the Worke in hand. (2) That those Words Genesis 2. And God blessed the seventh Day, etc. are there delivered, as by way of Anticipation. (3) Anticipations in the Scripture confessed by them, who denie it here. (4) Anticipations of the same nature not strange in Scripture. (5) No Law imposed by God on Adam touching the keeping of the Sabbath. (6) The Sabbath not ingraft by nature in the soule of man. (7) The greatest Advocates for the Sabbath, denie it to be any part of the Law of Nature. (8) Of the moralitie and perfection supposed to be in the number of seven, by some learned men. (9) That other numbers in the confession of the same learned men, particularly the first, third, and fourth, are both as morall and as perfect, as the seventh. (10) The like is proved of the sixth, eighth, and tenth, and of other numbers. (11) The Scripture not more favorable to the number of seven, then it is to others. (12) Great caution to be used by those, who love to recreate themselves in the mysteries of numbers. (1) I Purpose by the grace of God to write an History of the Sabbath, and to make known what practically has been done therein by the Church of God in all ages past, from the Creation till this present: Primaq; ab origine mudi ad mea perpetuum deducere tempera carmen. One day, as David tells us, teaches another. Nor can we have a better Schoolmaster in the things of God, than the continual and most constant practice of those famous men that have gone before us. An undertaking of great difficulty, but of greater profit. In which I will crave leave to say, as does Saint Austine, in the entrance to his Books de Civitate; Magnum opus & arduum, sed Deus est adjutor noster. Therefore, most humbly begging the assistance of God’s holy Spirit to guide men in the way of truth, I shall apply myself to so great a work, beginning with the first beginnings, and so continuing my discourse successively unto these times wherein we live. In which no accident of note, as far as I am able to discern, shall pass unobserved, which may conduce to the discovery of the truth and settling of the minds of men in a point to be controverted. On therefore * to the present business. [In the beginning (saith the Text) God created the Heaven and the Earth. Which being finished, and all the host of them made perfect, on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And then it follows, And God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because that in it he had rested from all his works, which God created and made. Unto this passage of the Text, and this point of time, some have referred the institution and original of the Sabbath: taking these words to be a plain narration of a thing then done, according to that very time wherein the Scripture doth report it. And that the sanctifying of the seventh day therein mentioned, was a Commandment given by God to our Father Adam touching the sanctifying of that day to his public worship. Conceiving also that there is some special mystery and morality in the number of seven, for which that day, and none but that, could be designed and set apart for this employment. Others, and those the ancienter, and of more authority, conceive these words to have been spoken by a Prolepsis or Anticipation; and to relate unto the times wherein Moses wrote. And that it was an intimation only of the reason why God imposed upon the Jews the sanctifying rather of the seventh day, than of any other: no precept to that purpose being given to Adam and to his posterity; nor any mystery in that number, why of itself it should be thought most proper for God’s public service. The perfect stating of these points will give great light to the following story. And therefore we will first crave leave to remove these doubts before we come to matter of fact; that afterwards I may proceed with the greater ease to my self, & satisfaction to the Reader. The ground work or foundation laid, the building will be raised the surer. (2) And first it is conceived by many learned men, that Moses in the second of Genesis, relates unto the times in the which he lived and wrote the History of the Creation: when God had now made known his holy will unto him, and the Commandment of the Sabbath had by his Ministry been delivered to the house of Israel. This is indeed the ancienter and more general tendry, unanimously delivered both by Jew and Christian; and not so much as questioned till these later days. And however some ascribe it to Tostatus as to the first inventer of it; yet it is ancienter far than he: though were it so, it could not be denied but that it had an able and learned Author. A man considering the times in which he lived, and the short time of life it pleased God to give him; that hardly ever had his equal. It’s true, Tostatus thus resolves it. He makes this query first, Num sabbatum cum a Deo sanctificatum fuerit in primordio rerum, etc. “Whether the Sabbath being sanctified by God in the infancy of the World, had been observed of men, by the Law of Nature.” And thereunto returns this answer, “quod Deus non dederit praeceptum illud de observatione sabbati in principio, sed per Mosen datum esse, etc. “That God commanded not the Sabbath to be sanctified in the beginning of the World, but that it was commanded afterwards by the Law of Moses; when God did publicly make known his will upon Mount Sinai. And that whereas the Scripture speaketh of sanctifying the seventh day, in the second of Genesis, it is not to be understood as if the Lord did then appoint it for his public worship; but is to be referred unto the time wherein Moses wrote, which was in the Wilderness. Et sic Moses intendebat dicere quod Deus illum diem sanctificavit, se. N O B I S, etc. And so, saith he, the meaning of the Prophet will be briefly this, that God did sanctify that day, that is, to Us, to us that are his people of the house of Jacob, that we might consecrate it to his service.” So far Tostatus. In which I must confess, that I see not any thing but what Josephus said before him, though in other words: who speaking of the World’s Creation doth conclude it thus, *, etc. So that Moses saith that the World and all that is therein, was made in six whole days, and that upon the seventh day God took rest, and ceased from his labors. *, etc. By reason whereof, we likewise desist from travail on that day, which we call the Sabbath, i.e. repose. So that the institution of the Sabbath, by Tostatus; and the observation of it, by Josephus; are both of them referred, by their use of us, and we, unto the times of Moses, and the house of Israel. Nor is Josephus the only learned man amongst the Jews that so interpreteth Moses’ meaning. Solomon Iarchi, one of the principal of the Rabbins speaks more expressly to this purpose; and makes this Gloss or Comment upon Moses’ words: “Benedixit ei, i.e. in manna, etc. God blessed the seventh day, i.e. in Mannah, because for every day of the week, an Homer of it fell upon the earth, and a double portion on the sixth, and sanctified it, i.e. in Mannah, because it fell not on the seventh day at all. Et scriptura loquitur de re futura. “And in this place” (saith he) “the Scripture speaks as of a thing that was to come.” Nay, generally the Hebrew Doctors do affirm as much, assuring us that the Commandment of the Sabbath was neither given nor known till the fall of Mannah; & ante alia mandata datum esse, quando Mannah acceperunt: whose testimony more at large shall be reported in the first Section of the fourth Chapter of this Book. If not before the fall of Mannah, then certainly not given at the first beginning: and therefore mentioned here as by Anticipation. But what need more be said? Mercer, a learned Protestant and one much conversant in the Rabbins, confesseth that the Rabbins generally refer this place and passage to the following times, even to the sanctification of the Sabbath established by the law of Moses, and the fall of Mannah, Hebrei fere ad futurum referunt, i.e. sanctificationem Sabbati postea lege per Mosen sancitam: unde & Manna eo die non descendit. And howsoever for his own part, he is of opinion that the first Fathers being taught by God, kept the seventh day holy; yet he conceives withal that the Commandment of keeping holy the Sabbath days was not made till afterwards. Nam hinc (from God’s own resting on that day) postea praeceptum