The Christian Sabbath Defended, Digression 2

The Christian Sabbath Defended · Digression 2

p. 66THE SECOND DIGRESSION CONSISTING OF TWO PARTS.

I. In making good Doctor Wallaeus his arguments for the morality of one day in ſeven, againſt the anſwer of Doctor Rivetus.

II. In anſwering of Doctor Rivetus his arguments directed againſt the morality of one day in ſeven.

NOW whereas Doctor Rivetus about the obſervation of one day in ſeven as neceſſary, differeth in opinion from his two Collegues Doctor Thyſius, and Doctor Walaeus, and not ſo onelyonly, but directs himſelfe (after Gomarus) to take into conſideration the arguments propoſed by Doctor Walaeus for the morality of one day in ſeven, and to accommodate an anſwer thereunto: I thinke it fit, not to omit the diſcuſſion of that anſwer of his; and that in ſuch ſort that I may carry my ſelfe correſpondently to his ingenuous behaviour herein.

The firſt argument of Walaeus is this, if by the force and analogy (of the fourth Commandement) it be not rightly collected that one day of ſeven is to be conſecrated to Divine worſhip, then no certaine number or circle of dayes can be limited (to the foreſaid purpoſe) by any Divine precept, ſeeing in no other precept p. 67is found mention of any other number; and therefore it ſhall be lawfull to chooſe either a thirtieth day, or a fiftieth day without tranſgreſſion of any Divine precept. But this is abſurd. This argument is of great force; conſidering the difference betweene proportion of time allowed unto Divine Service; and the difference of the day, keeping ſtill the ſame proportion. For every maſter, from the greateſt Prince to the meaneſt houſholder expects that his ſervant ſhould be profitable unto him, and accordingly hee expects a certaine proportion of ſervice to bee performed by him; as namely a good dayes worke for every day; a good weeks worke for every weeke. And in every trade it is well known by them that are ſeene therein, wherein conſiſts a good dayes worke, whereof whoſoever failes, he is accompted but an idle and unprofitable ſervant; but ſo the worke of the day be done, whether he laboureth more in one houre, then in another, he regardeth not. Such in like manner is every ones conſideration of a weekes worke. So likewiſe as touching the ſervice of God, it is nothing materiall as touching the ſubſtance of Gods ſervice what day of the weeke is ſet apart for that. For whether we conſider the advantagious nature of it for ſetting forth the glory of God who is our maker; and as we came from him ſo we muſt be for him, Rom. 11. & Heb. 2. The ſupreame efficient being ever of duty the ſupreame end; or whether we conſider the profitable nature of it to our owne ſoules in comming acquainted with him, both touching his nature touching his counſaile concerning us, and touching his will. For when we deſpiſe him, we deſpiſe him againſt our ſelves; and when wee provoke him, wee provoke him to the confuſion of our owne faces; himſelfe being nothing profited by our ſervice, but our owne ſoules rather, though he be pleaſed to accompt himſelfe glorified thereby: it being his glory to doe us good. This advancement of his glory and our good is no more promoted by ſetting one day in a weeke apart for this then another. But betweene the proportion of one day in a weeke, or one day in a monethmonth, or one day in a yeare, there is a vaſt and momentous difference. For we come to the knowledge of God, and of the myſteries of godlineſſe by ſmall degrees; p. 68and in the wayes of holineſſe we clamber as it were up an high and ſteepe hill; and our life is a way fare, our condition is the condition of travellours; nay our life is a warfare, and the Divell and his angells of darkneſſe goe about continually like ſo many roaring Lyons and hungry Beares, ſeeking whom they may devoure; So that we travell to Heaven as it were by dennes of Lyons, and over mountaines of Libbards. And will any wiſe man ſay that it matters not much in this caſe, whether we acquaint our ſelves with the Armour of God one day in a weeke, or one day in a monethmonth, or one day in a yeare to arme our ſelves againſt ſuch ghoſtly and watchfull enemies? Secondly, conſidering that it was never knowne that any maſter from the higheſt to the loweſt, was ſo fooliſh to leave it to his ſervant to cut out what proportion of ſervice he thinkes fit, wherewith to ſatisfie his maſter for his keeping, and for the wages which he expecteth at his hands. Theſe things conſidered; I ſay this firſt argument of Doctor Wallaeus is of great evidence and force, and therefore it is to be well weighed and conſidered what anſwer either Doctor Rivetus or any other doth make unto it, and what ſatisfaction it gives. Now the anſwer that hee makes unto it proceeds not in his owne name, but in the name of another, to wit, in the name of Gomarus, and ſuch as concurre with him.

To this they anſwer (ſaith he) that it is no inconvenience that there is no certaine number or circle of dayes defined for Gods ſervice by any precept. It is enough that the nature of publique worſhip, in generall comprehended in the fourth Commandement, doth require that not only certaine dayes be obſerved, but that the number of them be ſufficient alſo, nor fewer then the right inſtitution of the Church, the ſalvation of men, and glory of God doe require, and that God by not defining it, hath not left unto us a wild licentiouſnes but a prudent liberty. And therefore that it cannot be differred to one day in twenty, or thirty, much leſſe to one of a thouſand.

22. Over and above they note (ſaith he) that from the morall reaſon of precept it is gathered what number of dayes is ſufficient for Divine Service; namely that ſeeing we are eaſed p. 69of the burden of ceremonies, whereof the Iewes were not, and yet God required one day in ſeven to be kept holy by them, we may be more frequent in Divine offices, but ought not to be leſſe…: but yet that GOD hath not preciſely tied Christians to any, that is (as I take it) to any day in the weeke, whereas it ſhould be to any proportion of time, otherwiſe it is nothing to the preſent purpoſe.

3. Doctor Rivetus addes this of his owne, that Whereas this alſo is morall that ſome reſt be granted to ſervants and labourers, in charity the labour for ſo many dayes cannot be exacted of them without ſome reſt.

To this I reply.

Here we have acknowledged, that not only ſome time,Reſp. 1. but alſo a ſufficient proportion of time is to be ſet apart for Gods publique ſervice, and that by the very light of nature; for that I conceave to be his meaning, and not with reference to the preciſe Commandement commanding it but with reference unto it as it is morall, and ſo acknowledged by light of nature. For it is apparent that the Commandement in requiring a ſeventh doth therein require one day in ſeven, and not leave it at randome, what proportion of time, but defines it. 2. I appeale to every mans conſcience, and that as guided by the very light of nature ſo farre as it may be juſtly thought to be incorrupt, whether it be not more fit the Lord himſelfe ſhould ſet downe what proportion of time he thinkes ſufficient, then that the definition hereof ſhould be left to the ſervant, and that for theſe conſiderations. 1. If it be left unto man, how improbable is it that all the Nations of the World (as Chriſtians are or may be found in all) will concurre in judgement, and if they doe not, who ſeeth not what a way is hereby opened to miſerable diſtraction and confuſion, conſider what Socrates hath written of different rites in keeping Lent, and in obſerving holydayes. 2. If it be left to man, it is very likely that little enough will be thought ſufficient, ſo burthenſome unto fleſh and bloud is Gods ſervice; and the major part in moſt Nations (if not in all) even of the beſt (as is to be feared) is not truly regenerate. For as our Saviour tells us though many be called yet but few p. 70are choſen. 3. upon this he concludes it may not be differred to the twentieth day; yet it is well knowne that Brentius hath profeſſed it may be differred to the fourteenth upon Leviticus. 25.8. as Doctor Bownde alleageth him. Now if ſo great a writer hath beene of opinion that from the ſeventh it may be put off to the 14^th. why may not another riſe up and maintaine that from the fourteenth it may bee put off to the twentieth, ſo dangerous it is to forſake that light which God hath given us in his Word; and by way of divination, hunt after a new light of evidence in the counſailes of our owne hearts. In the light of my conſcience it ſeemes moſt abſurd, that it ſhould be left to the ſervant to cut out what proportion of ſervice he thinkes good unto his maſter.

2. It is well that both he and Gomarus thinke we are bound to cut out a better proportion of Gods Service then was preſcribed to the Jewes rather then a worſe: yet Brentius as great a writer as any of theſe, thinkes otherwiſe, as wee have heard. 3. doth only our freedome from the yoke of ceremonies requires this? and not much more. 1. the love of God revealed unto us in Chriſt in the dayes of the Goſpell. 2. the encombrance of Gods Truth with errors, and hereſies, and thoſe very dangerous ones. 3. and in a word the ſtrong oppoſition that in theſe daies of the Goſpell is made, and will be made more and more as the end of all things doth approach, both unto faith and holineſſe. It is noted to be the ſinne of Chriſtendom not to receave the love of the truth. 2 Theſſ. 2. And of theſe latter times Paul hath propheſied, that men ſhould be lovers of pleaſures more then lovers of God. 3. as for this opinion of Gomarus and Rivetus; I am glad they are ſo farre convicted of truth in this argument as to profeſſe, that we ought to keepe holy rather more dayes then fewer; But why then doe not the ſtates of Holland under whom they live (if they be of the ſame opinion) make it good by practiſe? And the French-Churches alſo; But they want example in antiquity for this. Who ſeeth not that this is delivered onelyonly to ſerve turne, and helpe at a dead lift, when no other way is open to ſhift off the Argument?

3. And laſtly whereas he grants (with Calvin) that after p. 71ſo many dayes (to wit after ſix, for no other number was ſpecifyed) reſt muſt bee granted to ſervants on the ſeventh; doth not this evidently convince that that day muſt bee our Chriſtian Sabbath? For what? ſhall the maſters keepe one, and the ſervants another? or ſhall the ſervants not give themſelves to the ſervice of God on the day of their reſt, but rather on the day of their labour in the workes of their proper callings? obſerve I pray how at every turne the light of Gods direction doth meete with us, to keepe us in the good wayes of the Lord, if we will not wilfully ſhut our eyes againſt it. Now let that ſeventh day which is our Chriſtian Sabbath be well obſerved, firſt; and then let the ſtates take what order they ſhall ſee good, for the obſervation of another day alſo. Yet we finde by experience, that hardly are men able to maintaine a poore living by labouring hardly ſix whole dayes in the weeke. I come to the ſecond which Rivetus recapitulates in briefe thus.

2. It is drawn from the number of ſix dayes allowed for worke, which number cannot conſiſt, unleſſe it be terminated in reſt, and in ceſſation on the ſeventh. To this Rivetus anſwereth, that the ſix dayes of labour are in reference to the ſeventh of reſt; the determination of which ſeventh day being now taken away a man may worke on any day, ſo long as ſome day be choſen (whether by Divine conſtitution or humane, and reaſonable diſpoſition) for Divine Service, which may be in ſuch ſort, that fewer dayes ſhall be left for worke. But conſider.

