A Defense of the Sabbath Day, Chapter 3 · Commentary · Section 21

A Defense of the Sabbath Day · Chapter 3 · Commentary · Section 21

p. 264SECT. XXI.

All this while you hauehave heard their Teſtimonies alleaged for the Lords day to be a Sabbath; now at laſt, let me hauehave leaue to alleage ſome Teſtimonies, againſt the Lords day, for being a Sabbath: and here in, I will not produce you Diuines of the p. 265loweſt ranke, but ſuch onelyonly as are of the formoſt ranke, & of the chiefe Diuines, that hauehave wrote.

I.

My firſt Teſtimony, ſhall be that recorded by M. Perkines on the 4th com. in his firſt volume, in the order of the Cauſes of Salvation and Damnation pag. 48. which before I touched vponupon, where caleing the Lords day by the name of Sabbath, he thus writeth: The obſervation of the Sabbath, was neglected of thoſe Churches, which ſucceeded the Apostles, but after wards was eſtabliſhed by Christian Emperours, as a day most apte to celebrate the memorie of the Redemption. And for this, he quoteth his Author, Leo and Anton. Edict. of holie daies.

Here it is to be noted 1. that this Teſtimony, is not of what ſome priuate perſones did, or thought of the Lords day, but what was done by an wholl Church; yea by Churches, in the plurall number. 2. The thing recorded of theſe Churches is, that they neglected the obſervation and ſanctification of the Lords day Sabbath. 3. The time is to be noted, how longe they continued, without obſeruation of the day; and this is gatherable to be about Three hundreth yeeres: for it is ſaid, it was neglected vntill it was eſtabliſhed by Chriſtian Emperours: now it is well knowne, that the firſt Chriſtian Emperour, that made any Decree for the honourable & Religiouſe obſervation of the Lords day, was Conſtantine, who liued about 300 yeeres after Chriſt. 4. The laſt thing remarkable, is to conſider what Churches theſe were which ſo neglected the Lords day; they were not any of thoſe later Churches, who were corrupted, with the dregges of popery; but they were the moſt ancient the primitive Churches, and ſo the moſt pure Churches. Thus farr of my firſt Teſtimony, whereby you hauehave ſeene, what opinion theſe Ancient Churches, held of our Lords day Sabbath, for the firſt 300 yeeres.

II.

My ſecond Teſtimony ſhall be to ſhew, what eſteeme the Church of God had of our Lords day, in the time of Constantine, at vvhat time it flouriſhed moſt. Conſtantinus Imperator conceſſit Ruſticis, ut diebus Dominicis agrorum culturae, prout ipſi viderine p. 266fore neceſſarium inſervirent. In Cod. tit. 12. de Feriis. Which Decre M. Foxe recordeth, in his booke of Martyres, at the end of the firſt booke, in the tene firſt perſecutions pag. 93. in the laſt Edition: and pag. 105. in the old Edition, thus: Constantine commanded the Sunday to be kept holy of all men, and free from all Iudiciary cauſes, from Markets, Martes, Fayers, & all other manuall labours, onelyonly huſbandry excepted. The which Decree M. Brerewood in his Treatiſe of the Sabbath, againſt M. Byfield thus reporteth, that Conſtantine the Great licenced the Country people by his Decree, freely (libere licite que are the words of the Constitution) to attend their ſowing of graine, ſetting of Vines, & other huſbandry on the Lords day.

Now, would Conſtantine (thinke you) aſſiſted vvith the advice, no doubt, of his lerned Clergie, hauehave giuen free licenſe & liberty, vntounto his Subiectes, to hauehave followed their vvorkes of huſbandry, as ploughing, and the like, on the Lords day, if thoſe times had iudged the Lords day, to be a Sabbath day by diuine inſtitution, and to be ſanctified in conſcience of the 4th Commandement? Why, the 4th com. directly forbiddeth all ſeruile labours, ſuch as are ploughing, carteing, ſowing, ſetting and the like; they could not be ſo voide of reaſon therefore, as to giuegive liberty, yea, and that freely, to doe ſeruile vvorkes, and laboriouſe on the Lords day, if the Lords day had in their iudgment, ſtoode by virtue of the 4th Com. as many now a dayes faine it.

We heare now a dayes, much ſownd of that famouſe Decree, of Constantine, made for the ſanctification of the Lords day: but, behold vvhat it was, hee required none other ſanctification of it, then we now a dayes, make of our common Holy dayes, S. Mathew, S. Johns day, & the reſt, if ſo much: for, then it was not vnlawfull, to plough on the Lords day. What therefore if I ſhould ſay, that the Lords day is not of Gods ordination; and therefore we may lawfully & ſafely, plough, & ſowe our Lands in Wheate-ſeile, mowe our graſſe, and make baye in baye-ſeile, reape our Corne, & worke in harueſt, eueryevery Lords day? vvhy may I not be as free from cenſure, as Conſtantine, and the Church in his time? vvhat ſay I more, then was then decreed, and eſtabliſhed by law? yea, and that by Conſtantine, who was the p. 267moſt holy Emperour, and beſt patron of the Lords day, that euer Prince was.

