The Morality of the Fourth Commandment Still in Force, Answer to prefacer · Section 6

The Morality of the Fourth Commandment Still in Force · Answer to prefacer · Section 6

p. 125Pref.Laſt of all, for the third, and laſt concluſion, that ſtill the Church hath power to change the day our Doctor in the 7. Section, bringeth in Bullinger, Bucer, Brentius, Urſinus, 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.

Exam.

The Doctor indeed ſaith, that Calvin, Bullenger, Bucerus, Brentius, Chemnitius, Urſine 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. p. 126where 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. For Bullinger, I know not where to ſeeke that De reg. Chr. lib. 1. cap. 11.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 Pentecaſt. And the place which Doctor Rivet explic. decal. pag. 189. col. 2. allegeth out of Bucer in Mat. 10. p. 127to 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 counſell 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 p. 128unto 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 p. 129unto 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 roſe 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. As 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 p. 130burthen 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 this 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 p. 131to 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 new 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 p. 132of 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 darkned, and the infinite power of it weakned, I meane, the glorious and mighty worke of our redemption p. 133which 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: It is called the Lords Day, becauſe it declares unto us Chriſt crucified and Conſt. Apoſt. l. 7. c. 37.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.

p. 134A FOVRTH DIGRESSION MAKING GOOD M^r. PERKINS his Arguments for the Divine inſtitution of the Lords Day, againſt the anſwer made unto them by Doctor RIVETVS.

Perkins.THeir firſt Argument ſaith he, is taken from the appellation of the Lords Day; I ſuppoſe, faith Maſter Perkins, it is called the Lords Day, as the laſt ſupper of Chriſt is called the Lords Supper for two cauſes. Firſt, as God reſted the ſeventh day after the creation, ſo Chriſt having finiſhed the worke of the new creation, reſted on this day from the work of Redemption. Secondly, as Chriſt did ſubſtitute the laſt ſupper in roome of the paſſeover, ſo hee ſubſtituted the firſt day of the weeke in roome of the Jewes Sabbath to be a day ſet apart to his owne worſhip. To this Doctor Rivet anſwereth after this manner. Rivet. Anſw.Firſt, hee denies that there is the ſame reaſon of the Lords ſupper & the Lords Day, and that for two reaſons; firſt becauſe we have a manifeſt inſtitution thereof, and Chriſts Precept for the obſerving of it. Not ſo of the Lords Day. Secondly, if there were a Precept for keeping the Lords Day, yet were it Eccleſiaſticall and ſo mutable. For men may chooſe daies for the worſhip of God, as touching the particularity of this day or that. But the inſtitution of the Sacraments is of Divine authority by the p. 135conſent of all. To this I replie that Doctor Rivetus corrupts Maſter Perkins his anſwer in the propoſing of it; for he ſayth not the ſame is the reaſon of the Lords Supper, and of the Repl.day which wee call the Lords Day; but ſuppoſeth, and that moſt modeſtly, that either of them being called the Lords, they are called ſo in the ſame Notion. That like as the Lords Supper is ſo called becauſe he inſtituted it; ſo the firſt day of the weeke is called the Lords Day, becauſe hee inſtituted the obſervation of it. And this Doctor Thyſius collegue to Doctor Rivetus maintaines as well as Maſter Perkins, and Doctor Andrewes Biſhop of Wincheſter in his ſpeech againſt Traske; ſaying that both theſe, to wit the firſt day of the weeke, and Chriſt laſt Supper are called the Lords, to ſhew that Dominicum (the Lords) is alike to bee taken in both. For what reaſon can bee given why the day of Chriſts Reſurrection, not according to the day of the yeare wherein hee aroſe, but according to the day of the weeke wherein hee aroſe, ſhould bee called the Lords Day, but to ſignifie, Firſt, that it was to ſucceed in the place of the Lords Dayunder the law, which was the Jewiſh Sabbath. 2. And that it was the good pleaſure of God and not of man, onelyonly that it ſhould bee conſecrate to his ſervice. For conſider, wee have many other dayes conſecrated by the Church unto Divine ſervice, which yet were never called the Lords Dayes; And the Lords Day and the Lords feaſts in the Old Teſtament, and in the language of the Holy Ghoſt are no other then ſuch that are of the Lords inſtitution. Secondly, Doctor Rivetus omits the maine force of Maſter Perkins his argument, or at leaſt ſlightly paſſeth it over, which is this. As God reſted the ſeventh day after the Creation, ſo Chriſt having ended the worke of the new Creation reſted on this day from his worke of redemption. Athanaſius of old conſiders a firſt and a ſecond Creation; and ſo accordingly a firſt and a ſecond Sabbath: our Saviour himſelfe ſpeakes of a Chriſtian Sabbath, Math. 24. 20. and what ſhould that bee but the Lords Day under the Goſpell? And Beza and Iunius and Biſhop Andrewes worke upon the ſame. And I wonder that men ſhould thinke the Sabbath ſhould bee altered, and another brought into the place of it by any p. 136other authority then of him who is Lord of the Sabbath. And as Biſhop Lake obſerves in all feaſts both Divine and humane that wee reade of in Scripture, the worke of the day was the ground of hallowing the day. And never was known to the World a more wonderfull worke in the way of grace, and mercy, then Chriſts Reſurrection from the dead, manifeſting thereby the redemption of the World as then wrought by him How doth Chriſt take upon him to alter the Sacraments but as Lord of the Sacraments? and apparently he ſhewes that upon the ſame ground hee takes upon him power to diſpenſe or change the Sabbath, as hee is Lord of the Sabbath. But what is his ground to deny the parity of reaſon here? meerely his owne prejudicate conceit that the obligation of the Lords Day, is not ſo great as the obſervation of the Sabbath. The contrary whereunto (ſaith he) omnes refugimus we all avoyd. But who and how many are thoſe all? what one of the ancients can hee produce to have thought as hee thinks? Hee may as well ſay according to the current of his private opinion, that wee under the Goſpell are not as much bound to the obſervation of one day in ſeaven as the Jewes were under the Law. It is true, that rigorous reſt enjoyned to the Jewes wee utterly diſclaime as well as hee; againe the circumſtance of the day wee make no part of Gods worſhip nor to have any myſterious ſignification, as the Sabbath had to the Jewes. Wee acknowledge no other uſe of this day then for order and policy ſake; in which caſe wee judge it farre better the Lord ſhould preſcribe it, then wee unto our ſelves, leaſt if there were twenty dayes in the weeke, there would bee twenty differences amongſt Chriſtians about the ſetting apart of one day in the weeke for Divine Service.

