The Christian Sabbath Defended, Digression 3
A THIRD DIGRESSION CONTAINING A CONFERENCE With D. Walaeus about the Divine authority of the Lords Day.
I Come to conſider ſomewhat in Walaeus, whoſe diſſertation of the Sabbath, from the firſt hath liked mee ſo well, and the ſpirit which it breathes throughout; that I doe not affect to differ from him; but rather heartily deſire there may bee little or no difference betweene us, and I hope in the end there will be found little or no difference of importance betweene us, eſpecially in this point of the inſtitution of the Lord Day whether it be divine or humane, and as for the originall inſtitution of the Sabbath, namely as from the beginning of the World, and as touching the morality of one day in ſeven; therein I concurre with him really and affectionately. And as touching the quality of the inſtitution; I approve his learned paines in vindicating thoſe three places of the new Teſtament, Acts 20.7. 1 Cor. 16.2. and Re. 1.10. from the interpretation that ſome give of them, to quaſh the evidence which they import for the obſervation of the firſt day of the weeke, commonly called the Lords Day, even in thoſe primitive and Apoſtolicall dayes of the Chriſtian Church. And I joyne with him, pag. 167. in admiring, that after ſo many accurate prejudices of the reformed Churches, concurring in the ſame tranſlation & interpretation of thoſe places which we embrace; yet ſome ſhould be found to take ſo unhappy paines, as to quaſh the evidence of them which they ſeem to us plainly to import. A manifeſt argument in my judgement, that the obſervation of that day, as in place of the Jewes Sabbath, in the very days of the Apoſtles, doth even convince their conſciences, that it can ſavour of nothing leſſe than Apoſtolicall inſtitution; which, becauſe they doe impugne, therefore they deſire to impugne the uſe thereof as nothing ſo antient as to be received of the Apoſtles themſelves. For conſider, I pray, how ſhould the converted Jewes come to change their Sabbath, if not by order from the Apoſtles themſelves, whoſe doctrine it was that Chriſt came to ſet an end to all ceremonies? And as for the ſubſtitution of a day in the place of it, that all did joyntly concurre herein without any dependance of ſome upon the judgement of others; what ſtrange ſtrength of convicting evidence muſt there needs be in the reſurrection of Chriſt, to draw them hereunto farre beyond Almighty Gods reſting on the ſeventh day from his worke of creation? What could be deviſed to inferre greater morality by the very light of nature than this, which ſhould be ſo forcible to move all to concurre herein, and that with the firſt. But if they received it, ſome from others, how improbable it is, that the Apoſtles ſhould receive it from the Churches, and not rather the Churches from the Apoſtles? Then conſider, we no where reade of any difference here-abouts among the Apoſtles, counting Paul amongſt rhem, who received from the Lord after his aſcenſion into heaven what he delivered unto others. How then came it to paſſe, that they all ſo throughly, and at the firſt, agreed herein? If, as having received it from the Lord, then the caſe is cleare, that it is of moſt Divine inſtitution: But if onelyonly as drawne hereunto by the conſideration of Chriſts reſurrection on that day, being guided by the Spirit of God infallibly to order as other things, ſo the time of Divine ſervice, to prevent the danger of diviſion and confuſion upon juſt ground; even this is enough to manifeſt the ſtrength of evidence which the Lords reſurrection carrieth with it, as to convince them, ſo to appoint, and to convince others of the reaſonableneſſe thereof, ſeeing all Churches did ſo univerſally and ſo earely yeeld thereunto, and ſince that time ſo conſtantly perſevered therein. The reſurrection therefore of Chriſt, is nothing inferiour to the Lords reſt on the ſeventh to draw us to the ſanctifying thereof: And the Apoſtles ordering it in this manner eſpecially as his extraordinary Miniſters, is anſwerable to the Lords Commandement for the ſanctifying of the ſeventh, eſpecially that very commandement by juſt analogie having force alſo in this: And albeit Walaeus ſaith no more, pag. 174. of thoſe three places, Acts 20.7. 1 Cor. 16.2. Ap c. 1.10 than that the whole Church reformed hath conſtantly gathered therehence Diei Dominicae uſum, the uſe of the Lords Day: yet both pag. 183. he doth manifeſtly imply the Apoſtles to have inſtituted it, where he ſaith, that quae ab ipſis Apoſtolis inſtituta non ſunt, ſuch things as have not beene ordained by the Apoſtles, were never in that manner obſerved in all Chriſtian Churches throughout the world, as the obſervation of the Lords Day. And before, pag. 172. he concludes, that the firſt day of the weeke was by the Apoſtles ſubſtituted in the place of the ſeventh, and commended to the Church, and that poteſtate ſingulari, by ſingular power; and as they were extraordinary Miniſters of Chriſt, put in truſt by his Spirit, to be faithfull in giving Precepts (marke this well) not onelyonly touching faith and manners, but alſo de Eccleſiae foreign, & recto ordino, for the well ordering of the Church, and that in this particular, what day of the weeke is to be obſerved by force and analogie of the fourth Commandement, to prevent diſſention and confuſion among the Churches. And I am verily perſwaded, that as many as ſtand for the Divine inſtitution of the Lords Day would reſt fully ſatisfied with this. Auſtin. I am ſure, who is alleged by Walaeus in the firſt place, as maintaining it to be of Chriſts inſtitution, writes thus of it, Serm. de temp. 251. Dominicum ergo diem Apoſtoli & Apoſtolici viri ideo religioſa ſolennitate habendum ſanxerunt, quia in eadem Redempter noſter à mortuis reſurrexit: this being premiſed, let us come to the conſideration of that which he delivers about the juſtification hereof, from pag. 152. where he acknowledgeth that among the ancient Writers and Doctors of the reformed Church, there have beene ſome who have referred the celebritie of this day to the fact and inſtitution of Chriſt. At the firſt, by Chriſts fact in this place I underſtood Chriſt apparitions to the Apoſtles, as they were aſſembled together on this day. But upon better conſideration and ponderation of the paſſages alleged by him out of Auſtine and Cyril, I thinke rather that by Chriſts fact he means Chriſt reſurrection, or perhaps, btoh the one and the other. For the ſentence taken out of Auſtine hath reference to the one, and that out of Cyril, to the other. And Doctor Lake Biſhop of Bath and Wells in his theſ. 36. de Sabbato, referres unto both; this firſt day Chriſt ſanctified not onelyonly by his reſurrection, but by ſundrie apparitions before his aſcention, by ſending them the Holy Ghoſt. But the latter ſeem to depend on the former. And therefore, that learned Biſhop in his defence of that Theſis 36. writes thus; I ſay not, that the Apoſtles imprinted any holineſſe upon the firſt day of the weeke, it was Chriſts reſurrection that honoured that day, which I ſay the Apoſtles were to reſpect, not arbitrarily, but neceſſarily, you may perceive the reaſon in my Theſis; you cannot obſerve from the beginning of the world any other inducement to the inſtitution of feaſts but Gods worke done on the day. Now, neither Auſtin nor Cyril ſpeake of any inſtitution made by Chriſt. Euſebius, I confeſſe, doth intimate ſuch an inſtitution, and Gregory the great, and ſo doth Athanaſius ſeeme to expreſſe as much, and Sedulius after him; but I am apt to conceive that they meant no other thing hereby, than that the conſideration of Chriſts reſurrection by the ſuggeſtion of Chriſts Spirit, ſhould move the Apoſtles to ordaine and eſtabliſh the celebration of this day unto the Chriſtian world. Junius, in my judgement, ſeemes to have no other meaning, when he profeſſeth the cauſe of the change of the day to be the reſurrection of Chriſt, and the benefit of inſtauration of the Church in Chriſt; it is true, he ſaith afterwards that the Lords Day ſucceeded the ſeventh, (Chriſti obſervatione atque inſtituto, by Chriſt obſervation and ordinance; but I underſtand thereby no other ordinance than is beſpoken by Chriſts reſurrection on the day and obſervation of the day. For anon he tells us, that the Lords Day was obſerved, Chriſti facto, exemplo, inſtitu que Apoſtolorum, & veteris Eccleſiae obſervatione conſtantiſſimâ; by Chriſts fact, example, and by the ordinance of the Apoſtles; unleſſe inſtituto there, be to be referred to that which goes before, and ought to be diſtinguiſhed from Apoſtolorum which comes after by a comma, though it be not. But let this be the opinion of Iunius and Piſcator, which, perhaps, we may meet with ſome more evidence for than hitherto: Neither doe I ſee any neceſſity of expreſſing concerning every thing they taught, that they received it of the Lord; Neither doe I thinke fit to conclude, that whatſoever they ordered, they ordered by Gods Commandement. But conſider, there is a great difference between things ordered by them; ſome were concerning particulars, others for the Church univerſall. Some ordered by them for a certaine time, other things to continue to the worlds end. The ordinance of the Lords Day concerned the whole Church; and to this day no Church throughout the world hath thought fit to alter it, a notable evidence that the Church generally hath conceived it, as an ordinance of the Apoſtles intended to continue to the worlds end.
