The Morality of the Fourth Commandment Still in Force, Answer to prefacer · Section 5

The Morality of the Fourth Commandment Still in Force · Answer to prefacer · Section 5

p. 83Preface.Next for the ſecond Theſis, that the alteration of the day is onelyonly an humane and Eccleſiaſticall conſtitution, the Doctor ſheweth in the firſt Section, the generall conſent of all ſorts of Papiſts, Jeſuites, Canoniſts, and Schoolemen; of ſome great Lutheranes by names, and generally of the remonſtrant or Arminian Divines in their confeſſion, whoſe tendries in this point, wee may conceave with reaſon, not to bee different from the Doctrine of the Belgicke Churches, in that foure profeſſors of Leyden, in their examination or review of that confeſſion, have paſſed them over without note or oppoſition. To theſe beſides are added diverſe of our own, Et è noſtris non pauci, as hee ſpeakes it in the generall, that is, as I conceave his meaning ſuch as are neither of the Lutheran, nor of the Arminian party: of which ſince he hath inſtanced in none particularly, I will make bold to borrow two or three teſtimonies, out of the tractate of Gomarus before remembred. And firſt hee brings in Bullenger, who in his comment on the firſt of the Revelation, calls it Eccleſiae conſuetudinem, an Eccleſiaſticall Ordinance, and after addes, Sponte Eccleſiae receperunt illum diem. The Church did of its owne accord agree upon that day; for wee reade not any where that it was commanded. Next Urſinus telling us, that God had abrogated the Iewiſh Sabbath, addes preſently, that hee left it free unto the Church, Alios dies eligere, to make choiſe of any other day to be ſelected for his ſervice: and that the Church made choyſe of this in honour of our Saviours Reſurrection. Zanchius affirmes the ſame; Nullibi legimus Apoſtolos, &c. We reade not any where, ſaith hee that the Apoſtles did command this day to bee obſerved in the Church of God; onelyonly wee finde what the Apoſtles, and others of the faithfull uſed to doe upon it, Liberum ergo reliquerunt, which is an argument that they left it holy to the diſpoſition of the Church. Arotius, Simler, David Paraeus, p. 84and Bucerus, which are all there alleaged, might bee here produced, were not theſe ſufficient. Adde hereunto the generall conſent of our Engliſh Prelats, the Architects of our reformation in the time of King Edward the ſixt, who in the Act of Parlament about keeping holy dayes have determined thus, together with the reſt of that grand aſſembly, viz. Neither is it to bee thought, that there is any certaine time or definite number of dayes preſcribed in holy Scriptures, but that the appointment both of the time, and alſo of the number of the dayes is left by the authority of Gods Word, to the authority of Chriſts Church, to bee determined and aſſigned orderly in every Country, by the diſcretion of the rulers and Miniſters thereof, as they ſhall judge moſt expedient to the true ſetting forth of Gods glory, and edification of Gods People. Which preamble is not to be underſtood of holy dayes or of Saints dayes onelyonly, (whoſe being left to the authority of the Church was never queſtioned) but of the Lords Day alſo: as by the body of the Act doth at full appeare.

Exam.

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

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

The Sabbath (ſaith hee) had reference to the old Creation, In his ſpeech in the Starre Chamber, againſt Traſke.but in Chriſt we are a new Creature, a new Creation, and ſo to have a new Sabbath. And againe, It hath ever beene the Churches doctrine that Chriſt made an end of all Sabbaths by his Sabbath in the Grave. That Sabbath was the laſt of them.—And that the Lords Day preſently came in place of it. And for the confirmation hereof brings in that of Auſtin Ep. 119 ad Ianuarium: The Lords Day by Chriſts Reſurrection hath beene declared unto Chriſtians, and from that time began to have its feſtivity. Doctor Lakes Biſhop of Wells maintaines the ſame Theſe Theſes of his were written as it ſeemes in oppoſition to Broade.Doctrine after the ſame manner in his Theſes de Sabbato, theſ. 27. Man having ſinned, and ſo by ſinne aboliſhed the firſt Creation De jure, though not de facto; God was pleaſed by Chriſt to make a new inſtauration of the World. 28. He (as the Scripture p. 89ſpeakes of Chriſts redemptions) made a new Heaven and a new Earth. Old things paſſed then away, and ſo all things were made new. 29. Yea every man in Chriſt is a new Creature, 30. As God then when he ended the firſt Creation, made a day of reſt, and ſanctified it: 31. So did Chriſt when he ended his worke, made a day of reſt, and ſanctified it. 32. Not altering the proportion of time which is eternall, but taking the firſt day of ſeven for his portion, becauſe ſin had made the ſeventh alterable. But a man may eaſily perceive whither this Prefacer tends, and ſuch as are of his Spirit. The Rhemiſts upon the firſt of the Revel. and 10. verſe doe obſerve that the Apoſtles, and the faithfull abrogated the Sabbath which was the ſeventh day, and made holy day for it, the next day following, being the eighth day in compt from the Creation, and that without all Scriptures, and Commandements of Chriſt that we read of: yea (which is more) not only otherwiſe then was by the Law obſerved, but plainly otherwiſe than was preſcribed by God himſelfe in the ſecond Commandement, yea otherwiſe than he ordained in the firſt Creation when he ſanctified preciſely the Sabbath day, and not the day following. Such great power did Chriſt leave to his Church, and for ſuch cauſes gave he the Holy Ghoſt to be reſident in it, to guide it into all truthes, even ſuch as in the Scripture are not expreſſed. And