2. Maſter Perkins his ſecond argument is this, The Church of Corinth every firſt day of the weeke made a collection for the Perkins.poore, 1 Cor. 16. 2. and this collection for the poore in the primitive Church followed the preaching of the Word, Prayer and the Sacraments as a fruite thereof, Acts 2. 42. and Paul commands the Corinths to doe this as he had ordained in the Churches of Galatia: whereby he makes it to be an Apoſtolicall, and therefore a Divine Ordinance. Yea that very Text doth in ſome part p. 137manifeſt thus much, that it is an ordinance and inſtitution of Chriſt that the firſt day of the weeke ſhould be the Lords Day. For Paul commandes nothing but what he receaved from Chriſt.

To this Doctor Rivetus alledgeth the anſwer of Doctor Prideaux, demanding how that we contend for his inferred Rivets Anſ. Reply.herehence? we anſwer, the generall practiſe of the Church in the Apoſtles dayes argues it manifeſtly, that this order was eſtabliſhed by the joynt conſent of the Apoſtles; otherwiſe it is incredible it ſhould have beene ſo univerſally receaved, and perſevered in as it hath beene to this day. Secondly, wheras the Jewes Sabbath was by divine authority, the abrogation thereof and ſubſtituting another day in the place thereof could bee done by no leſſe authority then Divine; which alſo wee conceave to bee fairely repreſented by the denomination of our Chriſtian Sabbath, S. Iohn calling it the Lords Day. Secondly, he ſheweth what Gomarus anſwereth hereunto; but this anſwer himſelfe taketh off in this very place in part, and much more in his reply to Gomarus. But theſe places being granted to denote the firſt day of the weeke in the Apoſtles dayes ſet apart to Divine Service; hee ſayth it followes not herehence that it is called the Lords Day, as deſtinated to Gods Service, much leſſe that ſo it was by Divine ordination. Yet Walaeus thinkes it his ſafeſt courſe to ſay tis called the Lords Day as deſtinated to Gods Service, as before wee have heard, ſo to avoyd (as hee thinkes) the implication of Divine Ordination. But to him I have anſwered before. And Doctor Rivetus in my opinion doth not wel conſider that not the day of the yeare, but the day of the weeke, whereon Chriſt roſe, is called the Lords Day by S. Iohn. Like as the Sabbath in the Old Teſtament is called the Lords Day: which which if he had, and withall conſidered how ſtrange it were for us to ſet any day in the weeke apart for the exerciſes of Piety rather then the Lords Day; I am perſwaded hee would not have contented himſelfe with this anſwer. For certainly many other holy dayes have beene and are ſet apart for Divine Service, yet never were called any one of them the Lords day.