The ingenuity of Maſter Perkins is to be commended, confeſſing ingenuouſly, that hee propoſeth his arguments not as neceſſary, but as probable, onelyonly to inferre the inſtitution of the firſt day of the weeke to be obſerved by Chriſtians in place of the ſeventh, I would thoſe that oppoſe him would carry themſelves with the like ingenuity: nothing inferiour is the ingenuity of Doctor Walaeus, pag. 156. profeſſing that this opinion touching Chriſts inſtitution of the Lords Day, ſeeing it hath ſo great Divines as favourers thereof, is neither to be accuſed of novelty, nor eaſily to be deſpiſed as falſe, provided, that they themſelves doe not propoſe it as neceſſary, but as probable, nor inveigh againſt ſuch as are of another opinion or condemne them. Now, let us ſee upon what grounds he preferres the ſecond opinion, making the inſtitution of the Lords Day to depend upon Apoſtolicall authoritie before it. Therefore, firſt he urgeth, that the Apoſtles have given no expreſſe commandement as being charged thereto by Chriſt, nor Chriſt himſelfe. In briefe, thus neither Chriſt hath any where in Scripture commanded it, nor doe the Apoſtles any where ſignify that hee did: I anſwer, the Apoſtles doe not uſe to ſignify that what they deliver in particular was given them in charge by Chriſt; ſometimes they doe, but this extends not to the hundreth part of that they doe deliver. And it may bee by S. Iohns calling it the Lords Day, compared with that which our Saviour delivers in the Goſpell, pray that your flight bee not in the Winter, nor upon the Sabbath day; and with the denomination of the Jewes Sabbath called in the Old Teſtament the Lords holy day, wee ſhall finde ſufficient intimation of Chriſts inſtitution. Eſpecially conſidering that the queſtion is but of the circumſtance of a particular day, not of the proportion of time; and withall the analogy of the day of Chriſts Reſurrection to the day of the Lords reſt from Creation. And whereas the Doctor further ſayth, that it ſeemes not likely that Chriſt ſhould not command it, if he meant to binde us to the obſervation of any day, as a part of his worſhip and ſervice: Now I wonder what the worthy Doctor meanes to thruſt in the circumſtance, as a part of Gods Worſhip. If the Apoſtles might command it as he thinkes they did, yet not as a part of Gods worſhip; why might not Chriſt command the obſervation of that day, yet not as a part of his worſhip? I am not perſwaded, that when God at the firſt ſanctifyed the ſeventh day, hee made the obſervation of that day a part of his worſhip. And it is ſtrange that the circumſtance of time ſhould bee an homogeneall part of Gods worſhip.
Firſt, it is true, the reſt on that day commanded afterwards might bee, and was as a ceremony preaching ſomething unto them. All that is to bee conſidered in time pertaining to Gods Worſhip is the proportion of it; as whether one day in a weeke bee moſt fit, or one day in a monethmonth bee ſufficient; and this is of momentous conſideration, whether wee conſider the advancing GODS Glory thereby, or our owne good, in a greater or leſſer proportion; But the particularity of the day in ſeven whether firſt or laſt or middlemoſt, this conſideration in my judgement is of no moment. Only for the avoyding of diſſention, & confuſion we have neede of authoritative ſpecification, and that God did not define at the firſt without congruous reaſon, to ſtill all motion tending to alteration; and if we have as fayre evidence under the Goſpell for our Sabbath, as the Jewes had for theirs; wee are by Gods goodneſſe as much freed from diſſenſion and confuſion as they, and nothing the more ingaged in ſuperſtition, as making the obſervation of the day a part of Divine worſhip; which never was but in the way of prefiguration of ſomewhat in Chriſt, which kind of pedagogy is now quite out of date, neither is there any place for it in the obſervation of the Lords day.
Doctor Walaeus his ſecond argument is, becauſe thoſe places of Scripture, Rom. 14. Gal. 4. & Coloſſ. 2. in which the Apoſtle takes away all difference of dayes can hardly bee reconciled with this opinion, or if Chriſt himſelfe not by example onelyonly, but by an ordinance commanded unto his Diſciples the obſervation of this day, it cannot bee imagined as it ſeemes, that any liberty ſhould now remaine in the obſervation of this day; for that which Chriſt hath determined is not left under Chriſtian liberty any more then the obſervation of the ſeventh day from the Creation was left free to the Jewes; when God not onelyonly by his example, but alſo by precept ſeparated it from all other dayes to his ſervice. To this I anſwer, 1. I finde no liberty at all left to the Church to change the day, by the Doctors owne grounds, for hee holds it to bee invariable p. 168.