An other Teſtimony is a Decree of Conſtantine recorded by Euſebius de vita Constant. lib. 4. cap. 18. and alſo by Sozom. lib. 1. cap. 8. vvherein hee decreed by one & the ſame law, without any difference making, that all his Empire, ſhould ſanctifie both the Friday, and the Sunday; the day before the Iewes Sabbath, & the day after it; The Sunday, becauſe of Chriſt his Reſurrection; The Friday, becauſe of Chriſt his Paſſion. Loe here then were two dayes in a weeke ſanctified, the Friday & the Sunday, and that without difference: Now who that readeth this, can thinke that the Church in Conſtantins time, kept the Sunday or Lords day as a Sabbath, vnleſſe he ſhould abſurdly thinke, that they kept two Sabbaths in a weeke, the Friday & the Sunday? it is more likely, that they kept them both but as we keepe ſome light holy dayes. Nor did the memory of the Reſurrection exalte the Lords day any higher, then did the memory of the Paſſion exalte the Friday. Thus you ſee in what eſteeme the Church of God had the Lords day, in Conſtantins time.

III.

My third Teſtimony, ſhall be that whereof we reade in Socrates his Eccleſiaſticall Hiſtorie lib. 5. cap. 21. vvhere he thus writeth: The drifte (ſaith he) of the Apoſtles, was not to lay downe Canons & Decrees, concerning Feastes, & holy daies; but to become paternes vntounto vsus of piety, of good life, & Godly conuerſation.

Whereas there is greate contention at this time, to proue the Lords day to be a Sabbath day, inſtituted in the new Teſtament, by Chriſt & his Apoſtles; this Hiſtorian, will determine the controuercy for vsus, if we will be guided, by the iudgement of thoſe primitiue Churches: for hee ſaith plainly, that the Apoſtles made no Decrees, concerning Holy dayes; of which number the Lords day is one; and what he ſaith here of the Apoſtles, the ſame alſo in the ſame Chapter, he ſaith of Chriſt, namely, that hee made no law, for the Church to celebrate the feaſt of Eaſter &c. Thus you ſee, it is the iudgement of antiquitie, that neither Chriſt nor his Apoſtles, did euer appoint Easter day, vvhichwhich is the Lords day, nor any other dayes, to be ſanctified for Sabbaths.

p. 268I deny not for all this, that thoſe times gaue any reſpect vntounto the Lords day, and other Holy dayes; but this onelyonly I deny, that they ſanctified this Lords day, as Diuinely inſtituted, and appointed by Chriſt or his Apoſtles; but rather, as from the ſame authority, from & by which, they ſanctified other holy dayes of the Saints, to wit, from & by the Tradition of the Church.

IV.

My fowrth Teſtimony, ſhall be the iudgment of S. Auguſtine; who in his 118 Epiſtle de feſtis diebus thus writeth; But as for thoſe things which we obſerue, by Tradition, & not by wrighting, we vnderſtand them to be giuen, either by the Apoſtles themſelues, or by approued Councells &c. As the anniuerſary celebration of the Lords Paſſion, the Reſurrection, & the Aſcention &c.

In vvhichwhich paſſage, vve note theſe particulars. 1. That S. Auguſtine accounted the Sanctification of the Lords day, to be a thing receiued by Tradition. 2. That its inſtitution, was not to be founde in the Scriptures: for he ſaith, which we obſerue by Tradition, not by wrighting &c. 3. That S. Auguſtine was doubtfull & vncertaine, vvhither the obſeruation of the Lords day, vvere a Tradition receiued from the Apoſtles, or from Councells. 4. That S. Auguſtine rekoneth the Lords day, being the Feaſt of the Reſurrection, to be of no better, nor higher authority, then are Good Friday, & Hallow Thurſday, the Feaſts of Chriſts Paſſion & Aſcention. We may as well therefore, by S. Auguſtins iudgement, ſanctify eueryevery Friday, and eueryevery Thurſday for Sabbaths throughout the yeere, as eueryevery Lords day: for they hauehave all three the ſame originall, & ſelfeſame grownd & Authority: for, they be all Traditions, & vnwritten Traditions, and doubtfull, whither from the Apoſtles or from Councells.

By the way, ſince S. Auguſtine knew no Scripture; for the ſanctification of the Lords day for the Sabbath, how cometh it about, I maruaile, that many in our dayes, hauehave found out ſo many Scriptures for it? vve hauehave now this text of Scripture Ioh. 20.19.26. witneſſing, that Chriſt did often appeare vntounto his Diſciples on this day. Another Text we hauehave for it Act. 20.7. where S. Paul preached a ſermon at Troas on this day. An other Text we hauehave found out 1. Cor. 16.2. vvhere there was a p. 269collection for the poore on this day. And yet an other Text we hauehave Reuel. 1.10. where this day is called the Lords day. I maruaile S. Auguſtine, and his times, ſhould be ſo ignorant, as not to ſee theſe textes, as warrantable inſtitutions for the Lords day, to become a Sabbath, ſince wee ſee them, and ſay they are ſo cleere to proue the point. Shall I tell you mine opinion? it is this; I ſuppoſe, they that firſt ſet their witts on worke, to finde a Diuine inſtitution for this Lords day, they ſawe nothing but Tradition of the Church for it, as for the reſt of Holy dayes; but miſeliking this, they iudged it better, to hauehave it ſtand by a Diuine ordinance; and therefore, hauehave vſed their witts, to wreſt theſe Scriptures thitherwards; ſo now, they hauehave fathered the matter all vponupon God: and made this Lords day a Diuine ordinance, to get the more honour vntounto it: this durſt not S. Auguſtin doe; but he more ingenuouſly, plainly confeſſed it to be, as indeed & in trueth it is, A Tradition of the Church, & of equall authority, for its ſanctification, with Good Friday, Hallow Thurſday, & other Holie daies.