if the Church had authority and inspiration from God, to make Sunday (being a working day before) an everlaſting holy day, and the Saturday that before was holy day, now a common workday, why may not the ſame Church preſcribe and appoint the other feaſts of Eaſter, Whitſontide, Chriſtmas, and the reſt? for the ſame warrant ſhe hath for the one, as ſhe hath for the other. Now to this Doctor Fulk makes anſwer after this manner. The Apoſtles did not abrogate the Jewiſh Sabbath, but Chriſt himſelfe by his death, as he did all other ceremonies of the Law, that were figures and ſhadowes of things to come, whereof he was the body, and they were fulfulled and accompliſhed in him, and by him. And this the Apoſtles knew both by the Scriptures, and by the Word of Chriſt, and his holy Spirit. By the Scriptures alſo they knew that one day of ſeven was appointed to be obſerved for ever during the World, as conſecrated and hallowed to the publike exerciſe of the Religion of God; Although the ceremoniall reſt, and preſcript p. 90day according to the Law were abrogated by the death of Chriſt. Now for the preſcription of this day before any other of ſeven, they had without doubt either the expreſſe commandement of Chriſt before his aſcenſion when he gave them precepts concerning the Kingdome of God, and the order and government of the Church, Acts 1. 2. or elſe the certaine direction of his Spirit, that it was his will and pleaſure it ſhould be ſo, and that alſo according to the Scriptures. And obſerve how in the words following he falls in upon the ſame reaſon of the change of the day which of old was mentioned by Athanaſius (formerly rehearſed) herein by Beza, Doctor Andrews, D. Lake, as I have already ſhewed. Seeing there is the ſame reaſon of ſanctifying the day in which our Saviour Chriſt accompliſhed our redemption, and the reſtitution of the world by his reſurrection from death, that was of ſanctifying the day in which the Lordreſted from the creation of the world. And after many lines nothing neceſſary to be recited, he comes to the compariſon made betweene the Lords Day and other Feſtivalls, ſaying: Although the Church in dayes or times which are indifferent, may take order for ſome other dayes or times to be ſolemnized for the exerciſes of Religion; or the remembrance of Chriſts nativity, reſurrection; aſcenſion, or the comming of the holy Ghoſt, may be celebrated either on the Lords Day, or any other time: yet there is great difference between the authority of the Church in this caſe, and the preſcription of the Lords Day by the Apoſtles for the ſpeciall memory of thoſe things are indifferent of their nature, either to be kept on certaine daies, or left to the diſcretion of the Governours of the Church. But to change the Lords Day, or to keepe it on Munday, Tueſday, or any other day, the Church hath no authority. For it is not a matter of indifferency, but a neceſſary preſcription of Chriſt himſelfe, delivered to us by his Apoſtles. And againe, in the next place: The cauſe of this change, it was not our eſtimation, that either we have, or ought to have of our redemption before our creation, but the Ordinance of God, who, as firſt he ſanctified the reſt from creation for the glory of that weeke: ſo now alſo he ſanctifieth the day of the reſtitution of the world for his glory of the accompliſhment of our redemption. Thus wee have not onelyonly authority Humane, but authority Divine for the alteration of the Day, and that by the teſtimony of more Biſhops p. 91antient and late, than this Prefacer makes ſhew of amongſt farre meaner names. Yet he doth immodeſtly abuſe Doctor Prideaux in putting it upon him, that in the fifth Section, he maintaines the alteration of the day to be onelyonly an humane and Eccleſiaſticall inſtitution. For, in that Section, he onelyonly oppoſeth them, who would derive the Divine authority (which they ſtand for) of the alteration of the Day from the old Teſtament: but as for thoſe who derive the Divine authority thereof from the new, they, hee confeſſeth, doe carry themſelves herein more warily, the other more weakly, and them alone he diſputes againſt in that Section. In the ſixth Section, he comes to the deriving thereof from the new Teſtament; and firſt he challengeth them, who boaſt that they have found the inſtitution of the Lords Day in the new Teſtament expreſſely, to ſhew the place. Then in the often diſputations of our Saviour with the Phariſees about their ſuperſtitious obſervation of the Sabbath Day, he demands where is the leaſt ſuſpicion of the abrogation of it; or any mention that the Lords Day was inſtituted in the place thereof? And indeed, the time hereof was not yet come; onelyonly the death of Chriſt ſetting an end to ceremonies. Then he demands whether the Apoſtles did not keepe the Jewiſh Sabbath? now, I doe not find they did, although they tooke occaſions of their meetings on that day to diſpute with them, and to inſtruct them in the Faith of Chriſt. Then he demands, whether the Primitive Church did not deſigne as well the Sabbath as the Lords Day to ſacred meetings? I find in Baronius, that Orthodoxi Orientales Baron. tom. 1. pag. 517.did, and the occaſion alſo, to wit, in deteſtation of the Marcionites; yet without any ſuch reſpect, it had been nothing ſtrange, conſidering, that even now adayes Saturday is counted halfe holy day; and that the Jewes had a preparation for the Sabbath, in ſuch ſort, that on their behalfe, Auguſtus made a reſcript, that no Jewes ſhould be compelled to make good their ſuretiſhips (as much to ſay, they ſhould not be Baron. tom. 1. pag. 148.arreſted) either on the Sabbath dayes, or after three a clocke of the day going before. Hereupon (which is yet a very weake ground in my judgement) he ſaith, that Papiſts inferre, that the Lords Day is not of Divine inſtitution; he doth not p. 92make any ſuch inference himſelfe. Yet notwithſtanding (he confeſſeth that) even in the Church of Rome, Anchoranus, Panormitane, Angelus and Sylveſter (all which this Prefacer conceals very judiciouſly for his owne advantage) have ſtoutly ſet themſelves againſt theſe luke-warme Advocates, in affirmation of the Divine authority of the Lords Day. And I find, that Azorius in his inſtitutions, makes mention of them to the ſame purpoſe, and addes, that Sylveſter profeſſeth, hanc eſſe opinionem communem, that this is the common opinion. And after this, Doctor Prideaux in that Section, diſputes for the Divine inſtitution thereof, rather than againſt it. After this he takes notice of Pauls fact, Acts 20. 