de Sabbato natum est, as he there hath it. Doubtless the Jews, who so much doted on their Sabbath, would not by any means have robbed it of so great antiquity; had they had any ground to approve thereof, or not known the contrary. So that the scope of Moses in this present place was not to shew the time when, but the occasion why, the Lord did after sanctify the seventh day for a Sabbath day: viz. because that on that day he rested from the works which he had created. (3) Nor was it otherwise conceived then that Moses here did speak by way of Prolepsis, or Anticipation, till Ambrose Catharin, one of the great sticklers in the Trent Council, opined the contrary. He in his Comment on that Text falls very foul upon Tostatus; and therein leads the dance to others, who have since taken up the same opinion. “Ineptum est quod quidam commentus est, etc. It is a foolish thing (saith he) that (as a certain Writer fancieth) the sanctification of that day which Moses speaks of, should not be true as of that very point of time whereof he speaks it, but rather is to be referred unto the time wherein he wrote: as if the meaning only were, that then it should be sanctified when it was ordered and appointed by the Law of Moses.” And this he calls Commentum ineptum, & contra literam ipsam, & contra ipsius Moseos declarationem; A foolish and absurd conceit, contrary unto Moses’ words and to his meaning. Yet the same Catharin doth affirm in the self-same Book, Scripturis frequentissimum esse, multa per anticipationem narrare; that nothing is more frequent in the holy Scriptures than these anticipations. And in particular, that whereas it is said in the former Chapter, male and female created he them, per anticipationem dictum esse non est dubitandum, that (without doubt) it is so said by anticipation: the woman not being made, as he is of opinion, till the next day after, which was the Sabbath. For the Anticipation he cites Saint Chrystostome, who indeed tells us on that text, *. Behold, saith he, how that which was not done as yet, is here related as if done already. He might have added, for that purpose, Origen on the first of Genesis, and Gregory the Great, Moral lib.32.cap.9. both which take notice of a Prolepsis, or Anticipation in that place of Moses. For the creation of the woman he brings in Saint Jerome, who in his Tract Against the Jews expressly saith, mulierem conditam fuisse die septimo, that the woman was created on the seventh day or Sabbath; to which this Catharin assents, and thinks that thereupon the Lord is said to have finished all his works on the seventh day; that being the last that he created. This seems indeed to be the old tradition, if it be lawful for me to digress a little: it being supposed that Adam being wearied in giving names unto all creatures on the sixth day, in the end whereof he was created, did fall that night into a deep and heavy sleep; and that upon the Sabbath or seventh day morning, his side was opened and a rib took thence, for the creation of the woman. So Augustinus Steuchius reports the Legend. And this I have the rather noted, to meet with Catharinus at his own weapon. Whereas he concludes from the rest of God, that without doubt the institution of the Sabbath began upon that very day when God rested: it seems, by him, God did not wholly rest upon that day, and so we either must have no Sabbath to be kept at all; or else it will be lawful for us by the Lord’s example, to do whatever work we have to do upon that day; and after sanctify the remainder. And yet I needs must say withal, that Catharinus was not the only he, that thought God wrought upon the Sabbath. Aretius also so conceived it. Dies itaque tota non fuit quiete transacta, sed perfecto opere ejus deinceps quievit, ut Hebraeus contextus habet. “The whole day was not spent” (saith he) “in rest from labor, but then God rested when he had perfected all his works; according as the Hebrew Text informs us.” Mercer a man well skilled in Hebrew, denieth not but the Hebrew Text will bear that meaning. Who thereupon conceives that the seventy Elders in the Translation of that place, did purposely translate it, *, that on the sixth day God finished all the works that he had made, and after rested on the seventh. “And this they did,” saith he, “ut omnem dubit andi occasionem tollerent, to take away all hint of collecting thence, that God did any kind of work on that day. For if he finished all his works on the seventh day, it may be thought (saith he) that God wrought upon it.” Saint Hierome This is the thing which the Lord commandeth: Fill an Omer of it [of the Mannah] to be kept for your generations, that they may see the bread wherewith I have fed you in the Wilderness, when I brought you forth from the land of AEgypt. It followeth in the text, that as the Lord commanded Moses, so Aaron laid it up before the testimony to be kept. Here is an ordinance of God’s, an institution of the Lord, and this related in the same manner, by anticipation, as the former was. Lyra upon the place affirms expressly, that it is spoken there per anticipationem: and so doth Vatablus too, in his annotations on that Scripture. But to make sure work of it, I must send Doctor Ames to school to Calvin, who tells us on this text of Moses, non contexuit Moses historiam suo ordine, sed narratione * interposita, melius confirmat, etc. Moses, saith he, relates not here the history in its place and order; but sets it down by way of prolepsis or Anticipation. Indeed it could not well be otherwise interpreted. For how could Aaron lay up a pot of Mannah to be kept before the testimony, when as yet there was neither Ark, nor Tabernacle, and so no testimony before which to keep it? To bring this business to an end, Moses hath told us in the place before remembered, that the children of Israel did eat Mannah forty years, which is not otherwise true, in that place and time in which he tells it, but by the help and figure of anticipation. And this Saint Austin noted in his Questions upon Exodus, Significat scriptura per Prolepsin, i.e., hoc loco commemorando quod etiam postea factum est: “This is expressed, saith he, in Scripture by an anticipation: that is, by mentioning in that place and time, a thing not done a long while after.” And lastly, where Amesius sets it down for certain that no man ever thought of an anticipation in this place of Moses, qui praejudicio aliquo de observatione diei Dominicae non fuit prius anticipatus, who was not first possessed with some manifest prejudice against the sanctifying of the Lord’s day; this cannot possibly be said against Tostatus, who had no enemy to encounter, nor no opinion to oppose, and so no prejudice. We conclude then, that for this passage of the Scripture, we find not any thing unto the contrary, but that it was set down in that place and time by a plain and mere Anticipation; and doth relate unto the time wherein Moses wrote: and therefore no sufficient warrant to fetch the institution of the Sabbath from the first beginnings. One only thing have I to add, and that’s the reason which moved Moses to make this mention of the Sabbath, even in the first beginning of the Book of God, and so long time before the institution of the same. Which doubtless was, the better to excite the Jews to observe that day, from which they seemed at first to be much averse: and therefore were not only to be minded of it, by a Memento in the front of the Commandment; but by an intimation of the equity and reason of it, even in the entrance of God’s Book, derived from God’s first resting on that day after all his works. Theodoret hath so resolved it in his Questions on the book of Genesis, Maxime autem Judaeis ist ascribens, necessario posuit hoc, sanctificavit cum, ut majore cultu prosequantur Sabbatum. Hoc enim in legibus sanciendis inquit, sex diebus creavit Deus, etc. Moses, saith he, writing these things for the use and benefit of the Jews, was of necessity to set down the sanctifying of the sabbath at this place and time, that so they might observe it with the greater reverence. (5) I said an intimation of the equity and reason of it, for that’s as much as can be gathered from that place: though some have labored what they could, to make the sanctifying of the seventh day, threin mentioned, a precept given by God to our Father Adam, touching the sanctifying of