To conclude, well we may make of the Lords day, what eſteme we vvill; but yet you ſee, it is but a Tradition, (a Popiſh Tradition) & as this vvas the Iudgement of S. Auguſtine, ſo you ſhall ſee it confirmed by others alſo by & by. Now if it proue but a Tradition them may vve conclud, that all Romiſh rubiſh, is not as yet cleane ſwept out of the Reformed Churches.

An other Teſtimony of S. Auguſtine, I finde in his vvorkes contra Adimant: cap. 16. vvhere he thus vvriteth; For we alſo doe celebrate both the Lords day, & the Feaſt of Eaſter, & certaine other feſtiuall daies: but we obſerue not the times, but onelie the things ſignified by or in thoſe times &c. Loe here, S. Auguſtine ſaith, they kept the Lords day indede in his time, & in that Church: but how? they kept it much like as they kept other Holy dayes, and feſtiualls: for ſaith he, non tempora obſervamus, we regard not the times &c. I, but did the Lords day, ſtand by the ordinance of Chriſt, then S. Auguſtine would hauehave regarded the time: for he muſt hauehave regarded that very day, if Chriſt had ordained it: & did the Lords day, ſtand by virtue of the 4th Com. then S. Auguſtine muſt hauehave obſerued the time: for the day & time, to p. 270wit, the Seauenth day, vvas no leſſe inioyned in the 4th Com. then reſt from laboures, & holy excerciſes: how can men that worke on the Lords day Sabbath, be ſaid to rob God of his time, if the time be not to be regarded? it is more then manifeſt therfore, that S. Auguſtine, & the Church of God in his time did not beleeue it, that the Lords day, vvas inſtituted by Chriſt; or that it was to be ſanctified by virtue of the 4th Com. I could alleage other. Teſtimonies out of S. Auguſtine, to the ſame effect, but theſe are ſufficient.

V.

Soe much for the iudgement of the Auncients, & the Primitiue Churches, for the firſt 400 yeeres & vpwards: I come now vntounto our later times. My 5th Teſtimony then, ſhall be that of Peter Martyr cited by Marlorate in his Commentaryon, 1 Cor. 16.2. who thus writeth, Like as the Sabbath day, was celebrated by the Law, in memory of the Creation; ſo is now the Lords day in vſe, in memory of the Reſurrection: but when this chang & alteration was made, we hauehave it not expreſsed in the Scriptures: and then againe, a little beneath ſaith he; Neither are we therefore to be accuſed as obſeruers of dayes & times, as if we placed more holineſſe in one day then in an other: for we aſsemble, rather on the Lords day then on any other day, onelyonly for ciuill reſpectes, & for the order of the Church. It is plaine then, that this Holy man accounted the Lords day, to be an ordinance of the Church onelyonly, and a ciuill thing, & kept onelyonly for order ſake: he knew of no Diuine inſtitutiō for it, nor of any 4th com. belōging vntounto it; nor thought he that there was any difference to be made, betvvene the Lords day, & other dayes of the vveeke, in any reſpect vntounto Chriſts inſtitution of it: for he ſaieth expreſly, that it is not found in the Scriptures vvhen the Lords day vvas ſet vp: how then vvill men doe to proue, the Lords day, to be of Diuine inſtitution?

VI.

My 6th Teſtimonie, ſhall be that of Brentius in Leuit. 23.2. recorded by Doctour Bownde in his booke of the Sabbath Pag. 109. thus ſaith he; The kepeing Holy of the Lords day is not commanded by the Authoritie of the Goſpell, but rather receiued into p. 271vſe by the publique conſent of the Church. And a little after, thus againe, The obſeruation of the Lords day is proffitable, & not to be reiected; but yet it is not to be accounted for a Commandement of the Goſpell, but rather for a Ciuill ordination. Then this, what can be more plainly ſpokē? Brentius ſaith, the Lords day, hath no authority for it in the Goſpell, & that it is but a Ciuill ordinance; but many now a dayes, vvould make vsus beleeue (if we were ſo credulouſe) that it hath authority from Chriſt & his Apoſtles; and that it is a Diuine ordinance. Should I hauehave called it a Ciuill ordinance, albeit I know aſſuredly it is no better, how ſhould I hauehave bene rated for it, & reuiled by ſome Miniſters! But I am glad I am not the firſt that hauehave ſo called it, nor am I alone in this opinion.

VII.

My 7th Teſtimony, ſhall be that of Caluine on Galat. 4.10. where he thus writeth, When wee now a daies obſerue a difference of daies, we doe not put any bonde or tie, of neceſſitie vponupon mens conſciences; we make no difference of daies, as if one day were more holie then an other, we place no religion in them; but we onelyonly prouide for order & concorde &c. I but had Caluin held, the Lords day to hauehave bene of Diuine inſtitution; he vvould hauehave placed religion in its obſeruation: & there had bene more in it, then to hauehave kept it onelyonly for order ſake, & for peace ſake, &c. Yea, had he iudged this day, to ſtand by virtue of the 4th Com. he would, & muſt hauehave made a difference of dayes, accounting one day, to vvit, the 7th, more holy then the reſt; yea, he muſt hauehave put a bond, & tye of neceſſity, vponupon mens conſciences: for it is neceſſary that the 4th Com. ſhould be obeied.