What more reaſonable diſpoſition humane,Reſpon. 1. then that which is conformable to conſtitution Divine? now it is apparent that God required of the Jewes one day in ſeven; neither was it ever knowen to bee abrogated; the particularity of the day is abrogated, not the proportion of time; ground we have for the one by the ceremoniality of it, no colour of ground for the other; nor did ever I thinke any man ſet his wits on worke to deviſe a ceremonialitie of one day in ſeven.

2. But what? ſhall the morality of reſt granted to ſervants, be altered alſo under the Goſpell? did Calvin any where teach this? may not maſters exact as many dayes worke of their ſervants under the Goſpell as under the Law? hath not p. 72Chriſt deſerved at the hands of ſervants to be as ſerviceable to their maſters as ever? Laſtly are theſe dayes of the World ſuch as wherein a labouring man may maintaine himſelfe, by the labour of five dayes in a weeke as well as by the labour of ſix? A long time I have found it obſerved by traffiquers in the World, that nothing is more cheape then mens labours; a notable evidence how unprofitable ſervants wee have beene unto God, and therefore hee makes the labour of our hands and ſweate of our browes to afford very unprofitable ſervice unto us. Can theſe Divines make the World more favourable to crafts-men, and bring their commodities in better requeſt then they are; if they could, let them then change the morality of ſervants reſt, and for one in ſeven allow them one in three, or foure, or five; their maſters will bee the more eaſily brought to entreat their conſciences to condeſcend. Or if Kings had power to make the commodities of their owne Country more worth, and the commodities of other Countries leſſe worth (which upon due conſideration will bee found as needfull equally) then place might bee made for this. Till then let us bee content with Calvines morality of the fourth Commandement in reference to ſervants reſt, namely one day after ſix; and therewithall conſider whether our Chriſtian Sabbath muſt not bee confined to that day as the onelyonly day of reſt for ſervants; and I hope wee ſhall not thinke it fit to allow one Sabbath for the maſters, and another for the ſervents.

3. The third is drawne from the examples of the Apoſtles and the apoſtolicall Church, who in place of the (Iewes) Sabbath, obſerved the firſt day of the weeke without variation: therefore by force of the precept, one day in ſeven is to be obſerved ſtill. Never any hath beene found to change this; therefore that which hath beene kept from the beginning of the VVorld, and ſhall continue to the end, is to bee taken for ſuch as by the Analogy of Gods Commandement binds all men.

To this Rivetus anſwereth, that the conſequence is not p. 73firme; for as much as Chriſtians obſerved the Lords Day not of neceſſity by reaſon of any binding praecept, but of free choiſe. Yet was it wiſely done of them, leſt by a greater change they might offend the Iewes. And that it might be a free monument of their maintaining the weekly remembrance of Chriſts Reſurrection.

Hee ſayeth they did it freely;Reſp. but of things freely done without any conſcience of duty obliging, it was never knowne that ſo univerſall a concurrence was found as the obſervation of the Lords Day. Nay Philoſophers obſerve that things freely done as often come to paſſe to the contrary. Againe then it was free for them to obſerve one day in fourteene as well as one in ſeven, as Bre…tius profeſſeth, and conſequently as well one in twenty, which Rivetus denies. Nay it ſtood them upon to change the obſervation, leſt men by univerſall and perpetuall practiſe might bee confirmed in an opinion of the neceſſity of that which is not neceſſary. It is apparent that as the Lords Day under the Law was one day in ſeven; So the Lords Day in the Goſpell was and ſtill is one Day in ſeven. And both himſelfe and Gomarus are driven to profeſſe, that we may not allow a leſſe proportion then one in ſeven to Divine worſhip. And I appeale to every conſcience, to judge by the very light of nature; whether the Lord requiring of the Jewes one day in ſeven to bee conſecrated unto him it doth not manifeſtly follow that wee Chriſtians can allow no leſſe then one in ſeven; and whether it bee not fi… that the Lords Day ſhould bee our holy Day; and as for the allowance of more in a weeke then one, let them perſuade, their owne Churches thereunto firſt, and then it will bee time enough for us to hearken unto them. And what ſhould move them to illuſtrate the memory of Chriſts Reſurrection weekly? whereas they contented themſelves with a yearely memoriall (if at all they obſerved any ſuch) of his Nativity, Paſſion and Aſcenſion, and ſending downe of the Holy Ghoſt. Why doth hee not conſider that the day of the weeke onelyonly whereon Chriſt roſe is called the p. 74Lords Day in Scripture, whereon Iohn the beloved Diſciple received from his loving Lord, and maſter, that Divine revelation of his concerning things to come.

4. If the number of ſeven, (that is, the obſervation of one day in ſeven) in this Commandement be changeable; then as ceremoniall, or as politicall: not as ceremoniall; for then the Church ought not to obſerve it. Nor as politicall; for in the morall Law precepts politicall are not given. And to this Rivetus anſwereth, that the obſervation of the ſeventh day is ceremoniall: and that the Primitive Church kept it not, neither did the Primitive Church keepe it, nor doe we keepe it as ceremoniall; but another ſeventh day, for Eccleſiaſticall policy ſake, not civill.

Reſpon.When hee ſaith we keepe another ſeventh day; he implieth that by the ſeventh formerly mentioned hee meant that particular day of the weeke which the Iewes kept; and that wee indeed acknowledge to bee ceremoniall; but in this interpretation of Wallaeus, hee manifeſtly corrupts his adverſaries argument, which is plainly directed againſt the ceremoniality of one day in ſeven indefinitly conſidered, and not againſt the ceremoniality of the Iewes ſeventh. Yet when he ſaith the Primitive Church did, and we doe keepe a ſeventh, but not as ceremoniall; hee ſpeaks to the point; but his words following have no coherence herewith: ſo that hee may ſeeme to ſhuffle miſerably in this, affecting to decline that which he is not able to anſwer. But take wee him at the beſt, he muſt ſay that the obſervation of one day in ſeven was ceremoniall, if hee ſpeakes to the purpoſe. Now let him ſhew us if he can, the ceremoniality of one day in ſeven, and how Chriſt was the body of it; nothing more common then to affirme that the Iewes Sabbath was ceremoniall hand over head, without any diſtinction of the ſanctification of the day, and the reſt; much leſſe diſtinguiſhing betweene the reſt of one day in ſeven, and the reſt of the ſeventh. At length I found a faire way opened for the explication of the ceremoniality found in the reſt on the ſeventh day. But as for any ceremoniality in the reſt of one day in ſeven; never (I thinke) any man ſet his wits on worke to deviſe that. Laſtly, p. 75after ſuch a ceremoniality is deviſed, wee will conferre whether in reaſon ſuch a thing ought to bee ſtill obſerved as was ceremoniall unto the Iewes; and why may wee not as well obſerve circumciſion with the Ethiopians, who obſerve it only in conformity to Chriſt, who was circumciſed?

Now becauſe Rivetus brings arguments alſo to the contrary, to prove that the obſervation of one day in ſeven, under the Goſpell is not neceſſary, but free: it is fit we ſhould conſider them alſo to prove what force is in them.

If by force of the Commandement a ſeventh day is to be kept,Rivet. 1. then that day is to be kept which the Commandement hath defined, which is the Sabbath of the Iewes.Reſpon.

To this I anſwer by denying the conſequence, and not contenting my ſelfe with a bare deniall, I prove it to bee inconſequent. For whereas God in commanding the ſeventh hath therewithall commanded one in ſeven, and withall ſpecified which of the ſeven ſhall bee reſted on and ſanctified unto his ſervice: If it may bee made appeare that the particularity of reſt on the ſeventh day be abrogated; and no colour can be brought for the abrogation of the proportion of time, to wit, of keeping one day in ſeven; it will evidently appeare herewithall, that this conſequence of Doctor Rivetus is unſound. Now this wee prove to bee moſt true; foraſmuch as the Jewes reſt on the ſeventh day was ceremoniall prefiguring Chriſts reſt on that day in his grave; as both the fathers of old and moderne Divines both Papiſts, and Proteſtants, both Lutheranes, and Calviniſts have acknowledged; but never any man was found to deviſe a ceremoniality of reſting one day in ſeven; they may as well give themſelves to deviſe a ceremonality in the ſetting apart of ſome time in generall for Gods holy worſhip and ſervice.

2. Now this puts me in minde of another way clearely to demonſtrate the inconſequence of Rivetus his argument thus. If it will follow that in caſe wee are bound to ſuch a proportion of time by vertue of this Commandement, therefore wee are bound alſo to keepe the ſeventh day: Then it will follow as well, that becauſe wee are bound to ſet apart ſome time for the ſervice of God by vertue of this Commandement p. 76(as all confeſſe) therefore we are bound alſo to keepe ſuch a proportion of time as is here ſpecified, and the ſeventh day alſo which is here particulated; For like as God doth not command ſuch a proportion of time in ſpeciall, but by commanding the obſervation of the ſeventh day; in like ſort neither doth God Command a time in generall to bee ſet apart for his ſervice, but by commanding of ſuch a proportion of time in ſpeciall, and ſuch a Day in particular.

Rivet. 2.2. His ſecond argument runnes thus: if the obſervation of every ſeventh day bee morall it muſt bee knowne by light of nature, but ſo it is not. Therefore it is not morall; and ſeeing it is not politicall, it muſt bee ceremoniall; and therefore doth not oblige by force of Law morall. To this I anſwer firſt.

Reſp. 1.Let but Doctor Rivetus ſtretch his wits to deſcribe unto us what ceremoniality can poſſibly bee deviſed in the obſertion of one day in ſeven; and when hee hath deviſed it, I dare appeale to his owne judgement and conſcience for the appobation of it. For I doe not thinke it poſſible for the wit of man with any colour of reaſon, to deviſe a ceremoniality to be conſtituted in the obſervation of one day in ſeven, ſpeaking of it indefinitly as wee doe, the body whereof can bee found in Chriſt; for of ſuch ceremonies wee ſpeake, that as ſhadowes are to flee away when the body comes in place.

2. Neither doth it follow that becauſe it is not morall nor politicall, therefore it is ceremoniall; for ſome will ſay that it is poſitive as touching the defining of ſome particular neceſſarily required to the performance of a morall duty. As for example, not to go further then the matter in hand for inſtance; it is generally confeſſed, to be a morall duty by naturall inſtinct, that ſome time is to bee ſet apart for Gods ſervice; but of our ſelves wee are to ſeeke of the proportion of time; it is fit for none ſo much as for God himſelfe our Creator, and conſequently our great Lord and maſter to define what proportion of time ſhall be allowed for his ſervice; now this they call poſitively morall, as belonging to the execution p. 77of a morall duty. Yet indeed not ſo much a circumſtance thereof in proper ſpeech as the ſpecification of the generall concerning the circumſtance of time.