7. and diſputes therehence for a cuſtome to celebrate on the firſt day of the weeke their publike meetings; and confeſſeth, that the Fathers, and all Interpreters almoſt, doe ſo conceive it: though withall he profeſſeth hee ſees not how from a caſuall fact (ſo he calleth it, upon what ground I know not) a ſolemne inſtitution may be juſtly grounded; yet that which went before, in ſome oppoſition whereunto this is delivered, pleaded not for a ſolemne inſtitution, but for a cuſtome onelyonly; although upon due conſideration, it may be found, that ſuch a cuſtome (if that be granted) could not otherwiſe proceed originally than from a ſolemne inſtitution: It is enough if they ordained that on that day the Churches ſhould be aſſembled for publique worſhip; which Auſtin expreſſely profeſſeth, as formerly I have ſhewed, neither doth it appeare in reaſon how it could be otherwiſe, ſuch aſſemblies being univerſall and ſo continuing to this day: Is it credible ſuch univerſall agreement ſhould come to paſſe caſually? if it did, yet their continuance of it without diſlike, doth manifeſt their joynt Apoſtolicall approbation, who we know were guided by the Spirit of God: and even in their time was the firſt day of the weeke, called the Lords Day. So that in all this I find no incoherence, much leſſe notable. Indeed, in the firſt of the Corinth. chap. 16. 2. he doth not order that the firſt day ſhould be ſet apart for Gods ſervice, but rather ſuppoſeth it, and that not onelyonly at Corinth, but in the Churches of Galatia: how improbable is it that this uniformity ſhould be among them, unleſſe it proceeded p. 93from ſome authority ſuperiour to the Churches themſelves: then comming to conſider the denomination of the Lords Day, and concluding it to be the firſt day of the weeke, and therewithall concluding that ſixth Section: the ſeventh Section he begins thus; what then? Shall we affirme that the Lords Day is founded in Divine authority? and anſwers the queſtion thus: For my part (without prejudice to any mans opinion) I aſſent unto it, however the arguments like me not, whereby the opinion is ſupported, and ſo he proceeds in proſecuting of that which was affirmed by him, in the laſt place, concerning his private diſlike of ſome particular courſes taken to juſtifie it. He oppoſeth, I grant, expreſſe inſtitution; but if by juſt conſequence it may be deduced, it ſerveth our turne, both in the generall and in particular at this time and in this place, to diſcover the immodeſt and unreaſonable carriage of this Prefacer, who would obtrude the contrary opinion upon Doctor Prideaux, as it were, in deſpite of him; And indeed, it is thought that hee owed him a ſpight, and to pay that hee owed him, hee came to this tranſlation. But herein the Doctors honour is eaſily preſerved in the deſpight of this Prefacer; yet ſee a greater degree of impudency in this Prefacer. For he puts upon the Doctor, as if hee had ſhewed the alteration of the day to be onelyonly an humane and Eccleſiaſticall inſtitution, by the generall conſent of all ſorts of Papiſts, Jeſuits, Canoniſts and Schoole-men of ſome great Lutherans Azorius inſtitut. part. 2. l. 1. c. 2.by name, whereas it is plaine, that he mentioneth more Papiſts maintaining the Lords Day to be of Divine inſtitution, then oppoſing it. And amongſt them that maintaine it, one, to wit, Sylveſter, profeſſeth it to be opinionem communem, not one avouched as affirming the contrary. And as for the great Lutherans this Author ſpeaketh of, loving to ſpeake with a full mouth, they are but one, and that Brentius, who is ſaid to affirme it to be a civill ordinance, and not a commandement of the Goſpel; a very ſtrange phraſe (in my opinion) to call it a civill ordinance; the ordinance being in force many hundred yeeres before the Church of God had any civill government of their own, and being in the Apoſtles dayes how could it be leſſe than Apoſtolicall? undoubtedly, not ſo much civill p. 94as Eccleſiaſticall. Wee grant willingly we have no expreſſe precept for it, yet Auſtin is bold to ſay (as wee have heard) that Apoſtoli ſanxerunt, yet Gomarus allegeth no paſſage out of Brentius to this purpoſe. But Melancthon ever (as I take it) accounted of better authoritie than Brentius, profeſſeth, as Walaeus reports him, that conſentaneum eſt Apoſtolos hanc ipſam ob cauſam mutaſſe diem, in plaine termes aſcribing the change of the day to the Apoſtles: As for the Remonſtrants, what authority have they deſerved to have with us, who are ſo neere a kinne to the Socinians, who uttterly profeſſe againſt all obſervation of the Lords Day. But the foure profeſſors of Leiden, have paſſed over this of theirs without note or oppoſition. And was not Walaeus one of the foure? yet what his opinion is himſelfe hath manifeſted to the world; yea, and his collegue, Thyſius alſo, yet no cauſe had they to oppoſe in this, when the other profeſſed it to be a laudable and good cuſtome, according to the patterne of the Primitive Church; and can the Primitive Church exclude the Apoſtles, and not rather include them? And is it probable, that the Primitive Church preſcribed it to the Apoſtles, and not rather the Apoſtles to the Church? Tilenus calls it Eccleſiae conſuetudinem, not denying it to be inſtituted by the Apoſtles, nay, elſewhere hee affirmes this, or rather that it was inſtituted by Chriſt himſelfe. So little cauſe had theſe profeſſors to quarrell with this phraſe of the Remonſtrants, having weightier matters in hand wherein to oppoſe them. What if Bullenger call it Eccleſiae conſuettudinem; ſo doth Tilenus de praecept. 