Againe, ſee Caluin on Coloſſ. 2.16. vvhere he thus writeth: We obſerue no daies, as if there were any Religion in holy daies, or as if it were vnlawfull to worke in them, but we hauehave reſpect vntounto policie & order, not vntounto daies. Thus ſpeaketh Caluine, of all holy dayes in generall, both the Lords day, & others, ioyning them all together. His iudgement is direct for our purpoſe, that this holy day of the Lords day, together with other holy dayes, are ſanctified but for order ſake, & with reſpect vntounto gouernment: and further he ſaith plainly, that it is no vnlawfull thing, for a man to p. 272doe the workes of his calling, on the Lords day: how pregnant is hee for our purpoſe?

VIII.

My 8th Teſtimony, ſhall be that of Zanchie on the 4th com. Theſis. 1. who there doth plainly affirme it, that the Apoſtles left the Lords day, at libertie to the Church; & that we are not tied to ſanctifie it, by any tie, or bond of conſcience &c. And for confirmation of this his iudgment, in the ſame place he giues his reaſon alſo: thus Zanchie.

IX.

My 9th Teſtimony, ſhall be that of Ʋrſinus in his Catech. on the 4th Comm. pag. 637, vvhere he thus vvriteth; The Sabbath is twofould: one of the old Teſtament, which was tied to the 7th day, & its obſeruation was neceſsarie, and the worſhip of God. The other of the new Teſtament, and this dependeth on the libertie of the Church, who choſe the first day of the weeke, for certaine cauſes; & it is to be obſerued for order ſake, but without any opinion of neceſſitie. Thus you ſee the iudgment of Ʋrſinus was, that the Lords day, or firſt day of the weeke, is at the pleſure of the Church for its ſanctification: And Moreouer, that there is no neceſſitie to ſanctifie it: ſurely, Ʋrſine did not beleeue, as many with vsus doe, that Chriſt and his Apoſtles, raiſed vp the Lords day for a Sabbath; nor yet, that the 4th com. had any thing to doe with it. But it matters not what Ʋrſinus his iudgement was, nor Caluines, nor Zanchies & the reſt, we hauehave ſome Miniſters, that hauehave bene zealouſe preachers for, and Patrones of the Lords day Sabbath, they hauehave preacht for it, & they will preach for it; they hauehave erred, & they will err; they hauehave miſled the people, & they will doe ſo ſtill; they hauehave reſolued, to liue & to dye in it, they will preach for it (they ſay) as long as they liue.

X.

My 10th Teſtimony, ſhall be that of Paraeus in his Comment: on the Romanes cap. 14. pag. 1512. vvhere he maketh this his third Hypotheſis, ſaying, The Holie daies of Chriſtianes, remaine free & at libertie, ſo as they may be altered, and changed from one day vntounto an other, by the Church &c. And by and by he addeth two reaſons amongſt others; one is this, becauſe neither Chriſt nor p. 273his Apoſtles, did determine any certaine holy daies to his Church, but left them at libertie. The other is a Teſtimony of Auguſtine in his 118. Epiſtle, ſaying, All theſe things are at libertie, in their obſeruation. Totum hoc genus rerum liberas habet obſeruationes. Here Paraeus ſaith plainly, that neither our Sauiour Chriſt, no nor his Apoſtles, did determine of any certaine holy dayes for his Church, but left it to liberty: ſo then, they did not ſet vp the Lords day for a Sabbath, as many hold & beleeue among vsus. Yea, he citeth S. Auguſtine to hauehave bene of the ſame iudgement alſo; ſaying, that the obſeruation of theſe things, are at our liberty.

XI.

My 11th Teſtimony, ſhall be that of Chemnitius, in his Examen Conſ. Triden: de diebus feſtis pag. 151. who thus writeth; The Apostles aſſembled on the firſt day of the weeke to breake breade & to heare the word Act. 20.7. & they gaue Almes 1 Cor. 16.2. becauſe, on the first day of the weeke, Christ roſe from the deade Mark. 16. becauſe therefore of the reſurrection, that day was iudged the more fit, for Church aſſemblies, in the new Testament: yet for all that, did not the Apostles ordaine, by any law or precept, the obſervation of that day, with any opinion of neceſſitie, tying mens conſciences, vndor the new Teſtament; but the obſervation thereof was free and at libertie, and for orders ſake. Here you ſee, Chemnitius citeth thoſe very textes, out of which many in our dayes, think to proue the Lords day to be a Sabbath, to wit, Act. 20.7. and 1 Cor. 16.2. yea moreouer, he nameth the Reſurrection, as the occation of Church aſſemblies on that day: & yet for all theſe, as things of no moment, to proue the Lords day to be of diuine ordination, he concludeth, that the Apoſtles did neuer ordaine the Lords day to be ſanctified, as a thing neceſſary, and tyeing mens conſciences; but that ſtill, its obſervation remained at liberty, as a thing indifferent to be kept or not kept; were it not for order ſake, to auoide confuſion, leſt men ſhould aſſemble ſome on one day, ſome vponupon an other, without regard of the ordināce of the Magiſtrate &c. You ſee then, how this Authour eſtemeth the ſanctificatiō of the Lords day, but as a thing indifferent.