3. Yet to draw nearer to the morality of it; what?3. ſhall nothing bee morall that is not knowne to bee ſo, by light of nature, for what I pray? is not our nature now corrupt? nay hath not Ariſtotle profeſſed that matter of morality is not capable of demonſtration, but onelyonly of foreign perſwaſion? Nay how is it knowne by the light of nature, that ſome time is to bee ſet apart to the worſhip of God that made us; but upon preſuppoſition that God is knowne to bee our Creatour? and is this knowne by the light of nature? How came Ariſtotle then the greateſt Philoſopher that ever was, and his whole ſchoole, how I ſay came they to be ignorant of it? but upon preſuppoſition of the Hiſtory of the Creation knowne unto us, Doctor Feild ſpares not to profeſſe as Maſter Broad reportes him, that by light of nature it is known that one day in ſeven ought to bee conſecrated to Divine Service? Yet I am not forward to ſay ſo much, but rather with Chryſoſtome, that now from the Creation God hath manifeſted that one day in a weeke is to bee apportioned for his ſervice; and with Azorius that it is moſt agreeable to reaſon,Inſtitut. par. 2. l. 1. f. c. 2. after ſix dayes of worke, to ſet apart one to his ſervice. And ſeeing God did require ſuch a portion of time to bee conſecrated unto him under the Law. Undoubtedly and by the very light of nature it is cleare and evident, that no leſſe proportion of time can wee in conſcience allow unto him under the Goſpell.

3. I come to his third argument which is this,3. the neceſſity of one day in ſeven cannot conſiſt with that liberty which the Apoſtle intimates, Col. 2.16. Let no man judge you in meate and drinke, or in the part of a day, or of Sabbaths, which are ſhadowes of things to come. Which they explicate by a ſimilitude. As nature requires meates and drinke, but Chriſtian liberty is not tied to choiſe of meates according to Moſes his Lawes: ſo reaſon dictates that ſome time is to be ſet apart for Gods publique worſhip, but the Goſpell freeth us from the neceſſity of the Iewiſh Sabbath.

p. 78To this I anſwer.

Reſpon.1. By granting the concluſion; for the Iewiſh Sabbath Chriſtians obſerve not. 2. but one day in ſeven they alwayes have obſerved, a manifeſt evidence that they never conceaved this to be any impeachment to their Chriſtian liberty. And no marvell; for they manifeſtly perceaved that God required this proportion of time under the Law, and from the beginning of the World; how much more ſhould we be carefull to performe no leſſe under the Goſpell? And indeed reſt on the ſeventh day did pregnantly repreſent before hand Chriſts reſt that day, and that day alone full and whole in the grave. But as for any ceremoniality to be found in the ſpeciall proportion of time, to wit, as one day in ſeven, never any man deviſed any ceremoniality therein more then in the time in generall, which all confeſſe by the very light of nature is to be conſecrated unto God. So that we have no need of Doctor Rivetus, his anſwer to helpe us in the ſolution of this his argument. And whereas he conceaves our Chriſtian liberty to be impeached if any proportion of time be obſerved of neceſſity by force of precept, and of free choiſe. 1. This is as much as to ſay that our liberty is impeached, if we ſuffer our Lord and maſter, to preſcribe unto us his ſervants what proportion of ſervice we ſhall performe unto him, and not rather have him leave it to the ſervant to cut out unto him as little, or as much as he thinkes good, yet we do not deny but he may allow unto him more; all that we ſtand for is that we ought not to allow him leſſe under the Goſpell, then he required under the Law; and then he required from the beginning of the World. 2. I marvell that Doctor Rivetus doth not obſerve how herein he contradicts himſelfe; for hath he not formerly reſted in this anſwer of Gomarus, that by vertue of the fourth Commandement, we muſt allow unto him dayes ſufficient for his ſervice; and that theſe dayes muſt be rather Frequentiores then Rari…res, more rather then fewer; and if it be no prejudice to our Chriſtian liberty to be tyed, and that by vertue of the fourth Commandement, to allow unto him a better proportion of time, for his ſervice, then that of one day in ſeven, how can it bee prejudiciall to our p. 79Chriſtian liberty to allow unto him this, and that by vertue of the fourth Commandement.

Now whether Doctor Rivetus his anſwers to the arguments of Wallaeus, Rivet explicat. dec. p. 186. col. 2.or his owne arguments to the contrary bee of any force to hold him to that opinion which he conceaves to bee Calvins in oppoſition to the Doctrine delivered by Wallaeus, I am con ent the indifferent may judge; as alſo whether the two cauſes mentioned by him for the obſervation of the Sabbath contained in the Commandement, doth not infer the third alſo which Rivetus oppoſeth, namely the proportion of one day in ſeven. And that this is as free from all colour of ceremoniality as any of the other two. The firſt was that ſome time is to be ſet apart for Gods Service; now this generall is not commanded there but as contained in the ſpeciall, to wit, the proportion of one day in ſeven. Both of them being equally contained in the particularity of the ſeventh day in that Commandement expreſſed. And as for the morality of reſt to bee allowed to ſervants after ſix dayes of labour; this doth clearely draw with it the confinement of the time appointed for Gods Service to the proportion of one day in ſeven; unleſſe the day of reſt for ſervants ſhal not be the day conſecrated to the exerciſes of piety. And I much wonder that Doctor Rivetus a man of ſuch judgement, and perſpicacity doth not obſerve this. The only way to helpe this anomaly is in plaine termes to profeſſe that ſome reſt is to be allowed to ſervants by their Maſters, but in what proportion, that is not defined, but left at large to the pleaſure of their Maſters. And as for ceremoniality in the proportion of one day in ſeven, never any man deviſed any ſuch thing more then in the ſetting apart of ſome time in generall for Gods Service, all confeſſing this to be a duty known by the very light of nature. But I doe not finde that Calvin hath any other meaning then that we are not ſo tied to one day in ſeven, but that more time then this may be conſecrated to Divine Service; which as I have diſputed before, ſo now I am the more confirmed herein, Doctor Rivetus manifeſting this to be his opinion alſo, as well as it was the opinion of Gomarus; For in this he reſts, as may appeare by his p. 80anſwer to the firſt argument of Doctor Wallaeus. Neither is it true that Calvin did cenſure them who ſimply maintained, that the obſervation of one day in the weeke doth ſtill remaine as morall; but that ſo maintained it as in reference to ſome myſterious ſignification; a Doctor Wallaeus hath manifeſted, and the words immediatly following in Calvin doe evince, which are theſe; but this is no other thing then in contumely of the Jewes to change the day, and in heart to retaine the ſame holineſſe of the day. Here commonly the alleagers of Calvin to the ſame intent that Doctor Rivetus doth, uſe to make a period; as if Calvin delivered this abſolutely; whereas Calvin propoſeth it onelyonly conditionally, as appeares by the other halfe of the ſentence thus. If ſo bee there remaine yet unto us a ſignification in the dayes equally myſterious, to that which had place among the Iewes. And though I marvell not at others who dealing in this argument diſmember Calvins ſentence, ſo to make him to deliver that abſolutely which hee delivers onelyonly conditionally; yet I cannot ſufficiently marvell that Rivetus of rough improvidence ſhould do ſo too, eſpecially conſidering the good paines that Doctor Walaeus hath taken to cleare Calvins meaning in this point.

Neither is Maſter Robert Low, in his effigiation of the true Sabbatiſme, of any ſuch authority as to counterpoiſe the concurrent teſtimonies of ſo many of our Engliſh Divines to the contrary; not to ſpeake of the multitude of outlandiſh Divines whom Doctor Walaeus muſtereth up, concurring in the ſame opinion, and whereas hee ſaith as Doctor Rivetus reports him, that ſome great men, who vehemently contend, that the perpetuall ſanctity of manners doth require, that one day in ſeven ſhould be celebrated, have more authority then reaſon; I may bee bold to ſay that they who with him have hitherto oppoſed the Doctrine we maintaine, what authority they have I know not, but as for their reaſons, they are of ſo hungry a nature; that hereby they manifeſt that nothing but affection and their private ends they have, to beare them out in this. And whereas I doubt not but Rivetus hath brought on the Stage the beſt reaſons hee could picke both out of p. 81maſter Robert Low, and out of Gomarus; let every indifferent perſon judge of them as they deſerve; though I verily thinke that nothing but his affection to Calvin, to hold up his credite, and reputation hath carried him all along; and yet either my ſelfe, and Walaeus myſtake Calvin, or Rivetus miſerably myſtaketh him.

But as for our reaſon, we call all the World to judge of it; God did require one day in ſeven to be ſet apart for his publique ſervice under the Law; how much more doth he require as good a proportion of time under the Goſpell? Nay from the beginning of the World he hath required it, and to this day both Iewes, and Chriſtian Gentiles have obſerved the ſame proportion. Againe God in his morall Law hath required this, and that not as ceremoniall, never any man hitherunto having ſet his wits on worke to deviſe any ceremoniality herein; neyther was it ever knowne that God abrogated this proportion of time to be allowed unto him for his ſervice; therefore it continueth ſtill as a morall Law to bind us, and ſhall continue untill God himſelfe ſet an end unto it: now let maſter Lowes reaſons be compared with theſe in every indifferent conſcience, and let them have that authority which they deſerve, becauſe being well conceited of the ſtrength of his reaſons, hee ſenſibly complaines of his want of authority. It ſeemes Pope Alexander the third was a man of more authority then reaſon. For hee maintaines in Cap. licet. de feriis, as Doctor Rivetus relates it, that both the old and new Teſtament have in ſpeciall manner appointed the ſeventh day for man to reſt thereon, and hee takes it out of Suarez. de relig. l. 2. c. 2. but Rivetus cannot aſſent unto him, if he delivers this of any morall inſtitution; yet that it was ſo appointed by the fourth Commandement unto the Iewes it cannot bee denied; and that not as ceremoniall; for we have ſeene how odly Rivetus hath carried himſelfe in comming to ſpeake of the ceremoniality. For to make this good hee flyes to the particularity of the ſeventh day; and if the ceremoniality thereof, bee enough to inferre the ceremoniality of ſuch a ſpeciall proportion of time as of one day in ſeven; it may ſuffice as well to conſtitute a p. 82ceremoniality in the generall, namely in this that ſome time is to be ſet apart for Gods Service, which yet all account to bee morall by the very light of nature.