that day to his public worship. Of this I shall not now say much, because the practice will disprove it. Only I cannot but report the mind and judgment of Pererius, a learned Jesuit. Who amongst other reasons which he hath alleged, to prove the observation of the sabbath not to have took beginning in the first infancy of the World, makes this for one: that generally the Fathers have agreed on this, Deum non aliud imposuisse Adamo praeceptum, omnino positivum, nisi illud de non edendo fructu arboris scientiae, etc. that God imposed no other law on Adam, which was plainly positive, than that of not eating the forbidden fruit of the Tree of knowledge. Of the which Fathers, since he hath instanced in none particularly, I will make bold to lay before you some two or three; that so out of the mouths of two or three witnesses the truth hereof may be established. And first we have Tertullian, who resolves it thus. Namque in principio mundi ipsi Adae et Evae legem dedit, etc. In the beginning of the World, the Lord commanded Adam and Eve that they should not eat of the fruit of the tree, which is in the middle of the Garden. Which Law (saith he) had been sufficient for their justification, had it been observed. For in that Law all other precepts were included, which afterwards were given by Moses. Saint Basil next, who tells us first, that abstinence of fasting was commanded by the Lord in Paradise. And the, *, etc. the first Commandment given by God to Adam was that he should not eat of the tree of knowledge. The very same, which is affirmed by Saint Ambrose in another language, Et ut sciamus no esse novum jejunium primam illic legem, [i.e. in Paradise] constituit de jejunio. That we may know, saith this good Father, that abstinence or fasting is no new invention, the first Law which the Lord proclaimed in Paradise, was that of fasting. See to this purpose Chrysost. hom. 14. & 16. on the book of Genesis; Austin de Civit.l.14.c.I2; and many other Christian Doctors of all times and ages, who do from hence aggravate the offense of Adam, in that he had but one commandment imposed on him, and yet kept it not. So perfectly agree in this, the greatest lights both of African, the Eastern, and the Western Churches. If so, if that the law of abstinence had been alone sufficient for the justification of our Father Adam, as Tertullian thinks; or if it were the first law given by God unto him, as both Saint Basil and Saint Ambrose are of opinion: the only Law, as both Saint Austin and the Schoole-men think: then was there no such law at all then made, as that of sanctifying of the Sabbath; or else not made according to that time and order, wherein this passage of the Scripture is laid down by Moses. And if not then, there is no other ground for this Commandment in the Book of God before the wandering of God’s people in the Wilderness and the fall of Mannah. A thing so clear, that some of those who willingly would have the Sabbath to have been kept from the first Creation, have not the confidence to ascribe the keeping of it to any ordinance of God, but only to the voluntary imitation of his people. And this is Torniellus’ way, amongst many others, who though he attribute to Enos both set forms of prayer, and certain times by him selected for the performance of that duty; praecipue vero diebus Sabbati, especially upon the Sabbath; yet he resolves it as before, that such as sanctified that day, if such there were; non ex praecepto divino, quod nullum tunc extabat, sed ex pietate solum, id egisse; “were not obliged to do, by any precept from the Lord, none such being given, but only of an arbitrary piety.” Of this opinion doth Mercer also seem to be, as before I noted. So that in this particular point, the Fathers and the modern Writers; the Papist and the Protestant, agree most lovingly together. (6) Much less did any of the Fathers, or other ancient Christian Writers, conceive that sanctifying of the Sabbath, or one day in seven, was naturally ingrafted in the mind of man from his first creation. It’s true, they tell us of a Law which naturally was ingrafted in him. So Chrysostome affirms, that neither Adam nor any other man did ever live without the guidance of this Law; and that it was imprinted in the soul of man, as soon as as he was made a living creature. *, as that Father hath it. But neither he nor any other did ever tell us that the Sabbath was a part of this law of nature: nay, some of them expressly have affirmed the contrary. Theodoret for example, “that these Commandments, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, and others of that kind, alios quoque homines natura edocuit, were generally implanted by the law of nature, in the minds of men. But for the keeping of the Sabbath, it came not in by nature, but by Moses’ law. At Sabbati observandi, non natura magistra, sed latio legis.” So Theodoret. And answerably thereunto Sedulius doth divide the law into three chief parts. Whereof the first is de Sacramentis, of signs and Sacraments, as Circumcision, and the Passover; the second is, quae congruit legi naturali, the body of the Law of nature, and is the summary of those things which are prohibited by the words of God; the third and last, factorum, of rites and ceremonies (for so I take it is his meaning) as new Moons and sabbaths: which clearly doth exempt the Sabbath, from having any thing to do with the law of nature. “ And Damascen assures us too, that when there was no law enacted, nor any Scripture inspired by God, that then there was no Sabbath neither,” *. To which three Ancients we may add many more of these later times, Ryvet and Ames, and divers others, who though they plead hard for the antiquity of the Sabbath, dare not refer the keeping of it to the law of nature; but only (as we shall see anon) unto positive law, and divine commandment. But hereof we shall speak more largely, when we are come unto the promulgating of this Law in the time of Moses; where it will evidently appear to be a positive Constitution only, fitted peculiarly to the Jews; and never otherwise esteemed of than a Jewish ordinance. (7) It’s true, that all men generally have agreed on this, that it is consonant to the law of nature to set apart some time to God’s public service; but that this time should rather be the seventh day than any other, that they impute not unto any thing in nature; but either to divine, legal, or Ecclesiastical institution. The Schoole-men, Papists, Protestants, men of almost all persuasions in religion, have so resolved it. And for the Ancients, our venerable Bede assures us, “that to the Fathers before the law, all days were equal; the seventh day having no prerogative before the others; and this he calls naturalis sabbati libertate, the liberty of the natural sabbath, which ought (saith he) to be restored at our Savior’s coming.” If so, if that the Sabbath, or time of rest unto the Lord, was naturally left free and arbitrary, then certainly it was not restrained more unto one day than another; or to the seventh day, more than to the sixth or eighth. Even Abrose Catharin, as stout a champion as he was for the antiquity of the Sabbath, finds himself at a loss about it. For having took for granted, as he might indeed, that men by the prescript of nature were to assign peculiar times for the service of God; and adding that the very Gentiles used so to do, is fain to shut up all “with an Ignoramus. Nescimus modo quem diem praecipue observarunt prisci illi Dei cultores. We cannot well resolve (saith he) what day especially was observed, by those who worshipped God, in the times of old.” Wherein he doth agree exactly with Abulensis, against whom principally he took up the bucklers; who could have taught him this, if he would have learnt of such a Master, that “howsoever the Hebrew people, or any other, before the giving of the Law, were bound to set apart some time, for religious duties: non tamen magis in sabbato, quam in quolivet aliorum dierum,” yet were they no more bound to the Sabbath day, than to any other. So for the Protestant Writers, two of the greatest Advocates of the Sabbath have resolved accordingly. Quod dies ille solennia unus debeat esse in septimana, hoc positivi juris est; that’s Amesius’ doctrine. And Ryvet also saith the same. Legem de Sabbato, positivam, non naturalem agnoscimus. The places were both cited