He talkes of a bare cuſtome of the Church, for it; a thing p. 138incredible that both Jewes and Gentiles throughout all Nations ſhould ſo univerſally concurre without the guidance of ſome authorative conſtitution or ſome generally convincing evidence by the very light of common Chriſtian evidence or both. And as for liberty left to the Church hereabout, it ſeemeth ſo unreaſonable unto my poore judgement, that if it were, it ſhould become us by earneſt and hearty prayer to ſeeke unto God to take that liberty from us and bee pleaſed himſelfe to guide us by ſome manifeſt ordinance, to prevent diſſenſion and confuſion; yet well fare Doctor Rivetus; hee will not have this liberty extend any further then provided that ſome reaſon and neceſſity ſhould urge the changing of the day; for in the next columne hee profeſſeth that a ſufficient cauſe of the change and abrogation of the day cannot bee given.—The obſervation of other dayes and particularly of the Sabbath as well as the Lords Day by ſome in the Primitive Church, is no evidence at all, that it was indifferent unto them, whether they would obſerve the Lords Day or no.

The third argument Rivetus omits: the fourth is this. That Perk.which was prefigured, in that it was prefigured was preſcribed: But the Lords Day was prefigured in the eighth day, wherin the children of the Iewes were circumciſed—therefore it was preſcribed to be kept the eighth day. This the ancient Fathers, by name Cyprian and Auſtin have reaſoned and taught.

To this Doctor Rivetus anſwers by denying the aſſumption Rivet. Anſw.and ſaying, that no probable reaſon can be brought to prove that day was prefigured by the eighth day wherein children were circumciſed.

And indeed that day being the eighth day after birth doth Reply.not ſo conveniently denote the firſt day of the weeke. But Maſter Perkins his argument hath another part farre more principall drawne from Pſal. 118. 22. 23. 24. Which Doctor Rivetus relates after this menner.

The day of the Reſurrection was prefigured by that day, wherein Perk.the Stone which the builders refuſed was made the head of the Corner. But that day was the Sabbath Day, therefore by the Sabbath was prefigured the Lords Day.

p. 139To this he anſwers, by denying that the Sabbath day was the day wherein the builders refuſed that ſtone; For the Scribes, Phariſes and rulers of the people did alwayes reject Chriſt, and not Rivet. Anſw.the Sabbath day onelyonly. And if Auſtin and Cyprian before him apprehended any ſuch figure, that was by way of accommodation onelyonly, not that herein they acknowledged any proper figure.

