The Christian Sabbath Defended, Section 3
The third Section.
BUt to proceed.Preface. Immediately upon the Reformation of Religion in theſe Weſterne parts, the Controverſie brake out a freſh; though in another manner than before it did. For there were ſome, of whom Calvin ſpeakes,Inſtit. lib. 2. ſect. 33. who would have had all dayes alike, all equally to be regarded; (he means the Anabaptiſts, as I take it) and reckoned that the Lords day, as the Church continued it, was a Jewiſh ceremony. Affirming it to croſſe the doctrine of Saint Paul, who in the text before remembred, and in the fourteenth to the Romans did ſeeme to them to cry downe all ſuch difference of dayes and times as the Church retained. To meet which vaine and peccant humour, Calvin was faine to bend his forces, declaring how the Church might lawfully retaine ſet times for Gods ſervice, without infringing any of Saint Pauls commandements.
But on the other ſide, as commonly the exceſſe is more exorbitant than the defect; there wanted not ſome others, who thought they could not honour the Lords day ſufficiently, unleſſe they did affix as great a ſanctitie unto it, as the Jewes did unto their Sabbath. So that the change ſeemed to be onelyonly of the day; the ſuperſtition ſtill remaining no leſſe Jewiſh than before it was. Theſe taught, as now ſome doe, moralem eſſe unius diei obſervationem in hebdomada, Ibid. ſect. 34.the keeping holy to the Lord one day in ſeven, to bee the morall part of the fourth Commandement: which doctrine what elſe is it (ſo he proceeds, as here the Doctor ſo repeats it in his third ſection) then in contempt of the Jews to change the day; and to affix a greater ſanctity to the day, than thoſe ever did. As for himſelfe, ſo farre was he from favouring any ſuch wayward fancie, that as Iohn Barklay makes report, he had a conſultation once, de tranſferenda ſolennitate Dominica in feriam quintam, to alter the Lords day from Sunday to Thurſday. How true this is, I cannot ſay. But ſure it is that Calvin tooke the Lords day to be an eccleſiaſticall and humane conſtitution only, Quem veteres in locum Sabbati ſubrogarunt, appointed by our Anceſtors to ſupply the place of the Jewiſh Sabbath, and (as our Doctor tells us from him in his ſeventh ſection,) as alterable by the Church at this preſent time, as firſt it was, when from Saturday they tranſlated it unto the Sunday. So that we ſee, that Calvin here reſolves upon three Concluſions. Firſt, that the keeping holy one day in ſeven, is not the morall part of the fourth Commandement. Secondly, that the day was changed from the laſt day of the weeke unto the firſt by this authority of the Church, and not by any divine Ordinance: And thirdly, that the day is yet alterable by the Church, as at firſt it was.
Exam.Thus at length this Prefacer obſerves, that look upon what Scripture paſſages ſome did contend the Jewiſh Sabbath to be ceremoniall, and accordingly to be abrogated by the Death and Reſurrection of Chriſt: Upon the very ſame grounds others contended againſt the obſervation of all Holy dayes, even of the Lords day alſo, as if that were Jewiſh. This is the courſe of the Anabaptiſts, unto whom Wallaeus addes the Socinians; and Hospinian the Petrobruſians. By what authoritie the Lords day was introduced, Calvin diſputes not. He ſaith, Dominicum diem veteres in locum Sabbati ſubſtituerunt; Inſtit. lib. 2. c. 8. ſect. 34. Calvin. in 1. ad Corin. cap. 16.The Ancients brought the Lords day into the place of the Sabbath, and that the day the Apoſtle preſcribed to the Corinthians, wherein they ſhould lay apart ſomething for the relieving of the Saints at Ieruſalem, was the day quo ſacros conventus agebant, whereon they kept their holy meetings. Lib. 2. c. 8. ſect. 34.And that which moved the Apoſtles to change the Sabbath to the Lords day, he ſhewes both in his inſtitutions thus; for ſeeing in the Lords Reſurrection is (found) the end and fulfilling of the true reſt, which the old Sabbath ſhadowed; by that very day, which ſet an end to thoſe ſhadowes, Chriſtians are admoniſhed not to ſtick to the ſhadowing ceremony; and upon the Epiſtle to the Corinthians in theſe words,In 1. ad. Cor. ca. 16. Electus autem potiſſimum dies Dominicus, quod Reſurrectio domini finem legis umbris attulit; The Lords Day was chiefely choſen, becauſe the Lords Reſurrection did ſet an end to the ſhadowes of the Law. And in the words immediately preceding he expreſſely profeſſeth that this change was made by the Apoſtles, though not ſo ſoone in his opinion, as Chryſoſtome thought; who interprets that, the firſt day of the weeke, of the Lords Day. And Cyrill long agoe upon conſideration of our Saviours apparitions on that day, and then againe the eighth day after, makes bold to conclude,Cyrill. in Ioan. 1.12. that Jure igitur ſanctae congregationes die octavo in Eccleſiis ſiunt, By right therefore holy aſſemblies on the eighth day are made in the Churches.