in the former Section; and both do make the Sabbath a mere positive law, no prescript of nature. But what need more be said in so clear a case; or what needs further Witnesses be produced to give in evidence, when we have confitentem reum. For Doctor Bound, who first amongst us, here, endeavored to advance the Lord’s day into the place of the Jewish Sabbath; and feigned a pedigree of the Sabbath, even from Adam’s infancy: hath herein said enough to betray his cause, and those, who since have either built upon his foundation; or beautified their undertakings with his collections. “Indeed (saith he) this law was given in the beginning, not so much by the light of nature, as the rest of the nine Commandments were; but by express words when God sanctified it. For though this be in the law of nature, that some days should be separated to God’s worship, as appears by the practice of the Gentiles: yet that it should be every seventh day, the Lord himself set down in express words; which otherwise by the light of nature they could never have found. So that by his confession, there is no Sabbath to be found in the law of nature: no more than by the testimony of the Fathers, in any positive law, or divine appointment, until the Decalogue was given by Moses. (9) Nay, Doctor Bound goeth further yet, and robs his friends and followers of a special argument. For where Danaeus asks this question, Why one of seven, rather than one of eight, or nine; and thereunto makes answer, that the number of seven doth signify perfection and perpetuities. “First, saith the Doctor, I do not see that proved, that there is any such mystical signification, rather than of any other. And though that were granted, yet do I not find that to be any cause at all in Scripture, why the seventh day should be commanded to be kept holy, rather than the sixth, or eighth. And in the former page, The special reason why the seventh day should be rather kept than any other, is not the excellency or perfection of that number, or that there is any mystery in it, or that God delighteth more in it, than in any other: though, I confess (saith he) that much is said that way, both in divine and humane writers.” Much hath been said therein indeed, so much that we may justly wonder at the strange niceties of some men, and the unprofitable pains they have took amongst them in searching out the mysteries of this number; the better to advance, as they conceive, the reputation of the Sabbath. Aug. Steuchius hath affirmed in general, that this day and number is most natural and most agreeable to divine employments, and therefore in omni aetate interomnes gentes habitus venerabilis & facer, accounted in all times and Nations holy and venerable; and so have many others said since him. But he that led the way unto him, and to all the rest, is Philo the Jew; who being a great follower of Plato’s, took up his way of trading in the mysteries of several numbers: wherein he was so intricate and perplexed, that numero Platonis obscurius, did grow at last into a Proverb. This Philo therefore Platonizing, first tells us of this number of seven, *, that he persuades himself there is not any man able sufficiently to extol it; as being far above all the powers of Rhetoric, and that the Pythagoreans (from them first Plato learnt those trifles) did usually resemble it, *, even to Jove himself. Then, that Hippocrates doth divide the life of man into seven ages, each age containing seven full years; to which the changes of man’s constitution are all framed and fitted: as also that the Bear, or Arcturus, as they use to call it, and the constellation called the Pleiades, consist of seven stars severally, neither more nor less. He shows us also, how much nature is delighted in this number, *, as viz. that there are seven Planets, and that the Moon quartereth every seventh day, that Infants borne in the seventh month are usually like enough to live; that there are seven several motions of the body, seven entrails, so many outward members, seven holes, or outlets, in the same, seven sorts of excrements; as also that the seventh is the critical day in most kinds of maladies. And to what purpose this, and much more of the same condition every where scattered in his Writings, but to devise some natural reason for the Sabbath? For so he manifests himself in another place. *, etc. “Now why God chose the seventh day, and established it by law, for the day of rest, you need not ask at all of me; since both Physicians and Philosophers have so oft declared of what great power and virtue that number is, as in all other things, so especially in the nature and state of man. *. And thus (saith he) you have the reason of the seventh day-Sabbath.” Indeed Philosophers, and Physicians, and other learned men of great name and credit, have spoken much in honor of the number of seven; and severally impute great power unto it in the works of nature, and several changes of man’s body. Whereof see Censorinus de Die natali, cap.12; Varro in Gellius lib.3.cap.10; Hippocrates, Solon, and Hermippus Beritus in the sixth Book of Clemens of Alexandria; besides divers others. Nay it grew up so high in the opinion of some men, that they derived it at the last, *, i.e. from the reverence due unto it. So Philo tells us. Macrobius also saith the same. Apud veteres * vocitatur quod Graeco nomine testabatur venerationem debitam numero: as he, in Somnio Scipionis. (9) But other men as good as they find no such mystery in this number, but that the rest may keep pace with it, if not go before it: and some of those, which so much magnify the seventh, have found as weighty mysteries in many of the others also. In which I shall the rather enlarge myself, that seeing the exceeding great both contradiction and contention that is between them in these needless curiosities, we may the better find the slightness of those arguments which seem to place a great morality in this number of seven; as if it were by nature the most proper number for the service of God. And first, whereas the learned men before mentioned affix a special power unto it in the works of nature, Justin the Martyr plainly tells us, “*, etc. that the accomplishment of the works of nature is to be ascribed to nature only, not unto any period of time accounted by the number of seven; and that they oft times come to their perfection sooner or later than the said periods: which could not be, in case that nature were observant of this number, as they say she is, and not this number tied to the course of nature. *, etc. Therefore (saith he) this number hath no influence on the works of nature.” Then whereas others attribute I know not what perfection to this number above all the rest; Cicero affirming that it is plenus numerus; Macrobius, that it is numerus solidus & perfectus; Bodinus doth affirm expressly, Neutrum de septenario dici potest, that neither of those attributes is to be ascribed unto this number; then, that the eighth number is a solid number, although not a perfect one; the sixth, a perfect number also. Now as Bodinus makes the eighth more solid, and the sixth more perfect; so Servius on these words of Virgil, Septima post decimam foelix, prefers the tenth number a far deal before it: Ut primum locum decimae ferat, quae sit valde foelix; secundum septima, ut quae post decimae foelicitatem secunda sit. Nay, which may seem more strange than this, the Arithmeticians generally, as we read in Nyssen, make this seventh number to be utterly barren and unfruitful, *. But to go forwards in this matter. Macrobius who before had said of this number seven, that it is plenus & venerabilis, both full and venerable; hath in the same Book said of the number of one, that it is principium & finis omnium, the beginning and end of all things, and that it hath a special reference or resemblance unto God on high: which is by far the greater commendation of the two. And Hierom, that however there be many mysteries in the number of seven, prima tamen beatitude est, esse in primo numero, yet the prime happiness or beatitude is to be sought for in the first. So for the third, Origen generally affirms that it is apsus sacramentis, even made for mysteries; & some particulars he nameth. Macrobius findeth in it all the natural faculties of the soul; *, or rational; *, or irascible, and last of all *, or concupiscible.