Againe, Chemnitius in his Loc. Theolog: de Lege Dei, & quarto p. 274praecepto, pag. 55. thus writeth; The Apostles tooke the first day of the weeke, Act. 20.7. 1 Cor. 16.2. in which Chriſt roſe, but not with this opinion, that like as God at the Creation, ſanctified the 7th day &c. So Chriſt by his reſurrection, did ſanctifie the firſt day of the weeke, that it ſhould be obſerved vponupon neceſſity of Salvation &c. & by & by againe he thus ſaith, that the Apostles might admoniſh vsus, that the Lords day in the N. Testament, is to be kept, not with that neceſſity as the Sabbath day was in the Law; but at libertie, only for order & decency ſake &c. In which words, beſids that he concludeth, that the Lords day is a thing of indifferent nature: he layeth downe an other remarkable thing, to wit, that whereas the patrones of this new Sabbath doe affirme, that like as God at the Creation, did ſanctifie the 7th day, in memory of the Creation; ſo Chriſt, did ſanctify the 8th day, or firſt day of the weeke, in memory of the Redemption: the quite contrary doth Chemnitius affirme here, ſaying, but not like as God at the Creation ſanctified the 7th day; ſo Chriſt at his reſurrection ſanctified the firſt day of the weeke: theſe two, which they make to agree in ſimilitude, hee plainly ſaith, are a diſſimilitude.

XII.

My 12th Teſtimony, ſhall be that of M. Perkins, in his Expoſition vponupon Reuel. 1.10. his third volume pag. 239. where he thus writeth; It is commonly thought (ſaith he) that the Iewes Sabbath, was changed into the Lords day, by Chriſtian Emperours, longe after the aſcention of Christ; but it is more conſonant to the new Teſtament, to hold, that Chriſt himſelfe was the Author of this change; & then he brings his iij textes to proue it. 1. Cor. 16.2. Act. 20.7. Ioh. 20.19.26. In which paſſage, M. Perkins yeeldeth it, to be the common opinion according to the Hiſtories of the Church, to thinke, that the Lords day, was not in vſe, for a longe time after Chriſt, vntill Chriſtian Emperours raiſed it vp, as elſewhere he ſpeakes out of Leo: and Anton. Edict. of holy dayes: which was a matter of 300 yeeres; the which bewrayes the nouelty and the weakeneſſe of this new Sabbath: for had it bene any of Chriſts nevv ordinances, as vvere Baptiſme, & the Lords Supper, can vve thinke, it vvould hauehave bene forgotten ſo ſoone? vvhat, that the very next Churches vntounto the Apoſtles, ſhold ſo quickly forget it!

p. 275To mende the matter, happily ſome vvill ſay, that howbeit M. Perkins doth graunt, it was the common opinion, ſo to thinke of the change, yet he addeth, that it is more conſonant to the New Teſtament, to hold, that Chriſt himſelfe changed it; & ſo that Chriſt was the Author of this Lords day. I grant indeed he ſaith ſo, and indeauoreth to proue it to be ſo, & that by iij Textes of Scripture; but then the queſtion ſhall be, whither M. Perkins iudged, that it cold be proued by theſe Textes, to be a neceſſary, & vndoubted trueth, or but a contingent & probable thing: Now that he held & was of opinion, that it was but a probable trueth, and ſomwhat likely onelyonly, himſelfe elſe where ſhall expound himſelfe: for this purpoſe, ſee his Caſes of Conſcience, and ſecond Volume pag. 106. vvhere the holy man, ſpeaking to the conſcience, of this new Sabbath, durſt not ſpeake perēptorily, as of a thing certainly & infalliblie true, but tremblingly as it were, repeating ouer his doubtfull ſpeeches, three or fowre times, in 6 or 8 lines writing: theſe are his words; The Sabbath day in the new Testament (in all likelihood) is tied to that we cale the Lords day; & that (as I take it) by Christ himſelfe. The reaſons thereof are theſe, 1. the Sabbath of the new Testament is called the Lords day, Reuel. 1.10. now J ſuppoſe (for in theſe points ſtill wee must goe by likelihoods) it is called the Lords day, as Chriſts laſt Supper, is called the Lords Supper &c. And then his ſecond reaſon is taken out of 1. Cor. 16.2. and his third out of Ioh. 20.19. Now in prouing the Lords day, to be the Sabbath; he vttereth theſe doubtfull ſpeeches in theſe fewe lines, 1. in all likelyhood. 2. As I take it. 3. I ſuppoſe. 4. For in theſe points, we muſt ſtill goe by likelyhoods. Surely, had there bene any ſound and prouing arguments, to be fetched out of theſe iij Textes Reuel. 1.10. 1. Cor. 16.2. & Ioh. 20.19.26. M. Perkins would neuer hauehave gone ſo doubtfully to worke by ſuppoſitions, thoughts, and likelihods, as here he doth: So then it is manifeſt, that when M. Perkins ſaid, it is more conſonant to the tenour of Scripture, to hold, that Chriſt altered the Sabbath, & ſo inſtituted the Lords day, that he ſpake theſe vvords not as of a certaine & infallible trueth, but as of a doubtfull & diſputable point. The Lords day Sabbath then, by M. Perkins iudgement, p. 276when he had made the moſt, and beſt of it that he could, is but a probable thing, a mere likelihood, vncertaine whither euer Chriſt inſtituted it or not; now tell me is it meete, that Chriſtian people, ſhold be preſſed in ſermones, to ſanctify this Lords day, & that vponupon certaine paine of damnation if they faile; when it is vncertaine whither it be of Chriſts inſtitution or not? iudge of the matter good reader.