Secondly, Hee profeſſeth the change of the day cannot bee attempted without the greateſt ſcandall of the Church, p. 169. Now what ſober Chriſtian would affect liberty to bee ſcandalous? 3. others who acknowledge the obſervation of the day by Apoſtolicall inſtitution, and withall to bee changeable and left to the liberty of the Church, doe withall maintaine that the Apoſtles did not command it as extraordinary Miniſters of Chriſt: but Doctor Waleus p. 172. acknowledgeth the inſtitution of it made by the Apoſtles as Miniſters extraordinary. 4. the Doctor profeſſeth that the Apoſtles were entruſted by the Holy Ghoſt to give precepts concerning the good government of the Church, and that in this particular caſe, to make knowne to all Chriſtians every where what day in the weeke ought to be kept holy, and that by vertue and analogy of the fourth Commandement, and withall to prevent diſſenſion and confuſion amongſt the Churches thereabouts. 5. and laſtly hee joynes the precepts concerning this with precepts concerning faith, and manners; and this hee doth without ſpecifying any the leaſt difference; nay, the word precepts is once propoſed as ſubſervient indifferently as to faith, and manners, ſo alſo to the well ordering of the Church, and that in this particular, of notifying unto all what day of the weeke is it to bee ſanctified to Gods Service. As for the places Rom. 14. Gal. 2. & Coloſſ. 2. I anſwer, that if wee made the obſervation of the day as it denotes a circumſtance of time, any part of Gods Service, or for ſome myſterious ſignification contained therein, then indeed wee ſhould carry our ſelves in contradiction to the places mentioned: but ſeeing we obſerve times onelyonly out of reſpect to order and policy, which is neceſſary for the edification of the Church; and God having always required one day in ſeven to be ſet apart for this, even when there was not ſo great need, nor had God manifeſted his love to mankinde in ſuch ſort as in theſe latter dayes; and of our ſelves wee are to ſeeke, of the particularity of the day under a fit proportion of time from the beginning of the World rquired, and hereupon were we left to our owne judgements, a way would bee opened to miſerable diſſenſion and confuſion; what cauſe have wee to bleſſe the Lord for marking out a day to us with ſuch notable characters to make it our Sabbath, and to honour it by his appearance amongſt his Apoſtles when they were aſſembled together both that day, and that day ſenight after; as alſo by his Apoſtles to commend it, and eſtabliſh it in ſuch ſort, that for 1600. yeares the obſervation thereof hath continued unto this day? which order of the Apoſtles doth carry pregnant preſumption that it proceeded originally from the inſtitution of Chriſt. The neceſſity of the Church Chriſtian requiring the ſpecification of the day for the preventing of diſſenſion, and confuſion as much as ever the neceſſity of the Jewiſh Church required the like; and over and above by reaſon of the fourth Commandement wee have now better evidence to conclude therehence the obſervation of the Lords Day, by the congruity that Chriſts Reſurrection hath to the Lords reſt from Creation; better means I ſay to conclude ours, then they without a Commandement to inferre the obſervation of their ſeventh: forſtill the day of the Lords reſt is made the day of our reſt.
Thirdly, that which is alleadged in the third place, that both ancient and late writers doe maintaine that wee celebrate the Lords Day, not as any part of Divine worſhip, nor as abſolutely neceſſary. For the firſt of theſe wee willingly grant; for as much as wee conceave the obſervation of the 7th. by the Jewes was no otherwiſe a part of Divine worſhip, then as it was a ceremony and ſhadow, the body whereof was Chriſt prefigured thereby: and it is well knowne that no Chriſtians obſerve it in any ſuch Notion. But the obſervation thereof wee hold to bee abſolutely neceſſary, and ſo doth Doctor Walaeus in holding it to bee invariable, and that it cannot bee altered without the greateſt ſcandall. And Doctor Lake Biſhop of Bath, and Wells profeſſeth it to bee not, liberae obſervationis, but neceſſariae. And if it were free, then not to uſe this freedome at all doth manifeſtly give way to ſuperſtition in taking that for a thing neceſſary which is not, though not as touching the ſubſtance of Gods worſhip and ſervice, yet as touching a circumſtance thereof, ſuch as is the circumſtance of time. As for expreſſe precept, if hee meanes a precept expreſſely written, no man (I trow) ever ſtood for that, but if hee meanes a precept given by Chriſts expreſſe charge to his Apoſtles, no man that I have met with, ſaith more hereupon, then Doctor Walaeus ſeemes to affirme himſelfe; in ſaying that they were entruſted by the Holy Ghoſt as extraordinary Miniſters, that they ſhould bee faithfull ad tradenda praecepta, to give praecepts of faith and manners, and of the good government of the Church, and right order, and particularly in this that might be known to all what day in the weeke was to be ſet apart for Gods ſervice; both by vertue and analogy of the fourth Commandement, and to praevent diſſenſion, and confuſion among the Churches; Neither doe we acknowledge any other celebrity of the day then this; and therefore doe no more affront Hierome then Doctor Walaeus himſelfe. As for feſtivall dayes in Socrates, and Nicephorus, I ſee no cauſe why as touching that they ſpeake thereof, the Lords Day ſhould bee comprehended under them: and as for apoſtolicall precept, concerning this Doctor VValaeus is as expreſſe as any. And it is not credible to mee, that the Apoſtles ſhould make ſuch an invariable ordinance to the Church, and not bee verily perſwaded that it was the Will of God the Father, and of God the Sonne it ſhould bee ſo: whether manifeſted by Chriſts particular charge unto them; or by comparing Chriſts Reſurrection with the Lords reſt from the workes of Creation. Otherwiſe in my judgement they had never called that day the Lords Day.
Fourthly, he excepts againſt the argument drawne from Chriſts Reſurrection; denying that therehence it followes that that day was to bee conſecrated to God. But herein hee oppoſeth all the ancients; neither doe I thinke hee can alleage any one that doth not hereon build the obſervation of the Lords Day; which nuiverſall concurrence doth manifeſtly argue to be more then probable: Auſtin as Waleus alleadgeth him, profeſſeth not as his peculiar opinion, but as he took it generally received without contradiction: that Dies Dominicus Chriſtianis reſurrectione Domini declaratus eſt; and that reſuſcitatio Domini conſecravit nobis diem Dominicum. And Athanaſius plainly takes notice of the analogy it hath to the fourth Commandement; (and analogy Doctor Walaeus grants, and I wonder hee takes no notice of it here) by comparing the ſecond Creation with the firſt Creation; and ſo Doctor Andrewes Biſhop of Wincheſter profeſſeth that the new Creation requires a new Sabbath, eſpecially ſeeing the old muſt bee abrogated as ceremoniall. But the analogy I confeſſe may be differently ſhaped; Athanaſius ſhapes it thus, that the Jewes Sabbath was the end of the firſt Creation; and that the Lords Day is a beginning of the ſecond Creature; to wit, as the day of Chriſts reſurrection; in reference whereunto the Apoſtle ſaith, Old things are paſſed, behold, all things are become new. And I conceive reaſon to juſtifie Athanaſius, in making the beginning of the new creature to be our Sabbath, anſwerable to the end of the firſt creation, to wit, becauſe the ſecond creation hath no end in this world: Againe, Adam and Eve were made but the immediate day before the ſeventh, and the ſeventh he was to ſpend in rejoycing in Gods works; ſo Chriſts death was the worlds redemption; and immediately after, to wit, with Chriſts riſing, it was as fit we ſhould Sabbatize with God for joy of our Redemption. Otherwiſe the analogie (which Doctor Walaeus grants, but doth not explicate) may be conceived thus. The ſeventh day of the weeke was the Lords reſt from the worke of creation, the firſt day of the weeke was the Lords reſt from the work of redemption, in the morning thereof riſing from his grave; and in reſpect of Chriſts reſurrection on this day, what colour hath any other day of the weeke