Saint Athanasius makes it equal altogether with the seventh; the one being no less memorable for the holy Trinity, than the other for the World’s Creation. And Servius on these words of Virgil, Numero Deus impare gaudet, saith that the Pythagoreans hold it for a perfect number, and do resemble it unto God, a quo principium, & medium, & finis est. Yet on the contrary, Bodinus takes up Aristotle, Plutarch, and Lactantius, for saying that the third is a perfect number; there being in his reckoning but four perfect numbers in 100000; which are 6, 28, 496, and 8128. Next for the fourth, Philo not only hath assured us that it is *, a perfect number, wherein Bodinus contradicts him; but that it is highly honored, as amongst Philosophers, so by Moses also, who hath affirmed of it that it is *, both holy, and praise-worthy too. And for the mysteries thereof, Clemens of Alexandria tells us, that both Jehovah in the Hebrew, and * in the Greek, consisteth of four letters only; and so doth Deus in the Latin. Nazianzen further doth inform us that as the seventh amongst the Hebrews, so was the fourth honored by the Pythagoreans, *, and that they used to swear thereby, when they took an oath. Yet for all this, Saint Ambrose thought this number not alone unprofitable, but even dangerous also. Numerum quartum plerique cavent, & inutile putant, as he in his Hexaemeron. Then for the fifth, Macrobius tells us that it comprehendeth all things both in the Heavens above and the earth below. And yet by Origen it is placed indifferently, partly in laudabilibus, partly in culpabilibus; there being five foolish Virgins, for the five wise ones. (10) Now let us look upon the sixth, which Beda reckoneth to be numerus perfectus; and Bodin, primus perfectorum. Philo, and generally the Pythagoreans do affirm the same. Yet the same Bodin tells us in the selfsame Book, that howsoever it be the first perfect number, such as according unto Plato, did sort most fitly with the workmanship of God:
Videmus tamen vilissimis animantibus convenire, yet was it proper in some sort to the vilest creatures. As for the eighth, Hesychius makes it an expression or figure of the world to come. Macrobius tells us that the Pythagoreans used it as an Hieroglyphick of justice, Quia primus omnium selvitur in numeros pariter pares, because it will be always divisible into even or equal members. Nay, whereas those of Athens did use to sacrifice to Neptune on the eighth day of every month; Plutarch hath found out such a mystical reason for it out of the nature of that number, as others in the number of seven for the morality of the Sabbath. “They sacrifice (saith he) to Neptune on the eighth day of every month because the number of eight is the first Cube, made of even numbers, and the double of the first square: *, which doth represent an immoveable steadfastness, properly attributed to the might of Neptune; whom for this cause we name Asphalius and *, which signifieth the safe keeper and stayer of the earth.” As strong an argument for the one, as any mystery or morality derived from numbers can be for the other. But if we look upon the tenth, we find a greater commendation given to that than to the seventh; yea, by those very men themselves, to whom the seventh appeared so sacred. Philo affirms thereof that of all numbers it is most absolute and complete; not meanly celebrated by the Prophet Moses; most proper and familiar unto God himself; that the powers and virtues of it are innumerable; and finally, that learned men did call it *, because it comprehended in itself all kind of numbers. With whom agree Macrobius, who styles it numerum perfectissimum, the most perfect number; and Clemens Alexandrinus, who gives it both the attributes of holiness and perfection. Nazianzen and Athanasius are as full as they. And here this number seems to me to have got the better; there being nothing spoken in disgrace of this, as was before of the seventh, by several Authors there remembered. So that for ought I see, in case this argument be good, for the morality of the Sabbath, we may make every day, or any day a Sabbath, with as much reason as the seventh, and keep it on the tenth day, with best right of all. Adeo argumenta ab absurdo petita, ineptos habent exitus, said Lactantius truly. Nay, by this reason, we need not keep a Sabbath oftener than every thirtieth day, or every fiftieth, or every hundredth; because those numbers have been noted also to contain great mysteries, and to be perfecter than others. For Origen hath plainly told us that if we look into Scriptures, invenies multa magnarum rerum gesta sub tricenario & quinquagenario contineri, we shall find many notable things delivered to us in the numbers of thirty and fifty. Of fifty more particularly, Philo affirms upon his credit that it is *, the holiest and most natural of all other numbers; and Origen conceived so highly of it that he breaks out into a timeo hujus numeri secreta discutere, and durst not touch upon that string. So lastly for the Centenary, the same Author tells us that it is plenus and perfectus, no one more absolute. We may have Sabbaths at our will, either too many, or too few, if this plea be good. (11) Yea, but perhaps, there may be something in the Scripture whereby the seventh day may be thought more capable in nature of so high an honor. Some have so thought indeed, and thereupon have mustered up all those Texts of Scripture in which there hath been any good expressed or intimated, which concerns this number, or is reducible unto it. Bellarmine never took more pains out of that fruitless Topick to produce seven Sacraments, than they have done from thence to derive the Sabbath. I need not either name the men, or recite the places; both are known sufficiently.