2 Obſerve by the way this authors ſpirit, he accompts it more exorbitant to thinke, that the obſervation of the Lords Day is preſcribed unto us by Divine authority, or the religious obſervation of one day in ſeven, then to maintaine that none at all is to be ſet apart to religious worſhip by Divine authority. And to this purpoſe he premiſeth a generall rule, that commonly the exceſſe is more exorbitant then the defect; yet I never heard, that prodigality was cenſured as worſe then covetouſneſſe, in oppoſition to liberality; or raſhneſſe, accompted worſe then cowardlineſſe, in oppoſition to fortitude: or ſuperſtition worſe then prophaneneſſe, in oppoſition to true Religion. As for the ſanctity of the day in Calvins phraſe, which this Author calls Sanctity affixed to the day; ſhall I ſay this Prefacer underſtands it not? it is incredible; more likely he is to pervert Calvins plaine meaning; not out of exceſſe in the way of ſuperſtition, but out of a leſſe exorbitant defect. For the ſanctity of the day, in Calvins language is, when Religione quadam feriando, myſteria olim commendata recolore ſe ſomniabant, by reſting in a religious mannor they thought as it were dreaming, that they obſerved certaine myſteries of old recommended unto them. As appeares in his ſect. 33. Of the 8. Chap. of his ſecond booke of inſtitutions; and ſuch indeed was the ſanctity of the day in the Jewiſh obſervation thereof. This religion, this holineſſe Calvin will have to be at an end; and that the Apoſtle Gal. 1. and Coloſſ. 2. diſputed againſt them who would have that holineſſe, that religion to continue ſtill: not againſt them, who will have one day in the weeke ſet apart, thereon to reſt from manuall workes, as they are avocations from holy ſtudies and meditations. And in the former caſe, he doth not ſay, as this author in a mincing manner feynes him to ſay, to wit, that So the change ſeemed to be only of the day; but in plaine termes, that this were no other then to change the day, and that in contumely of the Iewes; ſiquidem manet nobis etiamnum par myſterii in diebus ſignificatio, quae apud Iudaeos locum habebat, if ſo be there yet remaines with us a myſterious ſignification equally in the daies, ſuch as had place amongſt the Iewes. Now this caution nothing concernes any of our proteſtant Divines, who mainteine the obſervation of one day in ſeven as neceſſary, in reſting from manuall workes, onelyonly as they are impediments to the ſervice of God. Nay that one day in ſeven was obſerved by the Jewes for any myſterious ſignification conteyned therein, or by the Patriarchs either, or by Adam himſelfe, in whoſe dayes even from the firſt, the ſeventh day was ſanctified, that is, ſet apart for the ſervice of God, in the opinion of Calvin, This is to bee underſtood of one day in ſeven indefinitly conſidered. For as for the reſt of the ſeventh preciſely that is acknowledged to have beene myſterious. Sect. 32.to this day, I never heard or read. This latter clauſe in Calvin, which containes the condition, whereupon this cenſure of his paſſeth upon thoſe that ſo ſtand for the obſervation of one day in ſeven, this Prefacerſlily concealeth; though Calvins cenſure be not paſſed abſolutely, but merely upon this condition. Thus indeed to ſtand for the neceſſary obſervation of one day in ſeven, namely, as conteyning ſome myſterious ſignification, were to exceede the Iewes in a groſſe and carnall ſuperſtition of a Sabbatiſme. As touching the obſervation of ſome time ſet a part for Gods holy worſhip, and ſervice, Calvin profeſſeth that the ſame neceſſity lieth upon us Chriſtians, for reliefe whereof the Lord appointed the Sabbath to the Iewes, and that it pleaſed our moſt provident and tender Father to provide for our neceſſity, no leſſe then for the neceſſity of the Iewes.