comparable hereunto, to make it fit to ſtand in competition with this. Yes, ſaith D. Walaeus, the Thurſday may, and that in conſideration of Chriſts aſcenſion on that day; yet Doctor Walaeus well knowes, that that day of the week was never thereupon called the Lords Day, either by the Apoſtles, or by the Church, as the day of our Saviors reſurrection was. Againe, conſider Chriſts reſurrection and aſcenſion are to be computed but as one compleate motion; ſave that he was to ſtay ſome time by the way here on earth for the confirming of his Diſciples faith, and giving them commiſſion for preaching the Goſpel, and order to wait at Jeruſalem untill they were endued with power from on high to carry the glad tidings of ſalvation all the world over. So Chriſts dying and continuing under the power of death, is but one worke of Redemption. He confeſſeth, that Chriſts reſurrection afforded an argument to the Church Apoſtolicall, to prefer this day before all others (very well, even before the day of his aſcention) for religious aſſemblies, as al the ancients teſtifie. But it followeth not therefore, that Chriſt by this his fact did inſtitute the ſame day to the ſame end. Now, this is a very ſtrange phraſe, by his fact on the day to inſtitute the day to ſuch an end. Tis well knowne facts doe not inſtitute otherwiſe than as therefrom may be concluded that ſuch a day is to be kept; and in this ſenſe he doth as good as confeſſe, that Chriſt by his fact, did inſtitute; for the Apoſtolicall Church did hereupon preferre this day, as he confeſſeth all the ancients doe teſtifie. And did they not inferre this there-hence alſo, as moſt agreeable to the Will of God? Doctor Walaeus proceedeth thus: So God in the creation of the world reſted the ſeventh day; but unleſſe God had propoſed this reſt of his as an example, and confirmed it by precept, never had the Church of the old Teſtament beene bound as from heaven to the weekly obſervation thereof. To this I anſwer, that the like may be ſaid of the obſervation of one in ſeven; yet ſeeing God did cōmand this proportion to the Jews, without any new commandement, we can inferre that ſurely God requires as good a proportion of us Chriſtians. In like manner, ſeeing God commanded unto them the day of his reſt from creation, we without any the like commandement, may better inferre that Chriſts reſting day from the worke of Redemption ought to be our reſt, than they could, that the ſeventh day ought to be their reſt. 2. Man could not poſſibly have knowne how many dayes God was creating the world, ſo to know what day he reſted, that they might conforme unto him in their reſt; unleſſe God had revealed it unto them; but ſuppoſing God had revealed it, and withall had called it his holy day, and it were knowne unto them that one day in the weeke muſt be ſet apart as Gods holy Day, in this caſe I appeal to every Chriſtian conſcience whether this were not ſufficient to conclude that ſurely the day of the Lords reſt, being his holy Day, ought to be the day of our reſt, and our holy day. Now, thus the caſe ſtands with us Chriſtians; we know what day our Saviour roſe, having finiſhed the worke of mans Redemption; we know the Jewes Sabbath is abrogated; we know the proportion of one day in ſeven remaines ſtill to be conſecrated as an holy day to the Lord; we know the Lord preſcribed to the Jewes for their Sabbath his reſting day from the creation; which is called his holy day: And in like manner we know, that under the Goſpel, the firſt day of the weeke being the day of our Saviours reſurrection, is called by Saint Iohn the Lords Day; as for Eaſter and Pentecoſt, the caſe is nothing like; thoſe feſtivalls being not of ſingle dayes, but of whole weeks, once in a yeere, yet this proportion we find betweene them and the weekely Sabbath. There are in a yeere ſeven times ſeven weeks, and a fraction leſſe than halfe a ſeven; ſo that the memory of the creation was ſeven times in a yeere celebrated more than the memory either of their deliverance out of Egypt, or, of their reaping the fruits of the land of Canaan, the one farre ſurmounting the other, yet their Eaſter began the day of the yeere whereon they came out of Egypt. And Doctor Lake, Biſhop of Bath and Wells, Theſ. 41. de Sabbat. profeſſeth, that God ſets out the day by the worke he doth on the day, the worke I ſay done, doth difference a day from a day: and Theſ. 43. Now then, when God doth any remarkable worke, thou will he be honoured with a commemoration day for that worke. If the worke concerne the whole, by the whole Church; and by a part, if it concerne a part: and Theſ. 44. And his Will is underſtood often by his Precept; but when we have not that, the practice doth guide the Church, 45. This is a Ca holique rule, obſerved in the inſtitution of all ſacred feaſts, both Divine and Humane, 46. The worke of the day is the ground of hallowing the day, whether it be weekely, monethly, or yeerely, as particulars evince in Scripture and hiſtory. The very light of nature doth give teſtimony unto this, as appeareth by the common practice of the heathens; as to give ſome inſtance hereof, what is the originall of the obſervation of the Fryday, as a feſtivall day amongſt Mahumetanes? ſurely this; on that day Mahumet fled from Mecha to Jethrib, and ſo that day is accounted the firſt day of his kingdom, and from thenceforth it was ordained to be the firſt day of their yeere and of their weeke. So then the Will of God, in the judgement of this reverend Divine, is manifeſted not onelyonly by Precept, but by his Worke. And yet I know none ſpeakes more of Precept in this particular, than Doctor Walaeus, as I have often alleged him, pag. 172.
Fifthly, I grant Iunius went too farre, in affirming that Chriſt did obſerve the ſame every weeke betweene his reſurrection and aſcention; but neither doth the contrary appeare by Scripture; undoubtedly the two firſt he did, and it is not manifeſt that the three following he did not; and though Cyril inferres here-hence the reaſonableneſſe of our Chriſtian aſſemblies on this day, yet wee doe not; but as Doctor Walaeus concludes that which hee concludes not from any one place, but from many places together, that do we; Neither is it any thing to the purpoſe that Doctor Walaeus obſerves of Chriſts appearing on other dayes, as Ioh. 21.24. once, which was at a fiſh meeting. And as little materiall is it, that at ſuch other times of his meetings he ſpake of the kingdome of God.
Sixthly, On like ſort Chriſt ſending down the Spirit on his Apoſtles on the day of Pentecoſt, hath not ſo much force conſidered alone, but onelyonly in a conjunct conſideration with Chriſts reſurrection on that day: And like as after his death he aroſe on that day manifeſting himſelfe mightily thereby to be the Sonne of God, ſo after his aſcenſion into heaven, he came downe by his Spirit on that day, the ſeventh, firſt day of the weeke after his reſurrection, manifeſting thereby as Peter ſignifieth that he had obtained the diſpenſation of the Spirit. We doe not ſay the Spirit was on the day of Pentecoſt ſent downe, becauſe it was the Lords day; But being ſent down on that day, as the Law is confeſſed to have beene delivered on that day, this tends to the marking out of that day more and more, for manifeſtation of the power of Chriſt. That day they receiving power from on high by the deſcending of the holy Ghoſt upon them, whereby they were inabled to preach the Goſpel. And that day of the weeke which is ſet apart for Divine ſervice as our Chriſtian Sabbath; as that day whereon the Holy Ghoſt doth ordinarily come downe upon his ſervants in the miniſterie of his Word, and celebration of the Sacraments, and putting up of our joynt prayers unto him for the ſanctifying and edifying Chriſt body which is the Church: and even in this reſpect that day hath a farre better congruitie to the day that is to be ſet apart for Divine ſervice, than any other day in the week beſides. The day of his aſcenſion he departed from them as touching his preſence corporall, but on the day of Pentecoſt he came downe upon them as touching his preſence ſpirituall; and ſo he doth ſtill in our Sabbath exerciſes on the Lords day, though not in ſo extraordinary a manner, yet no leſſe effectually to that edification and ſanctification of our ſoules.