Which kind of proof if it be good, we are but where we were before, amongst out Ecclesiastical and humane Writers. In this the Scriptures will not help us, or give the seventh day naturally and in itself more capability or fitness for God’s worship than the ninth or tenth. For first the Scripture gives not more honor to this number in some Texts thereof, than it detracts from it in others; and secondly, they speak as highly of the other numbers as they do of this. The Jesuit Pererius shall stand up to make good the first, and Doctor Cracanthorp to avow the second. Pererius first resolves it clearly, numerum Septenarium etiam in rebus possimis & execrandis saepe numero positum esse in Scriptura sacra: that the seventh number is oft used in Scripture to signify the vilest and most execrable things. As for example. “The evil spirit (saith Saint Luke) brought with him seven spirits worse than himself; and out of Mary Magdalen did Christ cast out seven Devils, as Saint Marke tells us. So in the Revelation, Saint John informs us as also of seven plagues sent into the earth, and seven Vials of God’s wrath poured out upon it. (He might have told us had he listed, that the purple beast whereon the great Whore rid, had seven heads also, and that she sat upon seven Mountains.) It’s true (saith he) which David tells us, that he did praise God seven times a day; but then as true it is, which Solomon hath told us, that the just man falleth seven times a day.” So in the Book of Genesis, we have seven lean kine, and seven thin ears of Corn; as well as seven fat Kine, and seven full Ears. To proceed no further. Pererius hereupon makes this general resolution of the case: Apparet igitur eosdem numeros, aeque in benis & malis poni, & usurpari in sacre a Scriptura:
Hence it is manifest, saith he, that the same numbers frequently are used in Scripture, both for good and evil. Next, whereas those of Rome, as before I noted, have gone the same way to find out seven Sacraments; our Cracanthorpe, to shew “the vanity of that argument, doth the like for the proof of two. Quod & si nobis fac esset, etc. If it were lawful for us to take this course, we could produce more for the number of two than they can for seven. As for example, God made two great Lights in the Firmament, and gave to man two eyes, two ears, two feet, two hands, two arms. There were two Nations in the womb of Rebecca, two Tables of the Law, two Cherubins, two Sardonich stones in which were written the names of the sons of Israel. Thou shalt offer to the Lord, two Rams, two Turtles, two Lambs of a year old, two young Pigeons, two he-goats, two Oxen for a peace-offering. Let us make two Trumpets, two Doors of the wood of Olives, two Nets, two Pillars. There were two Horns of the Lamb, two Candlesticks, two Olive branches, two Witnesses, two prophets, two Testaments; and upon two Commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets, saith our Savior. Congruentiis facile vinceremus, si nobis in hunc campum descendere libet, etc. We should (saith he) presume of an easy victory, should we thus dally with congruities, as do those of Rome.”
Hence we conclude that by the light of Scripture, we find not any thing in nature why either every seventh day should, or every second say should not be a Sabbath. Not to say any thing of the other numbers, of which the like might be affirmed if we would trouble ourselves about it. (12) It’s true, this trick of trading in the mysteries of numbers is of long standing in the Church, and of no less danger; first borrowed from the Platonists and the Pythagoreans by the ancient Hereticks, Marcion, Valentinus, Basilides, and the rest of that damned crew; the better to disguise their errors, and palliate their impieties. Some of the Fathers afterwards took up the device, perhaps to foil the Hereticks at their own weapons; though many of them purposely declined it. Sure I am, Chrysostom dislikes it. Who on those words in the seventh of Genesis, by seven and by seven (which is the number now debated) doth instruct us thus: *, etc. “Many (saith he) do tell strange matters of this fact, and taking an occasion hence, make many observations out of several numbers.
Whereas not observation, but only an unseasonable curiosity hath produced those fictions, *, from whence so many heresies had their first original. For oftentimes (that out of our abundance we may fit their fancies) we find the even or equal number no less commemorated in holy Scripture; as when God sent out his Disciples by two, and two; when he chose twelve Apostles, and left four Evangelists. But these things it were needless to suggest to you, who have so many times been lessoned,” *, to stop your ears against such follies. Saint Augustine also, though he had descanted a while upon the mysteries of this number; yet he cuts off himself in the very middle, as it were; Nescientolam suam leviter magis quam utiliter, jactare velle videatur; lest he should seem to shew his reading, with more pride than profit. And thereupon he gives this excellent rule, which I could wish had been more practiced in this case: Habenda est itaque ratio moderationis & gravitatu, ne forte cum de numero multumloquismur, mensuram & pondus negligere judicemur. “We must not take, saith he, so much heed of numbers, that we forget at the last both weight and measure.” And this we should the rather do, because that generally there is no rule laid down, or any reason to be given in nature, why some particular numbers have been set apart for particular uses, when other numbers might have served: why Jericho should be rather compassed seven times, than six or eight; why Abraham rather trained three hundred and eighteen of his servants, than three hundred and twenty, or why his servant took ten Camels with him into Padan Aram, and not more or less; with infinite others of this kind, in the Law Levitical. Yet I deny not that some reason may be given, why in the Scripture, things are so often ordered by sevens and sevens: viz. as Justin Martyr tells *, the better to preserve the memory of the world’s Creation. Another reason may be added, which is, by this inculcating the number of seven unto the Jews, to make that people, who otherwise were at first averse from it, as before I noted, continually mindful of the Sabbath:
Numerum septenarium propter Sabbatum Judaeis familiarem esse, being the observation of S. Hierom. To draw this point unto an end, It is apparent by what hath before been spoken, that there is no Sabbath to be found in the beginning of the World, or mentioned as a thing done, in the 2. of Genesis, either on any strength of the Text itself; or by immediate ordinance and command from God, collected from it; or by the law and light of nature, imprinted in the soul of man at his first creation: much less by any natural fitness in the number of seven, whereby it was most capable in itself of so high an honor. Which first premised, we shall the earlier see what hath been done in point of practice.
CHAPTER - THAT THERE WAS NO SABBATH KEPT, FROM THE CREATION, TO THE FLOOD. (1) Gods rest upon the seventh day; and from what hee rested. (2) Zanchius conceit touching the sanctifying of the first seventh day, by Christ our Savior. (3) The like of Torniellus, touching the sanctifying of the same, by the Angels in heaven. (4) A generall demonstration that the Fathers before the Law, did not keepe the Sabbath. (5) Of Adam; that he kept not the Sabbath. (6) That Abel, and Seth did not keep the Sabbath. (7) Of Enos, that he kept not the Sabbath. (8) That Enoch and Methusalem did not keep the Sabbath. (9) Of Noah, that he kept not the Sabbath. (10) The Sacrifices and devotions of the Ancients were occasionall. (1) HOW little ground there is whereon to build the original of the Sabbath, in the second of Genesis, we have at large declared in the former Chapter.