To conclud, how euer, this is plainly yeelded by M. Perkines, that if we will borrow light from the Hiſtories of the Church, it is the common opinion of ſuch as are acquainted with them, that the old Sabbath was noe throwne downe, nor the Lords day Sabbath ſet vp, vntill long after Chriſts aſcention, vntill a matter of 300 yeeres after Chriſt. And ſo much concerning the teſtimony of M. Perkins.

XIII.

My 13th Teſtimony, ſhall be that of Doctour Prideaux, in his Treatiſe of the Sabbath day, where he thus writeth: where is there (ſaith he) any the least mention, of ſurrogateing the Lords day, into the roome of the Sabbath day? pag. 140. and againe, where (ſaith he) is there amonge the Euangelists or Apoſtles, any diſtinct inſtitution of the Lords day? yea, where is the text wherby you can neceſsarilie proue it, if you ſhould deale with an aduerſarie, with whom you must deale punctuallie, & not by prayer & intreatie? pag. 143. and againe, as for an institution of the Lords day, whither expreſſed, or gathered by conſequence, let him ſhew it that can finde it. pag. 144.

In which vvords, this learned & great Divine, plainly denieth the Lords day, to be of Chriſts ordination; and affirmeth, that it cannot be ſo much as collected out of the Scriptares.

XIV.

My 14th and laſt Teſtimony, ſhall be that of M. Brerewod in a learned Treatiſe of his lately come forth, againſt M. Byfield on the Sabbath day, who in pag. 37. thus writeth: You will ſay (ſaith hee) the celebration of the old Sabbath, was tranſlated to p. 277the first day of the weeke: tranſlated? by whom? by any commandement of God? where is it? it is certaine there is none. And therefore the ſolemnity of the Lords day, was not establiſhed iure Diuino, by any commandement of God; and conſequently, to worke on the Lords day, is for certaine, no breach of any Diuine commandement.

Hereby we may ſee, that a man may worke on the Lords day ſafely, without the danger of ſinne: and how ably and ſufficiently M. Brerewod hath managed this point againſt M. Byfield, his worke ſhall ſpeake for it ſelfe.

To the like effect, I might here adde the Teſtimony of M. Broad, of Gomarus de Orig. Sabbat. and of Riuetus in Decal. all late writers, againſt the Lords day Sabbath alſo, as is well knowne.

XV.

I thought here to hauehave ſurceaſed, and wrote no more for matter of Teſtimony; but time, and further ſerch, hauehave miniſtred vntounto mee, yet an other cloude of witneſſes: for I ſhall yet further ſett before your eyes, the Teſtimonies, of ſondry lerned Diuins; of two Godly Martyrs; and of the Church and ſtate of England, aſſembled in Parliament; all, with one ioynt conſent teſtifying, that the Lords-day-Sabbath, is not of Diuine inſtitution.

My 15th Teſtimony then, ſhall be that of Zwinglius ad Coloſſ. cap. 2. pag. 515. who thus writeth: The Sabbath, ſo farr forth; as it is Ceremoniall, is aboliſhed; and therefore, now wee are not tied or bound, vntounto any certaine times. Where you ſee, the iudgement of Zwinglius is, that now, we are not tyed vntounto the ſanctification of any dayes or times; and conſequently, that we are not tied vntounto the ſanctification of the Lords day. And this is that which elſewhere I hauehave ſaid, admit this errour, that the old Sabbath day is a Ceremony and aboliſhed, and farewell all Sabbaths: for we can find no other Sabbath then that, neither in the Old, nor yet in the New Teſtament.

p. 278XVI.

My 16th Teſtimony, ſhall be that of Melanchthon in his Loc. Commun. De poteſtate Eccleſiaſtica, ſeu de clavibus: who thus writeth; The Church, at the begining appointed the Lords day, and certaine other Holy daies, that there might be certaine times for inſtruction. But theſe ordinations, ought not to be ſuperſtitiouſly vnderſtood: For they are no neceſſary partes of Gods worſhip; but they are in verie deede foreign things of an indifferent nature, which out of the caſe of ſcandall, may be omitted, without ſinne. Therefore, vntounto theſe Traditions, we owe obedience in regard of ſcandall; but out of the caſe of ſcandall, our conſciences are free & at libertie. In which Teſtimony, you ſee, Melanchthon affirmeth theſe things of our Lords-day-Sabbath. 1. That it is a Tradition: They therfore who preach ſo for the Lords day Sabbath, they are Patrones of old Traditions: they doe but defend, vphould, & maintaine Traditions: and why may they not aſwell preach for other Popiſh Traditions, as for this? And further, if the Lords day proue but a Tradition, then it appeareth, that all Romiſh Reliques are not as yet aboliſhed out of the Reformed Churches. 2. That that Church which inſtituted the other holy dayes, the ſame Church inſtituted the Lords day Sabbath: and conſequently, the Lords day Sabbath, & other Holy dayes, are all of equall & like authority. 3. Whereas hee ſaith, that the Church appointed the Lords day, thereby it appeareth, that it was not the appointemēt of Chriſt & his Apoſtles, but of the Church after them. 4. He affirmeth, that the obſeruation of the Lords day, is but an indifferent thing, ſo as (if authority be not offended) our conſciences are free & at liberty, vve neede not ſanctify it. 5. For any man to eſteeme better of the Lords day, then as of an indifferent thing, he affirmeth it plainly to be Superſtition. Hovv many thowſands then of ſuperſtitiouſe people & Miniſters, hauehave we now in this Kingdome?