Seventhly, And whereas ſome urged that it Chriſt himſelfe had not inſtituted this day after his reſurrection, the moſt Primitive Church ſhould have beene left deſtitute of a certaine day of Gods worſhip, to wit, from the time of Chriſts reſurrection to the firſt conſecrating of the Lords Day, which they take to be abſurd, and I confeſſe, it ſeems unlikely that the Apoſtles tooke upon them to order ought untill they received the Spirit on the day of Pentecoſt, that being the day they were to receive power from on high, to execute the commiſſion given them, Mat. 28.19. to teach all nations; till which time they gathered no Churches. For the ſtrengthning the former reaſon, it is added; That the Jewes Sabbath was now aboliſhed by Chriſts death and reſurrection. This I doe not deny, but the Apoſtles might very well be ignorant hereof as yet, as not having received the Spirit as yet; yea, & after the receiving it, we find they challenged Peter for going to the Gentiles to preach the Goſpel, Acts 11. to this argument ſome anſwer, as Walaeus ſaith, that the daies between Chriſts aſcenſion and the comming downe of the Holy Ghoſt upon them, were ſpent in continuall meetings of the Apoſtles and other Diſciples. But from the day of Pentecoſt, the Lords day thenceforth obſerved. This anſwer reacheth not unto the daies interceding betweene Chriſts reſurrection and his aſcention. And when I conſider Biſhop Lake his diſcourſe, grounded, as he profeſſeth, upon univerſall obſervation (and which I find no reaſon to reſiſt) namely, that the worke of the day commends the day: If ever any day deſerved to be feſtivall to any, ſurely the day of our Saviours reſurrection deſerved to be feſtivall unto them, to rejoyce in the Lord thereon, according to that of the Pſalmiſt,Pſalm. 118.24. This is the day which the Lord hath made, let us be glad and rejoyce therein; the ancient Fathers accommodating the place thereunto. The two verſes immediatly preceding, carrying in the forehead of them a manifeſt relation unto Chriſt as the proprietary of their meaning. 22. The ſtone which the builders refuſed, is become the head of the corner. 23. This is the Lords doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes. Now when was this manifeſted, namely, that the ſtone which the builders refuſed became the head of the corner, but by Chriſts Reſurrection from the dead, being thereby mightily declared to bee the Sonne of God. Rom. 14. and was there ever worke more marvellous in the eyes of Gods Servants, then the Reſurrection of Chriſt, eſpecially conſidering the diſconfolate condition of his Disciples? Luke 24, 21. We truſted it had beene he, that ſhould have delivered Iſrael. The women departed from the Sepulcher though with feare, by reaſon of the conſternation receaved from Angelicall preſence, their countenance being like lightning, yet with great joy by reaſon of the newes they heard from them of Chriſts Reſurrection; upon the noiſe whereof (for they were commanded to carry word of it to his Diſciples,) the Apoſtles as it ſeemes were gathered together; and in the evening after hee had ſhewed himſelfe to his Diſciplcs going to Emaus, Chriſt preſented himſelfe in the midſt of them. Eight dayes after they were met together, and Thomas with them who being abſent the time before, gave out ſperches of peremptory incredulity concerning his Reſurrection; therefore then and not till then alſo the dores being ſhut, Chriſt came before them, and calls unto Thomas to ſee his hand. and to put his ſinger into his ſide. Theſe apparitions of our Saviour twice on the firſt day of the weeke might well adde ſomewhat to the confirmation of them in the feſtivity of this day; and howſoever betweene his aſcenſion, and the day of Pentecoſt they had their meetings, yet how improbable is it they ſhould put no difference; betweene ſuch a feſtivall and other dayes of the weeke. A ſecond anſwer Walaeus gives, namely that others ſay, that from the day of Pentecoſt it was not neceſſary that the Lords Day ſhould bee obſerved: but that at the firſt the Apoſtles together with the Jewes obſerved their Sabbath not as a ceremony of the Old Teſtament, but as a free circumſtance of divine worſhip, as for a while they reteyned Circumciſion and difference of meats; which they gave over, after the Jewes were found obſtinately to refuſe the Goſpell. So that in theſe mens judgements the Lords Day was no feſtivall to the Apoſtles, till by occaſion of the Jewes obſtinateneſſe, a proper occaſion for the inſtitution of a new feſtivall. And give mee leave to differ from them in yoking Circumciſion and difference of meats with the Jewes Sabbath, neither of them prefiguring Chriſt as to come, like as the Jewes Sabbath did, prefiguring his reſt that day in the grave; as the ancients have conceived it, without any contradiction that I know. Had they permitted ſacrifices for a time, their compariſon had beene more congruous. I ſee no reaſon to withhold me from concurring with Auſtin, and in him with all the ancients, for ought I know to the contrary, that Dies Dominicus Reſurrectione Domini declaratus eſt Chriſtianis, & ex illo coepit habere feſtivitatem ſuam, yea with the very words of Scripture Pſal. 118.22. The ſtone which the builders refuſed is become the head of the corner 23. This is the Lords doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes. 24. This is the day which the Lord hath made we will rejoyce and be glad in it. Neither is it credible to mee that the Apoſtles were ignorant of it or of its application, the day of Chriſts Reſurrection, from the very day thereof. Hereſbachius upon theſe words, Haec dies quam fecit dominus. They are (ſaith hee) the words of the people exulting in the Kingdome of David, moſt of all of the glorious Reſurrection of Chriſt, which of all others was moſt glorious to mankinde: as whereon Chriſt redeemed us in a triumphant manner, from the Tyarnny of Satan, and from everlaſting death, and reſtored unto us everlaſting righteouſneſſe. Arnobius interprets it of the Lords Day.