If Zanchy hath no better argument to prove that the Decalogue as given by Moſes to the Iſraelites doth not pertaine to us but onelyonly ſo farre forth as it agrees with the Law of nature; then by inſtancing in the Sabbath, which the Gentiles were not bound to ſanctifie: it ſtands Rivetus upon to oppoſe him as much as any, who maintaines that the Law concerning the ſanctifying of the Sabbath was given to Adam, and who brings diverſe authorities to prove the obſervation of it generally by the Gentiles; This I ſpeake upon conſideration of his reply to Gomarus taking exception againſt ſomewhat in this argument delivered by him in his explication of the Decalogue. But I hope the morall Law ſhall be ſufficient to binde us Chriſtians if no other way, yet by this argument of proportion. If God required of the Iewes under the Law that one day in ſeven ſhould bee ſet apart to his ſervice: how much more doth it become us Chriſtians to allow as good a proportion of time for his ſervice under the Goſpell? This I ſay ſhall ſuffice untill Rivetus anſweareth it, which never will be, for he as good as confeſſeth that we are bound to allow God for his ſervice, rather a better proportion of time then a worſe. And as for Doctor Prideaux, I nothing doubt but he will cleare us from Judaiſme in arguing thus; as who Sect. 7. profeſſeth that if they (againſt whom he diſputes) required no more, but the Analogy, the equity or the reaſon of that Commandement, we would not ſticke to yeeld unto it. And whereas Rivetus addes that the argument which hee annexeth ſeemes to him of great weight, namely that hee who ſtickes to the Commandement muſt exactly obſerve it: And that therefore into the place of the ſeventh from the Creation, no day is to bee ſubſtituted. But this argument I have anſwered before, all for the moſt part grant ſome ceremoniality in that Commandement; now if reſt on the ſeventh be found to bee ceremoniall, but not the reſt of one day in ſeven in an indefinite conſideration; it will follow herehence, that the ſeventh muſt not be obſerved as p. 83accompliſhed in Chriſt; and that the proportion of time is ſtill to continue, as indeed by experience wee finde it verified in each. For the obſervation of the ſeventh is ceaſed as prefiguring Chriſts reſt in his Grave, but the obſervation of one day in ſeven ſtill continueth unto this day.

Next for the ſecond Theſis,Preface. that the alteration of the day is onelyonly an humane and Eccleſiaſticall conſtitution, the Doctor ſheweth in the firſt Section, the generall conſent of all ſorts of Papiſts, Jeſuites, Canoniſts, and Schoolemen; of ſome great Lutheranes by names, and generally of the remonſtrant or Arminian Divines in their confeſſion, whoſe tendries in this point, wee may conceave with reaſon, not to bee different from the Doctrine of the Belgicke Churches, in that foure profeſſors of Leyden, in their examination or review of that confeſſion, have paſſed them over without note or oppoſition. To theſe beſides are added diverſe of our own, Et è noſtris non pauci, as hee ſpeakes it in the generall, that is, as I conceave his meaning ſuch as are neither of the Lutheran, nor of the Arminian party: of which ſince he hath inſtanced in none particularly, I will make bold to borrow two or three teſtimonies, out of the tractate of Gomarus before remembred. And firſt hee brings in Bullenger, who in his comment on the firſt of the Revelation, calls it Eccleſiae conſuetudinem, an Eccleſiaſticall Ordinance, and after addes, Sponte Eccleſiae receperunt illum diem. The Church did of its owne accord agree upon that day; for wee reade not any where that it was commanded. Next Ʋrſinus telling us, that God had abrogated the Iewiſh Sabbath, addes preſently, that hee left it free unto the Church, Alios dies eligere, to make choiſe of any other day to be ſelected for his ſervice: and that the Church made choyſe of this in honour of our Saviours Reſurrection. Zanchius affirmes the ſame; Nullibi legimus Apoſtolos, &c. We reade not any where, ſaith hee that the Apoſtles did command this day to bee obſerved in the Church of God; onelyonly wee finde what the Apoſtles, and others of the faithfull uſed to doe upon it, Liberum ergo reliquerunt, which is an argument that they left it holy to the diſpoſition of the Church. Aretius, Sin…ler, David Paraeus, p. 84and Bucerus, which are all there alleaged, might bee here produced, were not theſe ſufficient. Adde hereunto the generall conſent of our Engliſh Prelats, the Architects of our reformation in the time of King Edward the ſixt, who in the Act of Parlament about keeping holy dayes have determined thus, together with the reſt of that grand aſſembly, viz. Neither is it to bee thought, that there is any certaine time or definite number of dayes preſcribed in holy Scriptures, but that the appointment both of the time, and alſo of the number of the dayes is left by the authority of Gods Word, to the authority of Chriſts Church, to bee determined and aſſigned orderly in every Country, by the diſcretion of the rulers and Miniſters thereof, as they ſhall judge moſt expedient to the true ſetting forth of Gods glory, and edification of Gods People. Which preamble is not to be underſtood of holy dayes or of Saints dayes onelyonly, (whoſe being left to the authority of the Church was never queſtioned) but of the Lords Day alſo: as by the body of the Act doth at full appeare.

Exam.In this Section, the Prefacer makes a greater bluſter by farre then in the former. For to except againſt the proportion of time, as of one day in ſeven to be ſet apart for the ſervice of God in theſe dayes of the Goſpell, is ſo unreaſonable a courſe, and that not onelyonly in the judgement of a Chriſtian conſcience, but even in the judgement of a naturall man, that I cannot eaſily deviſe any thing more unreaſonable. For whereas all confeſſe that by the very light of nature ſome time ought to bee ſet apart for the ſervice of God; and not ſo onelyonly, but that a fit, and competent proportion of time is to bee conſecrated to holy uſes, as Gomarus acknowledgeth, though one of the moſt eager oppoſers of the morality of the Sabbath, that hitherto have beene knowne. Albeit this convenient proportion of time cannot bee ſo convincingly concluded upon by the light of nature, as to draw all to an unanimous conſent thereunto; yet after God himſelfe hath gone before us herein by bleſſing the ſeventh day and ſanctifying …; and that upon the ground mentioned both Gen. 2. and in the fourth Commandement; henceforth as Chryſoſtome obſerveth, p. 85God hath manifeſted, that one day in ſeven is to be ſet apart; I may ſay conſequently, that one day in ſeven is that fit proportiō of time which is to be ſanctified to Gods holy worſhip and ſervice, and that God hath now manifeſted as much ever ſince the Creation. And (herupon as I imagin) Azorius the Jeſuite in his inſtitutions is bold to conclude, that this courſe is moſt agreeable unto reaſon. Now if the Lord under the Law did require ſuch a proportion of time to be ſequeſtred from profan uſe to Divine, at the hands of the Iewes; can it enter into the heart of a ſober man, that God ſhould require leſſe of us Chriſtians under the Goſpell, then he did require of the Jewes under the Law? Or that God hath now left it to the liberty of the Church, whether they will ſet apart the proportion of one day in ſeven or leſſe, to bee ſpent in Gods worſhip? If wee conſider the ſervice of the day, as whereby God is honoured, undoubtedly God hath deſerved more ſervice at our hands under the Goſpell, then hee did at the hands of the Jewes under the Law; for as much as the love of God to mankinde was never ſo revealed in former times, as in theſe latter times; So God loved the World that he gave his only begottet Sonne, &c. And hereupon undoubtedly it is that our Saviour profeſſeth, that from the time of Iohn the Baptiſt, the Kingdome of Heaven ſuffereth violence, and the violent take it by force. To ſuch an height of devotion hath the Love of God manifeſted in his Sonne inflamed his true ſervants; according to that of Iohn, We love him becauſe he loved us firſt. Againe if wee conſider the ſervice of that day, as ſuch wherby our ſoules are profited and promoted in faith and holineſſe, never was there more need then in theſe dayes of ſanctifying a better proportion of time unto God Service, rather then a worſe; and that in each reſpect. For the truth of God was never ſo encombred with oppoſitions before the comming of our Saviour in the fleſh as it hath beene ſince. No heretiques (to ſpeake of) were knowne to trouble the peace of the Church, in thoſe former times in compariſon to the multitude of hereſies that have beene broached ſince, and began to bee ſet on foote in the very dayes of the Apoſtles; Saint Paul profeſſing that even then the myſtery of iniquity p. 86did worke. And whereas Saint Peter tells us that falſe teachers ſhould come privily bringing in damnable hereſies even denying the Lord that bought them; Saint Iude tells them to whom hee writes, that ſuch were already crept in turning the grace of God into wantonneſſe, and denying God the onelyonly Lord, and our Lord Jeſus Chriſt. And Saint Iohn after the ſame manner, little children (ſaith hee) it is the laſt time, and as you have heard that Antichriſt ſhall come, even now there are many Antichriſts. And no marvaile; for as much as the myſteries of godlineſſe concerning the Trinity of perſons and incarnation of the Sonne of God (whereat carnall wits are ſo apt to ſtumble) were never ſo punctually and diſtinctly expreſſed in the books of the old Teſtament, as now they are particularly delivered in the writings of the Apoſtles and Evangeliſts.