XVII.

My 17th Teſtimony, ſhall be that of Hemingius in his Enchiridion claſs. 3 cap. 12. pag. 366. who thus writeth: Traditions, are rites, which are ſaid to be deliuered without Scripture, either of the Apoſtles, or of the Holy Fathers after the Apoſtles: of which kinde p. 279are the Baptiſme of infants, & the obſeruation of the Lords-day. Here Hemingius affirmeth, 1. that the Lords day, is a Tradition of the Church. 2. That there is no Scripture, for the obſeruation & ſanctification thereof. The Lords day then is but an vnwritten tradition, A Popiſh Tradition: preach for it as long as they liſt, they doe but preach for Popiſh Traditions.

XVIII.

My 18th Teſtimony, ſhall be that of Baſtingius in his Commentary on the Catechiſme, & on the 4th Com. pag. 455. where he thus writeth: In that the Lords day, & certaine other daies, alloted for the hearing of Sermones, are ſtill retained & obſerued, therein wee differ farr from the Iewes; and we doe nothing againſt the Doctrine of the Apoſtle, forbidding difference of daies. For, the obſeruation of the Lords day, differeth from the Jewiſh Sabbath; in that it was not lawfull for the Iewes, to omit, or to change the Sabbath of the 7th day, by reaſon of the expreſſe Command of God. But the Chriſtian Church, whither it doth allote the firſt day, or any other day, doeth it ſauing their libertie to doe otherwiſe. In which paſſage, we may learne theſe things from Baſtingius. 1. That the Church hath alloted the Lords day, or Firſt day. 2. That the Church may either wholly omit the Sanctification of the Lords day; or change it vntounto an other day. And that it is at the liberty of the Church, to doe otherwiſe in this pointe, then they now doe, if they pleaſe.

XIX.

My 19th Teſtimony ſhall be that in the Harmony of Confeſſiones, de feriis &c. pag. 168. and, in the Appendix, at the latter end of the booke. Where it is thus recorded: But we teach, that Traditions are not to be condemned, which command nothing contrary to the Law of God, and hauehave ſome politicall end, to wit, which are made for this purpoſe, that things may be done in the Church, in order; of which ſorte are the Traditions of Holy dayes, as of the Lords day, the Natiuity, & the reſt. Theſe things, we willingly retaine in our Churches, as things indifferent, which out of the caſe of ſcandall may be omitted lawfully. Here we may note theſe particulars. 1. That the Sanctification of the Lords day, is no better then a Tradition. 2. That the Lords day, and Chriſtmas day, are p. 280both of like authority. 3. That the Lords day, is a thing indifferent.

XX.

My 20th Teſtimony, ſhall be that of the lerned Miniſter, and Godly Martyr of Chriſt, M. William Tyndall, who ſuffred Martyrdome, in the dayes of King Henry the VIII. as we finde it in his workes, bound with the workes of M. John Fryth, & Doctour Barnes, all iij in one Volume: Will. Tyndall, in his Anſwer to Sir Thomas Moores Dialogue, pag. 287. where hee thus writeth: And as for the Sabbath, we be Lords ouer the Sabbath, & may yet change it into the Monday, or into any other day, as we ſee neede; or may make eueryevery Tenth day Holie day, onelie, if we ſee a cauſe why. Neither was there any cauſe to chang it from the Saturday, but to put a difference betwixt vsus & the Jewes: Neither need we any Holie day at all, if the people might be taught without it. Thus we ſee M. Tyndall was of iudgement, that the Sabbath or Lords day, is of no higher nature, then that the Church may freely alter and chaunge it, hither and thither, at their pleſures: And that the Church may aſwell keepe Monday for the Sabbath day, as Sunday or the Lords day.

XXI.

My 21th Teſtimony, ſhall be that of an other lerned Miniſter, & godly Martyr of Chriſt, M. Iohn Fryth, vvho alſo ſuffred Martyrdome for the Goſpell, in the dayes of King Henry the viijth; as vve finde it in his vvorkes, bound together with the vvorkes of M.W. Tyndall, & Doctour Barnes. Iohn Fryth, in his Declaration of Baptiſme, pag. 96. vvhere he thus writeth: Our forefathers, which were in the begining of the Church, did abrogate the Sabbath; to the intente, that men might hauehave an enſample of Chriſtian libertie &c. How be it, becauſe it was neceſſarie, that a day ſhould be reſerued in the which the people might come together, to heare the word of God, they ordained, in ſteade of the Sabbath, which was Saturday, the next day following, which is Sunday. And all though they might hauehave kept the Saturday, with the Iewes, as a thing indifferent, yet did they much better to ouerſett the day, to be a perpetuall memorie, that we are free, & not bound to any day: we are in a manner as ſuperſtitiouſe in the Sunday, as they p. 281were in the Saturday: yea, and wee are much more madd: for the Iewes hauehave the word of God, for their Saturday, ſith it is the 7th day, & they were commanded to keepe the 7th day ſolemne: & wee, hauehave not the word of God, for vsus; but rather againſt vsus: for wee keepe not the 7th day, as the Iewes doe, but the firſt day, which is not commanded by Gods law. And by & by againe he addeth. He that thinketh that a man ſinneth, which worketh on the Holy day, if he be weake or ignorant, he ought better to be inſtructed, & ſo to leaue his hould. But if he be obſtinate & perſeuere in his ſentence, hee is not of God, but of the Deuill: for, hee maketh ſinne, in ſuch things, as God leaueth free.