Eightly, the laſt argument, and which hee acknowledgeth of greateſt moment is that, which is taken out of Apoc. 1.10. Where the firſt day of the weeke is called the Lords Day, whence they conclude, that it is of the Lords inſtitution. And indeed Doctor Andrewes Biſhop of Wincheſter in his Starre Camber ſpeech profeſſeth, that this denomination is given onelyonly to the firſt day of the weeke, as called in Scripture the Lords day, and to the Sacrament of the body and bloud of Chriſt, as called the Lords Supper, and that to ſhew that the word Dominicum (the Lords) is to bee taken alike in both. In the ſame ſenſe wee call the Prayer which our Savious taught his Diſciples the Lords Prayer. But let us heare Walaeus his anſwer, that we may conſider it. This conſequence (ſaith hee) is not neceſſary, for it may bee called the Lords, not onelyonly that which is of his inſtitution, but even that which is made to the remembrance, or in the honour of him, or for his worſhip, as the ancients ſpeake, as the altar of the Lord, and feaſt of the Lord are often ſo called. And that in this ſence it was taken of the ancients it appeares by this, that the ancient Fathers both Greeke and Latine, called Temples by the name of Dominica, and foreign. That which wee urge is the language of the Holy Ghoſt, now throughout the holy Scripture, it is not the language of the Holy Ghoſt, to call either Altars the Lords Altars, or Feaſts the Lords Feaſts, but ſuch as are of the Lords inſtitution. Neither doe the fathers (in my obſervation) call the firſt day of the weeke the Lords day otherwiſe then in reference to Chriſts Reſurrection, as the cauſe of the feſtivall nature thereof. Temples indeed they call foreign as conſecrated to the Lord; but the denomination is not to diſtinguiſh it from other Temples; as the Lords Day hath its denomination to diſtinguiſh it from other dayes. But the day of Chriſts Reſurrection being called the Lords Day not as ſuch a day in the yeare, but as ſuch a day in the weeke, this to my underſtanding doth manifeſtly inferre the ſucceſſion of it into the place of the Lords day of the weeke amongſt the Jewes. Both ancient and moderne Divines doe hold it lawfull to conſecrate other dayes to the ſervice of of God, ſuch as wee uſually call holy dayes. But never any man (I thinke) was found that durſt call any of them Diem dominicum the Lords Day. Adde to this, wherefore doth our Saviour ſay, that the ſonne of man is Lord of the Sabbath, but plainely to conclude herence, that hee can diſpenſe with it, hee can abrogate it, and bring another into the place of it? and none hath power for this but hee who is Lord of the Sabbath.
Laſtly, when he ſaith, pray that your flight be not in the winter nor on the Sabbath day, what is the reaſon hereof, but religio Sabbati? as all confeſſe the religious obſervation of the Sabbath; and did they underſtand any other religion of the Sabbath but as from Divine inſtitution? Now the time concerning which our Saviour delivers this, now about the deſtruction of the Temple by Titus, Sect. 6.after that no other Sabbath but of the Lords Day, was generally eſtabliſhed in the Churches.
Laſt of all, for the third, and laſt concluſion,Pref. that ſtill the Church hath power to change the day our Doctor in the 7. Section, bringeth in Bullinger, Bucer, Brentius, Ʋrſinus, and Chemnitius, aliiſque noſtris with divers others not named particularly, as they are which thinke no otherwiſe thereof then Calvin did, and ſhewes by what diſtinction Suarez, though otherwiſe no friend unto the men, doth defend their Doctrine.
Now as the doctrine was, ſuch alſo is the practiſe of thoſe men and Churches, devoid of any the leaſt ſuperſtitious rigour, eſteeming it to bee a day left arbitrary, and therefore open to all honeſt exerciſes and lawfull recreations; by which the mind may bee refreſhed, and the ſpirits quickened. Even in Geneva it ſelfe according as it is related in the enlargement of Boterus by Robert Johnſon, all honeſt exerciſes, ſhooting in pieces, long Bowes, croſſebowes, &c. are uſed on the Sabbath Day, and that both in the morning, before and after Sermon; neither doe the Miniſters finde fault therewithall, ſo that they hinder not from hearing of the word at the time appointed.
Dancing indeed they doe not ſuffer; But this is not in relation to the Sunday, but the ſport it ſelfe, which is held unlawfull, and generally forbidden in the French Churches: which ſtrictneſſe as ſome note, conſidering how the French doe delight in dancing, hath beene a great hinderance to the growth of the reformed religion in that Kingdome.
The Doctor indeed ſaith, that Calvin, Bullenger, Bucerus, Exam.Brentius, Chemnitius, Ʋrſine and others of the reformed Churches affirme, that ſtill the Church hath power to change the Lords Day to ſome other; but hee neither cites their words, nor quotes any place out of their writings. And as for Calvin, whom this Prefacer propoſeth as chiefe, and the reſt as thinking no otherwiſe thereof, then hee did; I make no doubt but the paſſage in Calvin is inſtit. 2. cap. 8. ſect. 34. where thus he writeth, Ne que ſic tamen ſeptenarium numerum moror, ut ejus ſervituti Eccleſiam aſtringerem, I doe not ſo regard the number of ſeven; as to tie the Church to the ſervitude thereof; which conſidered in it ſelfe, might intimate that in his opinion, it is indifferent whether wee keepe holy one day in ſeven, or one day in foureteene; but the words immediately following doe manifeſt his meaning to be farre otherwiſe, as namely, that we are not ſo tied to a ſeventh, but that we may ſolemnize other dayes alſo, by our holy aſſemblies. For thus it followes, Ne que enim damnavero qui alios conventibus ſuis ſolennes dies habeant. I condemne not them that keep other dayes holy: will any man ſuppoſe that ſome there were, well knowne to Calvin, who kept other dayes ſolemn, and not the Lords Day; and that theſe men Calvin would not condemne? And Gomarus, who is moſt oppoſite to us in this argument, profeſſeth, that ſeeing not onelyonly a time, but a ſufficient proportion of time is to be ſet apart for Divine ſervice, therefore we muſt now under the Goſpel, allow rather a better proportion of time for Divine ſervice than a worſe. And in this alſo Rivetus reſts, in his anſwer to the firſt argument of Walaeus, contending for one day in ſeven, as neceſſarily to be allowed to the worſhip of God.De reg. Chr. lib. 1. ap. 11. For Bullinger, I know not where to ſeeke that which the Doctor aimes at. As for Bucer, I have ſhewed before out of him, that the Lords Day was by the Apoſtles themſelves conſecrated to Divine actions; which ordinance the antient Churches obſerved moſt religiouſly, and that one of the chief cauſes hereof was, that they might celebrate the memory of Chriſts reſurrection, which fell out on the firſt day of the weeke; of power to abrogate this day left unto the Church he ſaith nothing, but to the contrary rather, that all they who deſire the reſtoring of Chriſts Kingdome, ought to labour, that the religion of the Lords Day may be ſoundly called backe and be of force. Yet (ſaith he) it is agreeable to our piety to ſanctifie other feſtivalls alſo, to the commemoration of the Lords chiefe workes, whereby he perfected our redemption as the day of his incarnation, nativity, the Epiphany, the paſſion, the reſurrection, aſcenſion and Pentecoſt. And the place which Doctor Rivet explic. decal. pag. 189. col. 2. allegeth out of Bucer in Mat. 10. to prove that he maintained the day to be alterable, is nothing to the purpoſe, and as little doe they make for it which hee allegeth out of Muſculus, To find out what Chemnitius ſaith hereupon, I turne to his Examen of the connſell of Trent, concerning feſtivalls; There pag. 154. col. 2. he ſaith, that Chriſt, to ſhow that he kept the Jewes Sabbath freely, and not of neceſſitie; againſt the opinion of neceſſity, touching the abrogation of the Moſaicall Sabbath, hee taught both by word and deed. By word, in ſaying, that the Sonne of man is Lord of the Sabbath; and by his deeds, as in healing on the Sabbath day, and defending his Diſciples in plucking the eares of corne. Now, hereby I take it to be manifeſt, and acknowledged by Chemnitius that none hath power to abrogate the Sabbath, but he that is Lord of the Sabbath. And ſeeing even Chriſtians were to have their Sabbath, as appeareth by thoſe words of our Saviour, pray that your flight be not in the winter, nor on the Sabbath day, which is delivered of the time about the deſtruction of the Temple by Titus; at what time Paul had ſuffered martyrdome divers yeeres before, by whoſe writings it doth appeare that the Lords Day was kept in place of the Jewes Sabbath, both by the practice of the Apoſtles, and the Churches of Galatia and Achaia, as Chemnitius acknowledgeth from the force of thoſe places, Acts 20.7. 