So that had wee in theſe dayes two Sabbaths in a weeke inſteed of one, all were little enough to inſtruct our people, and ſtrengthen them againſt the oppoſitions made by men of carnall mindes, and thereby to keepe them in the right way of Gods ſaving truth. And no leſſe neceſſitie is there for the keeping of them in the wayes of holineſſe, ſuch is the degenerate condition of the World; Long agoe it is that the ſevere judgement of God, had its courſe in giving men over to illuſions to beleeve lies, and all for not receiving the love of the truth, as much as to ſay for the profaneneſſe of the Chriſtian World, in not making it their care to walke worthy of their calling, worthy of the Goſpell; whereunto the Apoſtle ſo often exhorts Chriſtians. So that if at any time it were requiſite to ſet one day in ſeven apart for the ſervice of God, ſurely by the very dictate of common reaſon, it is moſt requiſite in theſe latter dayes of the Goſpell. Eſpecially conſidering the rage, and fury of Satan in oppoſing the Kingdome of Chriſt more now than ever, becauſe he knoweth hee hath but a ſhort time. As for the alteration of the day (the ſame proportion of time ſtill continuing) from the ſeventh to the firſt day of the weeke, that I confeſſe willingly ſeemes not at firſt ſight to have the like evidence. But whereas this Prefacer contends for the alteration of the day, p. 87as onelyonly by an humane and Eccleſiaſticall conſtitution; obſerve that not one of the ancient Fathers are mentioned by him for the juſtifying of this, though divers are referred unto by him, as againſt the inſtitution of the Sabbath from the Creation. But wee have divers of the ancients bearing witneſſe to the Divine inſtitution of the Lords day, to come in place of the ſeventh. As firſt Athanaſius Homil. de Semente. Olim certe priſcis hominibus in ſummo pretio Sabbatum fuit, quam quidem ſolemnitatem Dominus in diem Dominicum tranſtulit. Heretofore truly the Sabbath was in great price, with men of old time, which ſolemnity the Lord hath tranſlated unto the Lords Day, Auſtine hath divers other paſſages to the ſame purpoſe de civitate dei. lib. 22. cap. ult. Dominicus dies velut octavus aeternus, qui Chriſti Reſurrectione ſacratus eſt, aeternam non ſolum Spiritus, verumetiam corporis requiem prafigurans. The Lords Day as the eighth eternall which was ſacred by Chriſts Reſurrection, prefiguring an eternall reſt, not of the ſpirit only, but of the body alſo; and in his Ep. 119. ad Ianuarium, The Lords Day is declared not to the Iewes, but to Chriſtians by the Lords Reſurrection, and from thence began to have its feſtivity; and de verbis Apoſtoli Sermo. 15. The Lords Reſurrection promiſed unto us an eternall day, and hath conſecrated to us the Lords Day, which is called the Lords, becauſe the Lord roſe on that day, and de Temp. Serm. 251. The Apoſtles and Apoſtolicall men, have therefore ordained the Lords day to be kept with a religious ſolemnity, becauſe on that day our redeemer roſe from the dead. Cyril. in Joan. lib. 12. cap. 58. From Chriſt preſenting himſelf unto his Apoſtles on the eighth day, which hee interpreteth of the firſt day of the weeke, concludes therehence that by right therefore holy Congregations are kept in the Churches on that day. And as Walaeus obſerves, the celebrity of this day Euſebius referres to Chriſt himſelfe in theſe words, Who ever preſcribed to all the inhabitants of the World either by Sea or Land, that meeting together one day in the weeke, they ſhould celebrate the Dominicall feſtivity. Athan. on that of Mat. 11.27. All things are given to me of my Father.Matt 11:27Adde to this that of Gregory mentioned Section the 1. Nay Athanaſius goes further, and ſhewes the equity of it in proportion to the new Creation compared with the old; The end p. 88of the firſt Creation was the Sabbath; but the beginning of the ſecond Creature is the Lords Day, wherein hee renewed and repayred the old man. Like as therefore in former times he would have the Sabbath day to be kept, ſo we keepe holy the Lords Day as a monument of the beginning of the ſecond Creation. And this proportion is apprehended by Beza alſo, on the Revelation the firſt Chap. and 10. verſe. That Sabbath day (ſaith hee) continued from the Creation of the World to the Lords reſurrection, which ſeeing it is as it were an other Creation of another ſpirituall World (as the Prophets ſpeake) then for the Sabbath of the former World, or ſeventh day was aſſumed (and that undoubtedly by the Holy Ghoſt ſuggeſting this to the Apoſtles) the firſt day of this new World, in which not the corporall or corruptible light, in the firſt day of the firſt World was created: but that heavenly and eternall light did ſpring unto us. In all which Beza doth exactly treade in the ſteps of that ancient Father Athanaſius, and concludes that the aſſemblies of the Lords Day (which Juſtine expreſly makes mention of in his ſecond Apologetium) are of tradition apoſtolicall and truly Divine. And after him Doctor Andrewes late Biſhop of Wincheſter, whom Doctor Hall now Biſhop of Exceter ſome where calls the Oracle of theſe times upon the ſame ground, maintaines the equity of bringing our Lords Day into the place of the Jewiſh Sabbath.