Now it is apparent that God commanded the Jewes to ſet one day in ſeven apart for the ſervice of God, and doth it not manifeſtly follow herehence, that the Lord would have us alſo ſet apart one day of the weeke for his ſervice? And Calvin concludes that Section thus, Why then doe we not obey that reaſon, which we ſee to be impoſed upon us by the will of God? And therefore Wallaeus ſaith that Calvin delivered not theſe words, whereupon this Prefacer grateth ſo much, againſt his own Colleagues or fellowes in the reformation, with whom he never contended in this argument, but againſt certaine Papiſts & ſchoolemen, who thought, they had provided ſufficiently for themſelves, for Chriſtian liberty, and for the edification of the Church; by teaching that the taxation of the ſeventh day as ceremoniall was aboliſhed, & yet that one day in ſeven, and by name the Lords Day, was to be obſerved, after ſuch a manner, and to ſuch an end, as the Jewes obſerved their Sabbath: by which Doctrine, way was opened to ſuperſtition in this dayes obſervation. His words are plainely directed againſt ſuch when he ſaith; Thus vaniſh the toyes of falſe Prophets, who poſſeſſed the people in former times with a Iewiſh opinion. And againe, But that is no other thing then in contempt of the Jewes to change the day, and in mind to retaine the ſame ſanctity of the day: if ſo be there remaines unto us, (to wit by their opinion) an equall myſterious ſignification of dayes, to that which had place among the Jewes. Now ſaith Wallaeus, This agrees not to be ſpoken of any of the reformed, but of Sophiſters and Papiſts, who urge new myſteries, and new ſignifications, and holineſſes in their holy daies, as it is well known. Bellarmine lib. 3. cap. 10. of the veneration of Saints writes againſt our Divines, that the feaſts of Chriſtians are kept, not only in reſpect of order and policy, but alſo by reaſon of a myſtery; and that holydays are truly more holy and ſacred then other dayes, and a certaine part of Divine worſhip. This Prefacer is content to make uſe of Iohn Barclayes report concerning Calvin, namely that he had a conſultation once de tranſferenda ſolennitate dominicain feriam quintam; of tranſlating the dominicall ſolemnity unto the Thurſday. Had it beene unto Friday, which is the Turkes feſtivall, then it would have wondrouſly well ſerved Raynolds his turne in his Calvinoturciſmus. For it concerned that author to inquire diligently of all Calvins courſes, that ſtood any way in conformity with the courſes of the Turkes: neither doe I thinke there could be deviſed any more remarkable then this. How true this is this Prefacer cannot ſay, but whether he doth not licke his lips at it I know not. But it is apparent, he would have the Church endued with ſuch authority, as to change the ſolemnity of the Lords Day, to any day in the weeke, and conſequently even to Friday; and I doe not doubt but pretence of reaſon might be deviſed for it by politique heads, as namely, to hold the Turkes in better correſpondency unto Chriſtianity. Now if Calvin had at any time a conſultation hereabouts (which cannot be underſtood of Calvins ſingle and proper conſultation with himſelfe; for then how could the relator be privy to it without revelation; and we commonly ſay, that three may keepe counſaile when two be away) ſurely there were many that could give teſtimony hereof, to wit as many, as whoſe heads he uſed in this conſultation. And who would not expect, that ſome one of theſe at leaſt, ſhould be produced to teſtifie ſo much either by word or writing? As for Barcley, he hath his name ab urſae ungula, from the claw of a Beare; give we him leave to bee a biter, a tearer. His father was a man of ſome note and learning, and one that had the opinion to deſerve well of Kings by his booke Contra monarch machos; and thereby he endeared himſelfe to King Iames, being alſo a Scotchman. But King Iames might thinke better of him then there was cauſe, all things conſidered. For he maintaines, that in two caſes Kings may ceaſe to be Kings, and to this acknowledgement he finds himſelfe maſtered in part by a rule of the civill Law, (and he was a Civilian) which is this, Servus habitus pro derelicto may chooſe a new Father. At the firſt reading I wondered at the Doctrine it ſelfe, being of an harſh accent, and dangerous conſequence; and much more in conſideration of the reaſon given, which by interpretation and accommodation may draw a very long tayle after it. And it may ſeeme ſtrange, that none have taken any paynes either to refute