1 Cor. 16.2. and Apoc. 1.10. in the next columne it followeth, that the Lords Day was the Chriſtian Sabbath, and ſo to this day continueth, and conſequently, that none hath power to alter it, but hee that is Lord of the Sabbath, which is Chriſt himſelfe, it being accordingly called the Lords Day. Therefore if any pretend that Chriſt hath delegated this power of his unto the Church, it ſtands upon them to make it good. But Chemnitius proceeds, pag. 155. col. 1. and ſhewes how the Apoſtles at the firſt tolerated their weak faith, who without ſuperſtition obſerved dayes Moſaicall, Rom. 14. and that ſuch as were ſtronger in faith, after the abrogation of the old Teſtament, judged all dayes to be equall in themſelves, and none more holy then another. We willingly grant as much, and adde the reaſon hereof; to wit, becauſe the holineſſe of the day preferred before his fellowes conſiſted in ſome myſterious ſignification which had reference unto Chriſt as to come; all which kind of ſhadowes, the body being come, are now vaniſhed away. Hee proceeds, ſaying. The Apoſtles alſo manifeſted by their example that in the new Teſtament it was free to come together, either every day, or what day ſoever they thought good, to handle the Word and Sacraments, and to the publique or common exerciſes of piety. So the Sabbath day, and other feſtivall dayes they taught. All this wee willingly grant, but here-hence it followeth not, that one day of the weeke was not of more neceſſary obſervation for the exerciſes of piety than another. Farther (ſaith he) that they might manifeſt that the exerciſes of Eccleſiaſticall aſſemblies were not tied to certaine dayes: they daily perſevered in the doctrine of the Apoſtles, and in breaking bread, Act. 2. and 5. and 1 Cor. 5. Now we willingly acknowledge that we Chriſtians are not ſo bound to one day in the weeke, as namely, to the Lords Day, as that we may not have our holy aſſemblies more often than once, but onelyonly ſo, that we may not keep them leſſe often, nor omit the celebration of the Lords Day: like as the Jews might not omit the celebration of their weekely Sabbath, though ſometimes many dayes together beſides were kept holy by them. So we Chriſtians alſo having our Sabbath as our Saviour ſignified we ſhould have when he ſaid, Pray that your flight be not in the Winter, nor on the Sabbath day; which Sabbath of ours, wee keepe on the Lords Day; though we may keep other days holy, yet we may not omit this; and if any ſhall take upon them to alter this Sabbath, we may be bold to demand of them quo warranto, by what warrant from the Lord of Sabbath? But Chemnitius proceeds thus: Now, whereas afterwards the falſe Apoſtles did ſo urge thoſe free obſervations of the Moſaicall Sabbath, and other feaſts, as by law, and with opinion of neceſſity, as to condemne their conſciences who obſerved them not. Paul forbad the obſervation of them. All which we willingly acknowledge, but that hereupon they began firſt to ordaine another day in the weeke for their Eccleſiaſticall aſſemblies and exerciſes of piety, which yet Chemnitius proves not, I leave it to the indifferent to judge; by comparing his opinion with that of Auſtins, who profeſſeth, as Chemnitius well knew, that the Lords Day was declared unto Chriſtians by the Lords reſurrection, and from thence began to have its feſtivity alleged by Chemnitius himſelfe, p. 156. eſpecially conſidering the reaſon moving thē hereunto, which Chemnitius confeſſeth to have been on that day the Lord role from the dead. And ſeeing all feſtivals, as Biſhop Lake obſerves, have beene obſerved in regard of ſome great worke done on ſuch a day for the good of man; whether ever any day brought forth a more wonderfull or more comfortable worke to mankind than the firſt day of the weeke, which was the day of our Saviours reſurrection from the dead, let the Chriſtian world judge. This day Chemnitius ſaith, ſeems to be called by Saint Iohn the Lords Day, which appellation all antiquity did afterwards retaine and uſe: yet notwithſtanding (ſaith he) we doe not read that the Apoſtles did impoſe upon mens conſciences in the new Teſtament the obſervation of that day by any Law or Precept, but the obſervation was free, for order ſake. Let us duly weigh and conſider this, together with the reaſons following: Calvine diſtinguiſheth the obſervation of a day for order ſake, and the obſervation of a day for ſome myſterious ſignification ſake: had Chemnitius thus diſtinguiſhed, we would have ſubſcribed thereunto, and confeſſed, that now adayes wee obſerve no day for any myſterious ſignification ſake, but onelyonly for order ſake. And thus under the Goſpel wee are freed from obſervation of daies for myſteries ſake, not free from obſervation of one certaine day in the weeke for order ſake. At for his phraſe of impoſing the obſervation of the Lords day upon mens conſciences; this phraſe is moſt improper and unſeaſonable, in this caſe; it is onelyonly proper and ſeaſonable in caſe the thing impoſed be of a burthenſome nature, like unto that Saint Peter ſpeakes of, Acts 15.10. ſaying, Now therefore, why tempt yee God to lay a yoke on the Diſciples neckes which neither our Fathers nor we were able to beare? Such indeed was the yoke of circumciſion; which provoked Zippora (according to common opinion) driven to circumciſe her ſonne to ſave her husbands life, to throw the fore-skin at her husbands feet calling him a bloody husband for urging her thereunto. But what burthen is it (ſave unto the fleſh) to rejoyce in the Lord, to ſabbatize with him, to walke with him in holy meditation? Was it no burthen to the godly Jewes to conſecrate one day in ſeaven to the exerciſes of Piety under the Law; and ſhall it bee a burthen to us in the time of the Goſpell? Or can it bee conceaved to bee a greater burthen unto us to keepe our Chriſtian Sabbath on the Lords Day, then on any other day of the weeke? was there ever any day of the weeke markt out unto us with a more honourable or more wonderfull worke to draw us to rejoyce in the Lord thereon, then the firſt day of the weeke whereon our Saviour roſe, by his Reſurrection to bring life and immortality to light? yet we confeſſe we reade of no Law nor Precept for this in the new Teſtament, but, we reade that ever under the Goſpell wee muſt have a Sabbath to obſerve, Math. 24.20. And wee know, and Chemnitius knew full well, that it belongs to the Lord of the Sabbath to change it, and conſequently to ordaine it, and that it was changed, and the Lords Day obſerved generally in the Apoſtles dayes, none that I know makes queſtion of; and how could thi… bee, but by the Apoſtles ordinance; and is it likely they would take upon them this authority without a calling? And why ſhould that day of the weeke (and not that day of the yeare) bee called the Lords Day, if not for the ſame uſe under the Goſpell that the Lords Day, was of under the Law, eſpecially that day under the Law (which was the Jewes Sabbath) being now abrogated? and laſtly wee finde it manifeſtly ſpoken of the day of Chriſts Reſurrection, Pſal. 118.24. This is the day that the Lord hath made, let us rejoyce and be glad in it: yet laſtly wheras Chemnitius will have it free, and hee hath already manifeſted that hee ſpeakes of it in this ſenſe, as not to be ſo tied to this day, but that we may obſerve other dayes; wee willingly grant that in this ſenſe it is free. Now let us conſider his reaſon following. For ſaith hee, if we are freed from the Elements, which by God himſelfe in the old Teſtament were ordained, and commanded, how ſhould we be tyed by the decrees of men? But alas this reaſon of his hath no proportion: the Elements hee ſpeakes of were but ſhaddowes the body whereof is Chriſt, and now Chriſt is revealed, they were wont to bee called not onelyonly Mortua but mortifera. Yet the obſervation of one day in ſeven ſtill continues to bee the Commandement of God delivered not to Moſes, as ceremonies were, but by word of mouth proclaimed on mount Sina; and naturall reaſon ſuggeſts unto us that wee muſt allow unto Gods ſervice as good a proportion of time under the Goſpell, as hee required of the Jewes under the Law. Now if one day in ſeven muſt bee ſet apart in common reaſon, what day is to bee preferred for this before the Lords Day, the day of Chriſts reſt from the worke of redemption in ſuffering the ſorrows of death; as the day of the Lords reſt from the Creation was appointed to the Jewes for their Sabbath; And this Reſurrection of Chriſt bringing with it a new Creation; Shall wee preferre the Saturday the Jewes feſtivall before it, ſhall wee preferre the Friday the day of the Turkes feſtivall before it? ſhall wee affect power and liberty to make any other day in the weeke the Lords holy day, rather then that the Word of God commends unto us for the Lords Day in the time of the Goſpell?