Yet we deny not but that Text affords us a sufficient intimation of the equity and reason of it, which is God’s rest upon that day after all his works that he had made. Not as once Celsus did object against the Christians of his time, as if the Lord, *, etc. like to some dull Artificer, was weary of his labors, and had need of sleep: for he spake the word only, and all things were made. There went no greater labor to the whole Creation, than a Dixit Dominus. Therefore Saint Austin rightly noteth, nec cum creavit defessus, nec cum cessavit refectus est; that God was neither weary of working, nor refreshed with resting. The meaning of the Text is this, that he desisted then, from adding any thing, de novo, unto the World by him created: as having in the six former days fashioned Heaven and Earth, and every thing in them contained; and furnished them with all things necessary, both for use and ornament. I say, from adding any thing, de novo, unto the World by him created; but not from governing the same: which is a work by us as highly to be prized as the first Creation; and from the which God never resteth. Sabbaths and all days are alike in respect of providence, in reference to the universal government of the World and Nature. Semper videmus Deum operari, & Sabbatum nullum est in quo Deus no operetur, in quo no producat Solem suum super bonos & malos.
No Sabbath, whereon God doth rest from the adminstration of the World by him created, whereon he doth not make his Sun to shine both on good and bad; whereon he rains not plenty upon the sinner and the just, as Origen hath truly noted. Nor is this more than what our Savior said in his holy Gospel. I work (saith he) and my Father also worketh. “A saying, as Saint Austine notes, at which the Jews were much offended, our Savior meaning by those words that God rested not, nec ullum sibi cessationis statuisse diem, and that there was no day wherein he tended not the preservation of the creature; and therefore for his own part, he would not cease from doing his Father’s business, ne Sabbatis quidem, no though it were upon the Sabbath. By which it seemeth, that when the Sabbath was observed, and that if still it were in force, it was not then, and would not be unlawful to any now, to look to his estate on the Sabbath day; and to take care that all things thrive and prosper which belong unto him; though he increase it not, or add thereto by following on that day the works of his daily labor. And this according to their rules, who would have God’s example so exactly followed in the Sabbaths rest; who rested, as we see, from creation only, not from preservation. So that the rest here mentioned, was as before I said, no more than a cessation or a leaving off from adding any thing as then, unto the World by him created. Upon which ground he afterwards designed this day for his holy Sabbath, that so by his example the Jews might learn to rest from their worldly labors, and be the better fitted to meditate on the works of God, and to commemorate his goodness manifested in the World’s Creation. (2) Of any other sanctification of this day by the Lord our God, than that he rested on it now, and after did command the Jews that they should sanctify the same, we have no Constat in the Scriptures; no nor in any Author that I have met with, until Zanchie’s time. Indeed he tells us, a large story of his own making, how God the Son came down to Adam, and sanctified his first Sabbath with him; that he might know the better how to do the like. Ego quidem non dubito, etc. “I little doubt, saith he, (I will speak only what I think, without wrong or prejudice to others, I little doubt) but that the Son of God, taking the shape of man upon him, was busied all this day in most holy conferences with Adam; that he made known himself both to him and Eve; taught them the order that he used in the World’s Creation; exhorted them to meditate on those glorious works; in them to praise the Name of God, acknowledging him for their Creator; & after his example, to spend that day for ever in these pious exercises. I doubt not, finally, saith he, but that he taught them on that day the whole body of Divinity; and that he held them busied all day long in hearing him, and celebrating with due praise their Lord and God; & giving thanks unto him for so great and many benefits as God had graciously vouchsafed to bestow upon them. Which said, he shuts up all with this conclusion: Haec est illius septimi dici benedictis & sanctificatio, in quae filius Dei una com patre & spiritu sanctu, quievit ab opere quod fecerat. This was (saith he) the blessing and sanctifying of that seventh day, wherein the Son of God did rest from all the works which they had made.” How Zanchie thwarts himself in this, we shall see hereafter. Such strange conceptions, though they miscarry not in the birth: yet commonly they serve to no other use than monsters in the works of nature, to be seen and shown; with wonder at all times, and sometimes with pity. Had such a thing occurred in Pet.
Comestor’s supplement, which he made unto the Bible, it had been more tolerable. The Legendaries and the Rabbins might fairly also have been excused if any such device had been extant in them. The gravity of the man makes the Tale more pitiful, though never the more to be regarded. For certainly, had there been such a weighty conference between God and man; & so much tending to information & instruction: it is not probable but that we should have heard thereof in the holy Scriptures. And finding nothing of it there, it were but unadvisedly done, to take it on the word & credit of a private man. Non credimus, quia non legimus, This we believe not, because we read it not, was in some points Saint Hierom’s rule; and shall now be ours. (3) As little likelihood there is, that the Angels did observe this day and sanctify the same to the Lord their God: yet some have been so venturous as to affirm it. Sure I am Torniellus saith it. And though he seem to have some Authors upon whom to cast it, yet his approving of it makes it his, as well as theirs who first devised it. Quidam non immerito existimarunt hoc ipso die in Coelis, omnes Angelorum choros, speciali quadam exultatione in Dei laudes prorupisse, quod tam praeclarum & admirabile opus absolvisset. “Some men have thought, saith he, and that not improbably, that on this day the Choir of Angels in the Heavens brake out into the praise of God, in a special manner, in honor of that excellent and admirable work which he then had perfected.” Nay he, and they, who ever they were, have a Scripture for it; even God’s words to Job: Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth; when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? Who, and from whence those Quidam were, that so interpreted God’s words, I could never find; and yet have took some pains to seek it. Sure I am, Saint Austin makes a better use of them, and comes home indeed unto the meaning. Some men, it seems, affirmed that the Angels were not made till after the six days were finished in which all things had been created, and he refers to this Text for their confutation. Which being repeated, he concludes: Iam ergo erant Angeli, quando facta sunt sydera, facta autem sunt sydera die quarto. “Therefore (saith he) the Angels were created before the Stars; and on the fourth day were the Stars created. Yet Zanchius, and those Quidam, be they who they will, fell short a little of another conceit of Philos, who tells us that the Sabbath had a privilege above other days, not only from the first Creation of the World (though that had been enough to set out the Sabbath), *, but even before the Heavens and all things visible were created. If so it must be sanctified by the holy Trinity, without the tongues of men and Angels: and God, not having worked, must rest, and sanctify a time when no time was.