In his ſpeech in the Starre Chamber, againſt Traſke.The Sabbath (ſaith hee) had reference to the old Creation, but in Chriſt we are a new Creature, a new Creation, and ſo to have a new Sabbath. And againe, It hath ever beene the Churches doctrine that Chriſt made an end of all Sabbaths by his Sabbath in the Grave. That Sabbath was the laſt of them.— And that the Lords Day preſently came in place of it. And for the confirmation hereof brings in that of Auſtin Ep. 119 ad Ianuarium: The Lords Day by Chriſts Reſurrection hath beene declared unto Chriſtians, and from that time began to have its feſtivity. Theſe Theſes of his were written as it ſeemes in oppoſition to Broade.Doctor Lakes Biſhop of Wells maintaines the ſame Doctrine after the ſame manner in his Theſes de Sabbato, theſ. 27. Man having ſinned, and ſo by ſinne aboliſhed the firſt Creation De jure, though not de facto; God was pleaſed by Chriſt to make a new inſtauration of the World. 28. He (as the Scripture p. 89ſpeakes of Chriſts redemptions) made a new Heaven and a new Earth. Old things paſſed then away, and ſo all things were made new. 29. Yea every man in Chriſt is a new Creature, 30. As God then when he ended the firſt Creation, made a day of reſt, and ſanctified it: 31. So did Chriſt when he ended his worke, made a day of reſt, and ſanctified it. 32. Not altering the proportion of time which is eternall, but taking the firſt day of ſeven for his portion, becauſe ſin had made the ſeventh alterable. But a man may eaſily perceive whither this Prefacer tends, and ſuch as are of his Spirit. The Rhemiſts upon the firſt of the Revel. and 10. verſe doe obſerve that the Apoſtles, and the faithfull abrogated the Sabbath which was the ſeventh day, and made holy day for it, the next day following, being the eighth day in compt from the Creation, and that without all Scriptures, and Commandements of Chriſt that we read of: yea (which is more) not only otherwiſe then was by the Law obſerved, but plainly otherwiſe than was preſcribed by God himſelfe in the ſecond Commandement, yea otherwiſe than he ordained in the firſt Creation when he ſanctified preciſely the Sabbath day, and not the day following. Such great power did Chriſt leave to his Church, and for ſuch cauſes gave he the Holy Ghoſt to be reſident in it, to guide it into all truthes, even ſuch as in the Scripture are not expreſſed. And if the Church had authority and inspiration from God, to make Sunday (being a working day before) an everlaſting holy day, and the Saturday that before was holy day, now a common workday, why may not the ſame Church preſcribe and appoint the other feaſts of Eaſter, Whitſontide, Chriſtmas, and the reſt? for the ſame warrant ſhe hath for the one, as ſhe hath for the other. Now to this Doctor Fulk makes anſwer after this manner. The Apoſtles did not abrogate the Jewiſh Sabbath, but Chriſt himſelfe by his death, as he did all other ceremonies of the Law, that were figures and ſhadowes of things to come, whereof he was the body, and they were fulfulled and accompliſhed in him, and by him. And this the Apoſtles knew both by the Scriptures, and by the Word of Chriſt, and his holy Spirit. By the Scriptures alſo they knew that one day of ſeven was appointed to be obſerved for ever during the World, as conſecrated and hallowed to the publike exerciſe of the Religion of God; Although the ceremoniall reſt, and preſcript p. 90day according to the Law were abrogated by the death of Chriſt. Now for the preſcription of this day before any other of ſeven, they had without doubt either the expreſſe commandement of Chriſt before his aſcenſion when he gave them precepts concerning the Kingdome of God, and the order and government of the Church, Acts 1.2. or elſe the certaine direction of his Spirit, that it was his will and pleaſure it ſhould be ſo, and that alſo according to the Scriptures. And obſerve how in the words following he falls in upon the ſame reaſon of the change of the day which of old was mentioned by Athanaſius (formerly rehearſed) herein by Beza, Doctor Andrews, D. Lake, as I have already ſhewed. Seeing there is the ſame reaſon of ſanctifying the day in which our Saviour Chriſt accompliſhed our redemption, and the reſtitution of the world by his reſurrection from death, that was of ſanctifying the day in which the Lord reſted from the creation of the world. And after many lines nothing neceſſary to be recited, he comes to the compariſon made betweene the Lords Day and other Feſtivalls, ſaying: Although the Church in dayes or times which are indifferent, may take order for ſome other dayes or times to be ſolemnized for the exerciſes of Religion; or the remembrance of Chriſts nativity, reſurrection, aſcenſion, or the comming of the holy Ghoſt, may be celebrated either on the Lords Day, or any other time: yet there is great difference between the authority of the Church in this caſe, and the preſcription of the Lords Day by the Apoſtles for the ſpeciall memory of thoſe things are indifferent of their nature, either to be kept on certaine daies, or left to the diſcretion of the Governours of the Church. But to change the Lords Day, or to keepe it on Munday, Tueſday, or any other day, the Church hath no authority. For it is not a matter of indifferency, but a neceſſary preſcription of Chriſt himſelfe, delivered to us by his Apoſtles. And againe, in the next place: The cauſe of this change, it was not our eſtimation, that either we have, or ought to have of our redemption before our creation, but the Ordinance of God, who, as firſt he ſanctified the reſt from creation for the glory of that weeke: ſo now alſo he ſanctifieth the day of the reſtitution of the world for his glory of the accompliſhment of our redemption. Thus wee have not onelyonly authority Humane, but authority Divine for the alteration of the Day, and that by the teſtimony of more Biſhops p. 91antient and late, than this Prefacer makes ſhew of amongſt farre meaner names. Yet he doth immodeſtly abuſe Doctor Prideaux in putting it upon him, that in the fifth Section, he maintaines the alteration of the day to be onelyonly an humane and Eccleſiaſticall inſtitution. For, in that Section, he onelyonly oppoſeth them, who would derive the Divine authority (which they ſtand for) of the alteration of the Day from the old Teſtament: but as for thoſe who derive the Divine authority thereof from the new, they hee confeſſeth, doe carry themſelves herein more warily, the other more weakly, and them alone he diſputes againſt in that Section. In the ſixth Section, he comes to the deriving thereof from the new Teſtament; and firſt he challengeth them, who boaſt that they have found the inſti ution of the Lords Day in the new Teſtament expreſſely, to ſhew the place. Then in the often diſputations of our Saviour with the Phariſees about their ſuperſtitious obſervation of the Sabbath Day, he demands where is the leaſt ſuſpicion of the abrogation of it; or any mention that the Lords Day was inſtituted in the place thereof? And indeed, the time hereof was not yet come; onelyonly the death of Chriſt ſetting an end to ceremonies. Then he demands whether the Apoſtles did not keepe the Jewiſh Sabbath? now, I doe not find they did, although they tooke occaſions of their meetings on that day to diſpute with them, and to inſtruct them in the Faith of Chriſt. Then he demands, whether the Primitive Church did not deſigne as well the Sabbath as the Lords Day to ſacred meetings? I find in Baronius, Baron. tom. 1. pag. 517.that Orthodoxi Orientales did, and the occaſion alſo, to wit, in deteſtation of the Marcionites; yet without any ſuch reſpect, it had been nothing ſtrange, conſidering, that even now adayes Saturday is counted halfe holy day; and that the Jewes had a preparation for the Sabbath, in ſuch ſort, that on their behalfe, Auguſtus made a reſcript, that no Jewes ſhould be compelled to make good their ſuretiſhips (as much to ſay,Baron. tom. 1. pag. 148. they ſhould not be arreſted) either on the Sabbath dayes, or after three a clocke of the day going before. Hereupon (which is yet a very weake ground in my judgement) he ſaith, that Papiſts inferre, that the Lords Day is not of Divine inſtitution; he doth not p. 92make any ſuch inference himſelfe. Yet notwithſtanding (he confeſſeth that) even in the Church of Rome, Anchoranus, Panormitane, Angelus and Sylveſter (all which this Prefacer conceals very judiciouſly for his owne advantage) have ſtoutly ſet themſelves againſt theſe luke-warme Advocates, in affirmation of the Divine authority of the Lords Day. And I find, that Azorius in his inſtitutions, makes mention of them to the ſame purpoſe, and addes, that Sylveſter profeſſeth, hanc eſſe opinionem communem, that this is the common opinion. And after this, Doctor Prideaux in that Section, diſputes for the Divine inſtitution thereof, rather than againſt it. After this he takes notice of Pauls fact, Acts 20.7. and diſputes therehence for a cuſtome to celebrate on the firſt day of the weeke their publike meetings; and confeſſeth, that the Fathers, and all Interpreters almoſt, doe ſo conceive it: though withall he profeſſeth hee ſees not how from a caſuall fact (ſo he calleth it, upon what ground I know not) a ſolemne inſtitution may be juſtly grounded; yet that which went before, in ſome oppoſition whereunto this is delivered, pleaded not for a ſolemne inſtitution, but for a cuſtome onelyonly; although upon due conſideration, it may be found, that ſuch a cuſtome (if that be granted) could not otherwiſe proceed originally than from a ſolemne inſtitution: It is enough if they ordained that on that day the Churches ſhould be aſſembled for publique worſhip; which Auſtin expreſſely profeſſeth, as formerly I have ſhewed, neither doth it appeare in reaſon how it could be otherwiſe, ſuch aſſemblies being univerſall and ſo continuing to this day: Is it credible ſuch univerſall agreement ſhould come to paſſe caſually? if it did, yet their continuance of it without diſlike, doth manifeſt their joynt Apoſtolicall approbation, who we know were guided by the Spirit of God: and even in their time was the firſt day of the weeke, called the Lords Day. So that in all this I find no incoherence, much leſſe notable. Indeed, in the firſt of the Corinth. chap. 16.2. he doth not order that the firſt day ſhould be ſet apart for Gods ſervice, but rather ſuppoſeth it, and that not onelyonly at Corinth, but in the Churches of Galatia: how improbable is it that this uniformity ſhould be among them, unleſſe it proceeded p. 93from ſome authority ſuperiour to the Churches themſelves: then comming to conſider the denomination of the Lords Day, and concluding it to be the firſt day of the weeke, and therewithall concluding that ſixth Section: the ſeventh Section he begins thus; what then? Shall we affirme that the Lords Day is founded in Divine authority? and anſwers the queſtion thus: For my part (without prejudice to any mans opinion) I aſſent unto it, however the arguments like me not, whereby the opinion is ſupported, and ſo he proceeds in proſecuting of that which was affirmed by him, in the laſt place, concerning his private diſlike of ſome particular courſes taken to juſtifie it. He oppoſeth, I grant, expreſſe inſtitution; but if by juſt conſequence it may be deduced, it ſerveth our turne, both in the generall and in particular at this time and in this place, to diſcover the immodeſt and unreaſonable carriage of this Prefacer, who would obtrude the contrary opinion upon Doctor Pride aux, as it were, in deſpite of him; And indeed, it is thought that hee owed him a ſpight, and to pay that hee owed him, hee came to this tranſlation. But herein the Doctors honour is eaſily preſerved in the deſpight of this Prefacer; yet ſee a greater degree of impudency in this Prefacer. For he puts upon the Doctor, as if hee had ſhewed the alteration of the day to be onelyonly an humane and Eccleſiaſticall inſtitution, by the generall conſent of all ſorts of Papiſts, Jeſuits,Azorius inſtitut. Part. 2. l. 1. c. 2. Canoniſts and Schoole-men of ſome great Lutherans by name, whereas it is plaine, that he mentioneth more Papiſts maintaining the Lords Day to be of Divine inſtitution, then oppoſing it. And amongſt them that maintaine it, one, to wit, Sylveſter, profeſſeth it to be opinionem comm…n…m, not one avouched as affirming the contrary. And as for the great Lutherans this Author ſpeaketh of, loving to ſpeake with a full mouth, they are but one, and that Brentius, who is ſaid to affirme it to be a civill ordinance, and not a commandement of the Goſpel; a very ſtrange phraſe (in my opinion) to call it a civill ordinance; the ordinance being in force many hundred yeeres before the Church of God had any civill government of their own, and being in the Apoſtles dayes how could it be leſſe than Apoſtolicall? undoubtedly not ſo much civill p. 94as Eccleſiaſticall. Wee grant willingly we have no expreſſe precept for it, yet Auſtin is bold to ſay (as wee have heard) that Apoſtoli ſanxerunt, yet Gomarus allegeth no paſſage out of Brentius to this purpoſe. But Melancthon ever (as I take it) accounted of better authoritie than Brentius, profeſſeth, as Walaeus reports him, that conſentaneum eſt Apoſtolos hanc ipſam ob cauſam mutaſſe diem, in plaine termes aſcribing the change of the day to the Apoſtles: As for the Remonſtrants, what authority have they deſerved to have with us, who are ſo neere a kinne to the Socinians, who uttterly profeſſe againſt all obſervation of the Lords Day. But the foure profeſſors of Leiden, have paſſed over this of theirs without note or oppoſition. And was not Walaeus one of the foure? yet what his opinion is himſelfe hath manifeſted to the world; yea, and his collegue, Thyſius alſo, yet no cauſe had they to oppoſe in this, when the other profeſſed it to be a laudable and good cuſtome, according to the patterne of the Primitive Church; and can the Primitive Church exclude the Apoſtles, and not rather include them? And is it probable, that the Primitive Church preſcribed it to the Apoſtles, and not rather the Apoſtles to the Church? Tilenus calls it Eccleſiae conſuetudinem, not denying it to be inſtituted by the Apoſtles, nay, elſewhere hee affirmes this, or rather that it was inſtituted by Chriſt himſelfe. So little cauſe had theſe profeſſors to quarrell with this phraſe of the Remonſtrants, having weightier matters in hand wherein to oppoſe them. What if Bullenger call it Eccleſiae conſuettudinem; ſo doth Tilenus de praecept. 4. Theſ. 29. yet Theſ. 24. he profeſſed it to be not onelyonly obſerved by the Apoſtles, but that it may ſeeme alſo to be inſtituted by Chriſt himſelfe: Bullenger ſaith, ſponte receperunt, to wit, in oppoſition to an expreſſe Precept, as appeares by that which immediately followeth; Non legimus eam ullibi praeceptam, we doe not reade it any where commanded. Ʋrſine alleged in the next place clearely profeſſeth in the very place quoted by Gomarus, that God it is who hath abrogated the obſervation of the ſeventh day, but he addes, that he left it free to the Church to chooſe other daies, which (Church) upon a probable cauſe, choſe the firſt day, which was the day of Chriſts reſurrection. p. 77Now what Church was it but Apoſtolica Eccleſia, as Paraeus upon Ʋrſinus Catechiſme obſerves, p. 665. Pro libertate ſibi à Chriſto donatâ pro ſeptima die elegit diem primum propter probabilem cauſam out of the liberty which Chriſt hath given them, inſteed of the ſeventh day choſe the firſt day of the weeke, by reaſon of a probable cauſe, to wit, becauſe on that day Chriſt roſe, by whoſe reſurrection, Rom. 1.4.Rom 1:4the ſpirituall and eternall reſt is inchoated in us, and p. 666. Apoſtoli ipſi mutarunt Sabbatum ſeptimi diei. The Apoſtles themſelves changed the Sabbath of the ſeventh day. By the way touch we a little upon this, that, Firſt, this was done in reference to Chriſts reſurrection: ſo Calvin acknowledgeth in reference whereunto this day had ſome prerogative above the reſt, to wit in the way of fitneſſe, for holy uſe, becauſe of the worke of God on that day. Whence it is evidently concluded, that the Apoſtles did not thinke it indifferent, therefore though it were left to their liberty, in as much as no Commandement was given to them thereabout for ought wee reade, yet by the ſpirit of God, they were directed to make choyſe of this day, and that in reference to ſuch a worke on that day, as the like on no other. Not that the ſanctifying of a reſt on this day would make us more holy, then the ſanctifying of a reſt on any other day: but onelyonly in reference to ſome ſpeciall worke of God on that day: upon which conſideration the ancient Fathers doe generally inſiſt; and Biſhop Andrewes, and Biſhop Lake after them doe joyntly rely, and not Beza onelyonly. Secondly, That both Ʋrſine and Paraeus call this a probable reaſon onelyonly: now give me leave to inſiſt upon this, and try whether I cannot ſhew that this reaſon is more then probable. And that firſt à Poſteriori. For let us ſoberly conſider how came it to paſſe that not onelyonly the day whereon Chriſt roſe, but anſwerably hereunto the Day of the weeke, to wit, the firſt Day of the weeke was accompted by the Apoſtles, and ſo commonly called the Lords Day; and generally knowne to Chriſtians by that name: otherwiſe S. Iohn had not beene ſo well underſtood in his Revelation chap. 1. verſ. 10. Is it not apparent that Chriſts riſing did ever after give the denomination of the Lords Day, to the firſt day of the weeke? Againe the day of Chriſts Paſſion p. 96upon the Croſſe, is not called the Lords day; and why the day of the Reſurrection rather? ſurely becauſe S. Paul ſaith that Chriſt was declared mightily to be the Sonne of God by the ſpirit of ſanctification in his Reſurrection from the dead. Rom. 1.4.Rom 1:4Hereby then was he manifeſted to be the Sonne of God, the very Lord of Glory; and is not this reaſon more then probable, why it ſhould bee called the Lords day? Secondly conſider, that day of the monethmonth or that day of the yeare whereon the Lord roſe, wee no where finde that it was uſually called the Lords Day, but onelyonly that day of the weeke; not the day of the weeke wherein hee aſcended into Heaven, but the day of the weeke wherein hee roſe. Now the Jewes Sabbath was called the Lords Sabbath, the Lords holy Day. Eſ. 58.13. If thou ſhalt turne away thy foote from my Sabbath from doing thy will on my holy Day. Hath the Lord a Day under the Goſpell, but no Sabbath, no holy Day? what an unreaſonable conceite were this? that hee ſhould have an holy Day one in every weeke under the Law; and none under the Goſpell? Now if the Lord hath a day that is peculiarly called his under the Goſpell, and that day is in the Scripture ſtyled the Lords Day; I appeale to every Chriſtian conſcience, whether the ſanctifying of this day as holy to the Lord, ought not by more then probable, yea even by neceſſary reaſon, come in place of the ſanctifying of the ſeventh day as an holy reſt to the Lord in the dayes of old. Otherwiſe we ſhould have two different dayes in the weeke, the one called the Lords Day, the other the Lords holy Day; or no holy day at all though wee have the Lords Day. Laſtly conſider the very definition of a thing probable, which Ariſtotle makes to be ſuch as ſeemes ſo in the judgement of moſt, or in the judgement of moſt of the wiſeſt, or of ſome few provided they are wiſer then the reſt; but the ſanctifying of the firſt day of the weeke to the Lord, that is, the Lords Day to the Lord, hath ſeemed fit not to ſome of the wiſeſt onelyonly in the Church of God, but to all, even to all the Apoſtles, yea and Evangeliſts and Paſtors, and teachers in their dayes and to the whole Church, for 1600. yeares ſince; and ſhall wee call the reaſon moving them hereunto onelyonly probable? 2. yet all p. 97this is but a poſteriori, which yet for the evidence of it, I preſume moſt ſufficient for the convicting of every ſober & Chriſtian conſcience of that truth, to the demonſtration whereof it tends; I come to give a reaſon hereof à priori. The firſt creation in the wiſedome of God (who proceeds not merely according unto probable reaſon) drew after it a Sabbath day, the ſeventh day where on God reſted. But if God vouchſafeth us a new creation in the ſame congruity, may wee not juſtly expect a new Sabbath? Now, the Apoſtle tells us plainly, that old things are paſſed away, and that all things are become new, 2 Cor. 5.17. and this he brings in upon ſhewing what Chriſt hath deſerved at our hands, in as much as he died for us, and roſe againe, verſ. 15. the end whereof was this, that he might be Lord both of quicke and dead, Rom. 14.9. and concludes, that whoſoever is in Chriſt, is a new creature, 2 Cor. 5.17. And how are we in Chriſt, but by faith? Gal. 2.20. And what is the object of this our faith? let the ſame Apoſtle anſwer us, If thou confeſſe with the mouth the Lord Jeſus, and believe in thine heart that God raiſed him from the dead, thou ſhalt be ſaved: ſo that this faith in Chriſts reſurrection, is to us the beginning of a new creature. And Chriſts reſurrection Sedulius calls naſ…ntis mundi primordium. And Athanaſius ſaith, That as the Sabbath was the end of the firſt creation; ſo the Lords Day is the beginning of the ſecond creature. And this is it that Biſhop Andrewes and Biſhop Lake doe worke upon for the celebration of the Lords Day as by Divine inſtitution. But I am not a little ſenſible of ſome appearance of incongruity riſing hereupon. Almighty God did not thinke it fit, that the firſt day of creation ſhould be our Sabbath, but the ſeventh from the creation, as whereon himſelfe reſted; but in the ſecond creation, the firſt day is made our Sabbath. To this I anſwer two things; the firſt is this: if man ſhould not reſt unto God till the ſecond creation is finiſhed, hee ſhould not reſt at all in this world. And the ſixe dayes being the dayes of Gods worke; the ſeventh was the firſt of mans worke, which God would have to be an holy worke moſt convenient whereby to take livery and ſeaſin of the world. For, albeit God commanded Adam to dreſſe the garden and keepe it, when p. 98he placed him in it; yet it is nothing probable it had need of dreſſing ſo ſoone as it was made; and no mention of reſt commanded at the firſt; onelyonly it is ſaid, that becauſe God reſted that day from all his works, therefore he bleſſed the ſeventh day and ſanctified it. This I deliver to ſave the expreſſion of Athanaſius. 2. But in my judgement, there is an exact congruity betweene reſt and reſt in each creation. For, as God reſted the ſeventh day from the worke of creation; ſo Chriſt reſted the firſt day of the weeke from his worke of Redemption, which was the meritorious cauſe of the new creation. For Chriſts dying, and continuing under the power of death, for a certaine time, I may juſtly reckon as one worke of Redemption; in which time hee ſuffered ignominy, not onelyonly from the reproach of the world, but from the weakneſſe of his ſervants faith,Acts 24.Acts 24 whoſe voyce was, wee thought it had been he, who ſhould have redeemed Iſrael.