4. Theſ. 29. yet Theſ. 24. he profeſſed it to be not onelyonly obſerved by the Apoſtles, but that it may ſeeme alſo to be inſtituted by Chriſt himſelfe: Bullenger ſaith, ſponte receperunt, to wit, in oppoſition to an expreſſe Precept, as appeares by that which immediately followeth; Non legimus eam ullibi praeceptam, we doe not reade it any where commanded. Urſine alleged in the next place clearely profeſſeth in the very place quoted by Gomarus, that God it is who hath abrogated the obſervation of the ſeventh day, but he addes, that he left it free to the Church to chooſe other daies, which (Church) upon a probable cauſe, choſe the firſt day, which was the day of Chriſts reſurrection. p. 77Now what Church was it but Apoſtolica Eccleſia, as Paraeus upon Urſinus Catechiſme obſerves, p. 665. Pro libertate ſibi à Chriſto donatâ pro ſeptima die elegit diem primum propter probabilem cauſam out of the liberty which Chriſt hath given them, inſteed of the ſeventh day choſe the firſt day of the weeke, by reaſon of a probable cauſe, to wit, becauſe on that day Chriſt roſe, by whoſe reſurrection, the ſpirituall and eternall reſt is inchoated Rom. 1. 4.Rom 1:4in us, and p. 666. Apoſtoli ipſi mutarunt Sabbatum ſeptimi diei. The Apoſtles themſelves changed the Sabbath of the ſeventh day. By the way touch we a little upon this, that, Firſt, this was done in reference to Chriſts reſurrection: ſo Calvin acknowledgeth in reference whereunto this day had ſome prerogative above the reſt, to wit in the way of fitneſſe, for holy uſe, becauſe of the worke of God on that day. Whence it is evidently concluded, that the Apoſtles did not thinke it indifferent, therefore though it were left to their liberty, in as much as no Commandement was given to them thereabout for ought wee reade, yet by the ſpirit of God, they were directed to make choyſe of this day, and that in reference to ſuch a worke on that day, as the like on no other. Not that the ſanctifying of a reſt on this day would make us more holy, then the ſanctifying of a reſt on any other day: but onelyonly in reference to ſome ſpeciall worke of God on that day: upon which conſideration the ancient Fathers doe generally inſiſt; and Biſhop Andrewes, and Biſhop Lake after them doe joyntly rely, and not Beza onelyonly. Secondly, That both Urſine and Paraeus call this a probable reaſon onelyonly: now give me leave to inſiſt upon this, and try whether I cannot ſhew that this reaſon is more then probable. And that firſt à Poſteriori. For let us ſoberly conſider how came it to paſſe that not onelyonly the day whereon Chriſt roſe, but anſwerably hereunto the Day of the weeke, to wit, the firſt Day of the weeke was accompted by the Apoſtles, and ſo commonly called the Lords Day; and generally knowne to Chriſtians by that name: otherwiſe S. Iohn had not beene ſo well underſtood in his Revelation chap. 1. verſ. 10. Is it not apparent that Chriſts riſing did ever after give the denomination of the Lords Day, to the firſt day of the weeke? Againe the day of Chriſts Paſpaſſion p. 96upon the Croſſe, is not called the Lords day; and why the day of the Reſurrection rather? ſurely becauſe S. Paul ſaith that Chriſt was declared mightily to be the Sonne of God Rom. 1. 4.Rom 1:4by the ſpirit of ſanctification in his Reſurrection from the dead. Hereby then was he manifeſted to be the Sonne of God, the very Lord of Glory; and is not this reaſon more then probable, why it ſhould bee called the Lords day? Secondly conſider, that day of the monethmonth or that day of the yeare whereon the Lord roſe, wee no where finde that it was uſually called the Lords Day, but onelyonly that day of the weeke; not the day of the weeke wherein hee aſcended into Heaven, but the day of the weeke wherein hee roſe. Now the Jewes Sabbath was called the Lords Sabbath, the Lords holy Day, Eſ. 58. 13. If thou ſhalt turne away thy foote from my Sabbath from doing thy will on my holy Day. Hath the Lord a Day under the Goſpell, but no Sabbath, no holy Day? what an unreaſonable conceite were this? that hee ſhould have an holy Day, one in every weeke under the Law; and none under the Goſpell? Now if the Lord hath a day that is peculiarly called his under the Goſpell, and that day is in the Scripture ſtyled the Lords Day; I appeale to every Chriſtian conſcience, whether the ſanctifying of this day as holy to the Lord, ought not by more then probable, yea even by neceſſary reaſon, come in place of the ſanctifying of the ſeventh day as an holy reſt to the Lord in the dayes of old. Otherwiſe we ſhould have two different dayes in the weeke, the one called the Lords Day, the other the Lords holy Day; or no holy day at all though wee have the Lords Day. Laſtly conſider the very definition of a thing probable, which Ariſtotle makes to be ſuch as ſeemes ſo in the judgement of moſt, or in the judgement of moſt of the wiſeſt, or of ſome few provided they are wiſer then the reſt; but the ſanctifying of the firſt day of the weeke to the Lord, that is, the Lords Day to the Lord, hath ſeemed fit not to ſome of the wiſeſt onelyonly in the Church of God, but to all, even to all the Apoſtles, yea and Evangeliſts and Paſtors, and teachers in their dayes and to the whole Church, for 1600. yeares ſince; and ſhall wee call the reaſon moving them hereunto onelyonly probable? 