For anſwer whereunto I ſay firſt; that Maſter Perkins delivers Reply.not this ſimply of the Sabbath day, but of the Sabbath of the new Teſtament, as much as to ſay, the firſt day of the weeke whereon Chriſt roſe; For this was the day wherein the ſtone which the builders refuſed, was made the head of the corner; and of this day the Prophet ſpeakes, when he ſaith, This is the day which the Lord hath made, let us be glad and rejoyce in it. That like as the Jewes had cauſe to make that day feſtivall and to rejoyce therein, wherein God advanced David to the kingdome, who was as a ſtone, refuſed before by the builders: in like ſort, Chriſtians had as great cauſe, nay, farre greater, to keepe that day feſtivall, and to rejoyce therein, when God raiſed Chriſt from the dead, and gave all power unto him, and making him the head of his Church, as being now manifeſted to be the ſonne of God, who was before as a ſtone deſpiſed and refuſed of the builders, but as on this day was made the head of the corner. And not Cyprian and Auſtin onelyonly, but Ambroſe upon the Pſalmes ſo underſtands it, and Arnobius alſo upon the Pſalmes, as Hereſh bachius obſerveth. And Doctor Rivetus is too blame in conſtruing Perkins in ſuch manner, as if he ſhould confine the builders rejection of Chriſt to the Sabbath day, whereof there is no colour in Maſter Perkins, but that which he inſiſts upon is this, that the day wherein Chriſt (formerly rejected by the builders) was made head of the corner, was the day of Chriſts reſurrection, and of this day it is ſaid by the Pſalmiſt, This is the day which the Lord hath made, let us rejoyce and be glad in it; Which is moſt remarkable for the juſtification of our celebration of the Lords Day, as by▪ Divine authority. Eſpecially conſidering what Biſhop Lake, that learned and pious, and moſt rationall Divine hath obſerved, that alwayes the worke of the day is the ground of hallowing the day, and for proofe hereof, p. 140hee appeales to the due conſideration of all feſtivalls in the obſervation thereof, whether Divine or humane. Maſter Perkins his words are theſe (but I know not how Doctor Rivetus might be deceived by a miſ-tranſlation of them) The day of Chriſts reſurrection was prefigured by that day wherein the ſtone which the builders refuſed was made the head of the corner, Pſal. 118. 24. and in that it was prefigured, it was appointed by God. For then it appeared to be true which Peter ſaid of Chriſt, that God had made him both Lord and Chriſt, Act. 2. 36. And whereas he ſaith the Fathers doe ſo conſtrue the place by way of accommodation, that hath place onelyonly when the Text it ſelfe doth not ſo accommodate it. But the Text it ſelfe in this place doth manifeſtly evince, that this is ſpoken in reference to the day of Chriſts reſurrection.

The laſt reaſon of Maſter Perkins is this: God is Lord of times and ſeaſons, and therefore in all equity, the altering and diſpoſing Perkins.thereof is in his hands, and belongs to him alone, Act. 1. 10. Times and ſeaſons the Father hath kept in his own hands. Againe, Chriſt is called the Lord of the Sabbath. And Antiochus Epiphanes is condemned by the Holy Ghoſt, becauſe hee tooke upon him to alter times: Beſides that, Daniel ſaith, it is God alone that changeth times and ſeaſons, Dan. 2. 4. Now, if it be proper unto Dan. 7. 25.Dan 7:25God as to create, ſo to determine and diſpoſe of times, then he hath not left the ſame to the power of any creature; And therefore, as the knowledge thereof, ſo the appointment and alteration of the ſame either in generall or particular, belongs not to the Church, but is reſerved to him. The Church then neither may nor can alter the Sabbath Day.

To this D. Rivetus anſwereth, that the words of Daniel touching the change of times and opportunities, are delivered in reference Rivet. Anſw.to the periods and changing of Kingdomes and Monarchies, as appeares by the argument of the Prophecy.