This I ſuppoſe may ſuffice for anſwering the reſt alſo, whenſoever their ſuffrages ſhall bee brought to light, for I preſume none of them hath ſayd more then Chemnitius hath done. Azorius the Jeſuite profeſſeth of two things in this argument, that they are moſt agreeable to reaſon. Firſt, that after ſix worke dayes one entire day ſhould bee conſecrated to God, 2. that the Lords Day ſhould bee it. Doctor Fulke in anſwer to the Remiſh Teſtament profeſſeth that to change the Lords Day and 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. This was printed in the dayes of Queen Elizabeth and dedicated unto her Majeſty; what Biſhop as gouernour in this Church of England hath ever beene known to take exception againſt this? Doctor Andrewes (Biſhop of Wincheſter) in his ſtarre Chamber ſpeech in the Caſe of Traske profeſſeth that the Sabbath (to wit of the Iewes) had reference to the old Creation, but in Chriſt we are now Creatures, (As the Apoſtle S. Paul ſpeakes) a new Creation, and ſo to have a new Sabbath. And this he ſaith is deduced plainly. 1. by practiſe, 2. by precept, that theſe two onelyonly, the firſt day of the weeke, and the Sacrament of the Supper are called the Lords, to ſhew that Dominicum (the Lords) is alike to be taken in both: So that give power to the Church to alter the one, and you may as well give power to the Church to alter the other. He ſhewes alſo, it was an uſuall queſtion put to Chriſtians, Dominicum ſervaſti? Haſt thou kept the Lords Day? And their anſwer was this, Chriſtianus ſum, intermittere non poſſum. I am a Chriſtian, and I cannot intermit it. Laſtly, he allegeth the Synod of Laodicea, Can. 29. acknowledged in that of Chalcedon, 133. that Chriſtian men may not Judaize, not make the Saturday their day of reſt, but that they are to worke on that day, giving their honour of celebration to the Lords Day. Doctor Lake, Biſhop of Bath and Wells in his Theſis of the Sabbath—39. The Church hath received it (the Lords Day) not to be liberae obſervationis (of free obſervation) as if men might at pleaſure, accept or refuſe it, 40. But to be perpetually obſerved to the worlds end: For, as God onelyonly 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, 46. The worke of the day is the ground of hallowing the day, whether it be weekely, monethly or yeerely, as particulars evince in Scripture and Hiſtory. 47. No man can tranſlate the works, therefore no man can tranſlate the day. This is an undoubted rule in Theologie. Adde unto theſe Iunius and Piſcator, who maintaine the ſubrogation of the Lords Day into the place of the Jewiſh Sabbath, to have beene made by the ordinance of Chriſt; and Beza acknowledgeth it to be traditionis Apoſtolicae & verè divinae. Doctor Brownde in his Treatiſe of the Sabbath, lib. 1. pag. 47. having recited the opinion of Iunius, referring the inſtitution of the Lords Day to Chriſts ordinance, as who roſe from the dead on that day; addeth hereunto after this manner. Like unto the which, becauſe nothing can ever fall out in the world comparable unto it in glory and power; therefore this day muſt continue in his firſt honour of ſanctification unto the end of all things, and no day be ſet up like to it, or it changed into any other day, leſt the wonderfull glory of that thing be darkened, and the infinite power of it weakned, I meane, the glorious and mighty worke of our redemption which by the ſanctification of this Sabbath is commended unto us, and we by keeping that holy ſtill, doe commend it to our poſterity. And this is it that is alleged as a reaſon of the obſervation of this day in the Apoſtles conſtitutions: Conſt. Apoſt. l. 7. c. 37.It is called the Lords Day, becauſe it declares unto us Chriſt crucified and raiſed up againe, and it is worthily commended to be kept as the Lords Day, that wee might give thankes unto thee, O Lord Chriſt, for all theſe benefits: for, ſay they, there is that grace beſtowed upon us by thee; Qua ſua magnitudine omnia beneficia obſcurat, which by the greatneſſe, and, as it were, by the brightneſſe of it doth obſcure and darken all other. So that though the day was once changed upon theſe conſiderations, nay, they being ſuch as they be, it could not but be changed: yet forſomuch as the like cauſe can never be offered unto men to move them to enter into this conſideration, therefore the day muſt not onelyonly not be changed any more, but it muſt not ſo much as enter in mens thoughts to goe about to change it. And therefore I doe ſo much the more marvell at him, who ſaith, That the keeping holy of the Lords Day is not commanded by the authority of the Goſpel, but rather received into uſe by the publique conſent of the Church: And a little after; The obſervation of the Lords Day is profitable, and not to be rejected; but yet it is not to be accounted for a commandement of the Goſpel, but rather for a civill ordination. And that the Church might have appointed but one day in ten, or foureteene for the publique reſt and Gods ſervice. Laſtly, Maſter Perkins maintaines the ſame (not to mention Doctor Willet,) and that by divers reaſons, in his caſes of conſcience, which, becauſe they are modeſtly anſwered by Doctor Rivet, in his commentary upon the Decalogue, I thinke good in this place to take them into conſideration.