it, or cleere it, I meane in publique. Yet I ſpeake it onelyonly in reference to the compaſſe of mine owne reading. In private it may be ſome have dealt upon it, and my ſelfe in particular, when I dealt in my Sermons upon the thirteenth to the Romans. I have been often urged to ſet forth thoſe Meditations of mine and to make them publike; but I have alwayes reſiſted the motion, they being but homely Sermons, accommodated to a Countrey auditory, neither doe I finde my ſelfe that way fitted for a better audience; I can take ſome paynes in writing controverſies, but I cannot take paynes in making a Sermon, and when I have taken moſt, I finde I have leſſe edified my people, though perhaps better pleaſed my ſelfe. Yet having not long ſince underſtood of a Court diſtinction of Puritans; namely that ſome of them are good men, onelyonly they cannot conforme to the ceremonies of the Church; but other there are, who though they doe conforme, yet are antimonarchicall Puritans: This conſideration hath taken a deepe impreſſion in me, and brought me to debate with my ſelfe, whether it were not fit to publiſh thoſe poore Meditations of mine, if for nothing elſe, yet to vindicate our reputation, who at the pleaſures of too many are oppreſſed in the World; and to repreſent to publique view, Our Countrey f…ith concerning Monarchies. For if we be reputed antimonarchicall, no mervaile if ſome courſe be taken ſooner or later to roote us out. And this I might make a Prodromus to a greater worke, in anſwer to a booke entitled Deus & Rex, a peſtilent piece of worke, and as it is thought written by one barefoote a Jeſuite, conteyning a refutation of a certaine book of one of our divines inſcribed God and the King written by Doctor Mockeſt, a booke ſo well pleaſing to King James, that as we have heard, his Majeſty thought fit that children ſhould be catechized in it. This being afterwards tranſlated into Latine by Doctor Harris, now Warden of the Colledge by Wincheſter, hath beene now many yeares agoe, anſwered by a Papiſt who conceales his name, and that in a very unhappy manner. And a wonder of wonders it may ſeeme, that ſo vile a piece hath paſſed ſo long unanſwered; eſpecially conſidering that heretofore great Biſhops chaplens were wont to bee imployed in anſwering Papiſts, and this was the ordinary way of their preferment. I confeſſe there are certaine myſteries therein, which perhaps are as ſcarrecrowes to deterre men from taking Pen in hand to refute it. For the author of this, would beare the World in hand, that hee who wrote the booke intituled God and the King, and was a Puritan; and that none but Puritans doe ſtand for the abſoluteneſſe of Kings in ſuch ſort as it is there maintained. And that it is merely a plot to ruinate monarches, by advancing their abſoluteneſſe ſo high; dealing with them herein, as Hercules did with Antaeus; for obſerving that as often as he threw him to the ground, he roſe up with greater ſtrength, for the earth being his mother, as often as he fell into her boſome ſhe inſpired new vigour and ſpirit into him; therefore he would throw him down no more, but lifting him up from the Earth into the Aire, there hee held him betweene his armes, untill he had cruſht his breath out of his body, and ſo made an end of him. In like ſort, it is there ſaid, that Puritans finde it their onelyonly meanes to ruine monarches, by advancing their abſolutneſſe in ſo unreaſonable a manner: that when the people ſhall underſtand it aright, they will bee ſo provoked hereby, that they will ſtreyne the uttermoſt of their power to roote out all Monarchies. Nevertheleſſe all this is but a ſquib, making a great noyſe but doing no hurt; yet ſufficient to ſcare any man in theſe times, conſidering how Funeſtous a condition it is, to come under the ſhadow of the very name of Puritan. And the Papiſts, and all that are popiſhly affected rejoyce in this, as in nothing more. Forſooth Hoc Ithacus velit & magno mercentur Atreidae. But ſee my unfortunate condition; after I had reſolved to make it my next worke to labour in this argument: and after I had diſpatched my firſt worke of pleading for the ſupreame abſolutneſſe of God in Heaven; in the next place to try my ſtrength what I could ſay for the ſecondary abſoluteneſſe of Kings and Monarches here on Earth; I am ſodenly driven to intermit all other buſineſſes formerly in hand, and to travaile in a new argument, and to ſtrengthen my ſelfe againſt the lightnings and thunders, that may breake over our heads we know not how ſoone; for wee ſee examples