And no more doth D. Rivetus deliver in excepting againſt his annotations: for as he acknowledgeth M. Perkins ſcriptorem Reply.modeſtiſſimum, a moſt modeſt writer; ſo he carryeth himſelfe moſt modeſtly towards him. But I hope without any breach of modeſty, I may profeſſe, that I find no accurateneſſe in each of his allegations, ſave one, namely, that wherein p. 141Chriſt profeſſeth himſelf Lord of the Sabbath; and it is enough for the preſent, that God reſerves to himſelf power of ordering times for his ſervice; yet it cannot be denied, but God hath left power to his Church, upon good occaſion, to ſet ſome time apart for exerciſe of piety. But whereas it is apparant, that God himſelfe tooke upon him the ordering of the time for the Sabbath, and accordingly Chriſt calls himſelfe The Lord of the Sabbath; as he conſtituted it, ſo none but he can abrogate it, and ordaine another in the place of it. Now, whereas D. Rivetus ſaith, that hee hath left this power unto his Church; it ſtands him upon to prove it. We find our Saviour ſuppoſeth us Chriſtians to have a Sabbath after his reſurrection, Matth. 24. 20. as well as the Jewes had before: wee find that in the Apoſtles dayes, the firſt day of the weeke was ſet apart for this; which could not be, but by the joynt conſent of the Apoſtles, we find that the day of the weeke (not the day of the yeere) wherein Chriſt roſe, by Saint Iohn himſelfe called the Lords Day, an evident argument, that in his time it was ſo generally received. We find that never any worke of God did give better cauſe to profeſſe, that The day thereof was the day that the Lord had made, let us be glad and rejoyce therein; then the day wherein Chriſt roſe from the dead, and thereby was declared to be the Sonne of God, even that ſtone which the builders refuſed to be made the head of the corner. And how ſtrange is it, that the Church for 1500. yeeres ſpace ſhould no where offer to alter it; if in no other reſpect, yet in this, to manifeſt that the Church is indued with ſuch liberty and power, and to prevent the ſuperſtitious obſervation of the day as a thing neceſſary, if it be not neceſſary. Laſtly, if this liberty be ſtill in the Church; in caſe they ſhould exerciſe this liberty, what inconvenience would follow upon the exerciſing of a lawfull liberty? But infinit inconvenience would follow hereupon: for ſeeing this liberty is equally communicated to each particular Church, it will follow, that it is lawfull for our Engliſh Church to inſtitute the Munday, the French Church the Tueſday, the Hollanders the Wedneſday, the Germans Thurſday, the Danes Friday, the Swedes the Saturday, and the Polonians the Sunday; what an intolerable ſcandall were this amongſt Chriſtians? p. 142Thus our liberty opens way to revive the Jewes Sabbath, or to concurre with the Turks, who make Friday their holy day, nay, what ſcandall alſo to all the Heathens throughout the world? For, ſuppoſe that as the Jewes keepe the Saturday, and the Turks their Fryday; ſo other heatheniſh nations according to their ſeverall religions ſhould divide the other daies of the weeke to be hallowed between them; each religion keeping to their own day moſt exactly: When they ſhould find no agreement amongſt Chriſtians, what an intolerable ſcandall were this unto them, to harden them againſt the profeſſion of the Goſpel, when they ſee ſo little agreement among the profeſſors of it? And what ſhould move us to affect liberty in this which opens a way to ſuch diſſention and confuſion; and not rather rejoyce in this, that to prevent ſuch miſerable inconveniences, God himſelfe hath marked out unto us the firſt day of the weeke to be the Lords Day, in place of the Jewiſh Sabbath, which was the Lords holy day unto them, by the moſt wonderful and comfortable work that ever was wrought, even the reſurrection of our Lord and Saviour from the dead, thereby manifeſting him to be the Sonne of God, and fulfilling that prophecie of old concerning the ſtone which the builders refuſed, and making him the head of the corner on that day; all power being given unto him both in heaven and in earth. Matth. 