2. yet all p. 97this is but a poſteriori, which yet for the evidence of it, I preſume moſt ſufficient for the convicting of every ſober & Chriſtian conſcience of that truth, to the demonſtration whereof it tends; I come to give a reaſon hereof à priori. The firſt creation in the wiſedome of God (who proceeds not merely according unto probable reaſon) drew after it a Sabbath day, the ſeventh day where on God reſted. But if God vouchſafeth us a new creation in the ſame congruity, may wee not juſtly expect a new Sabbath? Now, the Apoſtle tells us plainly, that old things are paſſed away, and that all things are become new, 2 Cor. 5. 17. and this he brings in upon ſhewing what Chriſt hath deſerved at our hands, in as much as he died for us, and roſe againe, verſ. 15. the end whereof was this, that he might be Lord both of quicke and dead, Rom. 14. 9. and concludes, that whoſoever is in Chriſt, is a new creature, 2 Cor. 5. 17. And how are we in Chriſt, but by faith? Gal. 2. 20. And what is the object of this our faith? let the ſame Apoſtle anſwer us, If thou confeſſe with the mouth the Lord Ieſus, and believe in thine heart that God raiſed him from the dead, thou ſhalt be ſaved: ſo that this faith in Chriſts reſurrection, is to us the beginning of a new creature. And Chriſts reſurrection Sedulius calls naſcentis mundi primordium. And Athanaſius ſaith, That as the Sabbath was the end of the firſt creation; ſo the Lords Day is the beginning of the ſecond creature. And this is it that Biſhop Andrewes and Biſhop Lake doe worke upon for the celebration of the Lords Day as by Divine inſtitution. But I am not a little ſenſible of ſome appearance of incongruity riſing hereupon. Almighty God did not thinke it fit, that the firſt day of creation ſhould be our Sabbath, but the ſeventh from the creation, as whereon himſelfe reſted; but in the ſecond creation, the firſt day is made our Sabbath. To this I anſwer two things; the firſt is this: if man ſhould not reſt unto God till the ſecond creation is finiſhed, hee ſhould not reſt at all in this world. And the ſixe dayes being the dayes of Gods worke; the ſeventh was the firſt of mans worke, which God would have to be an holy worke moſt convenient whereby to take livery and ſeaſin of the world. For, albeit God commanded Adam to dreſſe the garden and keepe it, when p. 98he placed him in it; yet it is nothing probable it had need of dreſſing ſo ſoone as it was made; and no mention of reſt commanded at the firſt; onelyonly it is ſaid, that becauſe God reſted that day from all his works, therefore he bleſſed the ſeventh day and ſanctified it. This I deliver to ſave the expreſſion of Athanaſius. 2. But in my judgement, there is an exact congruity betweene reſt and reſt in each creation. For, as God reſted the ſeventh day from the worke of creation; ſo Chriſt reſted the firſt day of the weeke from his worke of Redemption, which was the meritorious cauſe of the new creation. For Chriſts dying, and continuing under the power of death, for a certaine time, I may juſtly reckon as one worke of Redemption; in which time hee ſuffered ignominy, not onelyonly from the reproach of the world, but from the weakneſſe of his ſervants faith, whoſe voyce was, wee thought it had been he, who ſhould have redeemed Iſrael.Acts 24.Acts 24

As for Zanohy, in the place cited by Gomarus; hee confeſſeth, hunc diem ex traditione Apoſtolica eſſe, & optimo jure ab Eccleſia retentum. That the Lords Day is (to be obſerved) by Apoſtolicall tradition, and by the beſt right retained by the Church—this the Prefacer in his wiſedome omitted; indeed hee ſaith, we no where reade that the Apoſtles commanded it: but left it free; but take with you the reſt, ita liberum, ut omnino ipſe dies ſanctificandus ſit, niſi charitas aliud poſtulat. In ſuch a manner free, that omnino, undoubtedly the day it ſelfe ought to be ſanctified, unleſſe charity require otherwiſe. I conceive his meaning is, and the meaning of all that uſe this language, that wee are to keepe it by no other obligation (not of ſpeciall commandement) than the reaſon of the day doth miniſter unto us, it being the day that the Lord hath made, joyfull to Gods Church by the reſurrection of Chriſt from the dead; and in this ſenſe they ſay it doth not bind mens conſciences, to wit, as a Precept doth, whether we know the equity of it or no. And it were very ſtrange, that Chriſtians in keeping any holy day in the weeke, ſhould not make choice of the Lords Day for that, without any expreſſe commandement. Anetius ſaith no more than that Chriſtians changed the Sabbath unto the Lords Day; and can any man doubt, but that the Apoſtles p. 99were meant hereby? For which is moſt likely, that the practice and judgement of others was a leading cauſe to the Apoſtles, or rather that the judgement and practiſe of the Apoſtles was a leading cauſe unto all others? Simler hath no more but this, that he calls it the cuſtome of the Church, ſo doth Tilenus, yet he propoſeth it as likely to have had its inſtitution from Chriſt. Paraeus in the very place cited by Gomarus, aſcribeth the change of the day to the Apoſtolicall Church, and expreſſely ſaith, that the Apoſtle commanded the Corinthians to meet together the firſt day of the weeke, and make their collections. I wonder the Prefacer omits Cuohlinus, was it becauſe that which others call conſuetudinem Eccleſiae, hee calls conſuetudinem Apoſtolicam? In the laſt place, Bucer is named