As for Zanchy, in the place cited by Gomarus; hee confeſſeth, hunc diem ex traditione Apoſtolica eſſe, & optimo jure ab Eccleſia retentum. That the Lords Day is (to be obſerved) by Apoſtolicall tradition, and by the beſt right retained by the Church— this the Prefacer in his wiſedome omitted; indeed hee ſaith, we no where reade that the Apoſtles commanded it: but left it free; but take with you the reſt, ita liberum, ut omnino ipſe dies ſanctificandus ſit, niſi charitas aliud poſtulat. In ſuch a manner free, that omninò, undoubtedly the day it ſelfe ought to be ſanctified, unleſſe charity require otherwiſe. I conceive his meaning is, and the meaning of all that uſe this language, that wee are to keepe it by no other obligation (not of ſpeciall commandement) than the reaſon of the day doth miniſter unto us, it being the day that the Lord hath made, joyfull to Gods Church by the reſurrection of Chriſt from the dead; and in this ſenſe they ſay it doth not bind mens conſciences, to wit, as a Precept doth, whether we know the equity of it or no. And it were very ſtrange, that Chriſtians in keeping any holy day in the weeke, ſhould not make choice of the Lords Day for that, without any expreſſe commandement. Aretius ſaith no more than that Chriſtians changed the Sabbath unto the Lords Day; and can any man doubt, but that the Apoſtles p. 99were meant hereby? For which is moſt likely, that the practice and judgement of others was a leading cauſe to the Apoſtles, or rather that the judgement and practiſe of the Apoſtles was a leading cauſe unto all others? Simler hath no more but this, that he calls it the cuſtome of the Church, ſo doth Tilenus, yet he propoſeth it as likely to have had its inſtitution from Chriſt. Paraeus in the very place cited by Gomarus, aſcribeth the change of the day to the Apoſtolicall Church, and expreſſely ſaith, that the Apoſtle commanded the Corinthians to meet together the firſt day of the weeke, and make their collections. I wonder the Prefacer omits Cuchlinus, was it becauſe that which others call conſuetudinem Eccleſiae, hee calls conſuetudinem Apoſtolicam? In the laſt place, Bucer is named by the Prefacer, but Gomarus is well content to omit what is delivered by him. But to the contrary, I will not forbeare to ſet downe what I find in his booke De Regno Chriſti, lib. 1. cap. 11. For having formerly deſcribed what are the true workes of holy reſts, added upon the backe of it; Eapropter, For this cauſe the Lords Day was conſecrated by the Apoſtles themſelves to theſe kind of actions. Which ordinance of theirs (inſtitutum he calls it) the antient Churches obſerved moſt religiouſly. Then he ſhews the cauſe why they changed the day: 1. The firſt reaſon given is, to teſtifie that Chriſtians are not obliged to the Pedagogie of Moſes law: 2. The ſecond is, to celebrate the memory of Chriſts reſurrection, which was performed on the firſt day of the weeke. So that not one of the Authors mentioned by him makes any thing for him. And if the paſſages of the ſixe mentioned by him, and related by Gomarus did make any thing for him; we have no leſſe of the ancient Fathers to the contrary, as namely, Athanaſius, Cyril, Euſebius, Auſtin lately mentioned, to whom adde Sedulius operis Paſchalis, lib. 5. cap. 21. The glory of the eternall King illuſtrating (the firſt day of the weeke) with the trophy of his reſurrection, primatum cum religione conceſſum di…rum cenſuit retinere cunctorum; thought good it ſhould have the primacy of all dayes granted unto it with religion: that is, with an holy celebration thereof. Adde unto him Gregory, mentioned in the firſt Section, affirming that Antichriſt affecting to imitate Chriſt, ſhall command the p. 100Lords Day to be kept holy. Adde to theſe the univerſall conſent of Chriſtendome in antient times; for when the queſtion was propoſed unto them, as uſually it was thus; Dominicum ſervaſti? Haſt thou kept the Sabbath? their anſwer was this, Chriſtianus ſum, intermittere non poſſum: For Brentius alleged by him to little purpoſe, let mee repreſent what Gerard the Lutherane writes of our Chriſtian Sabbath in his common places, tom. 3. pag. 146. Eſt Sabbatum Chriſtianum, quo juxta Apoſtolorum conſtitutionem dies hebdomadae primus publicis eccleſiae congreſſibus deſtinatus eſt. Our Chriſtian Sabbath is that whereby the firſt day of the weeke is deſtinated to the publique aſſemblies of the Church, by the conſtitution of the Apoſtles. See how plainly hee referres the celebration of this day to Apoſtolicall conſtitution: and pag. 148. he ſheweth the analogie between the Jewes Sabbath and our Chriſtian Sabbath, conſiſting in two or three particulars: 1. As on the ſeventh day God reſted from the ſix dayes worke of creation, in remembrance of which benefit, the Sabbath was inſtituted in the old Teſtament: ſo in the firſt day of the weeke, after Chriſt-by his death and paſſion had accompliſhed the myſterie of our Redemption, he returned gloriouſly as a conqueror from the dead, in remembrance of which benefit, the firſt day of the weeke is celebrated in the new Teſtament. 2. As in the old Teſtament the Sabbath was inſtituted, that it might be a memoriall of their deliverance out of Egypt, Deut. 5.15. So in the new Teſtament, the Lords Day is a memoriall of our ſpirituall deliverance out of the kingdome and captivity of Satan, procured unto us by the reſurrection of Chriſt, a type whereof was that deliverance of the children of Iſrael out of Egypt. 3. By Chriſts death and reſurrection, were abrogated Leviticall ceremonies and legall ſhadowes, amongſt which the Sabbath is reckoned, Col. 2.17. Therfore the change of the Sabbath into the Lords Day, is a publique teſtimony that Chriſtians are freed from legall ſhadowes, and that difference of dayes, which in antient time was ordained. Adde to him Melanchthon, alleged by Walaeus, pag. 265. affirming, that the Apoſtles for this cauſe changed the day, that in this particular they might give an example of the abrogation of p. 101the ceremoniall Lawes of Moſaicall policy. As for our Popiſh Divines for which he referres us to Doctor Prideaux, it is apparent that more of them are alleaged for the jus divinum, of the celebration of the Lords Day, then for the contrary; & one of them, Silveſter by name profeſſeth expreſly that his opinion, was the common opinion which was for the Divine inſtitution of it. And Azorius the Jeſuite, as hee profeſſeth it a thing moſt agreeable to reaſon that after ſix worke dayes one intire day ſhould bee conſecrated to Divine worſhip; ſo withall ſaith that it is moſt agreeable to reaſon that the Lords Day ſhould be that Day.