28. thus drawing us in the Prophets language to profeſſe and ſay firſt, This is the Lords doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes: and ſecondly, to conclude there-hence in the words immediately following; This is the day which the Lord hath made, let us be glad and rejoyce in it; this undoubtedly is our Chriſtian feſtivall; this day of the weeke, and not this day of the yeere, (which is remarkable) being called by Saint Iohn, The Lords Day, the day wherein Chriſt appeared unto him, and gave unto him the booke of Revelation, concerning the ſecrets of his providence to be fulfilled upon the world for the time to come, even till his ſecond comming to deſtroy the world with fire, and to bleſſe us with new heavens, and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteouſneſſe; the metropolis of which new world, ſhall be new Jeruſalem. And albeit Doctor Rivetus according to his pious ingenuity which crownes his p. 143learning and cathedrall ſufficiencies, profeſſeth, that what hitherto hath beene ſpoken by him of the choyce and poſſible change of that day; he hath not to any ſuch end ventilated, as to favour their profaneſſe who on holy dayes and chiefely on that day, which by ſo univerſall a conſent even from the beginning of Chriſtianity hath beene conſecrated to ſuch uſe, neglecting Gods Service, not onelyonly refuſe to omit one day in proſecuting workes tending to the uſe of life temporall: but alſo by unneceſſary actions, as by pleaſant ſports, ſtage playes, by intemperance alſo and riot profane the day, not without reaſon dedicated to the Lord. Yet what juſt occaſion hereby may bee in all places and like enough is taken in moſt places by this doctrine of his who ſeeth not? For albeit publike authority in ſome places hath by lawes countenanced the ſolemnization of the Lords Day; for which wee of this land have cauſe to bleſſe God ſo as I thinke no Nation more; in conſideration of many Lawes one after another and by degrees made to reſtraine abuſes on that day, as tending to the manifeſt profanation thereof; and by none more then by that act of Parliament in the firſt of King Charles, wherein all men are forbidden to come out of their Pariſhes upon that day about any ſports and paſtime, evidently manifeſting hereby (as formerly hath beene proved) that all ſports and paſtimes are prophanations of our Chriſtian Sabbath obſerved on that day, and that in the judgement of the whole Parliament conſiſting of the Kings Majeſty the head thereof, with his Lords ſpirituall (all the Biſhops of the Kingdome) and temporal, together with the Houſe of Commons; yet if once it ſhall be receaved according to D. Rivets doctrine of the Sabbath, that it is in the power of each Church to ſet apart what proportion of time they thinke fit for Divine Service, and what day they thinke fit, who perceives not that they may if they will, order it in ſuch a manner, as that twiſe a day they ſhall come to Church, and the reſt of the day ſpend as they thinke good, either in the works of their calling, or upon their pleaſures: And whence all this zeale (ſo oppoſite to holineſſe in the iſſue) proceeds, I know not, ſave onelyonly to uphold the credit of Calvin; who profeſſeth that he doth not ſo regard the number of ſeaven, as that he would tie any to the ſervitude thereof; p. 144and yet I have endeavored to ſhew that neither this nor other paſſages taken out of his inſtitutions, makes any thing for them. And withall it is a wonder to behold how this of Calvin is taken up, and obtruded upon us, by them who otherwiſe hate both the name and memory of Calvin. And as for Doctor Rivets honeſt and pious inſtructions as concerning the duties and our demeanors to bee performed on this day, we may eaſily perceive how little worth they are and how eaſily they vaniſh into ſmoake, after that hee hath in the doctrinall part of the Sabbath layd ſo unhappy a foundation, and that by ſo poore reaſons and meane cariage of himſelfe, that as I verily thinke, throughout all his writings there is not to bee found the like.