before our eyes of ſufferings in this kind, and how ſoone our owne turne may come to ſuffer in the ſame kinde it is uncertaine unto us. Therefore to returne to Iohn Barcley: wee have heard that his father before his death commended him to the Patronage of King Iames, who accordingly had him attending in his Court ſomewhile with intent to preferre him: untill on a ſodaine his minde was changed, having receaved intelligence, that this Gentleman playd falſe with him, living in his Court but as an eſpie and intelligencer, to diſcover what he could of his Majeſties affayres unto Queene mother of France; which mooved King Iames ever after, and that moſt juſtly, to abominate him. Now ſuch a one, if he could not proove true and loyall unto his naturall Prince, can it bee expected, hee being of a popiſh ſpirit, ſhould carry himſelfe truely and honeſtly towards Iohn Calvin? But ſure it is (in this Prefacers judgement) that Calvin tooke the Lords Day to be an Eccleſiaſticall and humane conſtitution, only appointed by our Anceſtors to ſupply the place of the Iewiſh Sabbath, and as our Doctor tells us alterable by the Church at this preſent time as firſt it was, when from the Saturday they tranſlated it unto the Sunday. For proofe hereof this Prefacer alleageth nothing but that out of Calvin, where he ſaith, Veteres ſubrogarunt diem dominicum in locum Sabbati; The Ancients ſubrogated the Lords Day in place of the Sabbath: But he takes no notice of that which immediately followes in Calvin; as a reaſon of the former thus; For whereas in the Lords Reſurrection is found the end, and accompliſhment of the true reſt, which the ancient Sabbath ſhaddowed, by the very day which ſet an end to ſhadowes, Chriſtians are admoniſhed not to ſtick unto the ſhadowing ceremonie. Where obſerve, Firſt, as touching the perſons noted by Veteres the Ancients, firſt; and then by Chriſtiani Chriſtians. Are not theſe the Apoſtles as much as any other? and they in the firſt place, as wee beſt knew what that was, which did ſet an end to ſhadowes; and accordingly to give notice of the pregnant ſignification of the Day of the Lords Reſurrection? and therefore, 1 Cor. 16.2 Hee doth intirely referre this to the Apoſtles, as whom he confeſſeth, conſtrayned by the Iewiſh ſuperſtition to have abrogated the Sabbath, and in the place thereof ordeyned the Lords Day. Secondly obſerve that the accompliſhment of that which was ſignified by the Jewiſh Sabbath he aſcribes to the Reſurrection. And Doctor Andrewes Biſhop of Wincheſter in his ſpeech delivered in the Starre Chamber in the caſe of Traske profeſſeth that, It hath ever beene the Churches doctrine that Chriſt made an end of all Sabbaths, by his Sabbath in the grave. That Sabbath (ſaith he) was the laſt of them. And that Chriſts Reſurrection brought with it a new Creation, and a new Creation requires a new Sabbath. And hee alleageth Auſtin Ep. 119. ſaying, The Lords Day was declared to Chriſtians by Chriſt his Reſurrection, and from thence began to have its feſtivity. But that at this time Calvin ſhould thinke it alterable by the Church, no colour of proofe is brought; and moſt unreaſonable it is, for any to conceave the Sabbath to be as alterable now, as in the Apoſtles dayes it was, when from the Saturday they tranſlated it unto the Sunday. For that alteration depended upon a ſecond Creation, as both Biſhop Andrewes obſerves, and that out of Athanaſius de Sabbato & circumciſione. And Biſhop Lakes was of the ſame opinion, as his diſcourſe in Manuſcript yet to be ſeene doth manifeſt. So that unleſſe this Prefacer can deviſe a third Creation, and maintaine withall the reſt on the Lords Day to bee as ceremoniall, as the Jewes reſt on the ſeventh Day was, there is no colour, why the Chriſtian Sabbath on the Lords Day, ſhould bee as alterable now, as the day of the Jewiſh Sabbath was. As for the 3. concluſions which hee ſaith Calvin reſolves upon; the firſt whereof hee ſaith to be this, that one day in ſeven is not the morall part of the fourth Commandement, I ſay, Calvin avoucheth no ſuch thing; and Wallaeus ſhewes, that generally the friends of Calvin maintained the contrary; between whom nevertheleſſe and Calvin it was never known that there was any contention herabouts. And already I have ſhewed how unſhamefaſtly this Prefacer abuſeth Calvin in alledging one halfe of his ſentence, and leaving the other part quite out, ſo making Calvin to deliver that abſolutely, which he affirmes onelyonly conditionally. The ſecond reſolution which he obtrudes upon Calvin, is, that