But to return to Torniellus, however those Quidam did mislead him, and make him think that the first Sabbath had been sanctified by the holy Angels; yet he ingenuously confesseth that sanctifying of the Sabbath here upon the earth was not in use till very many ages after, not till the Law was given by Moses. Veruntamen in terris ista sabbati sanctificatio non nisi post multa saecula in usum venisse creditur, nimirum temporibus Mosis, quando sub praecepto data est filiis Israel. So Tornellius. (4) So Tornellius, and so far unquestionable. For that there was no Sabbath kept amongst us men till the times of Moses, the Christian Fathers generally, and some Rabbins also, have agreed together. Which that we may the better show, I shall first let you see what they say in general, and after what they have delivered of particular men, most eminent in the whole story of God’s Book, until the giving of the Law. And first that never any of the Patriarchs before Moses’ time did observe the Sabbath, Justin the Martyr hath assured us: *. None of the righteous men, saith he, and such as walked before the Lord, were either circumcised, or kept the Sabbath, until the several times of Abraham and Moses. And where the Jews were scandalized, in that the Christians did eat hot meats on the Sabbath days, the Martyr makes reply that the said just and righteous men, not taking heed of any such observances, *, obtained a notable testimony of the Lord himself. So Irenaeus, having first told us that Circumcision and the Sabbath were both given for signs; and having spoke particularly of Abraham, Noah, Lot, and Enoch, that they were justified without them, adds for the close of all that the multitude of the faithful before Abraham were justified without the one; Et Patriarcharum eorum qui ante Mosen fuerunt, and all the Patriarchs which preceded Moses without the other. Tertullian next, disputeth thus against the Jews, that they which think the Sabbath must be still observed, as necessary to salvation; or Circumcision to be used upon pain of death: Doceant in praeteritum justos sabbatizasse, aut circumcidisse, & sic amicos Dei effectos esse; ought first of all, saith he, to prove, That the fathers of the former times were circumcised, or kept the Sabbath, or that thereby they did obtain to be accounted the friends of God. Then comes Eusebius the Historian, and he makes it good that the Religion of the Patriarchs before Moses’ Law was nothing different from the Christian; and how proves he that? *. They were not circumcised, no more are we; they kept not any Sabbath, no more do we: they were not bound to abstinence from sundry kinds of meats, which are prohibited by Moses; nor are we neither. Where still observe how constantly these several Fathers rank Circumcision and the Sabbath in one rank or order, which shows that they thought them both of the same condition. This or the like argument doth he also use to the self-same purpose in his first Book, de demonstrat. Evangel, and sixth Chapter. And in his seventh, de praeparatione, he resolves it thus, *, etc. The Hebrews which preceded Moses, and were quite ignorant of his Law (whereof he makes the Sabbath an especial part) disposed their ways according to a voluntary kind of piety, *, framing their lives and actions to the law of nature. This argument is also used by Epiphanius, who speaking of the first ages of the World, informs us this: that then there was no difference among men in matters of opinion; no Judaism, nor kind of heresy whatsoever;*, etc. but that the faith which doth now flourish in God’s church was from the beginning. If so, no Sabbath was observed in the times of old, because none in his. I could enlarge my Catalogue, but that some testimonies are to be reserved to another place: when I shall come to show you that the commandment of the Sabbath was published to God’s people by Moses only; and that to none but to the Jews. After so many of the Fathers, the modern Writers may perhaps seem unnecessary; yet take one or two. First, Musculus (as Doctor Bound informs me, for I take his word), “who tells us that it cannot be proved that the Sabbath was kept before the giving of the Law, either from Adam to Noah, or from the Flood to the times of Moses, or of Abraham and his Posterity.” Which is no more than what we shall see shortly out of Eusebius. Hospinian next, who though he fain would have the sanctifying of the Sabbath to be as old as the beginning of the World,; yet he confesseth at the last, Patres idcirco Sabbatum observasse ante legem, etc. “that for all that it cannot be made good by the Word of God, that any of the Fathers did observe it before the Law.” These two I have the rather cited, because they have been often vouched in the present controversy as men that wished well to the cause, and say somewhat in it. (5) We are now come to particulars. And first we must begin with the first man Adam. The time of his Creation, as the Scriptures tells us, the sixth day of the week, being as Scaliger conjectured in the first Edition of his Work, the three and twentieth day of April; and so the first Sabbath, Sabbatum primum, so he calls it, was the four and twentieth. Petavius, by his computation, makes the first Sabbath to be the first day of November; and Scaliger, in his last Edition, the five and twentieth of October: more near to one another than before they were. Yet saith not Scaliger, that that primum Sabbatum had any reference to Adam, though first he left it so at large, that probably some might so conceive it: for in his later thoughts he declares his meaning to be this, Sabbatum primum in quo Deus requievit ab opere Hexaemeri; the first Sabbath on the which God rested from his six days’ work. Indeed the Chaldee Paraphrase seems to affirm of Adam, that he kept the Sabbath. For where the 92nd Psalm doth bear this Title, A Song or Psalm for the Sabbath day, the Authors of that Paraphrase do expound it thus: Laus & Canticum quod dixit homo primus pro die Sabbati, the Song or Psalm which Adam said for the Sabbath day.
Somewhat more wary in this point was Rabbi Kimchi, who tells us how that Adam was created upon Friday about three of the clock, fell at eleven, was censured and driven out of Paradise at twelve; that all the residue of that day and the following night he bemoaned his miseries, was taken into grace next morning, being Sabbath day; and taking then into consideration all the works of God, in similia istius Psalmi verba prorupisse, brake out into words as there are recorded. A tale that hath as much foundation, as that narration of Zanchy before remembered. Who though he seem to put the matter out of doubt, with his three non dubito’s, that Christ himself did sanctify the first Sabbath with our Father Adam, and did command him ever after to observe that day; yet in another place he makes it only a matter of probability that the commandment of the Sabbath was given at all to our first parents. Quomodo autem sanctificavit? Non solum decreto & voluntate, sed reipsa; quia illum diem, (ut non pauci volunt & probabile est) mandavit primis parentibus sanctificandum. How did God sanctify that day, saith he? Not only by decree or designation, but in very deed; in that, as not a few conceive, and probable it is that it may be so, he did command it to be kept by our first |