For conſider whether hee had any hope to ſet ſo much as a face and outward ſhew of probability upon his diſcourſe, unleſſe firſt he had manifeſtly corrupted the adverſaries tenet, as appeares by his propoſing it, p. 119. Col. 1. By theſe (ſaith he) and other arguments drawn from Chriſtian liberty, it is ſufficiently deduced that they who maintaine the Sabbath day not ſo much to be taken away as to be tranſlated unto the Lords Day, and ſo changed, and doe indeed thinke it more holy (then another day) and that not onelyonly in regard of ordination, and uſe, but in respect of ſignification and effect doe croſſe ſome without Chriſtian liberty, which is moſt certaine of the Papiſts.

And indeed Walaeus makes it appeare that Calvin writes herein againſt the ſuperſtitious Papiſts. And did Rivetus oppoſethem onelyonly it were well; but it is apparant that hee diſputes not ſo much againſt Papiſts in this argument as againſt Proteſtants, even ſuch as himſelfe. But can hee ſhew of any of them, that they account the Lords Day more holy then any other in reſpect of any myſterious ſignification (for ſo Calvin ſpeaks in this place) of effect? undoubtedly he cannot. We obſerve a day in the weeke only for order and policy ſake Eccleſiaſticall: myſterious ſignifications in dayes were peculiar only to the Jewes. Only we thinke it fit, that to prevent diſſenſion and confuſion, God ſhould marke out that day unto us to be obſerved, and not leave it unto us, and ſo hee hath; the Scripture calling the firſt day of the weeke the Lords Day; and that upon p. 145ſuch a ground as a greater was never knowne to ground a feſtivity thereupon conſecrated to the exerciſes of piety, even the day wherein the ſtone that was refuſed by the builders was made the head of the corner; This was the Lords doing, and it is and ever ſhall be marvellous in our eyes, and gives us cauſe to ſay with the Pſalmiſt thereupon: This is the day which the Lord hath made, we will reioyce and be glad in it. So that all the paſſages in the Apoſtles writings againſt difference of dayes are no more againſt us then againſt Doctor Rivetus himſelfe. Now it is time to returne to our Prefacer. I doe not finde that Suarez undertakes to defend the Doctrine of Calvin and Chemnitius (ſuch as here is pretended to bee their Doctrine) but rather oppoſeth it. If ſuch were their doctrine as this Prefacer would faine obtrude upon us, from the authority of the D. diſcourſe which hee tranſlateth. For Suarez profeſſeth, Celebritatem Dominicae diei haberi ex communi uſu & ſenſu Eccleſiae & in ipſa ſcriptura Novi Teſtamenti commendari: that the celebrity of the day is had by the univerſall uſe and ſenſe of the Church, and is commended unto us in the very Scripture of the New Teſtament; I have endeavoured to juſtifie it out of the Old Teſtament alſo; and in expreſſe tearmes, that it is to bee unchangeable Practicè & moraliter, practically and morally; as Doctor Prideaux acknowledgeth, and withall expoundeth after his underſtanding of it; and Doctor Rivetus alſo affirming this kinde of unchangeableneſſe to ariſe from hence that no ſufficient cauſe can be given of the change and abrogation of it. This Prefacer and ſuch as are of his ſpirit may doe well to deale plainly, and to profeſſe that it is in the power of the Church to make the Lords Day to ceaſe to be the Lords Day.

From their Doctrine pretended by him hee proceedes to their practiſe, profeſſing it to bee devoyd of any the leaſt ſuperſtitious rigour; eſteeming it to be a day left arbitrary, and therefore open to all lawfull and honeſt recreations by which the minde may be refreſhed, and the ſpirit quickened; as in Geneva all honeſt exerciſes, ſhooting in pieces, long Bowes, croſſe Bowes are uſed in the Sabbath day, and that both in the morning before and after the Sermon; And truly I doe p. 146not finde my ſelfe prone to cenſure them for any ſuperſtition in this. But this author takes liberty to cenſure them for ſuperſtitious, who thinke theſe courſes unlawfull on the Sabbath Day. I make bold to call the Lords Day our Sabbath; becauſe our Saviour plainly gives us to underſtand that wee Chriſtians ſhould have one day in the weeke for our Sabbath, Ma. 24. 20. as wel as the Jewes had; and ſecondly becauſe the booke of Homilies profeſſeth that Sunday is our Sabbath. Nobis non licet eſſe tam diſertis. We may not be ſo elegant as to cenſure them for proſaning the Lords Day by theſe and ſuch like courſes. Yet the act of Parlament, 1. Caroli forbids any man to come out of his Pariſh on the Lords Day, about any ſports and paſtimes; which reſtraint tending to this end, namely to preſerve the Sabbath from profanation, doth manifeſtly give us to underſtand that to come out of a mans pariſh on that day about any ſports or paſtimes is to profane the Sabbath: and ſeeing as before I have ſhewed, that to come out of a mans pariſh on that day about ſuch a worke as doth not profane the Sabbath, is not to profane the Sabbath, as to heare a ſermon, or to fetch a ſurgeon or Phyſitian to a ſick perſon in caſe of neceſſity; but onelyonly to come out of a mans owne Pariſh about ſuch a worke as doth profane the Sabbath, ſuch a comming out of a mans own Pariſh on that day, and ſuch alone doth profane the Sabbath; hence it followeth evidently that all manner of ſports and paſtimes on that day, are ſo many profanatious of the Sabbath in the judgement of all the Prelates of this Kingdome, and of the whole Parliament.