by the Prefacer, but Gomarus is well content to omit what is delivered by him. But to the contrary, I will not forbeare to ſet downe what I find in his booke De Regno Chriſti, lib. 1. cap. 11. For having formerly deſcribed what are the true workes of holy reſts, added upon the backe of it; Eapropter, For this cauſe the Lords Day was conſecrated by the Apoſtles themſelves to theſe kind of actions. Which ordinance of theirs (inſtitutum he calls it) the antient Churches obſerved moſt religiouſly. Then he ſhews the cauſe why they changed the day: 1. The firſt reaſon given is, to teſtifie that Chriſtians are not obliged to the Pedagogie of Moſes law: 2. The ſecond is, to celebrate the memory of Chriſts reſurrection, which was performed on the firſt day of the weeke. So that not one of the Authors mentioned by him makes any thing for him. And if the paſſages of the ſixe mentioned by him, and related by Gomarus did make any thing for him; we have no leſſe of the ancient Fathers to the contrary, as namely, Athanaſius, Cyril, Euſebius, Auſtin lately mentioned, to whom adde Sedulius operis Paſchalis, lib. 5. cap. 21. The glory of the eternall King illuſtrating (the firſt day of the weeke) with the trophy of his reſurrection, primatum cum religione conceſſum dierum cenſuit retinere cunctorum; thought good it ſhould have the primacy of all dayes granted unto it with religion: that is, with an holy celebration thereof. Adde unto him Gregory, mentioned in the firſt Section, affirming that Antichriſt affecting to imitate Chriſt, ſhall command the p. 100Lords Day to be kept holy. Adde to theſe the univerſall conſent of Chriſtendome in antient times; for when the queſtion was propoſed unto them, as uſually it was thus; Dominicum ſervaſti? Haſt thou kept the Sabbath? their anſwer was this, Chriſtianus ſum, intermittere non poſſum: For Brentius alleged by him to little purpoſe, let mee repreſent what Gerard the Lutherane writes of our Chriſtian Sabbath in his common places, tom. 3. pag. 146. Eſt Sabbatum Chriſtianum, quo juxta Apoſtolorum conſtitutionem dies hebdomadae primus publicis eccleſiae congreſſibus d…ſtinatus eſt. Our Chriſtian Sabbath is that whereby the firſt day of the weeke is deſtinated to the publique aſſemblies of the Church, by the conſtitution of the Apoſtles. See how plainly hee referres the celebration of this day to Apoſtolicall conſtitution: and pag. 148. he ſheweth the analogie between the Jewes Sabbath and our Chriſtian Sabbath, conſiſting in two or three particulars: 1. As on the ſeventh day God reſted from the ſix dayes worke of creation, in remembrance of which benefit, the Sabbath was inſtituted in the old Teſtament: ſo in the firſt day of the weeke, after Chriſt by his death and paſſion had accompliſhed the myſterie of our Redemption, he returned gloriouſly as a conqueror from the dead, in remembrance of which benefit, the firſt day of the weeke is celebrated in the new Teſtament. 2. As in the old Teſtament the Sabbath was inſtituted, that it might be a memoriall of their deliverance out of Egypt, Deut. 5. 15. So in the new Teſtament, the Lords Day is a memoriall of our ſpirituall deliverance out of the kingdome and captivity of Satan, procured unto us by the reſurrection of Chriſt, a type whereof was that deliverance of the children of Iſrael out of Egypt. 3. By Chriſts death and reſurrection, were abrogated Leviticall ceremonies and legall ſhadowes, amongſt which the Sabbath is reckoned, Col. 2. 17. Therefore the change of the Sabbath into the Lords Dav, is a publique teſtimony that Chriſtians are freed from legall ſhadowes, and that difference of dayes, which in ancient time was ordained Adde to him Melanchthon, alleged by Walaeus, pag. 265. affirming, that the Apoſtles for this cauſe changed the day, that in this particular they might give an example of the abrogation of p. 101the ceremoniall Lawes of Moſaicall policy. As for our Popiſh Divines for which he referres us to Doctor Prideaux, it is apparent that more of them are alleaged for the jus d vinum, of the celebration of the Lords Day, then for the contrary; & one of them, Silveſter by name, profeſſeth expreſly that his opinion, was the common opinion which was for the Divine inſtitution of it. And Azorius the Jeſuite, as hee profeſſeth it a thing moſt agreeable to reaſon that after ſix worke dayes one intire day ſhould bee conſecrated to Divine worſhip; ſo withall ſaith that it is moſt agreeable to reaſon that the Lords Day ſhould be that Day.

Adde unto theſe Sixtus Senenſis, but that which they object Biblioth. lib. 7. p. 603. Col. ….(ſaith hee) concerning the Lords Day not as yet inſtituted in the time of Iohn, is moſt falſe, the conſent of the whole Church diſclaiming it, which doth beleeve the ſolemnity of the Lords Day was appointed by the Appoſtles themſelves in memory of the Lords Reſurrection: concerning the inſtitution whereof by the Apoſtles Auſtin Ser. 25. de temp. teſtifyeth in theſe words: therefore the Apoſtles themſelves, & Apoſtolicall men, appointed that the Lords Day ſhould for that reaſon bee religiouſly ſolemnized, becauſe on it our Redeemer roſe from the dead. In the laſt place come wee to our Divines. Now Bucer I have already ſhewed to ſtand for us rather then for him. 2. And Calvin expreſly acknowledgeth that the Apoſtles did change the day. 3. Beza upon Re. 1. v. 10. hath an excellent paſſage to the ſame purpoſe. For hee conſiders Chriſts reſurrection to bee as it were a ſecond creation of a World ſpirituall, and thereupon doubts not but that the ſpirit of God did ſuggeſt unto them the change of the ſeventh day into the Lords day, as to bee conſecrated to Divine Service. 