Adde unto theſe Sixtus Senenſis, Biblioth. lib. 7. p. 603. Col. 1.Col 1but that which they object (ſaith hee) concerning the Lords Day not as yet inſtituted in the time of John, is moſt falſe, the conſent of the whole Church diſclaiming it, which doth beleeve the ſolemnity of the Lords Day was appointed by the Appoſtles themſelves in memory of the Lords Reſurrection: concerning the inſtitution whereof by the Apoſtles Auſtin Ser. 25. de temp. teſtifyeth in theſe words: therefore the Apoſtles themſelves, & Apoſtolicall men, appointed that the Lords Day ſhould for that reaſon bee religiouſly ſolemnized, becauſe on it our Redeemer roſe from the dead. In the laſt place come wee to our Divines. Now Bucer I have already ſhewed to ſtand for us rather then for him. 2. And Calvin expreſly acknowledgeth that the Apoſtles did change the day. 3. Beza upon Re. 1. v. 10. hath an excellent paſſage to the ſame purpoſe. For hee conſiders Chriſts reſurrection to bee as it were a ſecond creation of a World ſpirituall, and thereupon doubts not but that the ſpirit of God did ſuggeſt unto them the change of the ſeventh day into the Lords day, as to bee conſecrated to Divine Service. 4. Iunius on Gen. 2. writes that the cauſe of the change of the day was the reſurrection of Chriſt, and the benefit of inſtauration of the Church in Chriſt. The commemoration of which benefit ſucceeded to the commemoration of the Creation, not by humane tradition, but by the obſervation of Chriſt himſelfe, and his inſtitution. 5. Piſcator on Exod. 20.10. It is to bee obſerved that the circumſtance of the ſeventh day, in celebrating the Sabbath is aboliſhed by p. 102Chriſt; as who for that day ordained the firſt day of the weeke, which wee call the Lords Day, and that in remembrance of the Lords Reſurrection performed on that day. And upon Luk. 14. v. 2. He makes this obſervation, By occaſion of this ſtory, it is fit to conſider what was the religion of the Sabbath in the new Teſtament, and what place it hath at this day among us Chriſtians, and how it is to be obſerved. And firſt we muſt hold that the Sabbath is abrogated, by Chriſts comming as touching the ſeventh or laſt day in the week, and that in the place thereof is ordained the firſt day, which we call the Lords Day, becauſe on that day the Lord roſe from the dead, and ſhewed himſelfe alive to his Diſciples, and divers times ſpeaking with them of the Kingdom of God: aod ſo by his own example conſecrating that day to Church aſſemblies, and for the performance of the outward ſervice of God. The reaſon of the abrogation is, becauſe that ceremoniall reſt obſerved in the Law, was a type of that reſt, which the Lord made in his grave, as is perceived by the words of Paul Col. 2.16.17. Now of the apparitions of the Lord, S. John teſtifies Chap. 21. where he ſhewes how firſt he appeared to them gathered together on that very day whereon he roſe. And againe eight dayes after. Now that in theſe dayes he ſpake unto them of the Kingdom of God Luke ſhewes, Acts 1.3. Whence it was undoubtedly that the Apoſtles obſerved that day by the Lords ordinance, to keep their Eccleſiaſticall aſſemblies thereon — as it appeares they did Acts 20.7. & 1 Cor. 16.2. And hence it was without doubt, on the Lords day John was in the ſpirit and receaved the Revelation. To the ſame purpoſe is that which Doctor Walaeus alleageth out of Piſcators

Aphoriſ. 18. It may be doubted concerning the Lords Day, whether it be appointed by God for his ſervice in the New Teſtament. My opinion hereof is this; although we read no expreſſe Commandement concerning it, yet that ſuch an inſtitution may be gathered from the example of Chriſt and his Diſciples. For on that day whereon the Lord roſe from the dead (therefore called the Lords-Day) he ſhewed himſelfe alive to his Diſciples, and ſpake to them of the Kingdom of God. And Paul on that day in an aſſembly of the faithfull met together to celebrate the Lords Supper, preached to them on that day, Acts 20.7. and that the Chriſtians p. 103at Corinth were wont to meet on that day for publique prayer, appeares 1 Cor. 16.2. Now it cannot be doubted but Paul ordained that day amongſt them, as alſo the manner of celebrating the Lords Supper, and that according to the Commandement of Chriſt, Math. 28. the laſt, Teach them (to wit, as many as receave the Goſpell) to keep all thoſe things which I have commanded unto you. On the Lords Day alſo John was in the ſpirit, and in the ſpirit ſaw and heard the Revelation concerning the ſtate of the Church that was to come, Apoc. 1.10. whence we may gather, that even then he reſted to holy meditations ſuch as became the Lords Day. There is not a paſſage in all this but of great weight, and very conſiderable. 6. As for Doctor Fulk upon the Re. 1.10. I have repreſented him formerly at large; that for the preſcription of this day before any other of the ſeven, they had without doubt ether the expreſſe Commandement of Chriſt before his Aſcenſion when he gave them precepts concerning the Kingdom of God, and the ordering and government of the Church Acts 1.2. or elſe the certaine direction of his ſpirit, that it was his will, and pleaſure that it ſhould ſo be, and that alſo according to the Scriptures. And obſerve how hee falls upon the ſame reaſon that Athanaſius, and the ancient Fathers inſiſt upon; Seeing there is the ſame reaſon of ſanctifying that day, in which our Saviour Chriſt accompliſhed our redemption, and the reſtitution of the World by his reſurrection from death; that was of ſanctifying the day, in which the Lord reſted from the Creation of the World. 7. Doctor Andrewes in like manner Biſhop of Wincheſter in his Starre Chamber ſpeech in the caſe of Traske; hee not onelyonly profeſſeth, that the Sabbath had reference to the old Creation, but in Chriſt we are a new Creature, a new Creation, and ſo to have a new Sabbath; and that this new Sabbath is the Lords Day declared unto us by the reſurrection of Chriſt, for which he alleageth Auſtin Ep. 119. ad Ianuarium. But alſo for the confirmation of it ſaith it is deduced plainly by practiſe; adding that theſe two onelyonly the day (of the weeke whereon Chriſt roſe) and the Supper, are called the Lords, to ſhew that the word Dominicum is taken alike in both. Nay hee goes farther, as namely to alleage not onelyonly practiſe but precept alſo for it; from the firſt of the Epiſtle to the Corin. p. 104cap. 16.2. For albeit the Apoſtle there doth expreſſely conſtitute onelyonly an order for collections for the poore on the day of their meeting, yet as Piſcator obſerves, it cannot bee denied but that undoubtedly as touching the time of their meeting they were therein ordered alſo by S. Paul, as they were about the manner of celebrating the Lords Supper. And accordingly, Paraeus in the very paſſage alleaged by Gomarus, doth take that place of 1 Cor. 16.2. to notifie, that the very time of their meeting there ſpecified, was by the ordinance of S. Paul.

Doctor Lake Biſhop of Bath and Wells, in his Theſes de Sabbato, Theſ. 34. The Apoſtles directed by Chriſts not only example, but ſpirit alſo, obſerved the ſame; witneſſe in the Acts, S. Paul, S. John in the Revelation. 38. And from the Apoſtles the Catholique Church uniformly receaved it, witneſſe all Eccleſiaſticall writers. 39. And the Church hath receaved it not to be liberae obſervationis, as if men might at their pleaſure accept or refuſe it, 40. but to be perpetually obſerved to the Worlds end. For as God only hath power to apportion his time: ſo hath he power to ſet out the day that he will take for his portion. For he is Lord of the Sabbath. 8. Maſter Fox upon the Rev. 1. v. 10. profeſſeth, that the obſervation of the Lords Day doth Niti authoritate inſtitutionis Apoſtolicae, depend upon the authority of Apoſtolicall inſtitution. 9. Walaeus diſſert. de Sab. p. 172. we conclude (ſaith hee) this firſt day of the weeke, was by the Apoſtles put in the place of the Sabbath, and commended to the Church, not only by a power ordinary, competent to all paſtors for the ordering of indifferent rites in their Churches; but by a ſingular power alſo; as who had the overſight of the whole Churches; and who as extraordinary Ministers of Chriſt, were by the holy Ghoſt, put in truſt, that they might be faithfull, not only for the delivering of certaine precepts concerning faith, and manners, but alſo as touching upright ordering of the Church: that ſo it might be made known to all Chriſtians every where what day in the weeke was to be kept, by vertue and Analogy of the fourth Commandement, leaſt diſſenſion thereabouts and (conſequently) confuſion might ariſe in the Church of God: and to this purpoſe hee alleageth Beza before mentioned; and Galleſius, p. 105Calvins Collegue on Exod. 31. This ordinance, to wit, that the Lords Day ſhould be ſubſtituted in the place of the Sabbath, we have re…aved (ſaith hee) not from men, but from the Apoſtles, that is, from the Spirit of God, whereby they were governed: and after he had proved this out of three places of Scripture, Acts 20.7. 1 Cor. 16 2. Re. 1.10. in the end hee, addes, For although we are not tied to the obſervation of dayes yet this neceſſary order muſt be obſerved, leaſt confuſion ſhould be bred in the Church. 10. Fayus Calvins ſucceſſor alleaged alſo by Walaeus diſput. 47. in q. praecept. Iuſtly therefore may we ſay, that the Apoſtles by the leading of the Holy Ghoſt for the ſeventh day of the Law, ſubſtituted the firſt day of the week, which was the firſt in the Creation of the firſt World. 11. Hyperius in. 1. Cor. 16. 1. The firſt day of the weeke in memory of the Lords Reſurrection was called the Lords Day, the obſervation of the Sabbath being tranſlated thereunto through the command of the Holy Ghoſt by the Apoſtles. 12. Adde unto theſe Maſter Perkins maintaining the ſame. That which he delivers of the Parliament in the dayes of King Edward the ſixt, in that preamble of theirs concerning holy dayes, as left by the authority of Gods Word to the authority of Chriſts Church, by the diſcretion of the Rulers, and Miniſters therof, as they ſhall judge moſt expedient to the true ſetting forth of Gods Glory, and edification of the people; I ſay that this ſhould bee underſtood not of holy dayes onelyonly, but of the Lords Day alſo, is a thing moſt incredible; neither doth hee offer to cite any parcell thereof to juſtifie this ſo bold an affirmation; onelyonly hee ſayth, that by the body of the act it doth appeare; but what that is in the body of that act whereby this doth appeare, hee very judiciouſly conceales. How improbable is it, that Biſhop Andrewes would have oppoſed this Doctrine in the Starte Chamber, if a Parliament of Prelates, and that in the dayes of King Edward the ſixt, had maintained it. For hee profeſſeth, that theſe two onelyonly, the Lords Day, and the Lords Supper are called the Lords, to ſhew that Dominicum is alike to bee taken in both—and takes upon him to ſhew that in the very Scripture, there is found a precept for obſervation of the Lords Day; And Biſhop Lake p. 106in like manner profeſſeth that it is not Liberae obſervatio nis, but neceſſarily to be obſerved. Doctor Fulks anſwer to the Rhemiſh Teſtament was ſet forth in the dayes of Queene Elizabeth, and dedicated to her Majeſty, therein on Re. 1. v. 16. hath hee delivered, that to change the Lords Day, and to keepe it on Munday, Tueſday or any other day, the Church hath none authority. For it is not a matter of indifferency, but a neceſſary preſcription of Chriſt himſelfe delivered to us by his Apoſtles. Was hee ever queſtioned for this? or was it ever knowne that the ſtate of this Land excepted againſt it, for croſſing the Doctrine of the Church manifeſted in a preamble to one of the Acts of Parliament, which I preſume was never yet repealed; but leave we him to live on his own juice, and to pleaſe himſelfe in his holineſſe.