Now let every ſober Reader judge whether my ſelfe as an Engliſh man have not better ground from an act of Parliament to cenſure them of Geneva for prophaners of the Sabbath in the caſe here pretended then this Praefacer from the practiſe of Geneva by the relation of Robert Iohnſon, to conſure us that doe miſlike them herein (if this bee their practiſe) for ſuperſtitious obſervers of the Sabbath; eſpecially conſidering that hee cannot faſten this cenſure upon ſuch as my ſelfe, but withall hee muſt paſſe the ſame, upon all Prelates of the Kingdome, together with the Lords temporall, and the whole p. 147houſe of Commons. And as for the exerciſes here mentioned, I finde them to fall wondrouſly ſhort, of that which the author avoucheth, as namely, that they eſteeme the Sabbath to lie open to all honeſt exerciſes and lawfull recreations; for I make no queſtion but in this Praefacer his opinion there are farre more exerciſes, and lawfull recreations then that of ſhooting which alone is here mentioned; and whereas ſuch things are permitted in the very morning of the Sabbath, and aſwell afore as after Sermon, I finde no thing anſwerable hereunto in the practiſe of our Church. Neither doe I finde that the exerciſes here mentioned are ſo much accommodated to the refreſhing of the minde and quickning of the ſpirit; as to make their bodies active and expedite in ſome functions which may be for the ſervice of the common Wealth. And lately upon enquiry hereabout I have receaved information, that at Geneva, after evening prayer, onelyonly the youth doth practiſe ſhooting in Guns to make them more ready, and expert for the defence of the City, which is never out of danger.

They have alſo at foure a Clocke on the Morning both Service and a Sermon for their ſervants, and 2. more in every Church; the one in the fore-noone, the other in the After-noon, beſide Catechizing the youth on the Sabbath Day: And Biſhop Lake wiſhed that ſuch a courſe were generall, as is in his Majeſties Court, to have a Sermon in the Morning for the ſervants on the Sabbath day. And I ſee no cauſe to diſſent from Gerardus in ſpecifying 4. particulars whereby the Sabbath is not violated. Parva, Neceſſarium, Respublica, cum pietaete. Undoubtedly hunting is as commendable as, (and more generous exerciſe) then any of theſe, and the Kings Majeſty though much delighted herein, yet never uſeth to hunt on the Sabbath Day Morning or Evening. And I have cauſe to come but ſlowly to the believing hereof, becauſe it is Calvins Doctrine concerning the Sabbath, that albeit under the Goſpell we are not bound to ſo rigorous a reſt as the Jewes were, yet that ſtill wee are obliged to abſtaine from all other works, as they are Avocamenta à ſacris ſtudiis & meditationibus, Avocations from holy ſtudies and Meditations; p. 148and their Miniſters, I ſhould thinke doe not well if they faile to minde them hereof, unleſſe both they and the people are fallen from Calvins Doctrine in this point, in which caſe I ſee no juſt cauſe why any ſhould choake us therewith, but give us as much liberty to diſſent from him in the Doctrine of the Sabbath as they of Geneva take unto themſelves. Againe Beza is well knowne to have profeſſed upon, Revel. 1. 10. that the obſervation of the Lords Day is, traditionis Apoſtolicae & vere Divinae, and conſequently that the day is not left arbitrary; neither hath this author proved that the Presbytery and ſtates of Geneva, both Eccleſiaſticall, and politicall have committed any revolt or apoſtacy thereto from Beza in this point. It is well hee acknowledgeth ſome recreation not ſuffered there, as namely dancing; but this hee ſayth they hold unlawfull, which ſimply delivered as by this author it is, is incredible unto mee, neither hath this authors word any ſufficient authority to deliver mee from this incredulity: yet ſome manner of dancing may perhaps bee generally forbidden in the French Proteſtant Churches. This ſtrictneſſe-(the Prefacer ſaith) is noted by ſome to have beene a great hinderer to the growth of the reformed Religion; which belike is advantaged ſo much the more with us in as much as it is not hindred; but he quotes no author for that. As for the author he quotes, I have not hitherto found that hee hath arrived to any great authority or credit in the World for the truth of his relations. Neither hath the wiſdome of our Church or ſtate taken any contrary courſe hitherto either by Statute or Canon to promote reformation amongſt us; what they may doe hereafter I know not; when ſuch ſpirits as this Prefacer may bee ſo fortunate as to ſit neare the ſterne. Whether the French Churches have found it ſo as this Geographer is ſayd to report I know not; but for their judgment herein I muſt expect untill I heare more therof.