4. Iunius on Gen. 2. writes that the cauſe of the change of the day was the reſurrection of Chriſt, and the benefit of inſtauration of the Church in Chriſt. The commemoration of which benefit ſucceeded to the commemoration of the Creation, not by humane tradition, but by the obſervation of Chriſt himſelfe, and his inſtitution. 5. Piſcator on Exod. 20. 10. It is to bee obſerved that the circumſtance of the ſeventh day, in celebrating the Sabbath is aboliſhed by p. 102Chriſt; as who for that day ordained the firſt day of the weeke, which wee call the Lords Day, and that in remembrance of the Lords Reſurrection performed on that day. And upon Luk. 14. v. 2. He makes this obſervation, By occaſion of this ſtory, it is fit to conſider what was the religion of the Sabbath in the new Teſtament, and what place it hath at this day among us Chriſtians, and how it is to be obſerved. And firſt we muſt hold that the Sabbath is abrogated, by Chriſts comming as touching the ſeventh or laſt day in the week, and that in the place thereof is ordained the firſt day, which we call the Lords Day, becauſe on that day the Lord roſe from the dead, and ſhewed himſelfe alive to his Diſciples, and divers times ſpeaking with them of the Kingdom of God: aod ſo by his own example conſecrating that day to Church aſſemblies, and for the performance of the outward ſervice of God. The reaſon of the abrogation is, becauſe that ceremoniall reſt obſerved in the Law, was a type of that reſt, which the Lord made in his grave, as is perceived by the words of Paul Col. 2. 16. 17. Now of the apparitions of the Lord, S. John teſtifies Chap. 21. where he ſhewes how firſt he appeared to them gathered together on that very day whereon he roſe. And againe eight dayes after. Now that in theſe dayes he ſpake unto them of the Kingdom of God Luke ſhewes, Acts 1. 3. Whence it was undoubtedly that the Apoſtles obſerved that day by the Lords ordinance, to keep their Eccleſiaſticall aſſemblies thereon—as it appeares they did Acts 20. 7. & 1 Cor. 16. 2. And hence it was without doubt, on the Lords day John was in the ſpirit and receaved the Revelation. To the ſame purpoſe is that which Doctor Walaeus alleageth out of Piſcators

Aphoriſ. 18. It may be doubted concerning the Lords Day, whether it be appointed by God for his ſervice in the New Teſtament. My opinion hereof is this; although we read no expreſſe Commandement concerning it, yet that ſuch an inſtitution may be gathered from the example of Chriſt and his Diſciples. For on that day whereon the Lord roſe from the dead (therefore called the Lords Day) he ſhewed himſelfe alive to his Diſciples, and ſpake to them of the Kingdom of God. And Paul on that day in an aſſembly of the faithfull met together to celebrate the Lords Supper, preached to them on that day, Acts 20. 7. and that the Chriſtians p. 103at Corinth were wont to meet on that day for publique prayer, appeares 1 Cor. 16. 2. Now it cannot be doubted but Paul ordained that day amongſt them, as alſo the manner of celebrating the Lords Supper, and that according to the Commandement of Chriſt, Math. 28. the laſt, Teach them (to wit, as many as receave the Goſpell) to keep all thoſe things which I have commanded unto you. On the Lords Day alſo John was in the ſpirit, and in the ſpirit ſaw and heard the Revelation concerning the ſtate of the Church that was to come, Apoc. 1. 10. whence we may gather, that even then he reſted to holy meditations, ſuch as became the Lords Day. There is not a paſſage in all this but of great weight, and very conſiderable. 6. As for Doctor Fulk upon the Re. 1. 10. I have repreſented him formerly at large; that for the preſcription of this day before any other of the ſeven, they had without doubt ether the expreſſe Commandement of Chriſt before his Aſcenſion when he gave them precepts concerning the Kingdom of God, and the ordering and government of the Church Acts 1. 2. or elſe the certaine direction of his ſpirit, that it was his will, and pleaſure that it ſhould ſo be, and that alſo according to the Scriptures. And obſerve how hee falls upon the ſame reaſon that Athanaſius, and the ancient Fathers inſiſt upon; Seeing there is the ſame reaſon of ſanctifying that day, in which our Saviour Chriſt accompliſhed our redemption, and the reſtitution of the World by his reſurrection from death; that was of ſanctifying the day, in which the Lord reſted from the Creation of the World. 7. Doctor Andrewes in like manner Biſhop of Wincheſter. in his Starre Chamber ſpeech in the caſe of Traske; hee not onelyonly profeſſeth, that the Sabbath had reference to the old Creation, but in Chriſt we are a new Creature, a new Creation, and ſo to have a new Sabbath; and that this new Sabbath is the Lords Day declared unto us by the reſurrection of Chriſt, for which he alleageth Auſtin Ep. 119. ad Ianuarium. But alſo for the confirmation of it ſaith it is deduced plainly by practiſe; adding that theſe two onelyonly the day (of the weeke whereon Chriſt roſe) and the Supper, are called the Lords, to ſhew that the word Dominicum is taken alike in both. Nay hee goes farther, as namely to alleage not onelyonly practiſe but precept alſo for it; from the firſt of the Epiſtle to the Corin. p. 104cap. 16. 2. For albeit the Apoſtle there doth expreſſely conſtitute onelyonly an order for collections for the poore on the day of their meeting, yet as Piſcator obſerves, it cannot bee denied but that undoubtedly as touching the time of their meeting they were therein ordered alſo by S. Paul, as they were about the manner of celebrating the Lords Supper. And accordingly, Paraeus in the very paſſage alleaged by Gomarus, doth take that place of 1 Cor. 16. 2. to notifie, that the very time of their meeting there ſpecified, was by the ordinance of S. Paul.