the day was changed from the laſt day of the weeke to the firſt, by the authority of the Church, and not by any divine ordinance. It is true, Calvin ſayth not, that the day was changed by divine ordinance,Comment int. ep. ad cor. cap. 16. neither doth he ſay that it was changed by the authority of the Church; but in plaine termes profeſſeth that the Apoſtles changed it in one place; and that admonition was given for the change of it, by the conſideration of the Day of Chriſts Reſurrection in another, to wit Inſtitut. lib. 2. cap. 8. Sect. 36. Now let every ſober conſcience conſider, whether that day which was firſt ordained by authority Divine, the apoſtles would alter by leſſe authority, then authority Divine; eſpecially conſidering that Chriſts redemption of the World, is the reſtauration of the World; which is as a new Creation; and as the Lord reſted the ſeventh day from the workes of Creation; ſo the day of Chriſts Reſurrection, was the day of his reſt from the worke of redemption; ſo that ſtill the day of the Lords reſt is the day of our reſt; not indeed the day of the Lord our Creators reſt, that ceaſing as being ceremoniall, as before hath beene ſhewed out of Doctor Andrewes; but the day of the Lord our Redeemers reſt, which brought with it a new Creation, is now the day of our reſt. And who was nearer or dearer unto Calvin then Beza? whoſe words upon Revel. 1, 10. are to this effect, He calls that the Lords Day, which Paul calls the firſt of the Sabbaths 1 Cor. 16.2. & Acts 20.7. on which day it appeares that even then were made the more frequent aſſemblies by Chriſtians, like as the Iewes came together in their Synagogues on the Sabbath Day; wherby it may appeare that the fourth precept of ſanctifying the ſeventh day, as touching the day of the Sabbath and legall rites, was ceremoniall; but as touching the worſhip of God is of the morall Law, unalterable, and perpetually to continue in this life. And that day of the Sabbath continued in force from the creation of the World, to the day of Chriſts Reſurrection, which being as it were another Creation of another ſpirituall World (as the Prophets ſpeake) then for the Sabbath of the former world or ſeventh day, was aſſumed the firſt day of this new World; the holy Ghoſt without doubt dictating thus much to the Apoſtles. As for the third & laſt reſolutiō which he pins upon Calvins ſleeve, namely that the day of reſt to be ſanctified to the Lord, is yet alterable by the church as at firſt it was; neither that firſt alteration is by Calvin ſayd to be made by the church, but expreſſely by the apoſtles; & they admoniſhed hereof by the day of Chriſts reſurrection; and Beza profeſſeth that our Chriſtian aſſembles on the Lords Day are of Apoſtolicall and Divine tradition. And obſerve I pray how Biſhop Andrewes pleades for Epiſcopall authority, as by Divine right, in his anſwer to the firſt Epiſtle of Peter Moulin. An eſt apoſtolicum factum aliquod, jure non apoſtolico? Apoſtolico autem, id eſt, ut ego interpretor, Divino. Nec enim aliquid ab apoſtolis factum, non dictante hoe iis ſpiritu Sancto & Divino. Is there any fact of the Apoſtles, by right not apoſtolicall? But by apoſtolicall, that is (as I interpret it) by Divine. For neither was there any thing done by the Apoſtles, which the holy and divine Spirit did not dictate unto them. Shall this be of force for the inſtitution of Biſhops, and ſhall it not be of force for the inſtitution of the Lords Day, as by Divine right? But put the caſe it were ſo in every particular of Calvin, as this Prefacer avoucheth; how comes it about that our adverſaries practiſe to choake us with the authority of Calvin? ſhall we be urged to yield to the authority of Calvin, who are reproched uſually as Calviniſts, and ſo nicknamed? In my time of being in the Univerſity, we heard by credible relation, how in one of the Colleges, queſtions were ſet up to be diſputed Contrà Ioannem Calvinum; and that diſputations of that nature were ſometimes concluded in this manner, Relinquamus Calvinum in hiſce facibus; and we commonly ſay, there is no ſmoake without ſome fire. No longer agoe then at the act in Oxford, laſt ſave one, Anno 1634. I heard Calviniſts reckoned up amongſt Papiſts, Pelagians, Arminians, Puritans, as ſectaries at leaſt, if not as Heretiques, by him that preached the act Sermon on the Lords Day in the afternoone; and is it fit, that we ſhould be pregravated by the opinion of Calvin, a man whoſe memory ſeemes to be hated by men of this Prefacers ſpirit, ſo as few men more?