In which paſſages of M^r. Iohn Fryth we may obſerue theſe remarkable things 1. How the Godly Martyr affirmeth, that our forefathers, did ordaine and appoint the Sunday, for an holy day: ſo then, Chriſt & his Apoſtles did not ordaine it. 2. Hee affirmeth, that now (the Sabbath day, to wit, the old Sabbath day being aboliſhed) wee are free, and not bound to ſanctify any day at all: & ſo conſequently, we are not tied to ſanctify the Lords day. 3. He affirmeth, that ſuch as ſo zealouſly doe ſanctify the Sunday, or Lords day, they are in ſo doeing, no better then Supperstitiouſe. 4. He affirmeth, that they who ſo zealouſly ſanctify the Lords day, they are beſides theire right wittes, or become frantick and madd: & his reaſon thereof is this; becauſe they practiſe that, for which they hauehave no ſcripture, or word of God, but rather the word of God is againſt them. We hauehave ſome Miniſters, not aſhamed to tell their people, they will giuegive their liues for the Lords day Sabbath; but heere you ſee, two worthy, lerned, & Godly Ministers, and Martyres, to wit, M^r. Tyndall, and M^r. Fryth, who did not ſay only they would, but did alſo giuegive their liues for Gods trueth; theſe men you ſee, would neuer hauehave giuen their liues, for the Sunday Sabbath: for they would not ſo much as ſpend their breathes for it, or ſpeake a good word of it, but altogether againſt it. 5. Saith M^r. Fryth, hee that thinketh, that a man ſinneth, by working on this Holy day, or Lords day, if he obſtinatly perſeuereth in the ſame opinion, he is not of God, but of the Deuill: & that becauſe, he maketh a ſinne, where God maketh none.

p. 282If this be ſo, how many in this Land, who profeſſe themſelues the Miniſters of God, are notwithſtanding of the Deuill. For, they make the people beleeue, that they ſinne, fearefully, and damnably, if they doe any ſeruill worke on this holy day, the Lords day: let this ſpeech, of the lerned and Godly Miniſter and Martyr, be well obſerued.

XXII.

My 22th Teſtimony, ſhall be the iudgement, of the Lords Spirituall, & Temporall, with the Commons, aſſembled in Parliament, in the fifth yeere of Edward the Sixte; In an Acte intituled, An Act for the keeping of holy daies &c. In which Statute, it is thus inacted. It is not to be thought, that there is any certaine time or definite number of daies, preſcribed in holy Scripture; but that the apointment, both of the time, & alſo of the number of daies, is lefte by the Authoritie of Gods word, to the liberty of Chriſts Church, to be determined & aſſigned, orderlie in eueryevery Country, by the diſcretion of the Rulers & Miniſters thereof, as they ſhall iudge moſt expedient. Be it therefore enacted, by the King our So…eraigne Lord, with the aſsent of the Lords Spirituall, & Temporall, & the Commons, in this preſent Parliament aſſembled, that all the daies hereafter mentioned, ſhall be kept holie daies &c. That is to ſay, all Sundaies in the yeere, &c. S. Mathew, S. Mark, S. Iohn Baptist, S. Peter, S. Iames &c. Then a prouiſo is added. Prouided alwaies, & it is enacted by the Authoritie aforeſaid, that it ſhall be lawfull to eueryevery Huſbandman, labourer, fiſher man; & to all & eueryevery other perſon or perſones, vponupon the holie daies aforeſaid in Haruest, or at any other times in the yeere, when neceſſitie ſhall require, to labour, ride, fiſh, or work any kind of work, at their free wills & pleſures; any thing in this Act to the contrarie in any wiſe notwithſtanding.

Theſe things are remarkable in this Statute, 1. That our Sunday or Lords day, was by theſe Law-makers, rekoned to be of no higher, nor other authority, then are the other holy dayes of the Apoſtles, as S. Mathews, S. Marks, S. Iohns dayes, and the reſt. 2. That the Sunday or Lords day, is ordained by the Church and State, for a Sabbath day, or holy day: & that it is at their liberty, to doe in this matter, as they ſhall iudg moſt convenient. 3. A moſt remarkable thing in this Statute for our p. 283purpoſe, is that the Lords Spirituall, and Temporall, with the Commons, and ſo conſequently the Church of England, were cleere of iudgment, & openly in this Act profeſſed it, that our Sunday, or Lords-day-Sabbath is not of Diuine inſtitution: for they declared it, whilſt they ſaid, it is not to be thought, that there is any certaine time, or definit number of daies, preſcribed in the holy Scriptures: ſo then, there is no Scripture for the Lords day. Againe, But that the apointment, both of the time, and alſo of the number of daies, is left by the Authoritie of Gods word, to the libertie of Chriſts Church, & to the Rulers thereof to be determined: ſo then, thers no Diuine inſtitution for the Lords day.