Doctor Lake Biſhop of Bath and Wells, in his Theſes de Sabbato, Theſ. 34. The Apoſtles directed by Chriſts not only example, but ſpirit alſo, obſerved the ſame; witneſſe in the Acts, S. Paul, S. John in the Revelation. 38. And from the Apoſtles the Catholique Church uniformly receaved it, witneſſe all Eccleſiaſticall writers. 39. And the Church hath receaved it not to be liberae obſervationis, as if men might at their pleaſure accept or refuſe it, 40. but to be perpetually obſerved to the Worlds end. For as God only hath power to apportion his time: ſo hath he power to ſet out the day that he will take for his portion. For he is Lord of the Sabbath. 8. Maſter Fox upon the Rev. 1. v. 10. profeſſeth, that the obſervation of the Lords Day doth Niti authoritate inſtitutionis Apoſtolicae, depend upon the authority of Apoſtolicall inſtitution. 9. Walaeus diſſert. de Sab. p. 172. we conclude (ſaith hee) this firſt day of the weeke, was by the Apoſtles put in the place of the Sabbath, and commended to the Church, not only by a power ordinary, competent to all paſtors for the ordering of indifferent rites in their Churches; but by a ſingular power alſo; as who had the overſight of the whole Churches; and who as extraordinary Ministers of Chriſt, were by the holy Ghoſt, put in truſt, that they might be faithfull, not only for the delivering of certaine precepts concerning faith, and manners, but alſo as touching upright ordering of the Church: that ſo it might be made known to all Chriſtians every where what day in the weeke was to be kept, by vertue and Analogy of the fourth Commandement, leaſt diſſenſion there abouts and (conſequently) confuſion might ariſe in the Church of God: and to this purpoſe hee alleageth Beza before mentioned; and Galleſius, p. 105Calvins Collegue, on Exod. 31. This ordinance, to wit, that the Lords Day ſhould be ſubſtituted in the place of the Sabbath, we have receaved (ſaith hee) not from men, but from the Apoſtles, that is, from the Spirit of God, whereby they were governed: and after he had proved this out of three places of Scripture, Acts 20, 7. 1 Cor. 16. 2. Re. 1. 10. in the end hee, addes, For although we are not tied to the obſervation of dayes yet this neceſſary order muſt be obſerved, leaſt confuſion ſhould be bred in the Church. 10. Fayus Calvins ſucceſſor alleaged alſo by Walaeus diſput. 47. in. q. praecept. Iuſtly therefore may we ſay, that the Apoſtles by the leading of the Holy Ghoſt for the ſeventh day of the Law, ſubſtituted the firſt day of the week, which was the firſt in the Creation of the firſt World. 11. Hyperius in. 1. Cor. 16. 1. The firſt day of the weeke in memory of the Lords Reſurrection was called the Lords Day, the obſervation of the Sabbath being tranſlated thereunto through the command of the Holy Ghoſt by the Apoſtles. 12. Adde unto theſe Maſter Perkins maintaining the ſame. That which he delivers of the Parliament in the dayes of King Edward the ſixt, in that preamble of theirs concerning holy dayes, as left by the authority of Gods Word to the authority of Chriſts Church, by the diſcretion of the Rulers, and Miniſters therof, as they ſhall judge moſt expedient to the true ſetting forth of Gods Glory, and edification of the people; I ſay that this ſhould bee underſtood not of holy dayes onelyonly, but of the Lords Day alſo, is a thing moſt incredible; neither doth hee offer to cite any parcell thereof to juſtifie this ſo bold an affirmation; onelyonly hee ſayth, that by the body of the act it doth appeare; but what that is in the body of that act whereby this doth appeare, hee very judiciouſly conceales. How improbable is it t, hat Biſhop Andrewes would have oppoſed this Doctrine in the Starre Chamber, if a Parliament of Prelates, and that in the dayes of King Edward the ſixt, had maintained it. For hee profeſſeth, that theſe two onelyonly, the Lords Day, and the Lords Supper are called the Lords, to ſhew that Dominicum is alike to bee taken in both—and takes upon him to ſhew that in the very Scripture, there is found a precept for obſervation of the Lords Day; And Biſhop Lake p. 106in like manner profeſſeth that it is not Liberae obſervationis, but neceſſarily to be obſerved. Doctor Fulks anſwer to the Rhemiſh Teſtament was ſet forth in the dayes of Queene Elizabeth, and dedicated to her Majeſty, therein on Re. 1. v. 16. hath hee delivered, that to change the Lords Day, and to keepe it on Munday, Tueſday or any other day, the Church hath none authority. For it is not a matter of indifferency, but a neceſſary preſcription of Chriſt himſelfe delivered to us by his Apoſtles. Was hee ever queſtioned for this? or was it ever knowne that the ſtate of this Land excepted againſt it, for croſſing the Doctrine of the Church manifeſted in a preamble to one of the Acts of Parliament, which I preſume was never yet repealed; but leave we him to live on his own juice, and to pleaſe himſelfe in his holineſſe.

p. 107A 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 p. 108and 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 them, 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 p. 109this 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. Apoc. 1. 10. than that the whole Church reformed hath conſtantly gathered therehence Diet 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 ordine, 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 ergodiem Apoſtoli & Apoſtolici viri ideo religioſa ſolennitate habendum ſanxerunt, quia in eadom Redemptor noſter à mortuis reſurrexit: this being premiſed, let us come to the p. 110conſideration 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 Sodulius 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 p. 111is 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, inſtituto que Apoſtolorum, & vereris 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 p. 112commandement 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 p. 113firſt 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 p. 114that 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 p. 115of 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 7^th. 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 p. 116of 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 p. 117Apoſtle 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 p. 118may 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 betheir 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 p. 119caſe 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, then 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 Catholique 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 p. 120Cyril 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.

p. 121Seventhly, And whereas ſome urged that if 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, This is the day which the Lord hath Pſalm. 118. 24.Ps 118:24made, 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 p. 122Reſurrection 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 diſconſolate 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 Diſciples 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 ſpeeches 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 finger 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 p. 123Circumciſion 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, to 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 Saviour taught his Diſciples the Lords Prayer. But let us heare Walaeus his anſwer, that we may conſider it. This conſequence p. 122(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 Lordsday 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 p. 125of the Temple by Titus, after that no other Sabbath but of the Lords Day, was generally eſtabliſhed in the Churches.